# Crazy way to apply Tordon



## pdqdl (Apr 15, 2016)

I have a job that involves removing all the underbrush and trees in an area, but I have always found that treating each stump is slow, impractical, and always misses many of the small stumps. I am going to try something new, I'll keep you guys posted as to how well it works, and if there are any problems.

We are going to treat each stump when we cut it...using the chainsaw as an applicator. I have mixed 16oz of Tordon 22k with about 8oz of Dawn detergent soap, then stirred it into a one gallon jug and filled the balance with bar oil. Two quarts per acre is the labeled (maximum) application rate for Tordon 22k, and it does not prohibit oil mixtures nor does it specify any application technique. So...I figure we are not breaking any rules with the EPA or the State regulations.

It makes a very nice emulsion that does not separate, and has a thick texture that feels about like cold bar oil, although it definitely is not sticky like cold bar oil. We will add some marker dye to the first oil tank of this mixture, just to see how far the oil is getting spread, and what the stump looks like when we are done. *Whoever is running the saw may end up looking like a smurf.*

The marker dye will also reveal how badly the operator gets splattered with the aerosol mixture, and how far off target we end up spreading the blue goo. Don't worry, the area being treated is ideally suited for this experiment, and the regrowth of all the plants is going to be compared to another area that was cleared but not treated.

I can envision creating a blue fog that coats everything, perhaps plugging up the oiling mechanism, inadequate lubrication and the chain seizing onto the bar rails. We might get poor control due to inadequate application, or...it might work great, without a single stump ever getting missed again. If it works well, I don't plan on using marker dye in all the mixture. The marker dye will ensure that we know how badly the operator is getting exposed.
Has anyone else ever heard of this or tried it out?

Your comments are welcome, but please don't be "anti-herbicide" on this thread. Sometimes you just don't want the brush to come back, and Tordon (Picloram ai) is a great way to do it.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

I thought you were gonna say that you drank it then pissed all over everything.

I am anti-herbicide but I understand.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

WAIT!!! Doesn't it say right on the bottle that using it in any other way other than described is a federal offense?


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 15, 2016)

DR. P. Proteus said:


> WAIT!!! Doesn't it say right on the bottle that using it in any other way other than described is a federal offense?



Yep. They all do. From the label (see link posted above):

"Special Ground Sprayer Equipment: To control annual and perennial
weed species using special low-volume, minimum drift equipment, such
as the hooded Forage Chemical Mower, apply 1 to 2 pt of Tordon 22K in
total volumes ranging from 1 gal to 5 gal per acre in water alone or as an
oil-water emulsion at a 1:5 and 1:4 oil-to-water ratio for a 1 gal and 5 gal
per acre solutions, respectively."​
So...I think I am just fine on the legal application aspect. My low volume mixture is an oil-water emulsion at about 1:6 (water to oil), but it is definitely ultra low volume application equipment. By the way, I am a certified applicator, so no laws being broken there, either.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Yep. They all do. From the label (see link posted above):
> 
> "Special Ground Sprayer Equipment: To control annual and perennial
> weed species using special low-volume, minimum drift equipment, such
> ...



Well, uh, um, actually, if you are not applying exactly as prescribed you are in fact BREAKING THE LAW. And you'll probably burn in Hell to boot because as a certified applicator you should know the lingo and comply. Also consider the fact that you already admitted that what you are doing is crazy. I don't think whatever is flying off the bar of a chainsaw could be construed as " minimum drift". 

I do also want to point out that when you said that you are a certified applicator and no laws were being broken is what is defined as SUBVERSION, DECEIT and CORRUPTION.

I'm jess sayin dude.


----------



## capetrees (Apr 15, 2016)

Better go back and re-read the label. Not smart to inhale the "blue fog" and remember, it's flammable.


----------



## Zale (Apr 15, 2016)

I'm not anti herbicide but your idea is just plain dumb.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 15, 2016)

DR. P. Proteus said:


> Well, uh, um, actually, if you are not applying exactly as prescribed you are in fact BREAKING THE LAW. And you'll probably burn in Hell to boot because as a certified applicator you should know the lingo and comply. Also consider the fact that you already admitted that what you are doing is crazy. I don't think whatever is flying off the bar of a chainsaw could be construed as " minimum drift".
> 
> I do also want to point out that when you said that you are a certified applicator and no laws were being broken is what is defined as SUBVERSION, DECEIT and CORRUPTION.
> 
> I'm jess sayin dude.



You apparently know nothing about herbicide applications or about the laws that regulate the use. If you can even tell me how an ultra low volume spray applicator works, I might be more inclined to listen to your comments. I own one, and have been using them for over 20 years. I certainly won't need to search the internet to figure out what is being discussed.

I suggest you spend some time with a dictionary, learning the meaning of subversion, deceit, and corruption. I see no correlation to your remarks and this thread.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 15, 2016)

I guess I posted this in the wrong area, to the wrong people. I was hoping to get opinions from folks that might have actually done stump treatments and that realize how hard it is to get good results.

It would be nice if you guys would preface your inflammatory & highly critical comments with your qualifications.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 15, 2016)

Zale said:


> I'm not anti herbicide but your idea is just plain dumb.



Why dumb? I will be happy to listen to any counterpoints that I have not considered.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> You apparently know nothing about herbicide applications or about the laws that regulate the use. If you can even tell me how an ultra low volume spray applicator works, I might be more inclined to listen to your comments. I own one, and have been using them for over 20 years. I certainly won't need to search the internet to figure out what is being discussed.
> 
> I suggest you spend some time with a dictionary, learning the meaning of subversion, deceit, and corruption. I see no correlation to your remarks and this thread.




