For the record.......

QualiProGuy

New Member
Hello all....

I've been lurking here for a while and have been biting my tounge on a lot of these threads waiting to post . There are some amusing threads on here and I thought I should attempt to set the record straight on our product.

My name is Tommy Smith and I am the distributor of Quali Pro Propiconazole 14.3.

I am located in Austin Texas and all of my contact info can be found on the TexasOakwilt.org web site that the Texas Forest Service utilizes.

First of all, the rumor or our "being out of business" has to be my favorite one so far. I can guarantee that not only are we not "out of business" but are selling more of our Propiconizale 14.3 now than ever and are taking more deliveries from the factory now more than ever.

Next...as to the efficacy of our product.

Quali Pro purchaced all of the patent data FROM SYNGENTA to formulate this product.

The only distinction between the two is the blue dye additive that was a regulatory component anyway.

As for research being done on the product....I can reference Dr. Apple who heads all Oak Wilt Research at Texas A&M Univeristy.

Kim Camili - Oak Wilt coordinator for the Texas Forest Service.

Jordy Hagen - Tree fund liason for the Texas ISA whose department is responsible for all scientific research for that organization in Texas.

Gene Gehring - former Texas Forester (who in his capacity with that organization PERFORMED RESEARCH ON ALAMO). Is now in private business and is our biggest customer.

I have had several of my clients that, while skeptical at first, have come to believe that our product was actually taken up by the Oak Trees FASTER than Alamo was....and I will be happy to provide you with their names for reference in private discussion.

I realize that the nature of the internet is ripe with mis-information and rumor spread quickly, so I encourage you to contact any of the above before making judgement on our product.

And we certianly are NOT out of business.

Thanks for reading this far.

Tommy
 

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
If you are making a clone of a product how can the clone uptake faster than the original?

I've always thought that cloned products were cookie cutters of the original. If not, how do you get the product labeled without going through all of the field tests again. Is there something that I'm missing?
 

Camz

New Member
We are not saying that it is quicker to uptake. Our customers are saying that.
Our manufacturer payed millions of $ for Data Compensation from Syngenta. The product is an exact copy except for the dye. Not a cookie cutter. Texas A&M is confirming and our current customers love it.

Camz
 

jordy4trees

New Member
I am a Certified Arborist and I have been a big supporter and user of Syngenta's Alamo product for many years in south Texas. It has been a tested and proven product. *The biggest news in Oak Wilt treatments this decade is the release of the new generic product featured as "Quali-Pro" Propiconazole 14.3. As arborists, we have waited many years for this, as we have not had a choice of competing products and prices. This new product has been passed by the Texas Forest Service and is currently flooding the market with rave reviews at a fraction of the Alamo cost. I do not understand why individuals are slandering the new product and at the same time they are endorsing Alamo. They are the same product. Why would one shoot themselves in the foot over this issue unless it affects their direct sales? Their comments have since been removed from this ongoing discussion and site. The new product is a post patent production that owns and offers the same research as Syngenta. If they are slandering Quali-Pro, they are slandering Alamo. They are both excellent products and are very effective for oak wilt control. Who would possibly pay more for Alamo when the new product is a fraction of the cost? ---Jordy Hagen, Owner of Oak Wilt Trenching of Texas, Inc./Design Tree Farm
I fully endorse this product and will aid other arborists in spreading the exiting news. Quali-Pro looks to be the logical future.
This product will be the household choice for Oak Wilt control and Dutch Elm Disease!
 

TREEREX

New Member
Mr. Hagen,

I am glad that poeple are starting to talk more about Quali-Pro Propoconizol.
I can tell you from experience, the stuff is the same as Alamo (except hundreds of dollars cheaper). I know of at least two other arborist that have done extensive on site proving of this product in real live trees. We all agree that it disolves the same as Alamo, goes into the tree the same as Alamo, smells the same as Alamo, etc..... The product is amber in color (does not have the indicator dye) NO PROBLEM, we can live with the lack of dye. All in all, our feelings are that the product in a God send and for only $350 per gallon, I am putting a heck of a lot more money in my pocket than if I were using the liquid gold(Alamo). Again, thanks to Quali-Pro or whoever for making my year!

