# Injection systems



## Richard J (Feb 11, 2007)

What injection system works the best.There is so much infomation on this Iam lost on this one.I would like to treat trees for insect problems,fert trees,treat trees for BLS.oak wilt,And fungicides ect.
Thank you for your help !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Feb 11, 2007)

What are you injecting, and what for?


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Feb 11, 2007)

One of the main concerns is the injury at the injection sites. Micro injections are really hard on living cells. The more dilute the solution, the less phytotoxic reaction you get, and the better coverage up in the tree you get.
Using fungicides were you repeatedly inject, like for DED, you want to use a macro-injection. It takes more equipment and time, but you want the best. 
The other consideration is injection site locations. The best place, for several reasons, is in down on the lower root flare. You have to dig with a trowel or air spade to get there.
Tools like the wedgle, that use a small injection hole sound great, you know, small hole, small injury, but the phytotoxic damage turns out to be a large injury, and right on the trunk.


----------



## alanarbor (Feb 12, 2007)

Mike Maas said:


> One of the main concerns is the injury at the injection sites. Micro injections are really hard on living cells. The more dilute the solution, the less phytotoxic reaction you get, and the better coverage up in the tree you get.
> Using fungicides were you repeatedly inject, like for DED, you want to use a macro-injection. It takes more equipment and time, but you want the best.
> The other consideration is injection site locations. The best place, for several reasons, is in down on the lower root flare. You have to dig with a trowel or air spade to get there.
> Tools like the wedgle, that use a small injection hole sound great, you know, small hole, small injury, but the phytotoxic damage turns out to be a large injury, and right on the trunk.



To follow this up, injections often use an solvent carrier that that can cause a phytotoxic reaction. the latest player on the block is Rainbow scientific with their refillable micro infuser, which they have developed water solubles for, which should lessen the toxic reaction.

However, it needs to be said that injections should be used with care in mind. They are a great tool, but should not be the first tool you pull out of your toolbox.


----------



## ATH (Feb 12, 2007)

I actually talked to a guy from Wedgle today (before reading this post).

He said it does not damage the trees like the other micro injection tools. He did also say if there is any chance of dry soil/drought stress that you should water the tree for several hours a day before treatment.

I'd also be curious to hear real-world experiences from any of the systems.

I am looking at several applications, but mainly imidacloprid treatments ahead of emerald ash borer.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Feb 12, 2007)

ATH said:


> I am looking at several applications, but mainly imidacloprid treatments ahead of emerald ash borer.


Imidichloprid is so effectively taken up by trees with soil injections, and soil injections are so much easier, why would you even think of trunk injecting it?


----------



## alanarbor (Feb 13, 2007)

I second that motion. Trunk injection might be useful in trees with severely limited soil area (Street trees frex) but it certainly shoulden't be the first method. 

The advice given that if you are going to inject a tree and it's been dry to irrigate is a good one, as it will help to limit that phytotoxic reaction, but if you can effectively irrigate, you can apply merit to the soil.


----------



## ATH (Feb 14, 2007)

So, do you soil inject or soil drench? Soil drench over grass looses a lot to the turf. So I assume if you drench, you do so around a slightly excavated root color?

On the business management side, how do you sell soil drench when the customer can get Bayer Advanced Tree and Shrub Care at Lowes and do the same thing themselves?


----------



## Thetreewisemen (Feb 14, 2007)

Mike Maas said:


> Imidichloprid is so effectively taken up by trees with soil injections, and soil injections are so much easier, why would you even think of trunk injecting it?



I live on Long Island, where the water table is very high. Therefore soil injections can be risky and in some cases illegal, _I think._ Trunk injections are the way to go around here unless you want the DEC and the EPA breathing down your neck!


----------



## tprosser (Feb 14, 2007)

*Check this out*

http://www.************/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=49727&an=0&page=0#49727

Check out the link above and look at the photos on injection injury using the wedgle. It is about 3/4 of the way through the thread.

The wedgle can do severe injury and the volume going in is miniscule. 

If you can accomplish your goal without wounding and putting in solvents - the tree will be much happier.


----------



## ATH (Feb 14, 2007)

Tom, thanks for the link. Wow...wouldn't be happy to do that to a customer's tree without knowing it was coming.

Of course the salesman said it would not damage the cambium, but I did not see how it could not do _some_ damage. That is more than I expected. And looks a lot worse than I expected too.


