View Full Version : No 2-4-D!!!!
06-02-2002, 11:08 AM
"Lush, green lawns may be hiding risk of cancer linked to use of weed killer" "Does cancer for plants also mean cancer for people?"
These are the headlines of an article by Emily Green of the Los Angeles Times published in my loacl newspaper this Sunday. The article indicates that the EPA is reviewing the registration of 2-4-D. This review is to be completed within two years. The article further states that 2-4-D was ruled not a human carcinogen in 1997, but that the EPA is reviewing this issue again. The article also indicates that: "activists at the local level are demanding warning notices when it is used, blocking its use in city parks, and in some cases even getting it banned." Be prepared for the onslaught this summer.
06-02-2002, 01:10 PM
The LA Times is a pretty liberal rag er...ah...newspaper. I can't say I'm terribly shocked.
06-02-2002, 02:58 PM
Use Confront then.
06-02-2002, 03:49 PM
I added Confront to my arsenal a few years back because of the negative press on 2-4-D. But when you get the facts you find that 2-4-D has received intense study, it has not been found to be a carcinogen in humans or dogs, it is not a mutagen, and its half life is 7 - 9 days. Confront has a half life of 47 days. I rather put 2-4-D down in my own yard than Confront and do!
06-02-2002, 09:35 PM
You can find info on the net to prove whichever side of the arguement you happen to want to sell.
06-03-2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by LAWNGODFATHER
Use Confront then.
At 4x the cost?! And it doesn't control certain weeds as well?
No thanx. I want ALL the tools in my pocket.
06-03-2002, 08:26 PM
Never have I seen a case where Confront didn't outperform ANY other herbicide available. It is a very slow acting herbicide, but what difference does that make? A professional applicator would set a realistic expectation with the client & then patiently wait the 2 weeks for what amounts to much better than average results. Confront does cost nearly 4x the cost of the so called "classic 3-way herbicides" per gallon, but the rate is rarely more than 1/2 oz/M or 1/3 the nominal use rates. So at the .25 oz that would do the job in this case I'd hardly call it expensive. There aren't many herbicides today that cost much less than $.25/M, so in this case, Confront is even less. In any event, a retreatment would cost a LOT more.
06-03-2002, 10:49 PM
Like Tremor said cost for the product, and not breaking it down to the application rate/cost makes a big diference.
I thought the same untill I have had everything figured at the cost per 1000 sq/ft.
2 cent more for straight Confront for me than Lesco Momentum.
Momentum works ok, but stll can't nock all the clover down like the straight Confront does.
Also I have yet to have a call back of using either product, but I can see the differnce that the straight Confront has a leading edge over the momentum.
I was using Confront and really liked the results then it got banned in Wa St because to many lawncare companies were dumping the clippings to be used as mulch around plants. This caused problems so they banned it. I mulch everything and wish I still had it in my arsenal. Don't like the smell of 24D anyway. But I'm using it anyway.
06-04-2002, 01:08 AM
It seems everything in high enough amounts can cause cancer.
A study relesed last year said that flouride in high enough concentrations had caused cancer in lab animals. Oh but they said dont stop brushing your teeth or drinking water.:rolleyes:
The air we breath can cause cancer as well as many other problems. Oh no lets all stop breathing. LOL
It will never stop I am afraid. Soon we will be on our hands and knees pulling weeds. Oh wait that could cause back trouble. We had better ban that too.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o
By the way, Untill they ban it, I use Millennium Ultra.
06-04-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by tremor
Never have I seen a case where Confront didn't outperform ANY other herbicide available.
Confront does cost nearly 4x the cost of the so called "classic 3-way herbicides" per gallon, but the rate is rarely more than 1/2 oz/M or 1/3 the nominal use rates. So at the .25 oz that would do the job in this case I'd hardly call it expensive.
In any event, a retreatment would cost a LOT more.
1.) Confront is an excellent herbicide, agreed. I spray it every day.
But better than Drive 75, no way.
2.) The actual gallon:gallon is 11:1 more expensive than 2,4-D. The APPLIED RATE is 4x more.
3.) Dandelion/Plaintain survive a .25/oz/m rate of Confront.
4.) No retreatment necessary. Blend the 2,4-D and Confront to match your application and you have the best of both worlds.
If you spray ONLY Confront, I make more $.
06-05-2002, 07:56 AM
I agree with the statement re Drive. While it doesn't control as many broadleaf weeds as the others, it is very valuble none the less. I would place Drive in a seperate category with other herbicides that are designed to control both monocots & dicots.
The statements re 2,4-D containing herbicides & Confront I'll debate.
I sell an awful lot of both these products and usually avoid pricing debates in this forum because of the clients I deal with. Two of my bigger customers both use upwards of 300 gallons of concentrate each year & both combine their usage between 2 products. Confront & LESCO Threeway. When purchased in either 30 or 55 gal drums the cost per gallon of concentrate works out about something like this:
These are approximate to avoid trouble, but close enough to be relevant.
Confront = $90.00/gal or $.49/M @ .7oz/M
Threeway = $17.50/gal or @.21/M @ 1.5 oz/M
90 vs 17.5 is 5.1:1 so we were both wrong.
But .49 vs .21 is 2.3:1 only at the heaviest lawn rate.
We could use Confront at rates as low as .25/M which would lower the cost to $.18/M vs the low rate of 3-Way = $.16/M for a virtual tie.
I'm not aware of the cost of straight 2,4-D today. We stopped selling it due to a lack of interest by the majority of our customers. It may be a lot less than the example I presented here. 11:1 would put it in the purchased cost area of $8.00/Gal. Is that right? It can't be. The bottles and the freight are worth more than that. Do you purchase & use or blend straight 2,4-D? If so, what's the stuff cost today? Drums or cases?
06-06-2002, 01:13 AM
Michigan State did their own study on Drive and what they found is that if you mix Drive (half rate) with 2,4-d The kill percentages skyrocketed. They said straight 2,4-d they got about 75% kill, but when they mixed Drve with it it when to 95%. Right now I use Millennium which I am extremly happy with. I do not have a supplier close for Drive so I dont use much right now.
06-06-2002, 05:16 PM
1.) Thanx for the info.
2.) I don't use any 3 way.
3.) I'm getting screwed on Confront. (1 supplier is $134/gal, other is $128/gal. I use +/- 100 gal/year)
4.) I pay $10.24/gal for 2,4-D 46% ai.
06-06-2002, 06:08 PM
Are you a customer? See my homepage.
That is interesting. Was there a negative impact on the % control of Crabs?
06-07-2002, 12:38 AM
Yea i would imagine the crabgrass control at half rate is not so good. they were just seeing what it would do for common broadleaf weeds. I only use Drive to catch the crabgrass that escapes the pre-emergent I put down in the Spring. I do not use it for complete sprays as there is not that much crabgrass after the pre-emergent.
06-07-2002, 01:09 AM
Kent how about $100 or less a gallon?
You have to email me so I can tell you where.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.