Oh well, considering the fact I am just ****ing with you I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. Now go back to doing whatever crazy thing you were doing. If nobody has stopped you yet I doubt they will. You are yer own worst enemy or something like that.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 15, 2016)

capetrees said:


> Better go back and re-read the label. Not smart to inhale the "blue fog" and remember, it's flammable.



Most guys don't realize that they are constantly inhaling the fog from bar oil. I learned this a few years ago when I tried out vegetable oil as bar oil. It worked just fine, but the vegetable oil left a fine coating all over the saws, the cylinders, and then hardened into a dust absorbing coating that was difficult to remove. Regular oil doesn't do that. My emulsion will wash off in water.

I am not at all certain how much fog will be created, and inhaling Tordon cannot be a good plan. This is why we are going to be adding the marker dye. That being said, you catch giant volumes of misty air when you spray a hillside with a power sprayer, and respirators are not part of the PPE.

Regarding flammability? Yes, but my mix is less flammable than regular bar oil since it is 1/6th water.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

And I apologize, I meant to say subterfuge but subversion could work also.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Most guys don't realize that they are constantly inhaling the fog from bar oil. I learned this a few years ago when I tried out vegetable oil as bar oil. It worked just fine, but the vegetable oil left a fine coating all over the saws, the cylinders, and then hardened into a dust absorbing coating that was difficult to remove. Regular oil doesn't do that. My emulsion will wash off in water.
> 
> Regarding flammability? Yes, but my mix is less flammable than regular bar oil since it is 1/6th water.



You are right about the bar oil. But we are talking about a federally sanctioned chemical used in commercial application. The rules are strict and I don't think you are following them. I also don't think your idea would be very effective, or at least not effective as using it the way its prescribed.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 15, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> You apparently know nothing about herbicide applications or about the laws that regulate the use. If you can even tell me how an ultra low volume spray applicator works, I might be more inclined to listen to your comments. I own one, and have been using them for over 20 years. I certainly won't need to search the internet to figure out what is being discussed.
> 
> I suggest you spend some time with a dictionary, learning the meaning of subversion, deceit, and corruption. I see no correlation to your remarks and this thread.




You said you were a licensed applicator using a chemical outside the compliance of the prescribed method of application so you were not breaking any laws. That is deceit, corruption and subversion/subterfuge. What? I am wrong?

Is a chainsaw considered a " minimum drift" applicator? Is it a " low volume" applicator? Is it a " hooded" applicator?

I think you are putting more of this stuff in the air than on the desired treatment area.


----------



## treesmith (Apr 15, 2016)

A small part of me likes the idea, another small part of me thinks it's crazy enough to work.

The rest of me thinks it's complete lunacy..  tell us how you get on!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## JeffGu (Apr 15, 2016)

I believe that no weeds or trees will grow on your chainsaw bar. I think the stumps, however, might just giggle a little bit when they think you're out of earshot.
But yes, let us know the results. Video would be nice.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 16, 2016)

I don't get to use tordon due to local pesticide use bylaws, but I'm not sure if you are going to get sufficient stump coverage for it to be effective. Most of my saws, even with the oiler maxed out, don't use that much oil. If your material is thick, I just don't think you're going to move enough product.

Secondly, given the amount of stuff that is going to be flung around and that it has a moderate irritant to the eyes, are you going to need to have your saw operators suited up with full face shields?

Wouldn't it be almost as fast and more effective to give each saw operator a spray bottle of product. Cut a stump, spray a stump.


----------



## capetrees (Apr 16, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> That being said, you catch giant volumes of misty air when you spray a hillside with a power sprayer, and respirators are not part of the PPE.
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You're doing it wrong then.


----------



## scheffa (Apr 16, 2016)

I'm with treesmith, maybe it's an Aussie thing but I reckon it might just be crazy enough to work, without people trying new and crazy things we would live in the world we do now


----------



## Babaganoosh (Apr 16, 2016)

Get ready for some lawsuits after all your employees get sick.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 16, 2016)

DR. P. Proteus said:


> ...
> 
> I think you are putting more of this stuff in the air than on the desired treatment area.



Well...that is why I am doing the experiment. You do realize that spraying the stuff in the air is the normal way of application don't you?

My purpose in trying this methoe is to target the treatment to the stumps, with a reduced application overall and to eliminate the chance of missing any stumps.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 16, 2016)

BC WetCoast said:


> I don't get to use tordon due to local pesticide use bylaws, but I'm not sure if you are going to get sufficient stump coverage for it to be effective. Most of my saws, even with the oiler maxed out, don't use that much oil. If your material is thick, I just don't think you're going to move enough product.
> 
> Secondly, given the amount of stuff that is going to be flung around and that it has a moderate irritant to the eyes, are you going to need to have your saw operators suited up with full face shields?
> 
> Wouldn't it be almost as fast and more effective to give each saw operator a spray bottle of product. Cut a stump, spray a stump.



Yes, you are right. Cut a stump, spray a stump is the normal way of doing it. With respect to getting enough applied? I am usung 22k, not the Ready To Use product. It is much more concentrated. A little bit goes a long ways. 

Quite frankly, I don't know if it will work. This is a section of small trees & brush between a rock cliff (above) and a parking lot. Flat ground, and there is no other vegetation nearby except the lawn. We have done most of the project without any treatment, and the last leg is our test strip. We will see what grows back, and then I will know whether it worked. The customer has no expectations either way, and I am not billing them for control.

