eab and soil contamination

treevet

treevet

Branched out member
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
I am wondering about future impact on the environment related to currently held opinions (Ash Coalition) on entire municipalities soil injecting imidacloprid for decades in the ROW. Also have recently encountered many huge lawn companies pushing ash soil injections for eab. The Ash Coalition eminated from my vicinity and I am familiar with the mind set.

We do some treatments to not lose key clients but I am concerned about entering these uncharted territories. Love to hear some opinions as this chem. was just researched a mere 10 years ago and we all know that surprises are likely to come to light down the road.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidesandyou/Fall08/Imidacloprid.pdf
 
I have the same concerns. Not only is soil injected imidicloprid the preferred treatment method for EAB it's also the #1 for Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.
I know soil type has a lot to do with chemical mobility and it supposedly doesn't move through clay soil or soil with high organic content. I still don't like it.
There is a limit of the amount of Imidicloprid that can be applied per acre, yet the majority of EAB treatments are being made on small residential lots by individuals or different companies. There is no way to know how much per acre is actually being applied.
I refused to treat ash trees by this method.
It has been banned in Canada and Europe for a reason.
 
What kinda results are the canadians getting? Are there cities up there under extreme EAB pressure?

What about azasol as a soil injection? (other than its expensive) I have been doing mostly dino trunk sprays lately for HWA where oils are not practical.

I do wish there was a better way.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What kinda results are the canadians getting? Are there cities up there under extreme EAB pressure?

What about azasol as a soil injection? (other than its expensive) I have been doing mostly dino trunk sprays lately for HWA where oils are not practical.

I do wish there was a better way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did the Dino/Safari trunk spray my 2nd year of eab treatments (about 3 years ago). If you think you can keep it all on the trunk you are mistaken. Much runs off and I had complaints that it killed the grass. I witnessed it as well.

Also you can see the stain on the trunk. Seems to me if you can see it then it has build up and how can it not block lenticils?
 
hhhmmm?

I've never had those issues. And I have been able to keep it from running down the tree and to the soil (very low pressure mist). A friend of mine applied it with a paint brush way up in a hemlock to get better uptake to the top and bipass where multiple leader fork out.
 
I hate getting the "hmmmm".

You're gonna get run off, you're gonna get mist drift and you're gonna get staining (and clogging IMO). I will bring in picts of the staining....the dead grass I guess I could get interviews but it don't matter that much to me.
 
I believe you. I just said hhmmmm because I haven't experienced the same results. Yes there will be some run off and mist, but it is a very minimal amount and more eco friendly than a soil injection IMO.
 
Did you have Pentrabark mixed with the Safari because Pentrabark can kill grass and other vegetation if sprayed on the foliage and it can give the trunk a white washed look. I have never seen Safari kill grass or bleach the trunk.

I do believe that video was shot right here in KY on a horse farm. I noticed that he wasn't wearing eye protection. I guess he didn't read the label
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
have you seen this before:

http://www.valent.com/professional/products/safari/video.cfm

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice link macrocarpa. It is seller originated and I am seeing run off IMO. Almost impossible not to get a little. I used it when the only alternative with Safari was the trunk spray and I used the Stihl manual back pack sprayer. It is another tool in the box tho and I will still use it sometimes. My guess is it is more expensive than basal soil injection but as mentioned cheaper than basal trunk injections.
 
Yes I was using Pentrabark. Good call. But I have seen the bleaching/staining on many other company's treatments using the product. I would have to ask if they used it. Thanks.

I am not likely to use the Pentrabark anymore because of lack of efficacy recognized by leading researchers, one of which I have personal email contact with.
 
[ QUOTE ]

It has been banned in Canada and Europe for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually imidacloprid was never allowed in the first place to treat trees in Canada. It was available in solupaks for treating grubs in lawns until the cosmetic pesticide ban (in Ontario anyway).

Fornthe longest time in Ontario our best systemic pesticide available was ace caps.

Now we have treeazin registered only for eab and I believe pmra (our regulator) has just allowed confidor to be used on trees. It's imidacloprid.

I have big concerns with the blanket prescriptions of imidacloprid, it's a problem.

Apparently we can still use cygon for basal applications but I'll never touch the stuff.

Vince
 
I agree with your concerns but would like to know if any research has defined those concerns. This neuro toxin is said to be somewhat specific to insects as opposed to mammals. It is said at times to not be persistent in the environment and other times questionable (even other than sandy, porous soils. Its breakdown products are mostly said to be innocuous. It only list a few issues such as earthworm mortality and some other vague concerns.

All researchers, including those signing my town member's initiated "coalition" including many highly respected experts (among non experts) seem to have no problem with this chemical being injected into the soil anywhere for decades.

If we oppose, we need to be more specific. Is there any data from a well known public protection group of chemical experts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom