Organic L/C....simplified?

[OrganicsMaine]

OK, lets say that one is not too scientific, isn't a soils fanatic, and doesn't own a microscope....yet.

How to go organic from here? Soil tests are a must, obviously. Topdressing with compost is a good thing too, but what else, just to get it going? What about worm poop? Should one start the worm farm? What else???

Remember, everybody is entitled to their opinion, if you don't agree, that is fine, but lets not rip anybody apart. Thanks

[ecoguy]

Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost and EM, MF and CT. Build the soil civilization then manage the microbes who make up that civilization. Work with nature.

Btw - Soil tests have their place but you don't need one to know that your lawn most likely needs more OM and increased microbial activity. Can you ever have too much? I'm only planning to test on problem areas and instead allow the weeds to be my indicators. But that's just me.

[JDUtah]

Organic as in 'no synthetics' or organic as in 'most sustainable'? Each has its own approach.

[ICT Bill]

soil test are useful if you are not familiar with the soil in your area
after you have seen a dozen or so they are most likely going to look roughly the same

I spoke to someone who frequents this board recently and they could not figure out why the could not keep a shade garden in one general area in the back yard, year after year it failed

after speaking to one of the neighbors recently they said "Oh yeah, that's where the previous owner used to dump his used motor oil after changing the oil in his car"

I would imagine a soil test in that particular area would have been much different than the other soil in the yard

[ICT Bill]

Organic as in 'no synthetics' or organic as in 'most sustainable'? Each has its own approach.

I say share your program, like he said lets swap ideas instead of saying its good or bad

If it works for you then go for it

[JDUtah]

I say share your program, like he said lets swap ideas instead of saying its good or bad

If it works for you then go for it

I didn't mean either was good or bad. I meant they have different approaches, which they do.

Organic as in 'no synthetics' can use various meals for fertilization. It can't use synthetic pest control.

Organic as in 'sustainable' would not use those meals, but would limit its fertilizer to whatever waste stream is locally and economically available instead. It could reserve the option to use synthetic pest control when necessary.

Two very different worlds. Each have their motives. Each have their pro's and cons.

I choose the sustainable rout. Will I be harassed in this forum for admitting my choice? Probably.

[Kiril]

Sustainable, with respect to land management, is reducing your inputs and outputs (i.e. close the system). If that is not your goal ... then you are not practicing sustainable land management.

[JDUtah]

Kiril, look dude. Go piss on someone else. Your constant policing is ridiculous! I wish this site would ban you.

[ICT Bill]

If you haven't downloaded this and read through it please do, these guys have put a lot of thought into this paper and take the words "sustainable" and "organic" pretty seriously

www.organiclandcare.net

download "the standards to organic land care" manual, it is on the main page

[Kiril]

Kiril, look dude. Go piss on someone else. Your constant policing is ridiculous! I wish this site would ban you.

I see ..... so my opinion doesn't count. And what was it you were saying about not personally attacking people?

I am hard against beliefs, but I rarely attack people personally... usually if I have attacked someone personally it is because they have attacked me personally. The personal attacks are what reduce the quality of the threads in this forum. Let us please refrain from personal attacks and leave the debate to principles only please.

I am sorry if the truth hurts JD, but that IS the essence of sustainable land management, as is defined by pretty much everyone. But heh ..feel free to redefine it to suit your needs though.

p.s. don't hesitate to put me back on ignore if my posts bother you so much.

[Kiril]

An old post worth repeating ... and added some more definitions.

Various definitions of organic farming/agriculture and sustainable land management for clarification.


http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.


http://www.irs.aber.ac.uk/research/Organics/define.html

Organic farming can be defined as an approach to agriculture where the aim is to create integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable agricultural production systems. Maximum reliance is placed on locally or farm-derived renewable resources and the management of self-regulating ecological and biological processes and interactions in order to provide acceptable levels of crop, livestock and human nutrition, protection from pests and diseases, and an appropriate return to the human and other resources employed. Reliance on external inputs, whether chemical or organic, is reduced as far as possible. In many European countries, organic agriculture is known as ecological agriculture, reflecting this reliance on ecosystem management rather than external inputs.


http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/definitions/doa/index.html

Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.


http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X0075e.htm#P86_4004

organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasises the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfil any specific function within the system.

Organic agriculture is one of several approaches to sustainable agriculture and many of the techniques used (e.g. inter-cropping, rotation of crops, double-digging, mulching, integration of crops and livestock) are practised under various agricultural systems. What makes organic agriculture unique, as regulated under various laws and certification programmes, is that: (1) almost all synthetic inputs are prohibited,3 and (2) `soil building' crop rotations are mandated

http://www.environment.gov.au/land/management/index.html

Sustainable land management means managing land without damaging ecological processes or reducing biological diversity.

http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu/pdf/slm.pdf

Sustainable land management (SLM) can be defined as the use
of land resources such as soils, water, animals and plants for the
production of goods - to meet changing human needs - while
assuring the long-term productive potential of these resources,
and the maintenance of their environmental functions

[phasthound]

soil test are useful if you are not familiar with the soil in your area
after you have seen a dozen or so they are most likely going to look roughly the same

I spoke to someone who frequents this board recently and they could not figure out why the could not keep a shade garden in one general area in the back yard, year after year it failed

after speaking to one of the neighbors recently they said "Oh yeah, that's where the previous owner used to dump his used motor oil after changing the oil in his car"

I would imagine a soil test in that particular area would have been much different than the other soil in the yard


It was much more fun discovering this over drinks with my neighbor than by looking at soil tests. :drinkup: Actually, soil tests didn't show much difference between front & back yard. I'll be applying granular humates & bacteria rich tea when the snow melts.