Generally what happens is that a lot of stumps get missed, and a lot of stumps get wasted herbicide poured all over them. Cutting production goes way down, and I am not convinced that it is a very good idea to swap back and forth between chainsaws & sprayers. Too much of a distraction.

I really don't know how much will be flung around. My marker dye will tell all. I mixed one cup of oil this morning with about an ounce of marker dye. If any of you guys have used marker dye, you know how strong a mix that is. One ounce is more than enough to dye 2 1/2 gallons of hand sprayer mix, so each droplet off my chainsaw is going to leave a trail.

I put our oil-sucker on the bar oil reservoir of my 201T this morning, and filled it with marker dye. _We will see how it turns out._


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 16, 2016)

Damn, Cape. You are up early. Don't you know it's Saturday?

Ever do any tree spraying? You shoot it up, and it _always_ comes back down onto the applicator. The only way to not get soaked is to spray when it is windy, clearly a bad idea. Raincoats and headgear are the only way to spray trees and not get soaked. Fortunately, I seldom spray a big tree for anything.

Hillsides and ravines for brush control? That is just another revenue stream for me. You just cannot count on not having a breeze to blow it back on you.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 16, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Yes, you are right. Cut a stump, spray a stump is the normal way of doing it. With respect to getting enough applied? I am usung 22k, not the Ready To Use product. It is much more concentrated. A little bit goes a long ways.
> 
> Quite frankly, I don't know if it will work. This is a section of small trees & brush between a rock cliff (above) and a parking lot. Flat ground, and there is no other vegetation nearby except the lawn. We have done most of the project without any treatment, and the last leg is our test strip. We will see what grows back, and then I will know whether it worked. The customer has no expectations either way, and I am not billing them for control.
> 
> ...



Most bar oil gets flung off the end of the tip. When you hold it horizontal, I don't think much ends up on the cut. I'm guessing what your test will show is that your operator will have to stand with the saw vertical with the tip near the stump to spray enough product onto the stump. 

Not being familiar with that product, how much would you need around the cambium to get control? A soak around the cambium, a few drops?


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 16, 2016)

Job is done, but our experiment with Tordon was a failure. It seems that my emulsion gelled up too thick and the chainsaw would not pump it onto the bar. It worked initially, but quit after about a tank of gas. 

There were no signs of blue fog, and I would guess that each stump did not have enough Tordon to kill it.

I will work up a thinner of some sort, perhaps less soap is needed. I will keep at this a bit longer. I'm pretty sure this can be made to work, it is just a case of working out the viscosity and the application rate.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 16, 2016)

BC WetCoast said:


> Most bar oil gets flung off the end of the tip. When you hold it horizontal, I don't think much ends up on the cut. I'm guessing what your test will show is that your operator will have to stand with the saw vertical with the tip near the stump to spray enough product onto the stump.
> 
> Not being familiar with that product, how much would you need around the cambium to get control? A soak around the cambium, a few drops?



When you treat with Tordon RTU, you should soak the cambium ring until it is blue. Tordon 22K is 3 times as concentrated, and does not contain 2,4-D. I would guess that the stump would have needed to be visibly blue for it to work well. Right now, we were just getting a blue haze.


----------



## capetrees (Apr 16, 2016)

scheffa said:


> I'm with treesmith, maybe it's an Aussie thing but I reckon it might just be crazy enough to work, without people trying new and crazy things we would live in the world we do now



No, WE wouldn't live in the world we live in but the ones that take the chances are the ones that usually DON'T live in this world anymore. That's why we practice and experiment on lab animals.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 16, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Well...that is why I am doing the experiment. You do realize that spraying the stuff in the air is the normal way of application don't you?
> 
> My purpose in trying this methoe is to target the treatment to the stumps, with a reduced application overall and to eliminate the chance of missing any stumps.




You just spray it into the air? You don't aim it at the stump? Normal application creates a blue mist that can be carried by the wind to who knows where? You have got to be kidding me!


----------



## Zale (Apr 16, 2016)

Like I said, dumb.


----------



## capetrees (Apr 16, 2016)

Either this whole thread is a leg puller or you really don't get it. Don't know if your herbicide has the label but here it is. Read up and tell me that what you're doing is the correct way.

http://ws.greenbook.net/Docs/Label/L11608.pdf

Pay special attention to page 2, directions for use.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 16, 2016)

Did you ever notice that pretty much every chemical there is has a label on it that says it causes cancer in California? What is wrong with those Californians? They must be some kind of sissies.

At my house we have a well. There is also an old graphite mine just up the hill from our well. There is also an ROW out back and uphill from our well -head. We do not drink the water from that well. No sir.

There is no need to spray the part of the ROW that runs through our place but up on the hill where they can't get the mower I am sure they are spraying some crap.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 16, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> View attachment 498810
> 
> 
> When you treat with Tordon RTU, you should soak the cambium ring until it is blue. Tordon 22K is 3 times as concentrated, and does not contain 2,4-D. I would guess that the stump would have needed to be visibly blue for it to work well. Right now, we were just getting a blue haze.




... And in this picture here we have the rare and endangered PDQ ruining his chainsaw , destroying vast acres of pristine forest and causing autism in children under 8 years old. Years ago there were thousands and thousands of PDQ's but their numbers have dwindled throughout time due to sub-conscious suicidal tendencies and a blatant disregard for sanity. There have been many attempts to try to save the endangered PDQ but all have failed. This is the last one.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 17, 2016)

DR. P. Proteus said:


> You just spray it into the air? You don't aim it at the stump? Normal application creates a blue mist that can be carried by the wind to who knows where? You have got to be kidding me!



