# Arborjet



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

Going after my pesticide license to expand my biz and I need some input. Have any of you used the Arborjet injection system? Thinking about using it.


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Dec 7, 2012)

*Disclaimer: any discussion below is NOT to be taken as expert pesticide use or application advice!*

I have been offering chemical treatments for about two years for control of aphid, shoot moth, scale, bark beetles, as well as oak anthracnose and various leaf diseases. I only use systemics, except for low toxicity (potassium bicarbonate plus sticker) foliar treatments for downy mildew (10 gal truck mounted tank and electric pump for that). I just don't feel comfortable aerial spraying insecticides.

I bought a "Direct Inject" system that micro-injects 1 -2 ml at a time, spaced around the base of the tree every 4 in. or so. Works well, probably better for younger trees with thinner bark and lower crowns. Link:

ArborSystems Wedgle Direct-Inject Tree Injection System - YouTube

(note -- this is not an ad, I get nothing from posting this link). 

I use a back-pack sprayer to apply through-the-bark systemics on bigger trees with some apparent success; for example Agri-Fos plus Pentrabark for oak anthracnose and verticillium, wilt.

I believe that the system you are considering is used, for example, to get large volumes of fungicide and insecticide into big elms with dutch elm disease. 

Also, you want to consider keeping a lot of notes (some are required by law) so that you can figure out how effective your treatments are; every application should be considered as part of an experiment in which you need to do follow-up monitoring. At least that is where I am headed so that I can be more confident that what I am doing is actually effective. 

Long term, I am trying to get my chemical treatment clients into annual agreements so that repeated checks are dialed in and pre-paid, whether i apply something or not. This is the "Total Plant Health Care" idea. Otherwise you will just be responding to customer complaints of crappy looking trees, usually to late to fix things in the current year.


----------



## Raintree (Dec 7, 2012)

It's a good system when needed, however a pit on the pricy side. As all injection systems they will wound the tree and may introduce decay. Should not be your only tool in the box.


----------



## ATH (Dec 7, 2012)

"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

The first question is: What pests are you treating for?

Second question: What product & method are you going to use to treat?

So far, I have only used the Arborjet for injecting TREE-age (I have had it for 3-4 years). There are other things it is useful for, I just haven't encountered another pest where I thought harming the tree (drilling) was worth it.

I have also have Rainbow's macro-infusion system that I use for injecting Arbotect for dutch elm disease. The two are not innerchangable--different products are used with each system and each has its place.

If I wanted to inject something that one of these two could not do, I'd next look to Mauget. They have a good product line and simple system...I just haven't gone down that road yet.

Other systemic options include soil application (mostly imidacloprid or acephate) and bark spray with Safari.

Each has its place.

More specifically to the Arborjet system: I have both the Tree IV and the QuickJet. Skip the QuickJet. It is tempting because it costs less, but the Tree IV is much easier to use. The Quick Jet is not quick...at least with TREE-age. Maybe it is better with thinner chemicals in lower doses???


----------



## Ed Roland (Dec 7, 2012)

TreeGuyHR said:


> *
> I use a back-pack sprayer to apply through-the-bark systemics on bigger trees with some apparent success; for example Agri-Fos plus Pentrabark for oak anthracnose and verticillium, wilt.*


*

Is Agri-Fos labelled for oak anthracnose and verticillium wilt? :msp_huh:

Not a derail. expertech, be sure to adhere to all the applicable laws and regulations. Follow the label. The label is law.

*


----------



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

I'm considering the system not just for pesticide. It's used for feeding as well and there are issues of iron deficiency in my area.


----------



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

Ed Roland said:


> Is Agri-Fos labelled for oak anthracnose and verticillium wilt? :msp_huh:
> 
> Not a derail. expertech, be sure to adhere to all the applicable laws and regulations. Follow the label. The label is law.
> 
> ...


----------



## ATH (Dec 7, 2012)

expertech said:


> I'm considering the system not just for pesticide. It's used for feeding as well and there are issues of iron deficiency in my area.



I prefer to address that by working with the soil (not sure about your species and soils in your part of NM...iron is never lacking in the soil here in Ohio, iron deficiency is almost always related to soil pH). Injection is a temporary fix, and it does harm the tree in the process... Soil improvement is a better long-term solution (but it is not a once and done treatment either).

