PDA

View Full Version : PG Question on spraying


humble1
01-28-2008, 02:28 PM
So im trying to build a spray rig for my ztr.

Ok if the label is the law, and the label says 1 gallon of water per X oz of chemical to spread over 1000 sq ft of turf. Then how is it possible that the PG applies almost 1/4 of a gallon per 1000 sq ft?
I understand it is low volume so do you put 4 times the chemical per gallon of water? Isnt that against the label?

ted putnam
01-28-2008, 03:50 PM
So im trying to build a spray rig for my ztr.

Ok if the label is the law, and the label says 1 gallon of water per X oz of chemical to spread over 1000 sq ft of turf. Then how is it possible that the PG applies almost 1/4 of a gallon per 1000 sq ft?
I understand it is low volume so do you put 4 times the chemical per gallon of water? Isnt that against the label?

That's what I thought also. But, at least with my state and a couple of the others, if you are getting the same amount of active ingredient over that same area, it doesn't matter whether you use 20 gal of water as a carrier or 200. So , if the label says use 2 pints per acre and your piece of equipment sprays 20 gals per acre. Put your 2 pints in there and you should be fine. I personally would check with my state for individual regulations just to CYA.

Shades of Green LService
01-28-2008, 04:16 PM
Water isn't the issue. It's the AI. Your still getting same amount of product down p/1000

rcreech
01-28-2008, 04:50 PM
Water isn't the issue. It's the AI. Your still getting same amount of product down p/1000

The label is the law..but sometimes you have to read between the lines and/or interpit the label.


Shades of Green is right!

We just talked about this last week (:laugh: Huh guys)!

I was very confident of this, but called my Lesco man last week and he talked to the state guy. That state doesn't care about the carrier amount only the amount of AI that you apply/given area!

Like Ted said, check with your state, but I am confident that none would have a problem with it!

When going low volume make sure you use the correct tips so your micron size is good and you don't get excessive drift!

Whitey4
01-28-2008, 05:18 PM
I am going to disagree here... and yeah, I know I'm a newbie. Looking over my CORE, they talk about illegal residue concentrations. I think if the label specifically calls for a mix ratio, that is how concentrated the mixture is supposed to be. The phytotoxicity of the material will also be affected. As I understand it, a lower concentration of AI to carrier is fine, but a more highly concentrated mixture is not. That would be the definition of an illegal residue, would'nt it?

In other words, controls that specifically call for a mix ratio may make some equipment ill suited for that particular app. You wouldn't apply it without a carrier, and the label specifically calls for a mix ratio. I think using a half gallon per X AI when a full gallon is called for is a cut and dry violation of the label.

I understand this is the pat "test" answer....

rcreech
01-28-2008, 05:31 PM
I am going to disagree here... and yeah, I know I'm a newbie. Looking over my CORE, they talk about illegal residue concentrations. I think if the label specifically calls for a mix ratio, that is how concentrated the mixture is supposed to be. The phytotoxicity of the material will also be affected. As I understand it, a lower concentration of AI to carrier is fine, but a more highly concentrated mixture is not. That would be the definition of an illegal residue, would'nt it?

In other words, controls that specifically call for a mix ratio may make some equipment ill suited for that particular app. You wouldn't apply it without a carrier, and the label specifically calls for a mix ratio. I think using a half gallon per X AI when a full gallon is called for is a cut and dry violation of the label.

I understand this is the pat "test" answer....

Whitey,

I am not sure what part of the CORE you got the "illegal residue concentrations", but I would guess this has nothing to do with applications. I would guess this has something to do with spills or something with loading, but that is just a guess since I am not exactly sure what you are discussing.

If the label states a certain "ratio or mix %) for the product then that would be the law. I just don't know of any products that are this way...that I use anyway!

I have used alot of products both on the farm and for my lawn care business, and I have never heard of a "mix ratio" before.

Do you have an example of a label that discusses the mix ration you are talking about?

americanlawn
01-28-2008, 05:49 PM
I am going to disagree here... and yeah, I know I'm a newbie. Looking over my CORE, they talk about illegal residue concentrations. I think if the label specifically calls for a mix ratio, that is how concentrated the mixture is supposed to be. The phytotoxicity of the material will also be affected. As I understand it, a lower concentration of AI to carrier is fine, but a more highly concentrated mixture is not. That would be the definition of an illegal residue, would'nt it?

In other words, controls that specifically call for a mix ratio may make some equipment ill suited for that particular app. You wouldn't apply it without a carrier, and the label specifically calls for a mix ratio. I think using a half gallon per X AI when a full gallon is called for is a cut and dry violation of the label.

I understand this is the pat "test" answer....

Here's what I would do. Shop for a different product that does the same job, yet allows you to apply it at the amount per acre you want.:waving:

Runner
01-28-2008, 05:57 PM
Here in Michigan, believe it or not, it is an issue. there are many products that we cannot or or will not spray with a PG, but then again, there are many we do that we are not supposed to. If the DOA inspectors wanted to give us a hard time about it, they could. There are however many products that just simply do not work properly if they are not sprayed at the proper amounts (many surface insecticides and fungicides). This is why when we spray with a PG and the stuff doesn't get watered right in properly, something different should be used. Now, if technically the label states that x amount of total mix is to sprayed over 1000 ft., then it can be got around with layered applications (one over the top of another), but what is that? It still isn't doing what it is supposed to do, because it is too light and not penetrating the surface layer it is intended (hence the label instructions to begin with).

Whitey4
01-28-2008, 05:59 PM
I just used the words "mix ratio". Let's look at Rounup Pro's label. They list spray solutions as %'s, the highest of which is 10%. To apply it at 20%, or 50% would be in violation of the label. The residue may or may not afffect the material's days to harvest data, but common sense tells me it might. (the CORE verbage relates to the days to harvest and illegal residues) It is more toxic at higher than labeled concentraions, which could affect the PPE requirements. A 50% Roundup application would have to be more phytotoxic than what is reflected on the label I would think.

My interpretation is that if a label lists several %'s, and the highest one is exceeded, that is a violation of the label. Instead of a %, Humble used a finite amount of material to carrier, but it's the same thing in my mind.... that's my interpretation anyways...

ted putnam
01-28-2008, 08:53 PM
I'd like to know where everyone was...oh..about Monday last week. You missed a real humdinger of a discussion on this subject...

rcreech
01-28-2008, 09:08 PM
I'd like to know where everyone was...oh..about Monday last week. You missed a real humdinger of a discussion on this subject...


:laugh:

It was a good one wasn't it Ted!

Whitey4
01-28-2008, 09:17 PM
LOL... I didn't even realise that this was the topic that started that whole mess! The subject got lost in the sauce! Maybe a more dignified discussion is in order now? :laugh:

But, using the Roundup Pro label, I have a hard time thinking that any spray concentration over 10% isn't a label violation. I am going to ask tomorrow night when I visit the DEC. I think I know what the answer will be. I know how I would answer it on my cert test though!

ted putnam
01-28-2008, 09:41 PM
LOL... I didn't even realise that this was the topic that started that whole mess! The subject got lost in the sauce! Maybe a more dignified discussion is in order now? :laugh:

But, using the Roundup Pro label, I have a hard time thinking that any spray concentration over 10% isn't a label violation. I am going to ask tomorrow night when I visit the DEC. I think I know what the answer will be. I know how I would answer it on my cert test though!

" Lost in the sauce" that's one way of putting it.:laugh:Yea Rodney.you definitely raised the roof!:laugh:

I know what you are saying Whitey. That was my point with 3-way last week. You can take the label for it and the label for Trimec 992. Same% active ingredients. For all practical purposes, the same product. but the instructions do not read the same and if you take the 3-way instructions literally, you would think you better not be spraying it at low volume with a PG.I asked a state plant board rep at my state turfgrass seminar and he said it was ok. But you just watch. I'll get some young enforcement dude that'll want to jack me up for it one day...trying to make a name for himself.That's my luck:laugh:

grassguy_
01-28-2008, 09:57 PM
Ted,
LOL :laugh: you still got Wyant Erp out there as a DOA guy huh? Boy was that Rodney fired up last week or not? hehehe ........trouble maker!:laugh:

rcreech
01-28-2008, 10:28 PM
Ted,
LOL :laugh: you still got Wyant Erp out there as a DOA guy huh? Boy was that Rodney fired up last week or not? hehehe ........trouble maker!:laugh:

Mark,

My face looked like this....:angry:

But then after:drinkup:

I was :clapping:

No, just kidding but it did get ugly!

I felt like RAMBO though....I didn't draw First Blood! :laugh:

Blink74
01-28-2008, 11:41 PM
I attended a panel discussion at the OTF conference where a question was brought-up about labeling pesticides for ride-on units. All of the panelist (including manufacturers and distributors) looked puzzled, as though they had never considered it. The other attendees immediately chimed in, siting that the ride-on are becoming more prevalent and are the way of the future. I think commercial demand will prompt ride-on specific labeling before long. Hopefully before their is a regulatory issue.

humble1
01-29-2008, 12:30 PM
Mark,

My face looked like this....:angry:

But then after:drinkup:

I was :clapping:

No, just kidding but it did get ugly!

I felt like RAMBO though....I didn't draw First Blood! :laugh:

What was the thread titled? I have been busy w/ family, snow plowing, the flu, and I am an EMT on a call fire dept.

ted putnam
01-29-2008, 12:51 PM
What was the thread titled? I have been busy w/ family, snow plowing, the flu, and I am an EMT on a call fire dept.

Permagreen and spraying.

americanlawn
01-29-2008, 06:51 PM
So im trying to build a spray rig for my ztr.

Ok if the label is the law, and the label says 1 gallon of water per X oz of chemical to spread over 1000 sq ft of turf. Then how is it possible that the PG applies almost 1/4 of a gallon per 1000 sq ft?
I understand it is low volume so do you put 4 times the chemical per gallon of water? Isnt that against the label?

I'm guessing the herbicide manufactures' require "complete coverage" for adequate results. So I see what you're saying. Example: Try spraying broadleaf herbicides on tall grass (like tall fescue or St. Augustine). The product better hit the target pest (weed) or guess what.........it ain't gunna work too well.

No wonder many of us still use a spray gun and a hose. Sure....it would be nice to not need spray equipment, but until ride-on units offer the same results, we will continue to see lawn care companies with spray tanks in their trucks.

IMO you can't beat hand spraying regarding weed control and even application of fertilizer. ChemLawn Corp did a study on this back in the early eighties. They compared push spreaders using granular fert vs liquid. Liquid won hands down.:usflag:

ted putnam
01-29-2008, 08:36 PM
I'm guessing the herbicide manufactures' require "complete coverage" for adequate results. So I see what you're saying. Example: Try spraying broadleaf herbicides on tall grass (like tall fescue or St. Augustine). The product better hit the target pest (weed) or guess what.........it ain't gunna work too well.

No wonder many of us still use a spray gun and a hose. Sure....it would be nice to not need spray equipment, but until ride-on units offer the same results, we will continue to see lawn care companies with spray tanks in their trucks.

IMO you can't beat hand spraying regarding weed control and even application of fertilizer. ChemLawn Corp did a study on this back in the early eighties. They compared push spreaders using granular fert vs liquid. Liquid won hands down.:usflag:

I know I have more confidence in it as an applicator. As for me and my operation and the application of pre-emergence. We will continue to use a hose and a gun.