PHC (IPM) is it worth it?
- Thread starter Leroy
- Start date
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Your right Levi it is drug dealing imo . I believe it bad for the environment . Bad for trees . Unnatural! Its a green paper chase.
DSMc
Well-Known Member
It is very sad that you and it seems like everyone else, including most practitioners, call this PHC and IPM. Nothing could be further from the truth, that is just squirt and fert chemical application and like you said is bad in every way except for fattening bankrolls.
The concept of PHC is a "comprehensive program for the management of the health, structure and appearance of plants in the landscape". IPM is a COMPONENT of PHC. It was never meant to promote the major use of chemicals. And, in fact, the National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Manual itself states that chemicals should be considered a last resort after scrutinizing all other options, be they natural or applied : biological, cultural, mechanical or physical.
Saying the system is bad and worthless because people are misrepresenting the concept would be like saying the concept of tree care is bad because the majority of the work you see is crap.
What can be done, beneficial or otherwise, is dependent on your knowledge and how you are willing to apply it.
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Notably plant health care and integrated pest management are not necessarily entailing use of chemicals . In fact, should be farthest from it as Davids pointed out . A holistic approach is to my liking ,as shigo pointed out some time ago that treatments that damage trees' tissues should be stopped,or something along those lines. Not to mention I think your changing the genetic code of trees over time,believe it. Did he say that too? . There are many cultural practices that can invigorate tree health , without any chemical s. If a tree has a pest problem its probable it has other underlying causes. Certain tree maladies are happening for a reason , but I do not personally believe chemicals solve a problem. Mask the issue slightly, yes. What harm can be caused in the process ?
Last edited:
oceans
Well-Known Member
Levi, I know for a fact that your heart is in the right place. What I keep coming to in my mind (and some guys I work with) is "Tree Time". Tree Time is slow. Very slow. Our society is often out for the quick fix, when the real issue is far more broad than and spray rig could ever hit. Tree Time mentality just helps us sit back and build a broader perspective, and in turn, new ideas.
ROYCE
Well-Known Member
I think it was Joni Mitchell Big Yellow Taxi that sums it up for me when I think about pesticide...
"Hey, farmer, farmer, put away that D.D.T., now!
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees, please!"
I prefer the Counting Crows version personally!! Good song really.
Levi,
I agree with a lot in your post. I believe there is no shortage of bad practice in the "PHC industry." Examples I see are unlicensed contractors, uneducated applicators, and unethical practices in the field.
However, to paint all chemical IPM/PHC work with a broad brush in that manner is no different than painting all tree climbers as toppers/hackers who don't know about trees, or care about the finished product. Both outlooks are terrible for our industry, and far from the truth.
Treetopflyer,
Are you implying that it would be better to let every ash tree die to EAB rather than treat with chemicals? How about our pine forests that have been destroyed by Mountain Pine Beetle. What about Spruce Budworm? The most destructive defoliator in the west. While this takes the argument slightly away from landscape trees, it is a valid point. Some pests can not be managed without chemical control. It is a dynamic environment, it is always changing. Natural approaches don't work on every pest, and injections aren't always cost effective. The idea is to use other controls before chemicals, and approach management with the lightest footprint possible.
I would argue that retaining beautiful ornamental trees of ALL sizes from invasive species as well as massively destructive native forest pest is worth the risks in SOME chemical work. We need trees to survive in the forest, as well as in urban environments.
There is more that goes into play than, "just spraying it." There is a lot that goes into licensing, and even more that goes into chemical work done properly with the utmost regard for the trees and environment. That's the whole point in licensing pesticide applicators.
As always hacks will be hacks, but there are millions of trees saved every year by chemical work.
I agree with a lot in your post. I believe there is no shortage of bad practice in the "PHC industry." Examples I see are unlicensed contractors, uneducated applicators, and unethical practices in the field.
However, to paint all chemical IPM/PHC work with a broad brush in that manner is no different than painting all tree climbers as toppers/hackers who don't know about trees, or care about the finished product. Both outlooks are terrible for our industry, and far from the truth.
Treetopflyer,
Are you implying that it would be better to let every ash tree die to EAB rather than treat with chemicals? How about our pine forests that have been destroyed by Mountain Pine Beetle. What about Spruce Budworm? The most destructive defoliator in the west. While this takes the argument slightly away from landscape trees, it is a valid point. Some pests can not be managed without chemical control. It is a dynamic environment, it is always changing. Natural approaches don't work on every pest, and injections aren't always cost effective. The idea is to use other controls before chemicals, and approach management with the lightest footprint possible.