[phasthound]

Oh crap, it looks like this thread is going on an ego trip.

[OrganicsMaine]

Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost and EM, MF and CT. Build the soil civilization then manage the microbes who make up that civilization. Work with nature.

Btw - Soil tests have their place but you don't need one to know that your lawn most likely needs more OM and increased microbial activity. Can you ever have too much? I'm only planning to test on problem areas and instead allow the weeds to be my indicators. But that's just me.

I like to use the soil test as a sales tool. Also, it helps to develop a relationship with the client as I explain it and how to fix the problems.

[quackgrass]

OK, lets say that one is not too scientific, isn't a soils fanatic, and doesn't own a microscope....yet.

How to go organic from here? Soil tests are a must, obviously. Topdressing with compost is a good thing too, but what else, just to get it going? What about worm poop? Should one start the worm farm? What else???

Remember, everybody is entitled to their opinion, if you don't agree, that is fine, but lets not rip anybody apart. Thanks

You really need a set of tools to work on all the different landscape problems, so I would strongly suggest using an integrated approach to providing the best solution. With organics, I would stock up on compost, poultry litter based fertilizer and mineral oil (for tree and shrub pests).

Utilize all the benefits of organics, but don't paint yourself in a corner by only offering organics. If you do, then it will severely limit your customer base, and if you don't have a lot of customers you can't make a lot of difference.

For instance: we have a massive pine beetle infestation going on in the West, (I think you guys have ash borers or something out East?). It would be criminal to offer organic services to susceptible trees without first protecting them with a synthetic insecticide first. (until the threat subsides).

And if you can't offer this service, then the customers will likely find a company that can take care of their landscape needs. That company may rely entirely on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, so you won't make a difference on that landscape ever.

Or, say you have a customer with a horrible weed problem. He called you and chemlawn for a bid because he couldn't manage it himself and the city or home owners association was on his back.

Instead of walking away, it would be better if you said, "look Mr, both of us can waste your money by treating the symptoms of this poor lawn with a herbicide. The difference is that my program also solves the PROBLEM by using organics to optimize the soil health.

Sure it might mean you have to apply one blanket application, but that is way better than chemlawn doing 4 or 5 blanket apps with herbicide and cheap salty fertilizer for the next 20 years.

The other problem with only using organics is that sometimes the synthetic pesticide is safer than the organic option. Acelepryn for example is much less toxic and way more effective on some turf destroying insects than the organic option. Why wouldn't you want to use the safest and most effective option? Technology is only going to produce safer pesticides in the future, and pests are always going to pose problems, so I would leave the option open.

I believe in selling organics based on value and results, not as a "safe" alternative. "safe" alternative sounds too much like, "but she has a nice personality". People get the feeling it isn't exactly what they're looking for when you put it like that.

The other problem with selling organics based only on safety and environmental concern is that it lacks credibility to most people. Basically, they have to take your word above the majority of scientists, toxicologists, and doctors who feel that appropriate use of synthetics is not a significant health or environmental threat. This can be a huge limiting factor in the amount of people you can start integrating into organics because they won't even give you a chance.

Some may disagree with my non purist methods, but I've gotten thousands of customers to use more organics and less pesticides. This has resulted in a much bigger overall difference than catering to just a handful of "organic only" clients.

You mentioned using soil tests as a sales tool.

All my new customers get a quick hydrometer test to determine soil structure, a PH test, and I test OM content (I do everything in house, its not exactly to ASTM specs but close enough and way quicker!)

I refuse to do cold sales calls, but I love to share their soil test results and talk about how they can improve their soil! It generally leads to an aeration and a compost topdressing when they realize the limits of just using fertilizer.

[dishboy]

I didn't mean either was good or bad. I meant they have different approaches, which they do.

Organic as in 'no synthetics' can use various meals for fertilization. It can't use synthetic pest control.

Organic as in 'sustainable' would not use those meals, but would limit its fertilizer to whatever waste stream is locally and economically available instead. It could reserve the option to use synthetic pest control when necessary.

Two very different worlds. Each have their motives. Each have their pro's and cons.

I choose the sustainable rout. Will I be harassed in this forum for admitting my choice? Probably.

Are billbugs a issue in your area? Does your sustainable option include synthetic weed or grassy weed control also?

[OrganicsMaine]

You really need a set of tools to work on all the different landscape problems, so I would strongly suggest using an integrated approach to providing the best solution. With organics, I would stock up on compost, poultry litter based fertilizer and mineral oil (for tree and shrub pests).

Utilize all the benefits of organics, but don't paint yourself in a corner by only offering organics. If you do, then it will severely limit your customer base, and if you don't have a lot of customers you can't make a lot of difference.

For instance: we have a massive pine beetle infestation going on in the West, (I think you guys have ash borers or something out East?). It would be criminal to offer organic services to susceptible trees without first protecting them with a synthetic insecticide first. (until the threat subsides).

And if you can't offer this service, then the customers will likely find a company that can take care of their landscape needs. That company may rely entirely on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, so you won't make a difference on that landscape ever.

Or, say you have a customer with a horrible weed problem. He called you and chemlawn for a bid because he couldn't manage it himself and the city or home owners association was on his back.

Instead of walking away, it would be better if you said, "look Mr, both of us can waste your money by treating the symptoms of this poor lawn with a herbicide. The difference is that my program also solves the PROBLEM by using organics to optimize the soil health.