Tordon 22k is even made with aerial applications. So yes, spraying it into the air is commonly done. 

_Had you read the label I posted you would have known that. _


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 17, 2016)

capetrees said:


> Either this whole thread is a leg puller or you really don't get it. Don't know if your herbicide has the label but here it is. Read up and tell me that what you're doing is the correct way.
> 
> http://ws.greenbook.net/Docs/Label/L11608.pdf
> 
> Pay special attention to page 2, directions for use.



I'll do you one better; read the MSDS. You will find that it is pretty harmless to humans, at least as far as herbicides go. I don't recommend taking showers in it, nor using it as salad dressing. It is a damn sight safer than most of the chemicals you guys get exposed to constantly. 

Had you read my original post carefully, you might have noticed that I linked the text "Tordon 22k" to it's CDMS published label. I have found absolutely nothing in the label that even suggests that my use as described is remotely prohibited. Perhaps you can quote a section?

Have you really been reading my comments? I know I tend to type a bit long, but didn't you notice the parts from the label that I quoted and indented, specially identifying it (I thought) as a reference to lend credibility to my usage?



Thanks for the link to Greenbook; I have not come across that website before. It looks like a good location to get labels. In general, I always have on file any chemical that I buy or consider buying. This is so that I can have the label with me when making an application, as required.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 17, 2016)

DR. P. Proteus said:


> ... And in this picture here we have the rare and endangered PDQ ruining his chainsaw , destroying vast acres of pristine forest and causing autism in children under 8 years old. Years ago there were thousands and thousands of PDQ's but their numbers have dwindled throughout time due to sub-conscious suicidal tendencies and a blatant disregard for sanity. There have been many attempts to try to save the endangered PDQ but all have failed. This is the last one.







There is no doubt, however, that I am the last and only one of my kind.

The chainsaw is fine, except that it got instantly dulled on rocks when I let one of my guys use it. I spent the whole afternoon filing chains so that we could keep working. The oiler kept working after we gave it some regular oil.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 17, 2016)

Zale said:


> Like I said, dumb.



Like I said...why? You tell me what & why you don't like, and then we have some comments to evaluate. If'n you can't say _why_ you think it is dumb...then that is just dumb.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 17, 2016)

DR. P. Proteus said:


> Did you ever notice that pretty much every chemical there is has a label on it that says it causes cancer in California? What is wrong with those Californians? They must be some kind of sissies.
> 
> At my house we have a well. There is also an old graphite mine just up the hill from our well. There is also an ROW out back and uphill from our well -head. We do not drink the water from that well. No sir.
> 
> There is no need to spray the part of the ROW that runs through our place but up on the hill where they can't get the mower I am sure they are spraying some crap.



I guess if I wanted the use of the well, I would take a sample and send it in for testing. Just saying that you have a well that is downhill from a mine isn't really adding much meaning to this conversation.

Most power line clearance is done with specialty mowing equipment, due to concerns about chemical drift from adjacent property owners. Tordon is great for killing brush, but that doesn't make it a good use everywhere you don't want any brush to grow.


----------



## capetrees (Apr 17, 2016)

I'm done.

good luck


----------



## DR. P. Proteus (Apr 17, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Tordon 22k is even made with aerial applications. So yes, spraying it into the air is commonly done.
> 
> _Had you read the label I posted you would have known that. _



I did read the label. It said something about using hooded equipment.

I briefed through what Cape posted, it seemed vague. I didn't see anything about using a respirator.


----------



## Zale (Apr 17, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Like I said...why? You tell me what & why you don't like, and then we have some comments to evaluate. If'n you can't say _why_ you think it is dumb...then that is just dumb.



I think it's dumb because a simple paint brush and solution will do the trick without having to spray the material everywhere.


----------



## JeffGu (Apr 17, 2016)

Exactly. It's a forty dollar solution to a forty cent problem. If you can't find the stumps after you cut them, carry $3 worth of surveyor flags in your pocket.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 17, 2016)

Zale said:


> I think it's dumb because a simple paint brush and solution will do the trick without having to spray the material everywhere.



Ok. I have no argument with that, except that when you are cutting a clump of underbrush and fighting like hell to drag it out of the way to get to the next clump, interspersed with trees, it's a pain in the butt to keep walking back to pick up your treatment tools. Then...you have to find each little stick you cut out of about 10-20 that you cut to get the clump to move.

I never said it was impossible to treat in the conventional way. I could just come back in 6 weeks with a backpack sprayer and hit everything that grows. I am just looking for a more efficient alternative.

Look at all the improvements in the tools and techniques that we use today, and compare them to 50 years ago. That didn't happen without trying new methods & new materials. I remember all the scorn another member at AS endured when he was experimenting with a bicycle-style rope climber. He got dumped on left and right, and I thought it was a good idea. I still like the idea better than the rope-tec, and that has seen quite a bit of success.


----------



## dumbarky (Apr 17, 2016)

In all honesty the sooner you can treat cut stumps with chemical the better the results. Even with in an hour the cut stump or sapling starts to protect itself by sap excretion.

In this area lots of commercial brush cutters are using a chemical applicator rotary cutter. It is a brush hog with special made blades and a chemical tank on the cutter deck. As the blades spin the chemical is sprayed into the cutting area. This is the best time to spray the cambium layer of the brush, tree. The freshly damaged layer draws the chemical into the plant system and immediately start the killing process.

Although, I applaud your ingenuity, I feel that your chemical application might be better served by developing a hand held delivery system. Maybe a delivery system you could carry like a backpack with the applicator attached to the saw. 

Treating the basal bark is the primary goal. If the stump is damaged anywhere on the remaining parts in the ground they need to be treated also. The longer you wait to treat these stumps, clumps, and sapling stubs the less likely they will be eradicated. 

You may actually be on to something here. I bet if you do some real world testing the answers will come to you. I had never thought of what your proposing. We usually just carry around a paint brush and bucket mixture of kerosene and Remedy and Tordon, with blue marker dye mixed in to prevent missing stumps. This works really well, as one of the many basal bark treatments.


----------



## rtsims (Apr 17, 2016)

Who uses there climbing saw to cut stumps. More so, who lets other guys run there climbing saw into rocks. Just sayin

Basing this off your picture


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 18, 2016)

rtsims said:


> Who uses there climbing saw to cut stumps. More so, who lets other guys run there climbing saw into rocks. Just sayin
> 
> Basing this off your picture



I figured this would come up. Look, it's just another saw to me, and it is the only one I had loaded with the herbicide emulsion.

I do keep the groundies from grabbing these saws as a rule, however. I don't keep them away from the climbing saws because they are special in some way, or that it really pisses me off to see them ruin the chains. I keep my ground guys away from the top-handled saws because they are generally unqualified to use what I think is a more dangerous saw. In this particular case, I wasn't too worried about the operator, since I am trying to teach him some improved techniques. Notice the picture? It was a bad cut to begin with, and I figured one of you sharp eyed critics would notice the lack of chips coming off the dull chain.

Sadly, the whole area was infested with rocks, and no one on my crew seems to be able to miss them but me. So...either I do all the cutting, or I get ready to sharpen some chains. I'd like everyone to remember that it is a heck of a lot easier to sharpen a little 49 link 3/8ths low profile chain than it is to do a 3/8ths standard chain that is on a 2"-4" longer bar.

Smaller chains are cheaper to replace, too.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 18, 2016)

dumbarky said:


> ...We usually just carry around a paint brush and bucket mixture of kerosene and Remedy and Tordon, with blue marker dye mixed in to prevent missing stumps. This works really well, as one of the many basal bark treatments.



Ah, yes. Works like a champ. But how often do your little bucket & brush setups get knocked over and spilled?

If it is anywhere near the brush being dragged out, it gets tipped constantly. But what do I know? I cannot even get my guys to miss rocks with a chainsaw, much less little paint cans with a 10' diameter clump of underbrush.


----------



## Agent Orange (Apr 18, 2016)

This in a small flashlight holster might be handy. No large spills of nasty chemicals from paint cans and innatentive help.


----------



## derwoodii (Apr 18, 2016)

ok pdqdl you got me curious to see how this idea of bar oil mix tree killer goes 


i sox small brush trees a lot and just use one of these to paint the stumps with a mix of round up MCPA garlon dye and water it more often does the trick if not will let it grow return and spray new foliage


----------



## Smithy (Apr 18, 2016)

Agent Orange said:


> This in a small flashlight holster might be handy. No large spills of nasty chemicals from paint cans and innatentive help.



I use this - has saved me so much hassle.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 18, 2016)

derwoodii said:


> ok pdqdl you got me curious to see how this idea of bar oil mix tree killer goes
> 
> 
> i sox small brush trees a lot and just use one of these to paint the stumps with a mix of round up MCPA garlon dye and water it more often does the trick if not will let it grow return and spray new foliage
> ...



I have tried those too, but they are incredibly unreliable. I haven't found one yet that works for more than one or two uses, and then it doesn't work anymore. If I were to rely on a sprayer, it would be the relatively reliable one gallon pump-up sprayers. Pretty cheap, but much more reliable than the smaller units.

I have used these before with rather limited success: 




But these don't work very long with herbicides that have the petrochemical solvents in them. If it turns white when you pour it into a water tank, it will probably ruin any sprayer that uses rubber o-rings.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 18, 2016)

derwoodii said:


> ... paint the stumps with a mix of round up MCPA garlon dye and water it more often does the trick if not will let it grow return and spray new foliage
> 
> View attachment 499051



Why MCPA? Garlon is great for woody brush, but MCPA carries no listing at all for woody plants. MCPA is a minor component of the Trimec family of broadleaf weed controls, so it will help kill the brush. It's just not what I would spend money on to kill brush. Tordon & Garlon, or any other brands that combine to have picloram and triclopyr will really do the job.

Triclopyr used to be the last resort herbicide for tough to eliminate broadleaf weeds in lawn applications. That seems to have been removed from the market; probably because the users killed off too many desirable woody plants. _Of course, I am just guessing about that._


----------



## Jim Timber (Apr 18, 2016)

Triclopyr is still around - goes by Remedy Ultra from Dow, and it's available in generics (much cheaper). 

Using that and diesel in a 50/50 mix is a great basal treatment for stumps. Add some dye if you want to keep track of what's been hit.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 18, 2016)

Yes, but the Triclopyr label used to advertise that it was for use in lawns. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.