Also if this is all that you need to inject, look at how many trees you will be treating and run the numbers. This is an example where Mauget MAY be a better fit. ArborJet will be a lower cost per treatment with a significantly higher up front cost. Mauget has little or no up front cost, but each treatment will cost more. At some point ArborJet becomes cheaper...it was several years ago I figured a rough estimate for where that was but can't remember. At that time for what I was thinking I'd be doing, I decided Mauget would work better...but then I haven't encountered a problem where I thought injecting nutrients was the best option so never moved forward with it. Now that I have the ArborJet system for other purposes that front cost has already been absorbed so that is probably what I'd use if I felt the need.


----------



## Urban Forester (Dec 9, 2012)

The advent of Mono- and di-potassium salts of Phosphorous Acid has created quite a stir. It seems to be the "new cure-all' as oxytetracycline was a few (?) years ago. The actual Agri-fos label for "landscape ornamentals" only lists two root rots, Phythopthora and pythium. I have heard people discussing apple scab, anthracnose and other foliar forming fungi. It simply doesn't work that way. My concern with Arbor jet Tree IV is the size of the wound. If chlorosis is a concern water-soluble sulfur(0-0-0-90) at 10 lbs per 100 gal. SOIL injected on a 2.5 X 2.5 ft grid @ 20 oz. per site will provide results in 2 to 3 weeks (during growing season). Trunk injection DOES increase the trees "self-defense" resources usage. This depletes ambient energy reserves. It should be done ONLY when the damage caused by the pest/pathogen will cause a HIGHER depletion of ambient energy than the injection will. How is that measured? By knowing host/pest relationships. To be fair, I have injected over 100 trees (in 8 years?) w/the Tree IV, but only trees (Oaks, Ashes, Elms) that are over 34" DBH and can by their nature withstand the "process".


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Dec 9, 2012)

Urban Forester said:


> The advent of Mono- and di-potassium salts of Phosphorous Acid has created quite a stir. It seems to be the "new cure-all' as oxytetracycline was a few (?) years ago. The actual Agri-fos label for "landscape ornamentals" only lists two root rots, Phythopthora and pythium. I have heard people discussing apple scab, anthracnose and other foliar forming fungi. It simply doesn't work that way. My concern with Arbor jet Tree IV is the size of the wound. If chlorosis is a concern water-soluble sulfur(0-0-0-90) at 10 lbs per 100 gal. SOIL injected on a 2.5 X 2.5 ft grid @ 20 oz. per site will provide results in 2 to 3 weeks (during growing season). Trunk injection DOES increase the trees "self-defense" resources usage. This depletes ambient energy reserves. It should be done ONLY when the damage caused by the pest/pathogen will cause a HIGHER depletion of ambient energy than the injection will. How is that measured? By knowing host/pest relationships. To be fair, I have injected over 100 trees (in 8 years?) w/the Tree IV, but only trees (Oaks, Ashes, Elms) that are over 34" DBH and can by their nature withstand the "process".



*Usual caveat -- the discussion below in no way is offering recommendations about application of restricted use pesticides or use of any product requiring an applicator license!*

I'll revisit my literature and product labels, but I was under the impression that Agri-fos is labeled for oak anthracnose. I talked to a regional rep, last spring, and he said that Agri-fos was effective for Verticillium wilt and would be added to the new label. I have seen results in Red maple and Japanese maple: they may continue to have some die-back (or not), but also put on vigorous new growth. As I understand the mode of action, it allows the tree to put on disease-free wood, but does not eradicate disease. 

Any pesticide label lists specific hosts, insects, and diseases but it is my understanding that it is not an exhaustive list; some logical interpretation can be made, IMHO. Perhaps I am jumping the gin on V. wilt, but I do seem to be getting good results, by applying a 1:1 solution in water with a foam brush to the lower stem of Japanese maples and red maples with smooth bark. These trees have been tested at a state lab, and both Verticillium and Pythium was confirmed in several trees, so I treated all the trees on the (over-watered) property, about 55 Japanese maples and three red maples.

As far as oak anthracnose goes, i am sure that I interpreted the label correctly for ornamental landscape trees, but i will check again. It is tough to tell if I am getting a benefit, because year to year severity (at least in light to moderate infected Oregon white oaks) is driven by spring weather conditions. Trees that have been heavily infected for years and have chronic die-back and epicormic sprouting are tougher to achieve a treatment effect. Either it is a long term process, or may not help with such compromised vascular systems. I always propose crown thinning to remove heavily diseased limbs and increase air flow in conjunction with treatment.

Applying Agri-fos by back pack sprayer is a pain, because you have to tarp decks and walks that might stain, and thoroughly wet down foliage and other plantings before and during the application with water or you will burn it, given that he mix is 1:1 plus PentraBark (basically an industrial soap).


