Lepidoptera systemic

Re: Lepidopera systemic

I actually just got some from Rainbow with a promotion that they have now. I bought some Transect for a job and they threw in a pouch of Lepitect.
I can't say that I've used it, or even had a chance to sell for it. But what I can say is that I have been with Rainbow for a few years now, and they're stuff works, and their customer service is good too.
Worth a try...
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

THe active ingredient is acephate aka orhtene. It will work well but BT is a far better choice. No drilling, no organophosphates. Difficult to spray bt if the tree is large. Also, i'm not sure if acephate is proven as a soil drench treatment. I've heard it binds with organic matter in the soil.

Y'all south of the border need to start looking at better alternatives that just shoving chemicals into trees. (south of the canada/US border, i'm not talking about mexico)
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

I have used BT in the past in Gypsy moth infestations and it was virtually useless.

You Canadians are in for a big surprise when your legislation prohibits you from protecting your important client's ash trees with anything that works.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

I looked into lepitect too. the label requires 25 gallons of mix/packet.

I was at the local garden center and saw little bottles of acephate for homeowner use. A bottle was like $15 and would be much easier to work with for small scale jobs/drenches.

having to mix 25 gallons would be a pain if you only wanted to treat 1 tree, and how do you drench 25 gallons? it would need to be injected.

at least thats what i got from the label, maybe i'm wrong?

I have not used it yet, I think results are still in the discovery stage. I am taking the BT and spinosad route for now.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

I got a little Bean 200 gal tow behind spray rig that would be ideal for that as it is for EAB and Imidacloprid. But I think your drench will work if you try it (the translocation). Same effect.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

[ QUOTE ]
I have used BT in the past in Gypsy moth infestations and it was virtually useless.

You Canadians are in for a big surprise when your legislation prohibits you from protecting your important client's ash trees with anything that works.

[/ QUOTE ]

If bt was unsuccessful, you must have used it incorrectly. Applied a cording to the label in the first couple of instars, bt is highly effective at controlling gypsy moth. Also any other early instar Lepidopteran.

Macro, you seem like the kind of practitioner to not fall prey to the easy application of toxic pesticides. I would steer away from systemics like acephate or imidaclopdid unless there are no ther options to keep a tree from dying.

As for Canada, yes we certainly have problems with pesticide lAbelling. I can't use imidacloprid, or pretty much any other popular treatment that I available in the states. For eab we do have treeazin, an azadirachtin trunk injection. It is highly effective but also very not cheap. It is also omri listed. Unlike imidacloprid.

There is definitely a philosophy of "find bug, apply chemical x" that pervades our culture. We need to move awAy from that while still keeping trees alive. Pesticides like bt , Hort oils and neem seed products are a big step. In that direction. I would argue using acephate to control lepidopterans is a big step backward.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

The treatment was applied by the State of NJ by airplane and at the right time but under very heavy infestation and done 2X and did not work. They went to Sevin the next year and it worked just fine. Carbaryl is as innocuous as pesticides get imo. I also contracted some aerial sprays.

As for your eab treatments, I do not think there is any data as to the efficacy of them yet and they are not in the recommended treatments by researchers here.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

I would really like to know what research for borer treatments has be concluded? I did read some info that neem has shown good results for EAB. Anybody have experience with the below product? I'm getting ready to spray 44 bradfords for white peach scale and am thinking of adding this to the hort oil??? + its systemic so soil drench is an option too!

http://www.treestuff.com/store/catalog.asp?item=1723

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArT_bS6-274

What turned me off to the harsher pesticides is that I have got better results with oils than what suppliers were pushing. So I now am testing BT and other naturals to see my own results. + if I am going to be spraying this stuff until I retire, I obviously want to choose the safest options for myself and the environment.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

I know here in Ontario we (not me) do aerial bt to control gyspy moth and jackpine and spruce budworm with good success. Maybe not 100% control but good enough.

Look at treeazin produced by bioforest technologies in sault ste Marie ontario for eab control.

I'd type more but I'm away from my computer and my thumbs are too fat for this phone.

V
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

V, I've looked treeazin up before, interesting. Did you watch the above youtube webinar covering azasol? If that proves effective as a soil drench that would be sweet! I will likely use it in the near future as a foliar or drench.