----------



## Urban Forester (Feb 15, 2007)

I have used Mauget for nearly 20 yrs. nearly every product in their inventory. I have used wedgle for about 6 or 7 yrs. I have never seen a 'toxic reaction' as a result of of an injection. While the debate on tree wounding is a concern (valid) and how much energy the tree uses to compartmentalize the injection sites is still being evaluated, I believe the benefits FAR out weigh the concerns, especially when dealing with EAB. My personnal experience has been that EAB does FAR more vascual damage than the micro-injection process does. When I've seen trees with larvae in buttress roots I KNOW I'm dealing with a voracious insect. We have seen trees with 100 to 150 larvae in them. What chance does that tree have at that point...none. However with preventive injections PRIOR to that level of infestation, Ashes WILL survive. We have over 300 trees treated w/micro-injection both Mauget and wedgle that are alive AND healthy today because of micro-injection. The one point above that is a concern to me is the collection of imidicloprid at the point of injection, and the resulting bark splitting when using the wedgle. However I stress again that the trees that have been injected w/wedgle ARE alive and we are located in ground zero i.e. the 'dead zone' of metro Detroit. As far as soil injection goes we have found that the levels of imidicloprid do NOT accumulate to desired levels (PPM) in the upper canopy of the tree (independant ELISHA testing). Since this insect attacks from the top-down (in the 3/4 to 1" branches) having as much product as possible in as significant quanities as possible in the upper canopy is very important. We use soil injection in concert w/ either injection or trunk washing with Onyx. Once again RESULTS are the key, micro injection DOES work, both systems, as does macro-infusion, but thats a whole 'nother story.


----------



## alanarbor (Feb 15, 2007)

Thetreewisemen said:


> I live on Long Island, where the water table is very high. Therefore soil injections can be risky and in some cases illegal, _I think._ Trunk injections are the way to go around here unless you want the DEC and the EPA breathing down your neck!



Yeah, you're in a special regulation area. In that case I would probably consider the following:

Mauget has the largest product line, though a bit of wounding is going to happen.

The Wedgle might be less wounding, but your products are limited

Rainbow's infuser system might be a good way to go, but there may be some issues with the system being less than completely closed, at least that is what I heard from a RCA out of Conneticut.


I think you have to carefully weigh the benefits against the negatives before you inject.


----------



## Thetreewisemen (Feb 15, 2007)

I agree, and plus if the client can actually see a marked improvement in their trees health eg. white birches treated for and making a satisfactory recovery from bronze birch borer, then all three parts of the equation are happy......you, the client and last but not least the tree. If it's a toss up between using a little stored energy to compartmentalize a hole the size of a needle, or being eaten inside out by borers........I like to think I would know which one the tree would go for!


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Feb 15, 2007)

Thetreewisemen said:


> I agree, and plus if the client can actually see a marked improvement in their trees health eg. white birches treated for and making a satisfactory recovery from bronze birch borer, then all three parts of the equation are happy......you, the client and last but not least the tree. If it's a toss up between using a little stored energy to compartmentalize a hole the size of a needle, or being eaten inside out by borers........I like to think I would know which one the tree would go for!


No system uses a hole the size of a needle. Even the wedgle has about an 1/8" hole, into which a rubber gasket is inserted, then the needle is used.
Secondly, it's not the initial hole, it's the size of the wound weeks later, after the chemicals burn the living cells around the tiny hole.
Then you do that every year, and those wound s build into huge areas of decay.
We worked on an old elm that had been treated for years, we warned the tree was unsafe and two weeks later it fell on the homeowner, causing serious injury. You could see the damage years of injecting had done, layers and layers of wounds.


----------



## tprosser (Feb 15, 2007)

*Water based is Better*

If you have to inject it is always better to used products that are water based and not solvent based products.


----------



## Thetreewisemen (Feb 15, 2007)

Mike Maas said:


> No system uses a hole the size of a needle. Even the wedgle has about an 1/8" hole, into which a rubber gasket is inserted, then the needle is used.
> Secondly, it's not the initial hole, it's the size of the wound weeks later, after the chemicals burn the living cells around the tiny hole.
> Then you do that every year, and those wound s build into huge areas of decay.
> We worked on an old elm that had been treated for years, we warned the tree was unsafe and two weeks later it fell on the homeowner, causing serious injury. You could see the damage years of injecting had done, layers and layers of wounds.



So, what do you suggest? Inject and initiate decay leading to structural failure? Or, let the borers eat the tree inside out......leading to structural failure? If my client wants to know why her birches are declining, I'll tell her why and treat the problem. However, 'alarm bells' would be ringing in my head if I was injecting a larger more mature tree such as the elm you described, year in year out. We all know what happens with excessive use of any chemical product pertinent to tree care.


----------



## Zac (Feb 19, 2007)

*Soil injections not good for large trees??*



Urban Forester said:


> As far as soil injection goes we have found that the levels of imidicloprid do NOT accumulate to desired levels (PPM) in the upper canopy of the tree (independant ELISHA testing). .