----------



## Ed Roland (Dec 9, 2012)

"Can a fungicide be applied to an ornamental species not listed on the label to control a target disease listed on the label? Can a fungicide be applied to a food crop species not listed on the label to control a target disease listed on the label? (LC06-0061)

1) If the product label lists only specific ornamental species, then only those species are the labeled use sites (crops)." 
- EPA Laws and Regulations 

US Environmental Protection Agency

Anthracnose on mango and sycamore do not qualify use on all spp.

Internet search Agri-Fos label. Control "F" then "verticillium". Comes up blank as well.

Until otherwise amended its, apparently, verboten federally to apply Agri-Fos for instances of verticillium wilt and oak anthracnose. Nitpicking so much is usually counterproductive but the OP is interested in breaking into the PHC/IPM biz. This is helpful.


----------



## Urban Forester (Dec 9, 2012)

There may be different Agri-fos labels, as its produced by different companies. The one I have does not list anthracnose or vert. wilt at all. It also does not list injection as a method of application. When using a label "off-target" a 24C or equivilant, which is a "special exemption" for use is required. These are most often given to universities. A good example is when tree-age (ememectin benzoate) was found to control EAB. A 24C was issued for its use until the label could be revised. The label is not a recommendation, its a legal document. As such, the listed product can only be used in the manner written on the label. As far as the POTENTIAL control for vert. wilt or anthracnose, it wouldn't suprise me, both diseases are vascular in nature. At least SYCAMORE anthracnose _Apiognomonia errabunda_ is vascular. The asexual variant _Discula_ that attacks Oaks, maples, etc. is not. Agri-fos works by triggering a natural release of energy in the tree, this in turn causes an increase in cell wall energy making it difficult for mycelium to penetrate the cell walls. The most interesting thing I've found in looking at this fungicide is the lack of scientific (peer-reviewed!) papers detailing control. Maybe because its new, I don't know. Most if not everything I've read is from the makers/producers which in my opinion is not worth much. I remember when hort. oil could cure the common cold. so I'll wait until I see evidence (science-based) on the long-term control of these other foliar based fungi. Right now I can't see how an "energy-release" can be sustained over the long-term to control some of these diseases that can have a 2 month infection period (i.e. apple scab) AND what effect does this release of energy have on the tree? 

I also remember WELL the "fungistatic qualities" of cambistat, which turned out to be non-existence. As both Purdue and OSU found no difference in treated or un-treated.


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Dec 10, 2012)

Urban Forester said:


> There may be different Agri-fos labels, as its produced by different companies. The one I have does not list anthracnose or vert. wilt at all. It also does not list injection as a method of application. When using a label "off-target" a 24C or equivilant, which is a "special exemption" for use is required. These are most often given to universities. A good example is when tree-age (ememectin benzoate) was found to control EAB. A 24C was issued for its use until the label could be revised. The label is not a recommendation, its a legal document. As such, the listed product can only be used in the manner written on the label. As far as the POTENTIAL control for vert. wilt or anthracnose, it wouldn't suprise me, both diseases are vascular in nature. At least SYCAMORE anthracnose _Apiognomonia errabunda_ is vascular. The asexual variant _Discula_ that attacks Oaks, maples, etc. is not. Agri-fos works by triggering a natural release of energy in the tree, this in turn causes an increase in cell wall energy making it difficult for mycelium to penetrate the cell walls. The most interesting thing I've found in looking at this fungicide is the lack of scientific (peer-reviewed!) papers detailing control. Maybe because its new, I don't know. Most if not everything I've read is from the makers/producers which in my opinion is not worth much. I remember when hort. oil could cure the common cold. so I'll wait until I see evidence (science-based) on the long-term control of these other foliar based fungi. Right now I can't see how an "energy-release" can be sustained over the long-term to control some of these diseases that can have a 2 month infection period (i.e. apple scab) AND what effect does this release of energy have on the tree?
> 
> I also remember WELL the "fungistatic qualities" of cambistat, which turned out to be non-existence. As both Purdue and OSU found no difference in treated or un-treated.



I think it is a matter of interpretation of the label , in this case.

Agri-Fos Label

If you look at this label under "Landscape, Golf Course, Nursery, Forestry, and Park Applications" it list a whole series of trees species by common name (in other words, genus), prefaced by: "Apply Agri-Fos to trees such as, but not limited to: beech, cedar, chestnut... "oaks (coastal live. Shreve, Black Canyon)" ... sweet gum, sycamore". Given that the label mentioned a series of trees by genus (and three oaks in particular) after "oaks", and also prefaced the list with "such as but not limited to" I concluded that the species list was not completely exhaustive, and that I could try the product on Oregon white oak, as well as on maples (although maples are not listed at all) because their thin bark is similar to that of young lindens and dogwoods that were listed. As I said, some of these maples were diagnosed with _Pythium_ and _Verticilium_.

Furthermore, just above that, for diseases, it says: "Use Agri-Fos for effective control of _Phytopthora_ and _Pythium_ and other diseases associated with stem and canker blight (sudden oak death, _Phytopthora ramorum_, Beech decline, and general decline syndromes..."

Also, I attend regular meetings put on my distributor, and they have speakers (reps from various companies) talking about the latest developments. I was encouraged to use Agr-Fos on Oregon white oak and maples by what I heard at these meetings. Of course, they have an interest in selling product, but they also do extensive testing and research in order to get useful treatments on the label. 

Finally, Agri-Fos is an irritant when first applied, but as a Phosphoric acid salt, it is essentially acidic fertilizer; it is not going to bio-accumulate, nor act like some registered pesticides that are nerve toxins (such as parathion :msp_w00t. Yes, I use full protection and wet down non-target foliage (before, during, and after) when doing a basal bark spray. It makes your exposed skin burn (at 1:1 concentration) and will kill foliage and succulent twigs. The water will dilute any residue that spatters off the bark. I follow all the various rules under my Applicator and Operator licenses.

I am interested in your distinction between sycamore anthracnose and oak anthracnose. In a report I received from the OSU plant lab, they did identify _Discula_ caused anthracnose in Oregon white oak samples. Why is it that Agri-Fos is effective for one and not the other?

I will just conclude by saying that I am open minded and will change my practices if it appears that I should.


----------



## Urban Forester (Dec 10, 2012)

TreeGuyHR said:


> I am interested in your distinction between sycamore anthracnose and oak anthracnose. In a report I received from the OSU plant lab, they did identify _Discula_ caused anthracnose in Oregon white oak samples. Why is it that Agri-Fos is effective for one and not the other?
> 
> I will just conclude by saying that I am open minded and will change my practices if it appears that I should.



Its not the plants that have to be listed, your right its never an ALL inclusive list. Only the pest and method of application. Different states have different laws regarding pesticide applications, and of course different enforcement levels. States are allowed to have tougher laws than the federal law, but not weaker. The main source for information on pesticide is FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) Get a copy of that it will explain it better than I can. As far as the "2 anthracnoses" Sycamore anthracnose is a sexual re-producing fungus that forms branch cankers and after the inital infection the tree begins infecting itself by spores released from the established cankers. Oak, Maple Ash anthracnose IS in the same "family" of fungi, BUT it is an asexual anamorph (variant) that depends on wind/rain dispersal. That is why you can macro-infuse Arbortect 20S (Thiabendozole) into a sycamore to control anthracnose, but it will have NO affect on the _Discula_ variant in Oaks, Maples and Ash. Same disease, same GENUS of fungi, but the mode/method of infection is worlds apart. Now if you REALLY want to go crazy there IS a _Discula_ fungi that DOES attack the vascular system, _Discula Destructiva _
Dogwood anthracnose. There is also a foliar only Dogwood anthracnose _Elsinoe Corni_ that only infects leaves. Anthracnose is a *BIG* family... Boy did we hijack this thread or what. Sorry about that OP. Did we answer your question?


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Dec 10, 2012)

snip

As far as the "2 anthracnoses" Sycamore anthracnose is a sexual re-producing fungus that forms branch cankers and after the inital infection the tree begins infecting itself by spores released from the established cankers. Oak, Maple Ash anthracnose IS in the same "family" of fungi, BUT it is an asexual anamorph (variant) that depends on wind/rain dispersal. That is why you can macro-infuse Arbortect 20S (Thiabendozole) into a sycamore to control anthracnose, but it will have NO affect on the _Discula_ variant in Oaks, Maples and Ash. Same disease, same GENUS of fungi, but the mode/method of infection is worlds apart. Now if you REALLY want to go crazy there IS a _Discula_ fungi that DOES attack the vascular system, _Discula Destructiva _
Dogwood anthracnose. There is also a foliar only Dogwood anthracnose _Elsinoe Corni_ that only infects leaves. Anthracnose is a *BIG* family... Boy did we hijack this thread or what. Sorry about that OP. Did we answer your question? [/QUOTE]

Yea, I am a bit familiar with the various sexual and asexual life cycles in fungi. I was an expert, for a while, on the various "morphs" of Ceratocystis co-evolved with several bark beetles. 

Wish we could sit down over a beer and talk about the various morphs and life-cycles of pathogenic fungi.:msp_tongue:

Seriously

What was this thread about originally?


----------

