unnecessary removal soap box

I agree that drilling annually would eventually become a problem. But I am for injection treatment in the right cases. At first I wasn't, but now I see that it is the most efficient way to get the chemical into the canopy. I am interested in seeing evidence of detrimental effects of the injection method though.
 
Just saying that I've cut down quite a few healthy tree species, mostly pine, with plastic injection plugs deep inside the trunk sections that were completely healed over from an outside perspective.

Which leads me to believe that at least in some cases certain trees can be injected with very little harm done by drilling treatments. Much like my belief that certain tree species can be through bolted in cabling operations that provide more benefit than harm to them.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just saying that I've cut down quite a few healthy tree species, mostly pine, with plastic injection plugs deep inside the trunk sections that were completely healed over from an outside perspective.

Which leads me to believe that at least in some cases certain trees can be injected with very little harm done by drilling treatments. Much like my belief that certain tree species can be through bolted in cabling operations that provide more benefit than harm to them.

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would argue that it would be better to do a prophylactic injection of a vigorous tree rather than try to save one that is declining? I would and I think that the evidence you've seen with the Pines (and others) proves that injections are minimally invasive with vigorous trees.

I also would try to save the declining tree with injections if it wasn't already too far gone.
 
In the case of DED, I know a lot of people just soak the tree in fungicides. This gets into another Moral and ethical conundrum. Maybe its better to just let nature take its course.

Arborists have been saving Ash trees and hemlocks and others by pumping imidicloprid into the trees. Now we are reading more and more convincing evidence that imidicloprid has been wiping out the bees. I feel like it is a no win situation as far as morals. I believe that if imidicloprid is the cause of these bee deaths than all introduction into the environment should be stopped immediately.

What to do? Nothing lives forever.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of DED, I know a lot of people just soak the tree in fungicides. This gets into another Moral and ethical conundrum. Maybe its better to just let nature take its course.

Arborists have been saving Ash trees and hemlocks and others by pumping imidicloprid into the trees. Now we are reading more and more convincing evidence that imidicloprid has been wiping out the bees. I feel like it is a no win situation as far as morals. I believe that if imidicloprid is the cause of these bee deaths than all introduction into the environment should be stopped immediately.

What to do? Nothing lives forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant really ever justify giving money to the chemical companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent points! I have not see the evidence linking imidacloprid to bee death. Are they just linking neonics in general?
 
I Remember Wulkowicz posting about the imidaclorpid wiping out bees. Somebody more search savy on here might be able to find it easier than I can.

I gave an estimate to a guy who works for the National Park Service here in Tn and we talked about this subject . He told me that the evidence is pointing to imidaclorpid only affecting the bee farmers. He said there was nothing indicating it affecting natural bee colonies. So the Park Service seems to think its safe
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why the root flare?

[/ QUOTE ]

As it was explained to our company by Rainbow, the root flare tissue is best to inject into because it is the most absorptive. Chemicals (and water/nutrients) are absorbed both vertically and laterally in the flare tissue. As opposed to the trunk tissue, which conducts almost exclusively vertically.

The rep compared the flare tissue to a sponge, and the trunk tissue to a straw. Interestingly, when you excavate the root flare on many trees, there is a noticeable difference in the appearance of the bark between the trunk and flare.

As far as we know, we have had total success with ash trees treated before onset of infestation, using both Imidacloprid and Emamectin Benzoate.

As for giving $$ to "the chemical companies"- they provide goods and services for profit, just like us. When they screw up, as with Imprelis, they pay, just like us. They make modern life possible. (Try going a day without touching plastic). Personally, they keep me functioning daily by replacing the hormone my thyroid can't make.
On top of all that they keep my pits smelling like roses AND save ash trees! If they are killing bees, smart money says they will adapt and improve the next formula.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that drilling annually would eventually become a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even then, if done properly it shouldn't be problem. Just ask a maple sugar producer.
 
[ QUOTE ]
]



As for giving $$ to "the chemical companies"- they provide goods and services for profit, just like us. When they screw up, as with Imprelis, they pay,

[/ QUOTE ]

how are they going to pay for wiped out bee colonies and collapsed harvests? that is a lot of faith.
 
But if it is a choice between injecting a stem full of insecticides or of removing the tree (because it is going to die anyway (despite pruning or other cultural controls), then what we call "necessary" or "unnecessary" will depend on how far one is willing to embrace these "scientific" cures as appropriate to the disease.

As for the truly "unnecessary" removals, I believe you are always in a tough situation there Ginkgobalboa. We live in the USA in the twenty first century and we are not druids. If Mrs. So and So has it in mind to remove some trees we think are unnecessary, providing they are not heritage trees or valuable specimens that would warrant saying no, I do not see a prima facie reason why you could not offer your services.

I have said no to customers on their requests for removal when I think they are unwarranted and without reason. Try to educate, listen to their reasons, offer the best reasoning and if they tell you they'd like the tree removed you've got to ask yourself whether you can live with that. A lot of times you won't be able to . Walking away can be showing integrity, just as taking the job can also be showing integrity, too. Up to you to make the decision--but you should always go with what you think is right--or acceptable.
 
The solution to pollution is dilution

I'm not saying imidacloprid is good or okay, but take a minute to compare it's use in arboriculture to agriculture. I am certain that we little arborists are spreading a relatively minute amount of pesticides via trunk injection compared to farmers.

Wait, what is this thread about? Oh right: yeah clients who are set on removal annoy me too.

I do my best to give them all the options possible before they make a decision and if I feel they have weighed them out clearly, then i will remove a perfectly good tree. When I don't feel that they've thought it through properly, i'll not quote the removal. We lose business this way but gain a better public image and better self respect.

vince
 
Vince, good point comparing agriculture to arboriculture. Also, lawn services broadcasting all over neighborhoods. Injecting (soil or trunk) at the base of individual trees seems much more isolated (not saying its not detrimental in some way).

Something I have wondered. If Canada doesn't allow the use of pesticides, is all produce "organic"? I notice in our grocery stores that a lot of produce is from Canada.

Sorry to be so off topic.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying imidacloprid is good or okay, but take a minute to compare it's use in arboriculture to agriculture. I am certain that we little arborists are spreading a relatively minute amount of pesticides via trunk injection compared to farmers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Purchasing and using it supports the manufacture of the product, regardless of dose. Just my 2 cents on the Imidacloprid topic.

Tom
 
[ QUOTE ]


Something I have wondered. If Canada doesn't allow the use of pesticides, is all produce "organic"? I notice in our grocery stores that a lot of produce is from Canada.

Sorry to be so off topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a welcomed misconception about our pesticide policies! Our ag industry uses just as much pesticide as anywhere else (i'm pretty sure anyway). Our landscapes are highly regulated compared to yours. Although most pesticides are banned for homeowners to buy (you can buy imi over the counter but not here) but arborists are largely exempt. We can use many products but not nearly as many as you. For us, we need written advice from someone qualified and then abutting properties have to be notified 48 in advance of any application.

Maybe your grocery stores are trying to capitalize on the rosy image that Canada has in their marketing of goods? Well, that rosy image has certainly blackened thanks to the government of the day.

v
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I never looked into agriculture in Canada. Just assumed it was more regulated, similar to arboriculture.

No longer warm and fuzzy feelings for those Canadian, hydroponic tomatoes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom