Austinboat

New Member
Location
Austin
I’ve read many posts her over the years but finally created an account, I’m glad we have this community here!

My question is general uptake time for the Arborjet IV Systems for Oak Wilt on Live Oaks, can anyone share your experience of averages during either Spring and Fall application?

here is how I’ve done it over the years; Worked with a company that used capsules and I love Mauget for certain things, it just doesn’t get simpler, but in my personal experience I had issues all the time with proper uptake, soil moisture, humidity, barometric pressure etc... all affected take up greatly. I have my own company now and I hav only been using Macro Injection for Oak Wilt and getting amazing results consistently. Problem is, and it’s a real problem, there is always some kind of leak, bad connection, trunk issue that causes real problems, I’m not sure if I’m losing product or the tree is taking it up sometimes. So... I really want to make things easier and still get great results. My question is the use of Arborjet’s IV system, have y’all found it to not have as many issues with equipment, leaks and is take up time considerably faster than Macro? I’m usually treating symptomatic trees so uptake is always a concern, if it’s non symptomatic uptake is lightning fast, it’s all the other trees that are not perfect I’m having g issues with.

i look forward to what y’all have to say.
 

JD3000

Most well-known member
Location
Columbus
Symptomatic oaks will be far more difficult to treat. Asymptomatic trees are recommended for treatment within hot spots but be very mindful of the fact that injecting does harm the tree.

I have found Propiconazole to inject very quickly into most trees but I've wondered if the ArborJet system provides enough injection points for a vascular disease compared to a macro injection.

As far as leaks go with ArborJet, watch for O rings and threads gone bad as well as plugs being to shallow.

Drill slowly and as straight as possible as a hole out of round will leak and fast drilling basically cauterizes the xylem at the injection point.
 

colb

Well-Known Member
Location
Florida
Symptomatic oaks will be far more difficult to treat. Asymptomatic trees are recommended for treatment within hot spots but be very mindful of the fact that injecting does harm the tree.

I have found Propiconazole to inject very quickly into most trees but I've wondered if the ArborJet system provides enough injection points for a vascular disease compared to a macro injection.

As far as leaks go with ArborJet, watch for O rings and threads gone bad as well as plugs being to shallow.

Drill slowly and as straight as possible as a hole out of round will leak and fast drilling basically cauterizes the xylem at the injection point.

@JD3000 Would it be beneficial to inject with the new Treeage formulation to control insect vectors? Just bringing it up because it has the faster injection time, which is a cornerstone of the OP.
 

Austinboat

New Member
Location
Austin
Thank you JD. Have you found using the Arborjet system is much simpler and less hassle than Macro Injection and, all things being equal, see that Arborjet uptake is considerably faster?

I tell you what though, as concerned as I am with the leaks I’ve had and trees slow to take up, it still seems Macro is working really well but I’m not getting more than a year of control for symptomatic trees. Research sure is all over the place considering Oak Wilt, it’s a true wild card.
 

JD3000

Most well-known member
Location
Columbus
Yeah, it's easy peasy.

Inject when in leaf with good soil moisture and cool but sunny conditions in the spring
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
ArborJet had a webinar last week;

They, of course, touted their product over traditional macro-injection. But they had reason for that as it applies to Oak wilt. As I understood/recall (can't say webinars demand 100% of my attention for the whole hour..) their argument is that this leaves more product lower in the tree which is good for a disease that is primarily spread through root grafts. Notably, that is contrasted with Dutch Elm Disease, which I understand does not do as well with lower volumes.
 
Last edited:

Austinboat

New Member
Location
Austin
I saw that ATH, it was an interesting twist I’d not heard before. If it’s symptomatic, which some trees have Oak Wilt but are not Symptomatic I feel, then that point might be mute or even a negative. If preventative then maybe. Since Propiconizole attacks the actual fungus, I don’t see how a lack of distribution would be helpful. Which leads me back to an original thought, why should the active ingredient not be as distributed as possible? Insecticides don’t seem to need as much help to be distributed well but some fungicides and nutrients do. Why do y’all think solution of the original mix should matter, except for the viscous properties of propiconizole? In its concentrated forms, which I’ve tried, the tree doesn’t seem to take it up well at all. And I treat trees more than 20-30 symptomatic and it is still taken up, but not well at all sometimes. Case in point, three trees I treated yesterday still have not taken the product up at all, Macro infusion method.

I wonder if such high dilution of Propiconizole is needed. Arborjet is clearly working for many people, I wonder if I’m wasting time at each Macro Injection job. Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt are not the dame things but I am amazed nothing has clearly been scientifically proven to be most effective for OW. It’s so debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
a tree that hasn't taken anything in for a day: do you think that suggests the vascular system is too far compromised?

I agree, that if you are trying to treat curatively you want better distribution so traditional macro may be better than Tree IV???
 

Austinboat

New Member
Location
Austin
I re-read my last post, it could have sounded sarcastic, I didn’t mean it be like that at all. I read somewhere about a trial that had different solution ratios and their result was the same if I’m remembering right, I need to find that again.
But ATH, I think you might have simplified or clarified it to me, it seems logical at this point, without more hard evidence, that Macro injection would most likely be better for symptomatic trees and Micro infusion or even Mauget would be as effective, or even more so, than Macro injection. If it is staying closer to the root flare with a higher concentration it would make since it could be a great preventative and may even last longer.
Thats what I’m going to do for now; treat symptomatic trees with Macro injection and non symptomatic with some form or Micro injection/Infusion! Wouldn’t it be awesome if 5 ml per injection site would be plenty for control? That would be so freaking fast with the Quick Jet, which I do have.

Anybody else have anything to add? Maybe we need to do some of our own studies as a community?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

Austinboat

New Member
Location
Austin
a tree that hasn't taken anything in for a day: do you think that suggests the vascular system is too far compromised?

I agree, that if you are trying to treat curatively you want better distribution so traditional macro may be better than Tree IV???

I think you are probably right.When I used Mauget back in the day I had problems with uptake all of the time but they were on symptomatic trees. Before symptoms appear I think we have a whole host of effective options right now. After symptoms occur by maybe 20% or 30% that’s when application methods might really matter the most. That’s what I’m starting to think.
 

New threads New posts

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