One thing that sticks in the back of my head is the 1st hemlock tree I ever watched be treated for HWA when I was trying to decide what products/methods to use. It had spider mites and adelgid and the applicator used harpoon trunk injection followed by imicide (imidacloprid). Harpoon to knock down the adelgids quick and also wipe out the spider mites.

2 years later that tree was clean of adelgid but white as a ghost from spider mite explosion. It was so bad that the homeowner had the tree removed and had me plant new trees in its place. Also several large lower limbs died from where I think the harpoon concentrated, fried them.

That really gave me a respect for beneficial insects.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

Macro i just wathched that video. Soresville yet very informative.

The cost of azasol appears to be about 1/5 of treeazin and you'd have the flexibility of spray orsoil treatments. I know that for eab, aza... Is effective for two years due to sterility of eggs laid by the adults. Looks like a good tool for you. Not as selective as oils etc but likely way more effective.

I do wish that we had more options for pesticides, in particular trunk injections. Right now the only thing registered are ace caps (acephate capsules). I am grateful to have fewer pesticides on the landscape however.

I do agree that carbaryl is low harm and we do use it occasionally. However I don't consider it harmless at all. We just don't know enough about long term exposure to pesticides to call anything "safe".

What was this thread about again?
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

Thought I'd add a little expert opinion based on non biased research. An email friend of mine for years is one of the lead researchers at Ohio State on EAB. If you'd like his name pm me as I do not want to quote him unless I ask him.

It was successful as a soil drench on Honey Locust and spruce spider mites on 4" trees. Also for aphids , leaf miner and caterpillers on 4" trees. Also for Japanese beetles on 12" Linden (one app. gave season long protection under high pressure).

It was not effective for Gypsy moth on large (35 to 45") oaks. Probably too big.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

David, are you talking about azasol or treeazin? I'm assuming azasol since you mentioned soil drench?

Thats a good report. If it works well on spider mites, i'll have a new tool for treating blue spruce and atlas cedar (and any other blues that cant be oil sprayed).

For the gypsy moth treatment, did they foliar spray or drench? would make sense that a drench wouldn't disperse as well on large trees. We see that with the neonicotinoids on large hemlocks.

Ask the OSU guy if there is any literature that could be passed along covering the experiment?

thanks
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

Nuthin,

I'm with you in seeing fewer chemicals in the landscape but perhaps not for the same reasons. The indiscriminate use or over use is the problem, not necessarily the chemicals themselves.

There is a place and time for everything from letting a problem run its course to bringing out the biggest guns you can find to eradicate the problem.

I understand too your points about neem and other "naturals" but chems are chems and all have the potential for use & abuse.

Neem is the currant debutant "natural." At one time so were nicotine, rotenone and pyrethrim. Yet despite their natural origins these three are already being banned or severely controlled due to toxicity and abuse. They are also, in many ways, the original starting places for many "synthetic" insecticides.

Organic, natural, labratory, by-product or plant-based, does it really matter where the chemicals come from? If chemicals are wrong, they are wrong, no matter their method of production.

If we are to be intellectually honest in our thinking then attempting to claim one is bad or one is better simply because one is "natural" is hypocrisy.

Hort oils and soaps are considered "safe" because they are not viewed as chemicals and yet they are abused and over used in the landscape too. Yet, according to the reasoning shared, they too should be banned again, save for the fact that nobody views them as "chemicals" except the licensing board.

The most destructive chemical of all, one that is corrosive, abrasive & poisonous is also the most abused chemical, both by professionals and non. It is also the most necessary one. Of course that chemical is water.

True there are some chemicals that simply are like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb. But the problem is not with the chemical. The problem is solely the human using it.

That is true no matter what the item, whether it be a car in the hands of Mario Andretti versus my teenaged daughter, Cancer drugs in the hands of an oncologist versus a cosmetologist or pesticides in the hands of a trained diagnostician versus a cheap-labor applicator/homeowner. It is seldom the the object that is a the problem so much as the loose nuts behind the wheels.