Rex Enochs
 

rborist1

New Member
Hagen........yer a punk! /forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I see that you are now a bigshot with the Texas ISA chapter. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
Hey gang,

The discussion of Alamo/QP has brought in a number of new people to Treebuzz. that is great. But there is something that I have to bring up. This is a discussion forum not an advertising forum. On any of the forums that I participate in it's considered poor netiquette to promote anything taht you have a financial interset in. That does get to be a bit awkward I realize. Discussing is one thing, putting in company information and contact info crosses the line.

In respect to the sponsors of the forum, I'm asking people to consider doing some minor editing to cleanup any advertising. Mark and I have talked about this issue and we want to keep things open and flowing. Neither of us want to be heavy handed parents either.

It sounds pretty exciting to have "the same" product available at a reduced price. This should mean that more trees will be given longer lives. More, older trees means a better world. Seeing gaps in allees hurts. After seeing rows of trees dieing I'm optimistic that there will be more oaks and elms around for the next generation of arbos.
 

Chum

New Member
And we're still looking at phytotoxicity and damage to vascular tissue at the injection sites. Multiple treatments necessary for infected trees, no one has tackled this destructiive reality.

We're all looking at the promotion of a fungistat, not a cure for wilt, period. All it's properties have been found to only temporarily inhibit sexual reproduction and it's a sad use of research dollars to designate them to marketing instead of going back to square one and study the particular ability for this fungus to perforate and move beyond any tylosis attempt to obstruct and isolate it's feeding presense.

It reminds me of beta-blocker and seratonin inhibitor promotion..released of obligatory long-term health effect data, manufacturers can enjoy federal blessing of agency's approval because they are now staffing the agencies thanks to industry's successful campaign contributions. Four to one spending ratio on advertising vs. research.

I'm reading names of individuals lending support to this new "release" and none of them I recall ever having contributed to the cooperative research efforts covering decades of frustrating field work. It takes years of observation in order to bless a product, and no one has offered data that crunches efficacy and numbers together in a final report. It's high time science comes back to valid study instead of hysteria and hype. That's my two cent's worth this morning, not an eager proponant of a very unproven and highly toxic temporary fix that can and will kill the tree they intend to save over a course of treatments necessary to keep an active infection under control. It moves the problem away from the current landowner and presents it to the next one.
 

jordy4trees

New Member
Craig, It is unfortunate that you respond in this manner. Now I guess I am forced to purchase a flight to Canada and bring a ladder so that we can meet you face to face. We have not talked in some time. I hope you and your family are doing well.Take care my friend. Please call Design Tree Farm in San Antonio.
 

rborist1

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Craig, Please call Design Tree Farm in San Antonio.


[/ QUOTE ]

PM me with the # ya bum! /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
[ QUOTE ]
We know it works for oaks, I'm tellin ya it works for elms also.
Dave MN tree guy

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the research Dave!?

Anything...?
 

QualiProGuy

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We know it works for oaks, I'm tellin ya it works for elms also.
Dave MN tree guy

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the research Dave!?

Anything...?

[/ QUOTE ]


how 'bout this?

MARK L DUFF, CF
> STAFF FORESTER II
> TEXAS FOREST SERVICE
> P.O. BOX 293127
> KERRVILLE, TX 78029-3127
>
> OAK WILT SUPPRESSION PROJECT
> FOREST STEWARDSHIP
>
> Office - (830) 257-7744
> Cell - (979) 220-0837
> Fax - (830) 257-6444
> E-mail - mduff@tfs.tamu.edu
>
> OAK WILT HOTLINE: (512) 473-3517
> OAK WILT WEBSITE: www.texasoakwilt.org
>
> TEXAS FOREST SERVICE WEBSITE:
> http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Camilli, Kim [mailto:KCamilli@tfs.tamu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:02 PM
> To: Alexander, Christie; Burks, Renee; Duff, Mark; Edmonson, Robert;
> Grotty, Rob; Rooni, Jim; Beckers, Eric; Lewis, Daniel; Peterson, Mark;
> Billings, Ron
> Cc: Boggus, Tom
> Subject: Qualipro Research Complete
>
>
> I have some new information on the research that Dr. Appel from Texas
A&M
> University was conducting on Qualipro efficacy. I was told yesterday
that
> the research is now complete. They conducted tests with different
> concentrations of the fungicide in microtiter plates with a dilution
> plating
> system. The fungicide was added to the microtiter plate along with
> Ceratocystis fagacearum. The lowest concentration of Qualipro was 6
parts
> per billion (ppb). What they found was that the fungicide was
fungitoxic
> to
> C. fagacearum to the lowest concentration (6 ppb) . The technician
that
> performed the analysis also stated that it seemed to more fungitoxic
then
> Alamo. So from a research stand point on efficacy it controls the oak
wilt
> fungus and from what I am hearing from the arborists that are using
it,
> there have not been any problems with the product.
>
> I have also worked with Jamie Briggs to set up a test plot in which he
has
> injected approximately 10 trees with Qualipro and 10 trees with Alamo
in a
> random distribution. These trees will be infected with C. fagacearum
this
> year and next year. So we will have some results on the injections
into
> the
> trees as well. A 20ml rate for each product.
>
> I will keep you updated on new information as soon as I receive it.
>
>
> Kim Camilli
> Texas Forest Service
> Oak Wilt Coordinator
> Austin, TX 78761
> phone 512-371-7011
> fax 512-451-6946
>
> LCRA Oak Wilt Hotline
> 1-512-473-3517
> Oak Wilt Website
> www.texasoakwilt.org
 

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
QP,

You only addressed oak wilt which seems to have a pretty good track record with Alamo and now your product.

Dave keeps talking about using it on DED but hasn't showed any studies to back up his claims. Do you have anything?
 

Chum

New Member
An important and very crucial element of that letter forwarded by Mark Duff that's carefully worded to imply Quali-Pro's version (and still maintained as a "clone with only the absense of a dye") is observed to be more "seemingly" toxic than Alamo's label is an in-vitro reaction. That's a big suggestive opinion that questions the validity of methodology. Gasoline or Lysol generates the very same reaction to mycelia in-vitro. There's no mention of double-blind, quantification by statistic, or verification.

Nor does it quantify the reaction in a tree...the fundamental thrust of inquiry. Therefore it still has yet to have data that indicates it's efficacy, and we'll be waiting until that comes out.

That is not data Quali-Pro.
 

QualiProGuy

New Member
You are absolutely correct, Oakwilt.

That is not the data from the study, that is an email from the Texas Forest Service's Oakwilt Coordinator to the extention agents letting them know that the study is complete and a brief summary of its' conclusions.

I posted it as an answer to Tom Dunlap's question of whether "tnttree" was aware of any research being done on the Quali Pro product and its efficacy.

I didn't realize that he meant specifically research in DED.

For the study data and study procedures you would have to contact the study administrator.

We agree with you in that this is about the trees and if Propiconazole formulated by Syngenta (Alamo) is not effective in your treatment of these diseases then it should not be used and neither should Quali Pro.

Our only contention is that if you have had success with Syngenta's patented formulation of propiconizole (Alamo) in the past, you will continue to have success with the generic product as it is identical to Alamo. (minus the blue dye)

Syngenta has done all of the research as to which diseases this fungicide will treat, the proper carries to delliver it and sold that research and its patent data to Farm Saver. This is why Dutch Elm treatments are on our label. (verbatim with the Alamo label)

I would be very interested in the conclusions of the "summit meeting" you mentioned in another thread. There seems to be a lot of conflicting and flat out bad info floating around on this topic. I believe something like that would clear much of this up and stop the senseless in fighting.

If the tree care professionals come to an agreement as to whether or not this an effective measure (injecting micro-encapsulated propiconazole fungicide at a 14.3% concntration with a water carrier) for treating sick tress, wouldn't an affordable generic brand allow for more trees to be treated?