This is very interesing information. Do you know of a link to a scientific journal that has this?, I would like to discuss this with my boss.


----------



## tprosser (Feb 20, 2007)

*Soil Injection is the best way*

I just attended the Ohio ISA show where there were many presentations and conversations regarding Emerald Ash Borer. The consensus is that soil application of Imidicloprid does work extremely well. However, it requires 2 applications at the high rate to build enough residue in the tree. After that - One application per year will maintain those levels. This work was done by David Smitley. The other consensus is that injections should only be used if you need to get the material in the tree fast. The problem with injections today are the solvents used in them. They cause a large amount of injury.

I will attach some photos of injections by equipment that claims not to "wound" the tree. If you inject trees - it is better to use water based materials. If you can soil apply or spray and get results - do not inject.


----------



## ATH (Feb 20, 2007)

tprosser,
I was only at the Ohio Tree Care Conference for Monday, and only attended one session on EAB. From that, I am not sure I'd feel as comfortable saying:

_"The consensus is that soil application of Imidicloprid does work extremely well......The other consensus is that injections should only be used if you need to get the material in the tree fast. "_

Being that the presentation was given by a Bayer representative who hardly touched on the alternatives, I did not feel like I learned about ups and downs of alternatives. I wasn't surprised that he thought the Bayer product (soil drench with Merit) worked well. There were a couple of sketchy interprations of the numbers...for example when he was talking about untreated trees if there was around 80-90% dieback in the second year, he counted it as a dead tree (probably a good call). On the treated trees, he counted a couple with just as much dieback as live trees. I would have liked to have a second look at those graphs, but he had a lot to get through so didn't leave them up very long. The research he presented shows soil treatment does work well. It also showed injections worked well.

Of course I didn't have a lot of time to mingle and talk to others about it so maybe that is where you got a more clear consenus from.

In reality, the studies about Emerald Ash Borer are too young to know what the long term results will be. For example, what if we only need to inject every 3rd year instead of soil treat twice per year?


----------



## tprosser (Feb 20, 2007)

You are correct - it was mostly from my conversations with Dan Herms. 

Injection with these solvents causes too much internal injury to be a long term solution. Even every 2 years. Protection is all about getting enough active evenly distributed in the tree. Injections will certainly get it there faster, but soil applied will tend to get more even coverage and the buildup is definitely there. 2 Applications at the high rate are needed the first year. Then after that it is 1 application per year. This has already worked extremely well for us on two lined chestnut borer and bronze birch borer. Smitleys research also shows it seems to work as well on this pest.


----------



## ATH (Feb 20, 2007)

tprosser said:


> You are correct - it was mostly from my conversations with Dan Herms.



Thanks for the follow-up. I'd definately trust Herms more than Bayer. Like I said, I just wish the presentation I sat in on would have dealt more with some of the alternatives. It was kinda focused on one product and that always makes me wonder...


----------



## tprosser (Feb 25, 2007)

Yea it would have been better if it wasn't such a commercial


----------



## arbordoctor (Mar 6, 2007)

*Injection systems vs. pentra-bark*

I am conferring with a couple people who are doing a lot of work with pentra-bark on everything from imicloprid and safari to cambistat, and even round-up for invasives. It was, I believe, first used for the treatment of sudden oak death. A lot of use with Agri-phos for various diseases including apple scab.

The beauty is that there is no injection involved. Several arborists I know have used it with varying degrees of success, although I have heard very good reports from some. I think there is still a lot of trial and error going on. I have been using it for a couple years. While I am cautiously optimistic it is hard to properly evaluate in a field situation.

I would appreciate any thoughts, experiences, etc. 

Ron
Cincinnati, OH
member ASCA, ISA, TCIA, ONLA, ISA OH 5177A

PS: Re: Science gave us airplanes and skyscrapers. But it took religion to bring them together. FALSE RELIGION, THAT IS. I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the father except by me. JC. It's all about faith, hope, and love.


----------



## tprosser (Mar 6, 2007)

*Bark Penetrating surfactants*

Our company teamed up with Bartlett the last two summers to do research on this. Unfortunately we spent a sizable amount of our budget because we were so excited about the possibilities. I will list in bullet points why we dropped this method using pentrabark. 

1. Pentra bark cannot be over-sprayed - it kills the grass or leaves if it lands on them

2. We did get minimal entry into the tree with imidicloprid and more with acephate. However, it was unpredictable. Thick barked trees had very poor intake. Acephate by itself seemed to work as well as with the pentrabark additive.

