[ QUOTE ]
We estimate now that over 300,000 trees have been treated with Cambistat since it came out in 2002. This has given us a large number of trees to analyze and refine the process.
I want to respond to Roxy and his comment to go light. We have updated the rate chart 7 times now and beleive that you should follow the rate chart EXACTLY. Reduce dosage as instructed in the application guide. The rates have been refined very thoroughly. The goal has been to create an application guide and system that has minimal chance of too much growth reduction.
I believe the 4 best uses for this material are:
1. Managing the growth on large trees growing on smaller sites (To keep from outgrowing the soil volume available to support it)
2. To increase the fibrous root systems of yard trees that are stressed from drought or other situations.
3. To increase the trees ability to manage its water better in situations where it is prone to drought.
4. To increase tolerance to leaf fungus diseases.
Companies such as Bartlett, Davey and The Care of Trees have made it a staple in their tree health programs, which bodes well for its future. Please continue to call us with feedback.
Thanks
Tom Prosser
Rainbow Treecare Scientific
[/ QUOTE ]
From reading your post, I'd conclude that each point you listed appears to be a reasonable potential benefit as long as history does not take a sharp turn.
The one thing you wrote that really caught my attention, and seems to merit the least amount of optimism, was the concluding summary where you mentioned Davey and Bartlett as good for the "bodes" of Cambistat's future.
Why I say that, is that the facts and time are what "bodes" well for the future. The big names in our industry are not icon companies, but icon names like "oak", like "maple", like "hemlock".
Let us not put our past too far behind us, when icons of arboriculture seemed to "bode" well for the future of tree wound dressing, for virtually all trees. Then like out of nowhere, big-name-use as a credit for the wound paint, was neutralized by the real relevant laboratories - that within each tree, but within each micro-environment as well.
All it takes sometimes is like 7 more days, and someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a product causes cancer, then SWOOSH !!, off the shelf it goes.
And that kind of reality demonstrates all the more, that its very important not to become so dependent on one product, that we don't put equal emphasis on alternatives.
Personally, I prefer for products to survive. It's one more screwdriver in the toolbox so to speak.