Sure it might mean you have to apply one blanket application, but that is way better than chemlawn doing 4 or 5 blanket apps with herbicide and cheap salty fertilizer for the next 20 years.

The other problem with only using organics is that sometimes the synthetic pesticide is safer than the organic option. Acelepryn for example is much less toxic and way more effective on some turf destroying insects than the organic option. Why wouldn't you want to use the safest and most effective option? Technology is only going to produce safer pesticides in the future, and pests are always going to pose problems, so I would leave the option open.

I believe in selling organics based on value and results, not as a "safe" alternative. "safe" alternative sounds too much like, "but she has a nice personality". People get the feeling it isn't exactly what they're looking for when you put it like that.

The other problem with selling organics based only on safety and environmental concern is that it lacks credibility to most people. Basically, they have to take your word above the majority of scientists, toxicologists, and doctors who feel that appropriate use of synthetics is not a significant health or environmental threat. This can be a huge limiting factor in the amount of people you can start integrating into organics because they won't even give you a chance.

Some may disagree with my non purist methods, but I've gotten thousands of customers to use more organics and less pesticides. This has resulted in a much bigger overall difference than catering to just a handful of "organic only" clients.

You mentioned using soil tests as a sales tool.

All my new customers get a quick hydrometer test to determine soil structure, a PH test, and I test OM content (I do everything in house, its not exactly to ASTM specs but close enough and way quicker!)

I refuse to do cold sales calls, but I love to share their soil test results and talk about how they can improve their soil! It generally leads to an aeration and a compost topdressing when they realize the limits of just using fertilizer.

Great post quack, Thanks!

[Kiril]

Acelepryn for example is much less toxic and way more effective on some turf destroying insects than the organic option.

If the organic option is IPM via natural predators, how is it less toxic? If you spent 3 -4 years building up a natural populations of predators to common landscape pests on a site, what effect would 1-2 applications of this have on those population given the persistence (half-life with possible values exceeding 3 years in soils) of the pesticide?

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/chloran.pdf

Chlorantraniliprole may be characterized as persistent and mobile in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Extended chlorantraniliprole use is expected to cause accumulation of residues in soil from year to year. Major routes of dissipation are expected to be alkaline-catalyzed hydrolysis, photodegradation in water, leaching, and runoff

.
.
.
.
.

General Statements-

"Do not apply directly to water. Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms
in water adjacent to use sites."

Surface Water Advisory-

"This product may contaminate water through runoff. This product has a high potential
for runoff for several months or more after application. Poorly draining soils and soils
with shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoff that contains this product. A
level, well-maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is
applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the
potential for contamination of water from runoff. Runoff of this product will be reduced
by avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours."

Ground Water Advisory-

"This chemical has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in
ground water. The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly
where the water table is shallow, may result in ground-water contamination."

Non-Target Organism Advisory-

"This pesticide is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, oysters, and shrimp."



Personally I find insecticides to be the most insidious of the pesticides. The non-target effects are typically counter-productive to any organic/sustainable program.

While I see where there may be cases where use of pesticides is warranted, when it comes to insecticides (especially in landscapes), it should be the absolute LAST option considered.

[Barefoot James]

Quack - good post I agree with about 95% of your approach (the safety aspects can be leveraged too) Sort of take your poison once or twice instead of forever approach.

I'll be applying granular humates & bacteria rich tea when the snow melts.

Phast - you go boy with the granular humates. I bought 22 tons last year from www.humates.com and boy it sure makes a difference. More is better. What I mean is I have many properties we did a summer app of 20 lbs per 1000 sq ft - got good results - seeding in fall did fantastic. Did about 10 properties at 50 lbs per 1000 - great results - seeding in fall did uber fantastic. Did 2 yards at about 100 lbs per 1000 and got even better results and the soil is black going down 8 to 12 inches - I have fescue roots 2 ft down (that I can see and probably even further). I had a soil test done on 4 yards this fall after seeding, summer apps of humates and myco inoculations. I'm having tests done from dirt about 4 to 6 inches down in the ground and every one went from 1 or 2% in 2008 to 4 to 6% in 2009. These are samples up to 6 inches deep mind you. I will have some tests done this spring on these same properties from the 1 or 2 inch soil and I bet you it is in the 6 to 10% range. Humates/mycorrhizae/CT/compost does a soil good.

Is this sustainable - no not to start, but it works and is safe and chems would never be able prime the pedogenesis pump, like this program does. I would imagine inputs in the future on these properties will be much less and the turf will keep getting even stronger.

[quackgrass]

If the organic option is IPM via natural predators, how is it less toxic? If you spent 3 -4 years building up a natural populations of predators to common landscape pests on a site, what effect would 1-2 applications of this have on those population given the persistence (half-life with possible values exceeding 3 years in soils) of the pesticide?


IPM does utilize that strategy but it isn't always going to be effective. There is no way to introduce a natural predator to the mountain pine beetle and expect results. The destruction of the tree would likely lead to much longer and adverse effects to the environment than applying a couple ounces of insecticide.

Beneficial predators are a must in any IPM program, but you have to realize the limitations.

Personally I find insecticides to be the most insidious of the pesticides. The non-target effects are typically counter-productive to any organic/sustainable program.

That's fine if you believe that, but keep in mind that your opinion won't matter if you become one of the approximately 3 million people that die each year from insects.

While I see where there may be cases where use of pesticides is warranted, when it comes to insecticides (especially in landscapes), it should be the absolute LAST option considered.

Agreed.

