Growth Regulators?

Nish

Well-Known Member
Location
North Carolina
Main difference is that one can legally be used on trees, while the other can't, and one is legal for use on turf, while the other isn't.

All these labels use this sort of wording:

"It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

Notice that it doesn't say that it's a violation of Federal law to use a product in manners not expressly approved in the labeling.

So, it would be inconsistent with the Pac-Low label to apply more than 4 quarts per acre per year, or to apply it in a way in which it would come into contact with workers. These are expressly forbidden by the label. But, at least by dictionary definitions, using a product in manners not expressly approved by its label is not for that reason inconsistent with the label.

I'd love to know the relevant case laws.
 

cerviarborist

Very stable member
Location
Florida, USA
Do you think the chemical companies would go to the time and trouble to put it in differently labeled packages if they didn't have to? There's your sign. The law says my pesticide ticket doesn't encompass turf, so I'm not going to have any pesticides in my inventory, that are strictly labeled for turf. Florida DACS and my insurance underwriter like it better that way. My reputation is based on being the knowledgeable and ethical guy, not the shortcut guy. I'd rather not risk being compelled to participate in case law on that intimate of a basis to save a couple bucks.
 

Nish

Well-Known Member
Location
North Carolina
Do you think the chemical companies would go to the time and trouble to put it in differently labeled packages if they didn't have to? There's your sign. The law says my pesticide ticket doesn't encompass turf, so I'm not going to have any pesticides in my inventory, that are strictly labeled for turf. Florida DACS and my insurance underwriter like it better that way. My reputation is based on being the knowledgeable and ethical guy, not the shortcut guy. I'd rather not risk being compelled to participate in case law on that intimate of a basis to save a couple bucks.

I think case law would be decisive here, and I suspect that, when a label expressly approves of a specific use, this provides legal protection to the applicator in that use even if off-label, non-inconsistent uses of a chemical aren't as such a violation of Federal law. Since that legal protection will be important to many commercial applicators this is probably incentive enough for the manufacturers/distributors to pay the high costs of jumping through the regulatory hoops to expand the scope of their labels. Still, I'm not so sure that off-label use of a chemical necessarily means either lack of knowledge or lower ethical standards on the part of the applicator. One might, for example, follow guidance from a USDA publication to control specific invasive plants that aren't listed on the label of the same brand-name herbicides that the USDA publication recommends.
 

macrocarpa

Well-Known Member
Location
Midwest
Well if the Pac-Low label ever includes trees, I'll revisit the product. I'm sure there is resistance from allowing that to happen. It was nice when the smaller quantity of Shortstop was available. I don't use growth regulators very often and just noticed they only sell it by the gallon now.
 

Nish

Well-Known Member
Location
North Carolina
Well if the Pac-Low label ever includes trees, I'll revisit the product. I'm sure there is resistance from allowing that to happen. It was nice when the smaller quantity of Shortstop was available. I don't use growth regulators very often and just noticed they only sell it by the gallon now.

Cambistat is also labeled for trees. We've been pleased with the support we've gotten from Rainbow and are using their products. I don't think it's available in smaller quantities either though, and, with shipping, it'll probably be more pricey than Shortstop.
 
Last edited:

JD3000

Most well-known member
Location
Columbus
Cambistat is also labeled for trees. We've been pleased with the support we've gotten from Rainbow and are using their products. I don't think it's available in smaller quantities either though, and, with shipping, it'll probably be more pricey than Shortstop.
I use generics.

Rainbow doesn't need the $$$.

They recommended and tested emmamectin on linden trees with zero regard to bees.
 

cerviarborist

Very stable member
Location
Florida, USA
I think case law would be decisive here, and I suspect that, when a label expressly approves of a specific use, this provides legal protection to the applicator in that use even if off-label, non-inconsistent uses of a chemical aren't as such a violation of Federal law. Since that legal protection will be important to many commercial applicators this is probably incentive enough for the manufacturers/distributors to pay the high costs of jumping through the regulatory hoops to expand the scope of their labels. Still, I'm not so sure that off-label use of a chemical necessarily means either lack of knowledge or lower ethical standards on the part of the applicator. One might, for example, follow guidance from a USDA publication to control specific invasive plants that aren't listed on the label of the same brand-name herbicides that the USDA publication recommends.
That's assuming a PCO is 1. Foolhardy enough to flaunt Federal regulations and 2. Doubles down on their foolhardiness to throw good money after bad to appeal a Federal citation/fine. Go on ahead and pursue your argument. I'll look forward to reading about the disposition of your trailblazing case.
 