It would also stimulate economic growth in your industry, allowing for these tree care companies to grow and get to more trees.

This same thing is happening in the pharmacutical industry as many of those origional products are becoming outrageous in price.

It takes time to build trust in something new, and we understand that.

I'm learning a lot from reading this board and your posts here are a big reason for that.
 

Chum

New Member
Often just a talk with the extension agents is all it takes...and that's been part and parcel to much of the misinformation being disseminated. It's premature to drop names and institutions ahead of data publication and even the data from ALAMO work a decade ago has yet to be reviewed thoroughly. When it is, extropolating from those conclusions will help a great deal in understanding your product more accurately. Data review is becoming rare, marketing is pervasive...it's important to uphold standards of science before they completely are allowed to be bypassed. I know, what's coming for you is what they demanded of me, but didn't do themselves.

This time around we're going to stimulate some accuracy for a change. Expectations ran high but effectiveness - hopeful around those expectations - was pitifully lacking...a reason sales have been off for for ALAMO, and perhaps, knowing the web of interests involved, a reason the expiration happened without the normal and expected re-application. Bargains come when someone feels they made the best they could with it, now on to other things.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome your entry with an adaptation of an old, but often frustrating tool (not to mention the cost). I hope you very good success, and would like to help if possible..but I need the data and am anxiously awaiting it's publication.

Wilt is as destructive...if not more so...than it's ever been since 1983, when excitement and demand resulted in misdiagnosis of the original pathogen, inappropriate treatment protocols, and market wars. I've prescribed limited injections and found successes as well as failures, but like time and experience can show, the analysis of the statistical data bases that are important in determining an effective epidemic treatment are no where to be found - an extremely important and telling omission.

Tax monies underwrite - by the tune of billions here - the careful work of our landgrant college. For them to prematurely release suggestive heresay that I know will result in overnight promotion to inquiring minds and landowners here desperate to control the spread of this disease, is not science by standard at all. We've been through this before and it's money first, validity last. This time, let's pressure the lab at College Station (without the customary greased-palm grant checks) to uphold the necessity of accurate science - something they've been top-notch in the past.

There are things that can make this fungistat more effective, harder hitting than a stand-alone treatment. I realize toxicity has been modified many times and distribution technique studied ad nauseum, but multiple injections, no matter the manner, condemn a tree for lifetime treatments - as a palliative to "buy" time, are pretty much the only game in town and hopefully can allow us to extend one life until something better comes along or we nail this disease by ways we haven't studied yet. A&M should be on this, not verification of a label that some company submits. No offense intended, but they are the ones who should be doing the work, you should be free to distribute it. We all pay them for that.

Just my two cent's worth. I'd like to promote it, but tell people I'm waiting for some more information. They seem to understand that...makes for a good customer/tree surgeon relationship too. I think.
 

jordy4trees

New Member
I really like your comments on this subject. You, like myself have been dealing with oak wilt in the hill country for some time. To my understanding, the new generic product is a copy of Alamo wherte the new company purchased the data and research from Syngenta. Because of this, there should not be a discussion of waiting for research. You do hit the major issues of continued research...We need to leap to the next step beyond the trenching and treatment. Like any disease in trees or humans, we are always criticizing treatment if it is not a cure. It is true that A&M is grossly underfunded and they cannot be the only ones responsible for research. What about the fed. gov't that has not found it in their hearts to send $ for research? The $ going to organizations are not "greased". The money going to A&M just comes at a price of 45% off the top going to the university which really limits the research progress. Treatment and trenching is the only game in town right now, until someone takes responsibility and is backed by some serious funding. We must remember, this is not affecting the wine industry where loads of $ is available. We might feel our oaks are priceless, but not the gov't. I assume your check is in the mail towards research. In the meantime, we will do the best we can with the science that is available. Science is not a guarantee, we can just work with our best information. I appreciate your comments, I would like to continue sometime.
 
Top