I would argue that retaining beautiful ornamental trees of ALL sizes from invasive species as well as massively destructive native forest pest is worth the risks in SOME chemical work. We need trees to survive in the forest, as well as in urban environments.
There is more that goes into play than, "just spraying it." There is a lot that goes into licensing, and even more that goes into chemical work done properly with the utmost regard for the trees and environment. That's the whole point in licensing pesticide applicators.
As always hacks will be hacks, but there are millions of trees saved every year by chemical work.
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Not in the amount of time you see fit. Our lifetime is the blink of an eye to mother nature.
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
This is true.
Thanks, Levi. I am only pointing out for the people who do decide to fight EAB and other pests have the right to hire a good applicator, who can save the tree and mitigate many risks. There is a difference between an applicator with integrity and the a hack who sprays dead trees for customers. The one who tells people they can repair root rot and cankers with chemical work.
I respect your opinion, and letting a pest run it's course has it's place. I disagree with letting forest pests run their course without a plan. I believe we need to protect and utilize our best renewable recourse, trees. If pine forests are going to be destroyed by beetles, they should be logged before the wood is rotten and the state is on fire, which seems to happen often.
I respect your opinion, and letting a pest run it's course has it's place. I disagree with letting forest pests run their course without a plan. I believe we need to protect and utilize our best renewable recourse, trees. If pine forests are going to be destroyed by beetles, they should be logged before the wood is rotten and the state is on fire, which seems to happen often.
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Diversify the futur and deal with it one at a time. I respect your position will not try and change it though I wish more felt as I do about the big picture with all the affects of chemical usage whether on target applied or otherwise. I do not support chemical usage and will not ever. Personal choice and I'm only one person a rain drop in a river.
oceans
Well-Known Member
Eventually, a straw will break the Camel's back. Another philosophical topic...you, as a drop in the river, still make a difference.
Point is, it's easy for me to think I can sit back and say chemicals are bad, even when the very rope I climb on everyday is made from a non-renewable material. It's hard to pick and choose what we feel ok about.
When I say I think about Tree Time, it includes myself, and everything I use on a daily basis under the pretense of tree "care"...when in actuality, I'm really no better than anyone else. It's a tough one to wrap my head around, and I'm still working on that. Every day.
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Your right oceans. And I could climb on vines and feel good about support ing the environment ,but I may not live long to enjoy it. T here's so many ways that we degrade the quality of the plant this subject is only one of many ,but it does all make a difference even if its little at a time. Everyone makes a difference your right .
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
I feel that.
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Teaching respect for trees and showing people, especially kids, on how to properly prepare a site for a tree and watch it grow. Thats my proposal to eab . I don't know otherwise what to say about it . Its not easy to confront invasives without chemical . Were at a point of no return with earth and what we do on it , so planning for the future is a must. I hope the woodpecker population explodes. Wish i had better answers. Excuse me while I go throw up and sharpen my knife and hatchet
ROYCE
Well-Known Member
I understand what your saying TreeTop, you have a lot a great points and they really get me thinking about things. I wish we could live in a chemical free world as well. Ever heard this quote "We do not inherit this earth from out grandparents, We borrow it from our grandchildren"
I just think sometimes that if a small amount of chemical CAN save that tree, or forest, look what can then be enjoyed by our kids. I would have LOVED to see the great streets of American lined with Elm trees. That time has passed. I would hate to have to explain to my children what it was like to run a maple sugar operation, and describe to them what a sugar maple looked like, and how it produced sugar for us to eat. Because the Asian Longhorned Beetle destroyed all our maples. I think nature has run it's course on many things, and it's a shame in a lot of ways.
But I understand what you are saying, what do we do when guys are just pumping this stuff into the environment. Winter Moth anyone??
I just think sometimes that if a small amount of chemical CAN save that tree, or forest, look what can then be enjoyed by our kids. I would have LOVED to see the great streets of American lined with Elm trees. That time has passed. I would hate to have to explain to my children what it was like to run a maple sugar operation, and describe to them what a sugar maple looked like, and how it produced sugar for us to eat. Because the Asian Longhorned Beetle destroyed all our maples. I think nature has run it's course on many things, and it's a shame in a lot of ways.
But I understand what you are saying, what do we do when guys are just pumping this stuff into the environment. Winter Moth anyone??
Treetopflyer
Well-Known Member
Any suggestions?
DSMc
Well-Known Member
Topical or systemic treatments that can prevent or stop life threatening conditions are not a bad thing if the life under consideration warrants it. They (chemicals) just can't be the only answer to every situation. The resources that we have available to us now for diagnostic and remediation of out of wack growth conditions are truly incredible. But it is rare that we get called out to look at problem before it happens.