3. The trees became discolored where the material was sprayed. We felt this to be unacceptable.

4. Bruce Fraedrich at Bartlett tried different fungicides and reported zero results with apple scab and other diseases (I cannot remember what - but he would tell you if you called)

We learned some other interesting things that I will not go into here and we may actually attempt to formulate something in the future. But it was so disappointing to us because we entered the study so optimistically that we have moved onto looking at other tree care solutions.

I hope this helps. I would be happy to discuss if you wanted to call me and I would love to hear about other peoples success and what they may be doing. However, I think the bark discoloration could be a large hurdle as clients would not like that.


----------



## ATH (Mar 8, 2007)

Thetreewisemen said:


> I live on Long Island, where the water table is very high. Therefore soil injections can be risky and in some cases illegal, _I think._ Trunk injections are the way to go around here unless you want the DEC and the EPA breathing down your neck!


After some follow-up reading in the research, I kinda put the idea of injecting on the back burner.

Revisiting this now, as I was at a site today with a high water table and some ash trees within 20 yards of a lake.

Legality aside (I don't think that is issue here, but I'll check into it more), I'd be interested in other thoughts on soil treatments vs. injection in these circumstances.

FYI, the label says: "The use of this chemical in areas where the soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in groundwater contamination".

This is in clay soil, and I am more worried about surface water...so I am not sure this applies. There is nothing else on the label concerning the question.


Thanks!


----------



## tprosser (Mar 9, 2007)

ATH,
What are you trying to accomplish with these trees?

Are there any specific issues you are seeing that you need to remedy?


----------



## ATH (Mar 9, 2007)

hahaha, I guess that is some important imformation to inculde!!

There are a couple of nice/healthy ash trees on the property. Emerald Ash Borer is in the county, but not yet in this neighborhood. In such circumstances, if people want to plan on keeping the trees long-term, I think they should begin imidacloprid treatments now.


----------



## tprosser (Mar 9, 2007)

*Treating EAB*

The purpose of protecting trees for EAB is to get enough Imidicloprid into the tree in a way that will give even and complete distribution. If there are no symptoms and trees are not succumbing close by. Then I would for sure do the soil application. 

Research in Michigan shows that it takes 2 soil applications at the high rate (In a shallow furrow next to the trunk) to accomplish getting enough product in the tree, this can be done all in the first year followed with one application each year thereafter. 

Injection in my opinion should only be used to get material in the tree fast. The wounding creates a dilemma. Also, Research showed that with the injection methodology studied, that the best distribution they got was around 70% (with injections). At least thats what they measured when they sampled treated trees. Combine this with the wounds that are created - and the answer seems to present itself pretty clearly.

Since imidicloprid does not move in the soil - I think the pond is safe, I would choose soil application. 

Note - We have found that if the injections are done on the root flares of the tree we are able to get much higher than 70% distribution into the crown. All the treatments studied in Michigan that were injections were trunk injections.


----------



## ATH (Mar 9, 2007)

Thanks Tom.

I had kinda settled on soil application for EAB preventative treatments. The question I had was soil application so close to water. I appreciate what you have provided here - I didn't think imidacloprid was known to move much, but since thetreewiseman had mentioned not using soil applications because of those concerns, I was curious.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 10, 2007)

With the rapid uptake issue of imidicloprid, I keep hearing this and wonder why a one time application of something fast acting like Metasytox (Demeton-S-Methyl) would not be prefferable to a basal ( I prefer it to the term trunk injection, since that leads people to do it too high)?

Though i do agree that it is a nasty compound, it will knock down anything in the tree allowing the imidicloprid a chance to translocate.


----------



## tprosser (Mar 12, 2007)

*Other soil products*

I think you are thinking down the right path.
We are looking at other products now for exactly that purpose.

Metasystox has EPA issues since it is so toxic. But there are other possibilities such as Acephate - which is not currently registered. We are working to change this though.

If you have any other ideas of soil applied insecticides please let us know at Rainbow Scientific and we can test them and try and get them registered if they work.


----------



## Thetreewisemen (Mar 14, 2007)

*Rhizo Fuel*

I know it's not what we we're currently discussing, but this coming season I'm really gonna be pushing a new product for me.....Rhizo Fuel. This bio-stimulant product IMO is now the way to go when treating stressed, newly planted or urban trees in general. I'd be happy to share any pertinent info on this...cost, active ingredient, etc.


----------



## ATH (Mar 14, 2007)

Thetreewisemen said:


> I know it's not what we we're currently discussing, but this coming season I'm really gonna be pushing a new product for me.....Rhizo Fuel. This bio-stimulant product IMO is now the way to go when treating stressed, newly planted or urban trees in general. I'd be happy to share any pertinent info on this...cost, active ingredient, etc.


I have seen previously enough to be intrigued, but not sold.

Maybe a good topic for a new thread. I always find it interesting to hear users opinions along with the data.


----------