[Kiril]

IPM does utilize that strategy but it isn't always going to be effective. There is no way to introduce a natural predator to the mountain pine beetle and expect results. The destruction of the tree would likely lead to much longer and adverse effects to the environment than applying a couple ounces of insecticide.

I'm not even going to pretend to understand your reasoning here.

Beneficial predators are a must in any IPM program, but you have to realize the limitations.

You also have to realize the limitations of spraying insecticides that take out your natural predators ... which leads to increased reliance on the insecticide. This is the main problem with synthetics in general. Use of them (especially continued use) leads to reliance on them.

That's fine if you believe that, but keep in mind that your opinion won't matter if you become one of the approximately 3 million people that die each year from insects.

What does this have anything to do with maintaining landscapes?

[quackgrass]

I'm not even going to pretend to understand your reasoning here.
I guess you don't understand that the only feasible way to keep pine trees alive in beetle infested areas is to spray the trunk with an insecticide? How are you going to introduce a predatory insect and make him stay on your trees until the beetle shows up? "sit....stay....wait....."

Don't you think the energy required to cut and haul the tree away exceeds the energy to save it? Don't you think the gallons of fuel spent and the tons of carbon released will cause more pollution than a few ounces of insecticide?

Don't you think the shade, habitat, and environmental benefit that some trees provide is worth a little insecticide?

You also have to realize the limitations of spraying insecticides that take out your natural predators ... which leads to increased reliance on the insecticide. This is the main problem with synthetics in general. Use of them (especially continued use) leads to reliance on them.

That can certainly be a problem but you are making a mistake to think that only applies to synthetic insecticides and not organic ones. Injecting a synthetic insecticide into a tree can cause less beneficial insect loss than using an organic insecticide that has to be applied by spraying the foliage.

There is no law saying you can't reintroduce beneficial insects because you used a synthetic instead of an organic pesticide either.

What does this have anything to do with maintaining landscapes?

Oh I forgot that we signed a truce with deadly insects entering our landscape. We wouldn't use insecticides and they wouldn't continue to kill millions of us. Disney should make a movie to get the word out.

[Kiril]

I guess you don't understand that the only feasible way to keep pine trees alive in beetle infested areas is to spray the trunk with an insecticide? How are you going to introduce a predatory insect and make him stay on your trees until the beetle shows up? "sit....stay....wait....."

Well, I like how we have gone from a general statement about insecticides, to a specific pest, but so be it. This is typically the tactic used when someone is desperate to gain some type of victory. Have it your way.

So if I have 100,000 acres of trees to protect .... do you suggest spraying each and every trunk?

Read and learn.

http://www.barkbeetles.org/mountain/fidl2.htm

Insecticides are available for direct control of beetles in infested trees. The use of insecticides in such situations requires the combined efforts of all landowners within the designated management area. However, if beetle outbreaks are large, direct chemical control may not be cost effective: treatment costs may exceed the value of the wood apparently saved. At best, insecticides provide a temporary control measure that slows infestations. They will not stop an outbreak as long as the susceptible stands remain unaltered.


So tell me .... should we change our methods of management in order to deter epidemics and encourage natural controls .... or would you rather we just spray some insecticide whenever we need to? If you have an outbreak in a city .... how do you propose getting all the landowners on board to make an insecticide treatment effective? You don't control an endemic/epidemic by treating a single tree you know.

Don't you think the energy required to cut and haul the tree away exceeds the energy to save it? Don't you think the gallons of fuel spent and the tons of carbon released will cause more pollution than a few ounces of insecticide?

And now we are down to a single tree. If you want to do a real cost-benefit comparison, please do. Include resources consumed to make and distribute the pesticide, resources consumed for the number of trips needed to treat & monitor the tree, impact on surrounding environment and natural predators, impacts on future natural control, etc... Please don't forget to consider the quite possible failure of control and having to cut the tree down anyhow.

Don't you think the shade, habitat, and environmental benefit that some trees provide is worth a little insecticide?

Now we are up to some trees. Maybe it is worth it .... depends on the tree and how isolated it is. Are we now talking about extremely valuable specimen trees, a neighborhood of trees, a city of trees, a forest of trees, a region of trees .......? You keep changing your conditions ..... it is difficult to keep track. Maybe you should just pick an extremely valuable specimen tree .... because that is your best bet at making a successful argument for your preferred control method (i.e. insecticides).

That can certainly be a problem but you are making a mistake to think that only applies to synthetic insecticides and not organic ones. Injecting a synthetic insecticide into a tree can cause less beneficial insect loss than using an organic insecticide that has to be applied by spraying the foliage.

First, I didn't say anything about spraying organic anything .... putting words in my mouth again.

Second ..... What insecticide (organic or synthetic) are you going to use to kill adults?

And what if the trees are already infested? What will you use to kill larvae?

There is no law saying you can't reintroduce beneficial insects because you used a synthetic instead of an organic pesticide either.

Did you ever consider the best means of control is prevention of the problem through proper management and encouraging natural predation? I do find it amusing how you agree with me that using insecticides should be the absolute last resort .... yet now argue for the use of insecticides as your first (and apparently only, based on your argument) line of defense.

Oh I forgot that we signed a truce with deadly insects entering our landscape. We wouldn't use insecticides and they wouldn't continue to kill millions of us. Disney should make a movie to get the word out.

And more obtuse irrelevance.

[quackgrass]

Thanks for the article, I've actually participated in a study to determine the efficacy of different insecticides. I also volunteer to teach the Forest service and private spray crews each year. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1-r4/spf/fhp/publications/byregion/JEE%20Insecticide%20Pub.pdf I happen to understand this situation very well.