----------



## derwoodii (Apr 18, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> Why MCPA? Garlon is great for woody brush, but MCPA carries no listing at all for woody plants. MCPA is a minor component of the Trimec family of broadleaf weed controls, so it will help kill the brush. It's just not what I would spend money on to kill brush. Tordon & Garlon, or any other brands that combine to have picloram and triclopyr will really do the job.
> 
> Triclopyr used to be the last resort herbicide for tough to eliminate broadleaf weeds in lawn applications. That seems to have been removed from the market; probably because the users killed off too many desirable woody plants. _Of course, I am just guessing about that._



I have found mcpa is great killer of popular elm pine and few other species yes its a bit naughty as off label but it works so well I us
The garlon sorts gums and the roundup covers the rest

True the cheap bottle sprayer don't last long I get about 2 months and have tested quite a few makes some better than other but at 15 bucks a price its ok by me


----------



## Jed1124 (Apr 18, 2016)

I applaud your ingenuity. That being said, applying pesticides in a manner that is not specified on the label is against the law. The label IS the law.
Being that you wanted credentials,
CT Supervisory Pesticide License
CT licensed Arborist 3d
CT licensed Ornamental and Turf 3a
All under S-6032
Granted, all those and a buck 50 will get you a cup of coffee, but I would say it's not a good idea.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 18, 2016)

Jed1124 said:


> I applaud your ingenuity. That being said, applying pesticides in a manner that is not specified on the label is against the law. The label IS the law.
> Being that you wanted credentials,
> CT Supervisory Pesticide License
> CT licensed Arborist 3d
> ...



Thanks for the kudo's; unfortunately I think you need to review the rules. Thanks for being the first applicator to voice an opinion. Sorry, but I disagree with you.

Look guys, that simply isn't how the law reads. I know, I have tested out every three years for the last 30 as an applicator, and I took the test again this spring. I know the rules very well. Since we finally have a licensed applicator piping up, strongly implying that I am breaking the law, now I am going to *quote* the law to you. You are required to follow the label and not make applications contrary to what is allowed. This text from the actual manual specifying the rules.

"Although it is a violation of federal law to use any pesticide registered by EPA in a manner* inconsistent* with its labeling, FIFRA Section 2(ee) excludes several use situations and application procedures. Unless _*specifically prohibited by the labeling*_, FIFRA allows:
*• *A pesticide to be applied to control a target pest not specified on the label if the pesticide is applied to a crop, animal, or site specifically listed on the labeling (e.g., interior of a home,food-handling establishments, exterior ornamental plants, corn, and tomatoes).
_*• Any method of application*_*. *(yes! This is straight from the manual so just drop your dumb arguments to the contrary)
• A pesticide to be applied at a dosage, concentration, or frequency less than that specified on the labeling (except in the case of termiticides labeled for preconstruction treatments).
•A pesticide-fertilizer mixture.
Realize that if you exercise any of the Section 2(ee) exclusions under FIFRA, you alone are responsible for any consequences resulting from such an application."​
Nowhere on the entire damned label of Tordon does it mention a paintbrush and can. In not one instance, does it mention using a squirt can sprayer, nor a roller applicator, but no one has mentioned those as barriers to a "proper" application. The simple fact is that the label prescribes an application rate, it stipulates the safe working conditions, and it places restrictions on applications that must be followed where the application is subject to those restrictions. The label almost never tells you how to make the application.

For example, the label tells you how not to set nozzles and equipment on an application made by airplane or helicopter, but it never mentions any restrictions on ground based equipment. Nowhere on the entire damned label does it mention what pressures to use on a conventional sprayer, it doesn't specify a permissible spray pattern or technique, nor does it mention or control pump construction, nozzle sizes or styles. In short, the labels rarely tell you HOW to make an application, but it might very well restrict you on how NOT to make an application.

I am tired of you guys trying to tell me I am operating illegally, when you all seem to making emotional decisions not based on any facts. Argue with the facts I posted above.


----------



## Zale (Apr 19, 2016)

I never said your application method was illegal. I just said it was dumb.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 19, 2016)

Yep. I know. I can respect that. I asked for opinions, and yours was an honestly expressed answer to my original post. I fully expected mostly rejection of the idea, some to have useful suggestions, others to say they thought it was a great idea. So far...this thread has been pretty pointless from my perspective. No useful suggestions have been rendered, and far too many crazy accusations.

I do have some problems with the folks that keep making accusations that are not true. _Nobody likes being called a crook, particularly when they are not._


----------



## Jim Timber (Apr 19, 2016)

FWIW, I use a $1 walmart sourced squirt bottle (it's even made in USA). The innards will rot from the diesel and it might only make it a year (the fuel spout on my gas can broke down and went soft from the mix), but it's the cheapest part of the formula and I consider it as disposable as the gas burned to get the chemicals from the store - just a cost of doing business.

Mixing with the bar oil isn't revolutionary. That's how some shroom growers inoculate their wood. The problem is that to get a shroom growing, you need a single spore to make the journey, and they're tiny. To get a good kill you need enough chemical to shut down the tree before it just rejects the damaged tissue and keeps on growing around it. Half-dead trees are all over the place.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 19, 2016)

Cool! I never heard of the 'shroom technique. Do they use any bar oil, or just cut some rotting wood and then cut up the new wood with this inoculated bar/chain?


----------



## Jim Timber (Apr 19, 2016)

They inoculate the bar oil. Shroom spores look like fine dust, so you just add it to the oil and the act of cutting distributes the oil with the spores through the wood.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 19, 2016)

All day long, and nobody has remarked about the off-target fog of illegally applied mushroom spores.


----------



## Jed1124 (Apr 19, 2016)

I can't speak to what the laws or more importantly enforcement is like in your state. Methods of application do appear on labels. In some states, applying pesticides in a manner that is not specifically detailed on the label might fly.
Personally speaking, with the law of my own state in mind, I would not send an applicator to do a job in a manner that I would consider inconsistent with the label. If the label gives specific methods of application, I stick to them.
Some labels limit the use of pesticides in irrigation systems. Even though they would work perfectly well in them.
The label on Tordon lists application methods. They are approved methods. Deviating from them might get you the results your looking for, or they might get you a law suit and revocation of your pesticide license should something bad happen.
Why not try your state pesticide enforcement and ask them their opinion? If they gives the thumbs up (I would get it in writing) then your good to go.
I'm almost tempted to call the head of pesticide enforcement in my own state and see what she would say. Something tells me that she would ask if that method of application is listed on the label, and when I said no, she would say not to do it.


