PHC (IPM) is it worth it?

guymayor

Well-Known Member
I agree with Dan and David here; responsible use is far better than avoidance. Re standards, has Anyone looked at the draft A300 Part 10? They call it IPM, but it's heavily biased toward chemical use, with very little 'integration' of physical/bio/cultural methods. It just finished the 2nd public review and is headed for the rubber stamp in March.

It's hard to understand the obscure wording, and to participate in the A300 process. But it's very naive to assume that the authors have the industry's interests in mind more than their own.
 

Treetopflyer

Well-Known Member
You never forget that pest and that mistake. The next time you will sell pre-watering yourself because you can't trust the customer to do it right, and you go with max label rate to permeate tissues of a large tree, or you call your PCA, change treatment or whatever you think it will take, because you sure as hell don't want to go back again
Don this is a problem I encounter (trusting the customer to do it right) . If you have a comprehensive plan and they are willing to participate because they love their tree or dislike the effects of the pest, ie.. Sap on car whatever. I think its got to be established as to which route is going to be best and as the expert you must not be limited to your knowledge of just the tree, soil ,the pest , the predisposed factors,but making head way with the people , they are the main ingredient in my book. The ability to read them and after talking with them deciphering in a few short minutes what their motives are and if they are responsible enough to be apart of the plan for the tree . Im at the point of not trusting most people on there word of I'll monitor that or I'll make sure I will have my sprinkler guy move that head ,whatever the case because of what experiences I've had with leaving some parts of the treatment to the client. I don't set myself up for free return visits , I set myself up with a comprehensive plan of if this occurs then this is what I do and this is what it will be for the visit . You will set yourself free garentees and "free returns " as well you weed out clients whom do not truly appreciate your time or the tree preserving process. Restricted use chemical or otherwise.
 

Treetopflyer

Well-Known Member
My question to all you wise peoples and pupils out there is when you inject a tree what does the effect of the chemistry do to the future of that trees descendents in the long run the long run .? Is it not a thought that over times evolutionary process trees are developing a defense potential that will be passed on to the seeds they produce and we would see a pest resistant cultivar within the species naturally ? Trees have their own chemistry and many may die in this natural process ,but each generation may become stronger to resist what ails them.?Or just maybe I'm a dimwitted fool off my rocker?:frenetico:ok I know I am ,but I'm interested in others thoughts on my first question if your not too busy:bananas:
 
Last edited:

DSMc

Well-Known Member
... when you inject a tree what does the effect of the chemistry do to the future of that trees descendents in the long run the long run .?...
That is one aspect to consider although if the alternative to injection is death by pest or chainsaw that particular tree specimen's contribution to the future gene pool is going to be limited. Often, if used appropriately, injections are short term options in the long term life of the tree. Improvements made in a tree's growing situation can sometimes take a long time to become evident. This is typical of the decisions made on a daily basis with trees; there is almost never one right answer. Add up all your information and give it your best shot.
 

oceans

Well-Known Member
Isn't that what happened to mankind? We kept injecting the weak ones and now look at what we have!
I think much of our opinions on this matter come down to how broad our perspectives are, and how much time we can put between our own existence, and that of the world itself. Many people want to see the change in their own lifetime. There's something wild about knowing that one may never live to see any result of their actions.
 

oceans

Well-Known Member
I agree fully. My basic opinion/belief on these matters is to let nature play it's course. It is also my opinion that we as humans have greatly disturbed the bio-sphere on this planet through our arrogance and naivety.

Consider the pine forest in my back yard. The forest service says that it is inevitable, all the lodge-poles from NM to BC will fall to the beetle. Yet people still go out as missionaries spraying the forest with pyrethrin. A co-worker asked me why I was not interested in doing fire mitigation and pine beetle work last week. My answer is that I believe that we created this problem and we actually have no idea of the sensitivities and intricacies of the organisms and ecosystems with which we constantly tamper. We may think we know what's best but the bottom line is that no living person or institution can even come close to comprehending the "the circle of life". It is a grand spectacle no doubt that we are fortunate to witness and experience, we should be happy to be a part of the Great Wheel and enjoy the ride! Quite trying to change seats!!!

These are just my opinions obviously and not aimed at any one person or thing.
Eloquent, Levi. That was s good read. ;)
 

guymayor

Well-Known Member
OK, so if you see a treatably diseased/infested tree in someone's yard, do you confess to not knowing the entire 'circle of life', so you can do nothing?

Get with the arborist program, Simba! Of course we don't know it all, but we do have SOME idea, enough to guide some responsible actions.
 

DSMc

Well-Known Member
Isn't that what happened to mankind? We kept injecting the weak ones and now look at what we have!
Hahaha! That is such a tiny part of why things are screwed up. To understand what happened to mankind you will need to go way, way back to when we gave up strength and freedom in favor of agriculture and empire building. Clearly a problem beyond the scope of PHC in the urban environment.

PHC can be done right or it can be a total lie. Caring for the health of trees in the urban landscape is my chosen profession and I love it. Sure I also remove trees, lots of them, but helping a tree over a tuff spot in its life is what I enjoy the most. I think it is very important to not confuse the urban forest with the wilderness or wildlands. Our trees still do what trees do but they are, for the most part, not governed by nature. No tree evolved as a species with tall buildings, concrete foundations, sidewalks and turf grass.

Saving a tree in someone's front yard will have no effect on forest health but it can bring great joy and benefits for those that live under it.
 

Naturalway

New Member
I think our job is to meet the needs of our clients in a responsible manner. We have come a long way in the last 30 years and so has the EPA. Keeping trees healthy with what they need is a good start (humic acids, benefit bacteria, bio-pack, etc.). Here is Denver trees are at a premium, losing one is often not an option to a client. We also focus on droplet size, spreader stickers, mix rates, application techniques, and other methods that can make a big difference on chemical usage. Remember water is chemical and natural water or water made in a lab is still water.
 

Bryan Gilles

New Member
Realistically if you care about your customers and their landscape you should only
Be suggesting treatment when it will comply with the homeowners wants. You shouldn’t be pushing drugs (treatments). Larger practices might not care because they have payrolls and lots of bills. On a small scale you can care about what you do and make a good living providing options to people.
 
I have read through the responses in this thread, and I think it's pretty amazing how people have reacted to the original comment (even if that comment is now nothing but a period). As an environmentally-minded human I side with those who would support holistic and more environmentally friendly approaches to PHC. I do, however, see a pretty clear divide in the responses to this thread. Some are speaking in generalities. I believe, generally, that it is always better to find non-chemical responses to problems when they can be found. I also believe, generally, that proper cultural practices and further customer education will help to push our industry towards progression.

That being said, I also believe there is one thing the responses to this thread have neglected to address - and that is the now globalized nature of our society. The strongest line in this thread could probably be seen as the response to EAB. This is not a naturalized threat. It is not native, nor does it respond to holistic treatments here as it would in its indigenous zones. It is impossible to tell a customer that they will have to remove a dozen mature trees because "I believe it is better for the environment" - even more impossible to tell a township they will lose 100+ trees because I refuse to use chemicals. Yes, synthetic chemical pesticides are a last resort - and in the case of the EAB, the time for last resorts has come. Is it environmentally ethical for me to watch native species succumb to a non-native invader when I know there are preventative measures?

In my very humble opinion, we have been given stewardship of the land. We, as arborists, have specifically taken on the stewardship of our respective area's trees. Should we not then do everything in our power to protect the trees which we have dedicated our professional lives to? We have already decided to protect, enhance, and sometimes remove the tree populations of our customers through use of what we call "better practices." I can't help but think we've come to this conclusion from some sort of scientific discovery - is chemical treatment not the same? Many of us are managing urban forests, where residents, infrastructure, and nature must coincide with some degree of environmental equanimity. To throw that balance completely out of whack simply because I refuse to use chemicals seems, to me at least, to be actually short sighted.

I don't know. I might not know what I'm talking about, but I - like many of us - have to deal with these thoughts everyday. I may be wrong, or I may be right. I do what I believe is ethical and helpful to the environment in which I serve.

Thats all,

TNM
 

JD3000

Most well-known member
No argument here. Oversold, many times unnecessary in the long term, not sustainable, etc. Many a bad practice perfirmed daily throughout the growing season.

PHC certainly has its place and can be quite profitable as well. It's a matter of one's principles and evolving knowledge to best utilize the tools of PHC.
 
Top