Tree injections?

[ATH]

Another interesting thing that came out in the seminar last week was a comment they made in regards to regulations that you can only use so much immidacloprid per acre and this would allow you to only treat maybe 3 trees in proximity without being in violation of Fed laws.

I use a 2F formulation. Per the label, you can use 1.6 pints per acre - or 19.6 ounces. Max rate (which I use) is 0.2 oz per inch of dbh. That means you could treat 98 inches of diameter per acre. (If they did not use imidacloprid to treat grubs on the lawn...not sure where using Advantage for feas on the dog fits in?). What constitutes an "acre"? If I look at a 3 acre parcel with 200" of ash but they are all in one corner, can I 'creatively draw' where each acre is separted on that property to treat them all?

Of course, if you are going to leave Mauget caps on site and leave...I wouldn't worry about putting too much imidacloprid on a given site

Regarding leaving Mauget...you are breaking the law, so hopefully an ODA inspector doesn't notice (very doubtful). I'd be more worried about the situation you described. If that was bidrin, you'd have a dead dog. I imagine you were dealing with a rather "reasonable" client there. If they were a little too uptight about the dog, the best case situation would have involved you paying vet bills - and it could have only gotten worse from there.

I do have a clause in my contract that they must keep control of their pet. That should have protected you if the dog got them while you were there, but you'd absolutely have been liable if the dog got them while you were away - even if you were in front of the house. I would have been tempeted to use some scrap rope and tie the pooch over in the corner while we worked...

 

[pdqdl]

On a purely technical basis, any soil drench grossly exceeds the "per acre" rate of application. I think the basis of the standard is so that no one uses so much insecticide in an area that it becomes an ecological issue.

If you are treating a large area with lots of trees, just pick the correct application rate and treat the entire area, much like a lawn application. The trees will be soaking it up, along with the lawn and the shrubs. At least in theory, you will have properly dosed the area as well.

 

[treevet]

If you are treating a large area with lots of trees, just pick the correct application rate and treat the entire area, much like a lawn application. The trees will be soaking it up, along with the lawn and the shrubs. At least in theory, you will have properly dosed the area as well.

In theory but my guess is that this theory results in the lawn imbibing most of your dose for the tree.

I will have to dig into my reference material but I am quite certain that soil drenches and soil injections (Immid.) tested consistently in the 60 percentiles. In heavy pressure (and this is what really matters isn't it?) if a thousand larvae attack your ash then the math tells you that 400 will be successful. This constitutes a complete waste of money and time for the applicator and the client IMO.

The only viable treatments are immidacloprid or emamectin benzoate injections unless you are just going through the motions and not much or no infestation is present and you want to make a buck or two. If that is the case when pressure increases you will know it by the failure of your treatment and death of your client's tree and who knows, maybe a lawsuit.

There is really no way to sugar coat this data and consequent results.

PS. Safari trunk sprays have fallen out of favor in recent tests and Pentrabark has proven to be not any factor with or without it.

 

[mckeetree]

In theory but my guess is that this theory results in the lawn imbibing most of your dose for the tree.

It will. That is a terrible way to apply imidacloprid to trees.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Drench is bad for any tree target application. I think it should only be used in bedding and hedge applications, using soil injection as the primary mode.

I remember reading some where that you do not need to do a full dripline, but 5-10 ft from the base, in a ring that stops ~ 3 ft out. This is because the highest density of absorptive roots are in this area, any farther out and they become too diffuse to matter.

 

[ATH]

A) Imidacloprid direct injections and (PROPERLY APPLIED) imidacloprid soil treatments have performed equally in all of the university studies - regardless of what the injection salesman would have you believe.

B) When applying imidacloprid in the soil whether it is injected or drenched, it should be right at the base - NOT away from the base. So you can stick the injection needle between the root flares 2-4 inches deep for injection or dig a small trench around the base and pour your traetment in that (technically called "basal drench" I think).

C) I know Pentra Bark doesn't help Safari, but I haven't seen anything indicationg that Safari doesn't work very well. It is certainly more expensive, but I'd be interested in seeing any study results suggesting it does not work well. FYI, this is now also labeled to be applied as a soil basal drench...but I'd still rather use bark spray. Valent told me the 2 modes of action perform equally well (so if one works, they both will, if one doesn't, the other likely won't either...).

 

[treevet]

A) Imidacloprid direct injections and (PROPERLY APPLIED) imidacloprid soil treatments have performed equally in all of the university studies - regardless of what the injection salesman would have you believe.

This, above, is completely false and inaccurate information. I have been in consistent contact with one of the lead researchers at Ohio State and have read data to the contrary of this above post.

 

[mckeetree]

This, above, is completely false and inaccurate information. I have been in consistent contact with one of the lead researchers at Ohio State and have read data to the contrary of this above post.

I wasn't going to say anything but since you did.... I also have heard data to the contrary from unbiased speakers from universities at some of the programs I have attended. Also, I hope somebody smarter than me ( and I hope for the integrity of this forum that would include many people) could shed some more light on the total amount of imidacloprid you can use in a given area when soil injecting trees. Someone told me once you can only use 8.6 oz. of ACTIVE ingredient per acre. Soil based tree injection of this product goes by caliper inch at breast height, doesn't say anything there about an acre. There is a high and a low rate mentioned on the label. I brought this up to a rep from Bayer in the presence of someone from the Texas Dept. Agriculture who said "Good question." The guy from Bayer had the label up on his laptop in a minute and said "Do you see here where it says 8.6 oz. of active ingredient per year per acre in broadcast applications? See where it says broadcast applications in bold? The only thing it says about soil injection application of trees is the application rates per caliper inch. Does that answer your question?" I guess it did. Since then however, the confusion over total imidacloprid allowed per a given area per year for soil injection continues.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

This is from the Qualipro label

http://www.quali-pro.com/pdf/Imidacloprid2F_LABEL.pdf

For outdoor ornamentals, broadcast applications cannot exceed a total of 1.6 pints (0.4 lb of active ingredient) per acre per year.

A full doc search has 11 hits for PER ACRE

 

[ATH]

This, above, is completely false and inaccurate information. I have been in consistent contact with one of the lead researchers at Ohio State and have read data to the contrary of this above post.

I'd be happy to be wrong - as that would help to identify something more effective while remaining "cost friendly" (or at least more so than TREE-Age). I try to read everything I can coming out of OSU and MSU and go to several seminars a year to get updates. However, I have not been able to find anything consistent about imidacloprid. Everything I see indicates mixed results almost regardless of how it is applied. (when I say mixed results, one study will show something really promising, but another that studied the same thing shows less than acceptable results...).

No doubt, it is taken in more quickly with injections, but when I see canopy thinning reported it is all over the board regardless whether it is soil applied or injected into the tree.

If you are applying it in May, the increased uptake speed probably doesn't matter. The crop of bugs in the tree getting ready to emerge is too big to be killed by imidacloprid and both soil applied and injected will be in the tree by the time the new eggs are hatching.

I'm quite interested in seeing something that has shown better consistency with injections and which injection systems are showing that... I do hope I'm wrong and will gladly stand corrected/and make edited notes of the incorrect statements in the earlier post. That is the great thing about discussion among professionals - we can learn from each other.

 

[ATH]

Regarding the amount per acre: It doesn't look like the injected products have that limit (I only looked through the Mauget and Merit labels...). However, 2F and WSP both have per acre restrictions at the end of the label under "Restrictions". That would mean those restrictions apply to all uses of the product. For 2F formulations it is 1.6 pints for the WSP formulations it is 8.6 ounces.

So, while yes, the part under "Broadcast Applications" would not apply to soil drenches or injections the general label restrictions applies to all labeled uses of the product.

As to "what does that look like on the ground" (since trees are measure by caliper): That was what I tried to refer to earlier...I don't know what that has to look like in an urban environment. How creative can you get in drawing where "Acre A" ends and "Acre B" starts? The reality is that an acre is 43560sqft. It can be a circle, rectangle, square, or shaped like a zigzag... Clearly if a community wants to treat every ash tree within the city limits, they will be restricted in how much they can apply over the whole area. But if there too many trees on the east side of town and not many trees on the west side of town, can they say "the north side of Smith Ave constitutes 1 acre - a rectangle roughly 8' wide and 1 mile long - so even though there are a bunch of ash trees on East Smith, there are none on West Smith, so we didn't exceed our per acre limit. The south side of the street is another acre...not included in that first acre.

 

[mckeetree]

Regarding the amount per acre: It doesn't look like the injected products have that limit (I only looked through the Mauget and Merit labels...). However, 2F and WSP both have per acre restrictions at the end of the label under "Restrictions". That would mean those restrictions apply to all uses of the product. For 2F formulations it is 1.6 pints for the WSP formulations it is 8.6 ounces.

So, while yes, the part under "Broadcast Applications" would not apply to soil drenches or injections the general label restrictions applies to all labeled uses of the product.

As to "what does that look like on the ground" (since trees are measure by caliper): That was what I tried to refer to earlier...I don't know what that has to look like in an urban environment. How creative can you get in drawing where "Acre A" ends and "Acre B" starts? The reality is that an acre is 43560sqft. It can be a circle, rectangle, square, or shaped like a zigzag... Clearly if a community wants to treat every ash tree within the city limits, they will be restricted in how much they can apply over the whole area. But if there too many trees on the east side of town and not many trees on the west side of town, can they say "the north side of Smith Ave constitutes 1 acre - a rectangle roughly 8' wide and 1 mile long - so even though there are a bunch of ash trees on East Smith, there are none on West Smith, so we didn't exceed our per acre limit. The south side of the street is another acre...not included in that first acre.

Somewhat confusing isn't it? Regardless of what the rep from Bayer said that day I took the meaning of the label on the WSP to be 8.6 oz. of active ingredient per acre regardless of the application method using the general label restrictions. Now then, you can get into a whole different discussion with the "acre' deal.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Regarding the amount per acre: It doesn't look like the injected products have that limit (I only looked through the Mauget and Merit labels...). However, 2F and WSP both have per acre restrictions at the end of the label under "Restrictions".

I was able to find some state laws, and they state combined use and active ingredient in the restrictions.

 

[pdqdl]

On a practical basis, if you make an application of injections or soil drenches according to the label instructions, you will never have a problem until there is some sort of ecological problem that draws the attention of whatever state Dept of Agriculture you happen to be in.

When the inspectors check up on you, they review your records, or they try to catch you on the road without the proper equipment or paperwork. I have never heard of them measuring the ground that you made an application to, evaluating the amount of pesticide that you reported that you used, and then reverse-engineering an answer as to whether or not you did it right.

I'm sure they can if they want to, but I'll bet that never happens unless you screw up in a really big way. Once you have put down an application, it becomes very difficult to prove (legally) that you are solely responsible for whatever measurements they might produce.

 

[treevet]

If there is an incident then circumstantial evidence may be enough to cook ya.

Better playing by the rules.

 

[mckeetree]

On a practical basis, if you make an application of injections or soil drenches according to the label instructions, you will never have a problem until there is some sort of ecological problem that draws the attention of whatever state Dept of Agriculture you happen to be in.

When the inspectors check up on you, they review your records, or they try to catch you on the road without the proper equipment or paperwork. I have never heard of them measuring the ground that you made an application to, evaluating the amount of pesticide that you reported that you used, and then reverse-engineering an answer as to whether or not you did it right.

I'm sure they can if they want to, but I'll bet that never happens unless you screw up in a really big way. Once you have put down an application, it becomes very difficult to prove (legally) that you are solely responsible for whatever measurements they might produce.

That makes sense but I still would like to hear what Bayer would have to say and not just from one of their salesman. I use the WSP75 product and have had pretty good success using the high rate of 1.6 oz. to 24 caliper inches of trees. Not so much success using the low rate. Using the high rate, that means using the 8.6 oz. of active ingredient limit per acre per year you can treat 168 caliper inches of trees on an acre site. I have a client that loves the results of this product. On his acre lot there is five 20 inch plus Post Oaks, four about 16 inch Post Oaks, one 16 inch Hickory and one 16 inch Ash. That is 196 caliper inches of trees. Based on the 8.6 oz. deal you can't even treat the guy's trees one time.

 

[pdqdl]

Maybe...use two different products that accomplish the same goal, each with different active ingredients. Voila! Now you can overdose, right?

Not necessarily.

Like I said earlier, all these applications consist of overdosing a small area, then applying that application to a bigger, untreated area. I wonder what the "application rate per acre" is if you did a quantitative analysis on the dirt from a soil drench?

Just use good sense, apply according to the rules as you can best interpret them, and you will probably be fine. Put down so much that they track you down by following the fish kill in the river back upstream to your client?

.................Now you've got a problem! ....... :jawdrop:

The purpose of these rules is to protect the people and the environment, yet allow the use of dangerous chemicals, not just to create administrative excuses to levy fines.

 

[mckeetree]

I wonder what the "application rate per acre" is if you did a quantitative analysis on the dirt from a soil drench?

I was wondering the same thing. I am going to talk to Bayer just for the heck of it to see what they say. I will post what I find out.

 

[ATH]

That makes sense but I still would like to hear what Bayer would have to say and not just from one of their salesman.........

Bayer says: 1.6 pints per acre for 2F formulations and 8.6 pints for the WSP formulations.

They aren't going to tell you something different than the label (unless you talk to somebody who is dumb enough to share personal opinion - but I can promise the company would throw their own under the bus if it ever came to a legal matter). "The label is the law". Even if you got permission to use a higher does in writing from the CEO you are still liable for the law. The only thing that matters is the label.

If you want a 'worthwhile' second opinion of the meaning of the label, talk to the agency charged with enforcement in your state (and get that in writing if it sounds like something different).

Like others have said...if you are reasonable you are probably OK, but that is kinda like saying you are probably OK if you drive 7mph over the speed limit. It is what it is. If somebody wants to show you how much authority they have, you better hope you stuck to the letter of the law.

 

[pdqdl]

:agree2:

...Particularly the part about throwing their own under the bus!

That all applies to university professors and County Extension agents, too.