Each tree in the forest cannot be saved using every method available. It would be impossible to apply enough product to every tree because you can't hit the trunk of the tree using an aerial application. about 5 gallons of water would need to be packed in and sprayed for each tree.

The only way to save the trees in small manageable stands, is to spray each one. Its about 95-100% effective depending on chemical, applicator, timing and weather. Out of the 22,000 trees my company sprayed last year, we noticed about two dozen with some pitch tubes. We have yet to see if these trees will die or not. Its very possible that the beetle died before reproduction, but also likely that it vectored in the blue stain fungi.

Silviculture can decrease the susceptibility of an attack, but most areas receive such high beetle pressure that it doesn't matter. Beetle flights can look like huge black swarms, radar can pick these flights up they are so massive. It doesn't matter how much thinning, watering, biological, or pheromone controls one uses in these cases. Your trees will die if you don't spray them under this kind of pressure.

Many people wasted a lot of money trying other methods that could have been used to save trees. It costs about $2-$4 in product to spray a tree, so do the math to see if that's worth doing. I don't remove trees, but I know people spend between $40 and $300 to remove the dead ones.

Do you really want me to do a cost to benefit study on $3 dollars worth of product? Can't we just assume that there will be some trees that are worth this? Can't we also assume that the tree could live another 100 years if we spray it for a few years?

And BTW, I wasn't talking about pine beetles when I spoke of injecting. It is one of the few pests that this treatment is not very effective on because this pest feeds on the phloem, injections generally go deeper in the xylem, and don't contact the beetle because its right under the bark.

[Kiril]

Thanks for the article, I've actually participated in a study to determine the efficacy of different insecticides. I also volunteer to teach the Forest service and private spray crews each year. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1-r4/spf/fhp/publications/byregion/JEE%20Insecticide%20Pub.pdf I happen to understand this situation very well.

So you are in the pesticide biz? Am I to take the linked pdf as your answer to the question which insecticides you are using? How about those organic ones you keep mentioning?

Each tree in the forest cannot be saved using every method available. It would be impossible to apply enough product to every tree because you can't hit the trunk of the tree using an aerial application. about 5 gallons of water would need to be packed in and sprayed for each tree.

The only way to save the trees in small manageable stands, is to spray each one. Its about 95-100% effective depending on chemical, applicator, timing and weather. Out of the 22,000 trees my company sprayed last year, we noticed about two dozen with some pitch tubes. We have yet to see if these trees will die or not. Its very possible that the beetle died before reproduction, but also likely that it vectored in the blue stain fungi

Yes, obviously not all the trees can be saved, nor is it logistically/economically feasible to effectively treat large holdings using insecticides. Too bad probably a majority of the trees at risk are not in "manageable stands".

Silviculture can decrease the susceptibility of an attack, but most areas receive such high beetle pressure that it doesn't matter. Beetle flights can look like huge black swarms, radar can pick these flights up they are so massive. It doesn't matter how much thinning, watering, biological, or pheromone controls one uses in these cases. Your trees will die if you don't spray them under this kind of pressure.

Did you consider that perhaps anthropogenic disturbance (such as spraying insecticides, management practices, etc ...) is a significant reason for epidemic outbreaks? If these factors disrupt the natural checks and balances, then how are you ever going to break the cycle? You will always need insecticides because you are not managing your holdings in a fashion where outbreaks can be contained naturally. Now this is not to suggest there are not natural reasons that can lead to epidemic outbreaks, however it has been pretty well established that poor management can lead to these types of outbreaks. This is also the case in the landscape as I am sure everyone here is well aware of.

Many people wasted a lot of money trying other methods that could have been used to save trees. It costs about $2-$4 in product to spray a tree, so do the math to see if that's worth doing. I don't remove trees, but I know people spend between $40 and $300 to remove the dead ones.

This is a sad truth. I also see many people spend a lot of money on pesticide treatments (for a variety of reasons) that are largely ineffective .... go figure.

Do you really want me to do a cost to benefit study on $3 dollars worth of product?

If you are going to make a case about costs .... then yes. Don't play the "carbon footprint" card if you aren't prepared to do exactly that.

Can't we just assume that there will be some trees that are worth this?

Yes, we can assume this. Problem is, where to we decide that we can go about business as usual using insecticides as our bailout while continuing to ignore the real causes of the problem? Is your approach to treat the symptom, not the problem? Is this approach sustainable?

Can't we also assume that the tree could live another 100 years if we spray it for a few years?

A poor assumption.

And BTW, I wasn't talking about pine beetles when I spoke of injecting. It is one of the few pests that this treatment is not very effective on because this pest feeds on the phloem, injections generally go deeper in the xylem, and don't contact the beetle because its right under the bark.

If you weren't talking about pine beetles, then what were you talking about? A good example of how your posts are all over the place.

[FYS777]

well my thoughts is they should log all infested trees the heck with spraying them, cut all the bug infested trees and haul them out!!!!!

[dKoester]

Get back to the topic of this thread! The more you all argue trying to show your organic wisdom, the more I care less about this crap. Its like you are just trying to posture making yourself look like you don't even care about the ones who don't even understand much about organic. All you do is one-up each other.

[FYS777]

Get back to the topic of this thread! The more you all argue trying to show your organic wisdom, the more I care less about this crap. Its like you are just trying to posture making yourself look like you don't even care about the ones who don't even understand much about organic. All you do is one-up each other.

indeed, i was lost on this along time ago. do either one of this guys actually apply this or do they just have book knowledge. stay in the real world apps, please.

[quackgrass]

So you are in the pesticide biz? Am I to take the linked pdf as your answer to the question which insecticides you are using? How about those organic ones you keep mentioning?

Not a chance. Like I said, I train FS applicators. I also sit on the extension agency IPM board. We did trials on some organic insecticides, but they were not effective. The whole reason for this study was to see if we could recommend a less toxic insecticide that would also work in case beetles became tolerant to carbaryl, (which they haven't in 50 some years).

Did you consider that perhaps anthropogenic disturbance (such as spraying insecticides, management practices, etc ...) is a significant reason for epidemic outbreaks? If these factors disrupt the natural checks and balances, then how are you ever going to break the cycle? You will always need insecticides because you are not managing your holdings in a fashion where outbreaks can be contained naturally. Now this is not to suggest there are not natural reasons that can lead to epidemic outbreaks, however it has been pretty well established that poor management can lead to these types of outbreaks. This is also the case in the landscape as I am sure everyone here is well aware of.

Yes, I believe the severity of the outbreak is in part due to mans attempt to extinguish wild land fires for the last hundred years. This has led to a overly dense mono stand of trees that became a massive breeding ground for beetles.

I say in part because Insecticides have not been used in the remote areas that spawned this epidemic, Sprayed trees are a very tiny fraction of a fraction of the picture. It is also evident that this insect is cyclic and its mass destruction is very much a part of the ecosystem. It should be left to run its course in nature, but not always in a persons landscape. Mosquitoes vectoring malaria is natural too, but I don't wish for it to run its course.

If you are going to make a case about costs .... then yes. Don't play the "carbon footprint" card if you aren't prepared to do exactly that.
Its a no brainer for some trees. Going in depth doesn't even interest me because obviously some trees are worth $3 and others need to be thinned so spraying wouldn't be worth it even if water was effective.

Yes, we can assume this. Problem is, where to we decide that we can go about business as usual using insecticides as our bailout while continuing to ignore the real causes of the problem? Is your approach to treat the symptom, not the problem? Is this approach sustainable?

You can't solve this problem. It would be stupid to try and alter the entire forest so that beetles don't populate and eventually run into the urban interface.

It makes more sense to find ways of protecting some individual landscape trees because its a waste to let them die. (unless the homeowner wants to let it rot and build the soil).

People can try to solve the problem by planting other trees but hind sight is always 20/20. What seems like a fail safe tree today can be wiped out by an invasive species tomorrow. The other issue is that many of these trees were adopted into the landscape along time ago, not planted.

If you weren't talking about pine beetles, then what were you talking about? A good example of how your posts are all over the place.

My posts aren't all over the place, you are just trying to parse each sentence so that you can dodge my point and carry on a pointless argument. Its what you do when your wrong. You really missed your calling as a lawyer.

I was saying that injecting a synthetic pesticide can be less toxic than foliar applications of an organic pesticide. There are hundreds of pests that this statement is applicable to. Check out imadicloprid and the emerald ash borer if you need a specific example. There are many fungicides and antibiotics that can be injected also. You can even inject a synthetic fertilizer to avoid any ground or water pollution in sensitive areas.

These are examples of synthetics possibly offering the least toxic solution, therefore it supports my belief that one shouldn't always support organics over synthetics, or think that a viable non-pesticide option always exists.

[OrganicsMaine]

Kiril,

Post #18 is when you made this thread into an argument. I am assuming that you didn't read my original post. Please do. You have a lot of great information/advice to give, please don't debate the organic v. synthetic issue here, that is not what I was asking for. If necessary, read my first post and then please, offer your advice. I always enjoy your information when presented in a non argumentative/debate way.:usflag: The decision to go organic or is the reader's choice. I believe that many people don't do it because they don't know how, and when the read about microscopes etc. they are immediately turned off.

Wouldn't you say that if we could get more people to use more organics and less pesticides, things will improve?

OK, back on topic.:usflag:

[Kiril]

Kiril,

Post #18 is when you made this thread into an argument.

How so? I posted my opinion on what sustainable land management means, and got attacked for it by JD. Why didn't you say something then?

Then quack made a statement about how a particular insecticide was "much less toxic" than the organic alternative. He didn't say which organic (and still hasn't), and didn't discuss how it was much more toxic. Given this is an organics forum, I wanted clarification .... don't you? Why does asking someone to clarify have to turn into an argument or defensive rants?

I am assuming that you didn't read my original post. Please do. You have a lot of great information/advice to give, please don't debate the organic v. synthetic issue here, that is not what I was asking for.

If necessary, read my first post and then please, offer your advice. I always enjoy your information when presented in a non argumentative/debate way.:usflag: The decision to go organic or is the reader's choice. I believe that many people don't do it because they don't know how, and when the read about microscopes etc. they are immediately turned off.

I did read the post .... and I presented my opinion and questioned a particular statement made by quack on a pesticide. A perfectly valid question, considering this is an organics forum, and I presented the warning data on the particular chemical as reference.. Are you suggesting I can't question something? Don't you wonder why every thread recently has become a discussion about how "safe" synthetics are and how we can justify using them. Many of quacks posts read like a sell card for synthetics ..... synthetics are safe ... organics are dangerous. In this thread you know exactly which post I am talking about since I addressed it in post #18. Yet when asked which ones and how the organics are "much more dangerous", it then turns into an argument.

Don't you think we should be discussing methods of getting away from synthetics instead of ways we can justify using them? This is the organics forum after all.

Wouldn't you say that if we could get more people to use more organics and less pesticides, things will improve?

Absolutely!

My job is finding the most sustainable, long term solution to land management. This is why I question everything, always, even my own knowledge. This is why I spend time every day reading scientific publications .... to further my knowledge and to find potential alternatives to management problems. Is there a better alternative for a particular problem? How effective is the alternative? Are there trade-offs and are they acceptable? Is there a more sustainable way to manage a site? ...... etc........

Do you have to use pesticides sometimes ... yes. Should you always be looking for ways to avoid using them ...... absolutely yes. After all, this is (in part) what organic/sustainable land management is all about.

OK, back on topic.:usflag:

Out of respect for your request .... I will refrain from answering quacks post.

[OrganicsMaine]

Kiril, I don't see anywhere on this thread that JD attacked you. I don't think I saw anything from JD here, but maybe I'm wrong. If JD came on here and started attacking, I would have said something for sure.

Your first post was one that was arguing against quack's approach. Which, I think is better than just blanket applications, btw.

You don't need to "answer" anyone's post, but if you would put forth your approach to the original post, then I, or anyone else could ask more questions, and take in all the varying opinions and work from there.

[Kiril]

Kiril, I don't see anywhere on this thread that JD attacked you. I don't think I saw anything from JD here, but maybe I'm wrong. If JD came on here and started attacking, I would have said something for sure.

Post #8

Your first post was one that was arguing against quack's approach. Which, I think is better than just blanket applications, btw.

I beg to differ. The initial post wasn't an argument against the approach ... it was a request for clarification about a statement on a particular pesticide being less toxic than the organic alternative.

You don't need to "answer" anyone's post, but if you would put forth your approach to the original post, then I, or anyone else could ask more questions, and take in all the varying opinions and work from there.

I honestly am perplexed at how you are managing to see my questions as anything but a request for clarification. I also provided one possible "organic" alternative in that request.

If the organic option is IPM via natural predators, how is it less toxic? If you spent 3 -4 years building up a natural populations of predators to common landscape pests on a site, what effect would 1-2 applications of this have on those population given the persistence (half-life with possible values exceeding 3 years in soils) of the pesticide?

Are these not valid questions to ask when applying pesticides? I presented a possible approach (building up natural checks). In the following post I mentioned management issues. Why is no one asking any questions about these alternatives? These two issues (resource and site management & promoting/supporting natural checks) are critical components to any sustainable land management program.

Let's be clear on one thing. I will, if I have the time, ask for clarification/substantiation when anyone makes a definitive statement about something like quack did. If you read the statement .... what do you walk away with .... the insecticide is safer and more effective than the organic alternative .... so why should I bother even trying to find a better way?

The other problem with only using organics is that sometimes the synthetic pesticide is safer than the organic option. Acelepryn for example is much less toxic and way more effective on some turf destroying insects than the organic option. Why wouldn't you want to use the safest and most effective option?

What organic option? How is it much less toxic? How is the insecticide safer? What impact does the insecticide have on natural checks? What are some alternatives? How can I build a system to avoid using pesticides?

I presented the information on the chemical he claimed is less toxic (that alone is debatable given soil persistence and mobility) ..... now let's compare the organic option.

My question is, why you (or anyone else) didn't have a problem with that statement and ask for clarification? :confused:

[Tim Wilson]

I was immediately put off by the uncalled for attack by JD.

I would like to ask some questions of Quackgrass about the beetles so I'll start a new thread.

I would like to say something in defense of microscopes. There is nothing that should be intimidating about using a microscope. If you can look at a lawn and see that it has dandelions, then you can use a microscope to look at how many bacteria, fungi and protozoa you have in soil, compost or compost tea. It is simple and a scope is cheaper than a lawnmower. Most lab soil tests are inaccurate outside of the humus (OM) test which is simple to do yourself.

[OrganicsMaine]

Kiril,

My bad, I totally missed JD's post, and I agree that was ridiculous, uncalled for and pathetic, my apologies.

As for the rest, I just don't want this to turn into a "pissing contest", which it did, but let's move on and try not to make it a total debate, instead, an exchange. Finding customer's like you have is not impossible, but still a bit difficult. So, instead of pushing full organic or nothing else, why not embrace the fact that many people are working towards that, but in stages. That is what makes the most sense to me. I believe that if I can slowly get the reluctant customers over to organics, then I am getting more accomplished than if I have 10 full organic customers and completely shut out the possibility of working for any one that disagrees with me.

Tim, I agree with the microscope, and it is not brain surgery to identify what is in there. The problem is that many of these LCO's are thinking short term and $$$$ only, so to actually have to think a bit might be a turn off to them.

Again Kiril, keep it coming, good info, always.

Thanks

[starry night]

Most lab soil tests are inaccurate outside of the humus (OM) test which is simple to do yourself.

So simple a caveman can do it? :)

Seriously, how do you a test for OM?

[Kiril]

Finding customer's like you have is not impossible, but still a bit difficult. So, instead of pushing full organic or nothing else, why not embrace the fact that many people are working towards that, but in stages.

See .... that is the problem. I am not "pushing full organic" That is what a couple of people that post in this forum want you to think, but it is not true. I have and still do use synthetics when I deem it appropriate.