Nish

Well-Known Member
Location
North Carolina
Okay, but the question is whether off label usage is a flaunting of Federal regulation. Maybe it is, but it's not clear from the usual product labeling of the sorts of chemicals we use. The wording of the typical misuse statement leaves room for non-inconsistent off-label usage.
 

cerviarborist

Very stable member
Location
Florida, USA
Well if the Pac-Low label ever includes trees, I'll revisit the product. I'm sure there is resistance from allowing that to happen. It was nice when the smaller quantity of Shortstop was available. I don't use growth regulators very often and just noticed they only sell it by the gallon now.
I find that like a lot of tools and supplies, it's a lot easier to sell it when I already have it. Even more so when I'm able to tell the client "I've got it in the truck right now." It's not by any means a central pillar of my practice, but a gallon jug certainly earns the small amount of real estate it takes up in my shop, or in my truck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

macrocarpa

Well-Known Member
Location
Midwest
I find that like a lot of tools and supplies, it's a lot easier to sell it when I already have it. Even more so when I'm able to tell the client "I've got it in the truck right now." It's not by any means a central pillar of my practice, but a gallon jug certainly earns the small amount of real estate it takes up in my shop, or in my truck.
I agree with that. Just wrapping my head around it being $409 now. When I started buying shortstop it was $220 (in the smaller quantity). But thats the way things go when companies keep getting swallowed by each other.
 

macrocarpa

Well-Known Member
Location
Midwest
I did a bunch of soil amending/air knife work on this declining white oak and Am considering growth regulating it to try to slow down decline. What do you guys think? I have seen results with slowing growth, but not sure I have witnessed claimed results of reversing decline and other “health benefits” with paclo?
 

Attachments

  • 0A5F6809-E420-42B6-9FC2-40CBE0E6360B.jpeg
    0A5F6809-E420-42B6-9FC2-40CBE0E6360B.jpeg
    4.4 MB · Views: 18

cerviarborist

Very stable member
Location
Florida, USA
If the roots are healthy enough for the tree to metabolize the product, it can help. Around here more than one municipality spec it for mitigation of trees to be retained on construction sites.
 

Chaplain242

Well-Known Member
Hi all - use of growth regulators is a new subject for me, however have a Duranta Erecta tree (19'' DBH, pruned to 12') that I have been pruning however client doesnt want to prune frequently enough to keep any sort of form in the tree whatsoever. Was contemplating Paclobutrazol application, however have read that Paclobutrazol stimulates root growth whilst regulating foliage growth. If true may not be the best thing to do to Duranta.

Can anyone chime in on root stimulation characteristics of Paclobutrazol application?
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
I tell people it "changes the internal accounting for the tree" the leaves make just as much sugar (income), but the plant is not able to spent it on shoot elongation, so it spends it elsewhere: thicker leaves, more volatiles, more fine root growth.
 
Last edited:

Chaplain242

Well-Known Member
I tell people it "changes the internal accounting for the tree" the leaves make just as much sugar (income), but the plant is not able to spent it on shoot elongation, so it sounds it elsewhere: thicker leaves, more volatiles, more fine root growth.
Cheers ATH. Will it make the roots more invasive? Or just makes more fine roots on the roots already established?
 

cerviarborist

Very stable member
Location
Florida, USA
I tell people it "changes the internal accounting for the tree" the leaves make just as much sugar (income), but the plant is not able to spent it on shoot elongation, so it sounds it elsewhere: thicker leaves, more volatiles, more fine root growth.
I like that. I've been explaining trees' as having a "carbohydrate based economy" to clients for years, using income and expenditure analogies. I like the "internal accounting" phrase though, so I'm stealing it! :)
 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Kask Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger Tracked Lifts Climbing Innovations
Top Bottom