What we need is to change our thinking and to change the thinking of the consumer. Too much decision making is made based on emotion with "studies" and "facts" cited to gin up the emotional decisions already made. This applies to fear base decisions as well as greed based decisions.

Rational thinking these things through will result in better use of what we have, less hazardous exposures to people and unintended targets and far, far less collateral damage from the use.

The trick, of course, will be to reign in the emotions of fear & greed.
smirk.gif
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

[ QUOTE ]
Nuthin,

I'm with you in seeing fewer chemicals in the landscape but perhaps not for the same reasons. The indiscriminate use or over use is the problem, not necessarily the chemicals themselves.

There is a place and time for everything from letting a problem run its course to bringing out the biggest guns you can find to eradicate the problem.

I understand too your points about neem and other "naturals" but chems are chems and all have the potential for use & abuse.

Neem is the currant debutant "natural." At one time so were nicotine, rotenone and pyrethrim. Yet despite their natural origins these three are already being banned or severely controlled due to toxicity and abuse. They are also, in many ways, the original starting places for many "synthetic" insecticides.

Organic, natural, labratory, by-product or plant-based, does it really matter where the chemicals come from? If chemicals are wrong, they are wrong, no matter their method of production.

If we are to be intellectually honest in our thinking then attempting to claim one is bad or one is better simply because one is "natural" is hypocrisy.

Hort oils and soaps are considered "safe" because they are not viewed as chemicals and yet they are abused and over used in the landscape too. Yet, according to the reasoning shared, they too should be banned again, save for the fact that nobody views them as "chemicals" except the licensing board.

The most destructive chemical of all, one that is corrosive, abrasive & poisonous is also the most abused chemical, both by professionals and non. It is also the most necessary one. Of course that chemical is water.

True there are some chemicals that simply are like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb. But the problem is not with the chemical. The problem is solely the human using it.

That is true no matter what the item, whether it be a car in the hands of Mario Andretti versus my teenaged daughter, Cancer drugs in the hands of an oncologist versus a cosmetologist or pesticides in the hands of a trained diagnostician versus a cheap-labor applicator/homeowner. It is seldom the the object that is a the problem so much as the loose nuts behind the wheels.

What we need is to change our thinking and to change the thinking of the consumer. Too much decision making is made based on emotion with "studies" and "facts" cited to gin up the emotional decisions already made. This applies to fear base decisions as well as greed based decisions.

Rational thinking these things through will result in better use of what we have, less hazardous exposures to people and unintended targets and far, far less collateral damage from the use.

The trick, of course, will be to reign in the emotions of fear & greed.
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Very thoughtful post. I might suggest....too many decisions are made on the basis of profit (you mentioned greed). Hard to disagree with much here.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

[ QUOTE ]
Nuthin,

I'm with you in seeing fewer chemicals in the landscape but perhaps not for the same reasons. The indiscriminate use or over use is the problem, not necessarily the chemicals themselves.

There is a place and time for everything from letting a problem run its course to bringing out the biggest guns you can find to eradicate the problem.

I understand too your points about neem and other "naturals" but chems are chems and all have the potential for use & abuse.

Neem is the currant debutant "natural." At one time so were nicotine, rotenone and pyrethrim. Yet despite their natural origins these three are already being banned or severely controlled due to toxicity and abuse. They are also, in many ways, the original starting places for many "synthetic" insecticides.

Organic, natural, labratory, by-product or plant-based, does it really matter where the chemicals come from? If chemicals are wrong, they are wrong, no matter their method of production.

If we are to be intellectually honest in our thinking then attempting to claim one is bad or one is better simply because one is "natural" is hypocrisy.

Hort oils and soaps are considered "safe" because they are not viewed as chemicals and yet they are abused and over used in the landscape too. Yet, according to the reasoning shared, they too should be banned again, save for the fact that nobody views them as "chemicals" except the licensing board.

The most destructive chemical of all, one that is corrosive, abrasive & poisonous is also the most abused chemical, both by professionals and non. It is also the most necessary one. Of course that chemical is water.

True there are some chemicals that simply are like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb. But the problem is not with the chemical. The problem is solely the human using it.