----------



## JeffGu (Apr 20, 2016)

I'm having trouble understanding why anyone thinks what he's doing in any way is outside of the scope of what the label says. I think it's an overly complicated solution that isn't likely to yield good results, but I don't see why anyone would think he's going to bring the wrath of the weed police down on his head. The label allows spraying the product without any mention of the equipment. It doesn't say _"only airplanes with a single engine and less than four wings"_ or _"only 3 gallon hand pump sprayers from Walmart"_ or anything else of the kind. It doesn't even require a freakin' respirator. We're talking about a product that I've seen sprayed with electric sprayers mounted to ATVs, from old military aircraft, painted on with brushes, sprayed with almost every kind of device that can spray... and none of those methods are mentioned _specifically_ on the label. It doesn't say you can't spray it with a low-flying blimp or a kid's squirt gun. I believe _consistent with the labeling_ has more to do with mix concentrations and general respect for not poisoning or killing unintended targets than with which particular application device you choose to use. I can see where the Weed Board might get upset if you're lobbing water balloons full of the stuff out of a Howitzer, or strapping the jug to an ICBM as a delivery system... but I can't see them giving a rat's ass about him clogging up his chain oiler with herbicide, unless he's cutting hotdogs for the kiddies with it, afterwards.

This is starting to sound like the NSA looking for terrorists under the doormat of the free clinic. Let the guy dye his chainsaw blue and figure out that it will take sponges and roller brushes and maybe a high pressure oil pump bolted to the saw to make it work. Then we can move on to the _real_ "Next Big Innovation"... climbing helmets with built in 3D por... er... arboriculture movies piped in by satellite.


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 20, 2016)

Jed1124 said:


> I can't speak to what the laws or more importantly enforcement is like in your state. Methods of application do appear on labels. In some states, applying pesticides in a manner that is not specifically detailed on the label might fly.
> Personally speaking, with the law of my own state in mind, I would not send an applicator to do a job in a manner that I would consider inconsistent with the label. If the label gives specific methods of application, I stick to them.
> Some labels limit the use of pesticides in irrigation systems. Even though they would work perfectly well in them.
> The label on Tordon lists application methods. They are approved methods. Deviating from them might get you the results your looking for, or they might get you a law suit and revocation of your pesticide license should something bad happen.
> ...



I challenge you to show me any label anywhere that tells you how to make an application. You will not find any label anywhere that mentions a paintbrush, a herbicide roller, and they seldom even mention any specific kind of sprayer. They tell you how NOT to make an application, they will occasionally explain common methods, but they simply don't tell you how to do the job.

Go back and read the rules, then read a label critically to see if it really tells you how to do _any_ application. The US Federal government is not going to absorb product liability by telling anyone how to apply pesticides, and the product manufacturer certainly isn't going to encourage any, either. They only tell you where you are doing it wrong. This is a logical divide that many folks don't seem to understand what is meant with the expression "inconsistent". "Contrary" means exactly breaking a rule in the label. "Inconsistent" is deliberately vague so that any prosecutor can put whatever spin on the interpretation that they wish.

As I quoted previously, the federal manual for all classes of pesticide licenses states that "Unless _specifically prohibited by the labeling_, FIFRA allows: ...
_*• Any method of application*_*. "* This is just one sentence with no restrictions or codicils on it. All on a single line all by itself.

Why! Why do you guys keep arguing with the facts?


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 20, 2016)

JeffGu said:


> I'm having trouble understanding why anyone thinks what he's doing in any way is outside of the scope of what the label says. I think it's an overly complicated solution that isn't likely to yield good results, but I don't see why anyone would think he's going to bring the wrath of the weed police down on his head. The label allows spraying the product without any mention of the equipment. It doesn't say _"only airplanes with a single engine and less than four wings"_ or _"only 3 gallon hand pump sprayers from Walmart"_ or anything else of the kind. It doesn't even require a freakin' respirator. We're talking about a product that I've seen sprayed with electric sprayers mounted to ATVs, from old military aircraft, painted on with brushes, sprayed with almost every kind of device that can spray... and none of those methods are mentioned _specifically_ on the label. It doesn't say you can't spray it with a low-flying blimp or a kid's squirt gun. I believe _consistent with the labeling_ has more to do with mix concentrations and general respect for not poisoning or killing unintended targets than with which particular application device you choose to use. I can see where the Weed Board might get upset if you're lobbing water balloons full of the stuff out of a Howitzer, or strapping the jug to an ICBM as a delivery system... but I can't see them giving a rat's ass about him clogging up his chain oiler with herbicide, unless he's cutting hotdogs for the kiddies with it, afterwards.
> 
> This is starting to sound like the NSA looking for terrorists under the doormat of the free clinic. Let the guy dye his chainsaw blue and figure out that it will take sponges and roller brushes and maybe a high pressure oil pump bolted to the saw to make it work. Then we can move on to the _real_ "Next Big Innovation"... climbing helmets with built in 3D por... er... arboriculture movies piped in by satellite.



Thank you. That was a rather elegant explanation. 

 Yes, applying Tordon in a food service application would be a specifically prohibited activity, "inconsistant" with the label.


----------



## Hddnis (Apr 22, 2016)

No conflict with the label at all.

The labor savings of having the application done by the saw would be huge. Much of the active ingredient would go into the chips, but won't be totally lost, and half of what doesn't get on the chips goes onto the piece you cut off. Still, if enough active ingredient is left on each stump and the savings in labor is high enough it could very well be a better way to get the job done.

There is a mist coming off the bar that is there herbicide or not and chemical compounds in many trees are more harmful to breath than Tordon. The mist issue seems irrelevant to me.

Sounds like you already did the job, but when you come to the next one I suggest doing half of it with the chainsaw application and half of it with your current method. Check on it later to compare the efficacy of the two application types.

Last thought, we thinned bar oil in the winter with gasoline or paint thinner.


Mr. HE


----------



## Creeker (Apr 22, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> View attachment 498810
> 
> 
> When you treat with Tordon RTU, you should soak the cambium ring until it is blue. Tordon 22K is 3 times as concentrated, and does not contain 2,4-D. I would guess that the stump would have needed to be visibly blue for it to work well. Right now, we were just getting a blue haze.



The pic. says it all, lots of blue marker dye (containing active Herbicide I guess) in the sawdust/chips, bugger all on the stump !

Waste of time, just get one of the crew to apply by a more efficient method and w/o danger to operator breathing the crap or wrecking the oiler, bar & chain or wasting the spray

Like the idea but WOFTAM in practical terms


----------



## c5rulz (Apr 23, 2016)

I am a certified applicator for lawn and fruit crops.

I am not even going to go over the merits of your "technique/idea".

Had the product gone through the saw, I don't believe the concentration of product on the cambium layer of the cut stumps would be sufficient to do the intended job.


----------



## treesmith (Apr 23, 2016)

Use an 044, I'm sure the oiler is based on a ported lawn sprinkler

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## pdqdl (Apr 23, 2016)

c5rulz said:


> I am a certified applicator for lawn and fruit crops.
> 
> I am not even going to go over the merits of your "technique/idea".
> 
> Had the product gone through the saw, I don't believe the concentration of product on the cambium layer of the cut stumps would be sufficient to do the intended job.




I will get it to go through the saw. At 2 quarts maximum per acre, I am pretty sure I can get enough on a stump to do the job. It's just a matter of calibration.


----------



## c5rulz (Apr 23, 2016)

Well I have never seen any indication of any bar oil left on a stump. Bar oil is carried off in the chips.


----------



## treesmith (Apr 23, 2016)

You could run the chain and aim spray at the stump but then a sprayer wojld be easier

I like the brush cutter with spray attachment idea 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim Timber (Apr 24, 2016)

treesmith said:


> You could run the chain and aim spray at the stump but then a sprayer wojld be easier
> 
> I like the brush cutter with spray attachment idea
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk



With the secondary benefit of blade lube.

You'd need to spray the bottom of the blade, and most of your dose would get flung all over everything but the stump, but it's still got better odds than the bar oil method.

*unless using an 044


----------



## JeffGu (Apr 24, 2016)

I'm going to try sewing a sponge to the ass of my chainsaw pants. Cut stump, dip ass in bucket of Tordon, sit on stump.
Has the added benefit of preventing weeds from growing in the crack of your ass.
Fewer moving parts.
Low maintenance, cheap replacement parts.


----------



## c5rulz (Apr 24, 2016)

JeffGu said:


> I'm going to try sewing a sponge to the ass of my chainsaw pants. Cut stump, dip ass in bucket of Tordon, sit on stump.
> Has the added benefit of preventing weeds from growing in the crack of your ass.
> Fewer moving parts.
> Low maintenance, cheap replacement parts.




Gotta say it is a better idea than mixing Tordon with bar oil.


----------



## unclemoustache (May 5, 2016)

pdqdl, I'm amazed at your patience. You had a very clever idea, kindly asked for opinions, and then got blasted with moronic comments where the poster couldn't think of anything intelligent to say in response.

I'm glad there were at least a couple guys who could discuss it wisely. I know nothing about the subject, so all I can say is "it sounds clever. Give it a try and see what happens, and let us know the results."

Certainly a lot of great inventors were ridiculed for their ideas but they persevered, so ignore the brainless haters and go for it. It'll either work or it won't and you'll know for sure then.


----------



## pdqdl (May 6, 2016)

I have been hanging out at the WTF thread so long. By comparison, these guys are rather toothless with respect to the offensiveness of their comments.

I expected to get blasted. This is SOP for anything that gets posted at the AS Commercial tree care forum. Part of why I spend far more time at WTF. Once you learn to glean the information from the chaff, there were good comments and some new information that I learned. Not as much as I would have preferred; I was kind of surprised that there were not more people that did stump treatments on a regular basis.


----------



## Hddnis (May 6, 2016)

pdqdl said:


> I have been hanging out at the WTF thread so long. By comparison, these guys are rather toothless with respect to the offensiveness of their comments.
> 
> I expected to get blasted. This is SOP for anything that gets posted at the AS Commercial tree care forum. Part of why I spend far more time at WTF. Once you learn to glean the information from the chaff, there were good comments and some new information that I learned. Not as much as I would have preferred; I was kind of surprised that there were not more people that did stump treatments on a regular basis.



You would be amazed at the number of guys who clear fence lines and ROWs and don't treat. Either not licensed or charge a bunch extra to treat. I've had them tell me "I'd rather not treat, job security!"

Then there are the farmers "It is cheaper to cut it down every few years, chemicals are expensive and it just grows back anyway!"


Mr. HE


----------