What I am "pushing" for is that people look (and don't stop looking) for the most sustainable, long term solution to problems facing land management and the environment in general. This means not accepting that a pesticide, or a particular management practice, is the best solution. It is about learning new things, looking at the sites/systems and how all the parts fit and work together. How you can make those parts work more efficiently with each other .... especially in the case of exotic landscapes? This is an exercise in balance .... and synthetics/bad management/bad design have disturbed that balance. So the question everyone here needs to be asking themselves is how are you going to fix it?

[Tim Wilson]

So simple a caveman can do it? :)

Seriously, how do you a test for OM?

You can do a rudimentary measure of organic matter by 2/3rds filling a flat sided glass jar with an even sample of your soil; fill almost the rest of the way with water, leaving room to agitate. Put the lid on and shake madly. Place in a well lighted area overnight to settle; 1/ the top thinner layer and floating stuff is organic matter 2/ the next layer is clay 3/ the next layer is silt 4/ the bottom is sand You can do a measurement of the layers and calculate the percentages;

For more accurate results you can purchase test kits;

La Motte
Organic Matter - $14 and less/test
http://www.biconet.com/testing/st-or.html

Humus - $1.94/test
http://www.biconet.com/testing/sth-1.html

Luebke Humus Test Kit - $149 (# of tests not noted)
http://www.pikeagri.com/Humus-Testing/Luebke-Humus-Test-Kit/Detailed-product-flyer.html

[phasthound]

Kiril,

Here in the east we have several isolated infestations of Asian Longhorned Beetles http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/alb/, and broad infestations of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/ and Gypsy Moth http://www.na.fs.fed.us/SPFO/pubs/fidls/gypsymoth/gypsy.htm.

Please critique current methods of control and present other options in layman's terms. My opinion is that without the incorporation of synthetic methods of control, many millions of trees would be lost.

[Kiril]

Kiril,

Here in the east we have several isolated infestations of Asian Longhorned Beetles http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/alb/, and broad infestations of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/ and Gypsy Moth http://www.na.fs.fed.us/SPFO/pubs/fidls/gypsymoth/gypsy.htm.

Please critique current methods of control and present other options in layman's terms. My opinion is that without the incorporation of synthetic methods of control, many millions of trees would be lost.

Barry,

You can't be serious? Don't you think I donate enough of my time to this forum as it is? What do you think I am made of ..... time? My rates are $150/hr for commercial/ag consulting. Please let me know via PM if you seriously want me to do as you request and we can discuss payment options.

[starry night]

You can do a rudimentary measure of organic matter by.........................

Thanks Tim, I've done that soil particle separation demonstration in an ag class when I was the substitute teacher. But it didn't occur to me that you would get the organic matter on the top or suspended in the water.

And thanks for the links, too. The lab I use charges extra for the SOM test (combustion). Their standard tests (without SOM) are OK but haven't really provided me with much to go on. Usually around here the soils are alkaline because of our limestone base. And Kiril tells me that generally the high pH will take care of itself over time with the addition of OM. (I hope I'm quoting him right.)

This was helpful. Thanks again.

[FYS777]

Barry,

You can't be serious? Don't you think I donate enough of my time to this forum as it is? What do you think I am made of ..... time? My rates are $150/hr for commercial/ag consulting. Please let me know via PM if you seriously want me to do as you request and we can discuss payment options.

hey, 150 would be low, you need 250 an hour plus expenses to covering that amount of territory you'll need every penny, go for it, it will take about three years. sounds like good money!!!1

[Kiril]

hey, 150 would be low, you need 250 an hour plus expenses to covering that amount of territory you'll need every penny, go for it, it will take about three years. sounds like good money!!!1

That is only for the critique of current methods of control and possible options based on research to date. If Barry wants a full blown study on effectiveness of various controls and/or combinations of controls, the hourly rate no longer applies.

But heh .... I'll throw Barry a bone. As a kid, I worked for a guy that used me as his gypsy moth control. He would send me up any trees he considered important with a coffee can of kerosene and a stick. :laugh: To this day I still can recall that nasty smell.

[FYS777]

That be very true.

and that got me laughing, for the visual i seen on that.:)

[Kiril]

Just for shits and grins I checked the NAL for publications concerning the 3 pests mentioned by Barry. There are a total of 1183 publications. At 1 hour review and summarize per doc (a conservative estimate) that totals ~ $177,450 and that is just for publications tracked by the NAL. Let's assume 80% of those are relevant, so that reduces the total cost to ~ $142,000, so let's just round it to $140,000. If you are willing to pay that Barry, I will throw in the critique for free. :) Time to complete your request will be approximately 8-10 months.

[Kiril]

That be very true.

and that got me laughing, for the visual i seen on that.:)

Nothing like a nicely aged kerosene caterpillar stew to kick start your appetite. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck16.gif

He was even kind enough to rig up a carry-all that I could hang around my neck. :dizzy:

[starry night]

As a kid, I worked for a guy that used me as his gypsy moth control. He would send me up any trees he considered important with a coffee can of kerosene and a stick. :laugh: To this day I still can recall that nasty smell.

Kiril, Where did you grow up that there were gypsy moths? Out East?

[Kiril]

Kiril, Where did you grow up that there were gypsy moths? Out East?

MA & NH :waving:

Also lived in FL, NC, MI, TN

[starry night]

MA & NH :waving:

Also lived in FL, NC, MI, TN

I hear the Beach Boys singing " 'Round; 'round; get around; I get around."

[starry night]

And Kiril, that old guy that hired you to climb the trees. Did his name happen to be E. Leopold Trouvelot?

[Kiril]

And Kiril, that old guy that hired you to climb the trees. Did his name happen to be E. Leopold Trouvelot?

:laugh: You said a dirty word.