That is true no matter what the item, whether it be a car in the hands of Mario Andretti versus my teenaged daughter, Cancer drugs in the hands of an oncologist versus a cosmetologist or pesticides in the hands of a trained diagnostician versus a cheap-labor applicator/homeowner. It is seldom the the object that is a the problem so much as the loose nuts behind the wheels.

What we need is to change our thinking and to change the thinking of the consumer. Too much decision making is made based on emotion with "studies" and "facts" cited to gin up the emotional decisions already made. This applies to fear base decisions as well as greed based decisions.

Rational thinking these things through will result in better use of what we have, less hazardous exposures to people and unintended targets and far, far less collateral damage from the use.

The trick, of course, will be to reign in the emotions of fear & greed.
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]





X2
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

Rick, super good post and Treevet is right, it's hard to disagree with any of it. The following is by no means an argument to your points, it's mostly me thinking out loud.

I class pesticides as more desireable and better to use as ones that minimize damage to non target pests. That includes bees, ladybugs etc. but also the tree itself and humans.

As a practitioner it's very hard to balance the conservationist view of pesticide use with the wants and needs of a tree owner. If a client asks us to rid their tree of a light cankerworm infestation and we tell them that the amount of caterpillars won't hurt the tree and they should just get used to them, it may not go over so well. Some of us are blessed with a combination of stuborness and great sales skills and can most of the time convince the tree owner that not using a pesticide is better for all parties involved.
Unfortunately many arborists, either for having dollar signs in their eyes or for lacking knowledge of the bigger environmental picture, will give the client exactly whet they want without considering environmental ramifications.

I see many trunk injection treatments as the PHC equivalent to tree topping.

As much as i'd like our government to relax pesticide regulation in Canada, i think our policies really do lead us down the long path to pesticide minimization.

I'm rambling, time for bed.
 
Re: Lepidopera systemic

[ QUOTE ]
As a practitioner it's very hard to balance the conservationist view of pesticide use with the wants and needs of a tree owner. If a client asks us to rid their tree of a light cankerworm infestation and we tell them that the amount of caterpillars won't hurt the tree and they should just get used to them, it may not go over so well. Some of us are blessed with a combination of stuborness and great sales skills and can most of the time convince the tree owner that not using a pesticide is better for all parties involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true indeed. The greatest strategy I have in educating the customer is to remind them that trees were meant to live in forests where thousands of trees start to grow but only a small handful were ever meant to grow large.

We as humans have taken the tree out of the forest, or have taken the forest away from the tree depending on the setting. And <u>we</u> have decided what tree is to live longest.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing whether the tree we selected was every genetically intended for the long haul.

Since we have taken the tree out of it's natural environs it has become incumbent upon us to let nature do what it was intended to do and when nature cannot, we can step in and perform mother nature's tasks.

It is amazing how folks can relate to that concept and are then willing to consider treatment or non-treatment options.

Using that logic we have been able to help the owner of a gorgeous hickory conclude that treatment for anthracnose would produce superficial gains at the cost of money and likely strengthening the fungus causing the disease.

Using the same logic we have been able to help the owner of mature birches (the only mature trees on their property and nearby properties) understand that preventing infestation by miners and borers is critical and that can be accomplished via escalation starting with cultural methods first and working upwards towards chemical treatment should that become necessary. As a result, by and large, chemicals seldom become necessary.

I think, when chems are appropriate, injection is a better way to go as it is stays in the tree, attacks only the pests on the tree and tends to have greater residual effects.

The ultimate deciding factor on what to do, of course, should be a cost/benefit analysis where cost is not limited to just $$$.

We have that same problem in medicine people are emotionally concerned about their health and they want some drugs NOW! Consequently there are all kinds of drugs prescribed that may simply be unnecessary at best, or will produce resistant diseases.

Of course we get the perfect storm of sorts when we have a consumer driven by fear of pests or pesticides and a provider driven by fear of not being able to pay his bills or driven by simple greed.

Such a consumer will pay anything to assuage their fears and the provider will do anything to assuage theirs.

Thinking people will almost always make the right choices. And when they don't the ensuing problems seldom come as a surprise and they are prepared to deal with them.

A lot of money has been spent on making the consumer more emotional in their decision making the hard part will be for us to try to help them discover rational decision making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom