PDA

View Full Version : educating customers [pesticides]


americanlawn
10-22-2010, 05:59 PM
I received this today. It refers to GOFF courses, but it applies just as much or more to lawn & tree care applicators. Might even use it as a "hand out" for skeptic homeowners. Check it out.

http://iaturf.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicating-sustainable-use-of.html

LawnoftheMonth
10-22-2010, 10:24 PM
Some good information, thanks for sharing. I wouldn't leave the whole article as a hand out, but edit it down to the key points to make it easier to read and digest. Thumbs Up

grassman177
10-22-2010, 11:24 PM
I have been using the medication speach to my customers and the like for years as it always was easier to use that concept.

good article larry, thanks for sharing.

I too am a conservative with chemicals, using only what i have to when i have to . i always give disease and insect damage much consideration of the environment etc to determine whether or not a treatment is the best approach and things like that.

ICT Bill
10-23-2010, 12:08 PM
I received this today. It refers to GOFF courses, but it applies just as much or more to lawn & tree care applicators. Might even use it as a "hand out" for skeptic homeowners. Check it out.

http://iaturf.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicating-sustainable-use-of.html

I will only get on my soapbox for a minute

There was a wonderful substance discovered in the early 1900's, it was a great insulator, it kept areas cool on engines parts so you could run fuel lines in hot areas without catching on fire, excellent if you are flying at 25,000 feet. It was so good as an insulator that it was soon used in almost every instance to "insulate" things. The company that invented it became a huge behemoth it was so successful
in the late 60's and early 70's doctors started noticing the ravaged lungs of people that had worked around asbestos and began to inform the public that this stuff was not a good idea, it took many years to get peoples attention and to remove the product from being produced

We are at the same point with pesticides now and companies like BASF have it in their best interest for you to think that they would not hurt you with their products

Many of these products are endocrine disrupters that directly effect the hormonal system within plants and insects, the companies would lead you to believe that their products do not cross over to vertibrates like us

six legged frogs and other mutations are becoming a common occurance in the farming belt, unisex fish are now common across the US, not just the potomac river

WR Grace is still in litigation 40 years later

off soap box

Buck_wheat
10-23-2010, 04:57 PM
I received this today. It refers to GOFF courses, but it applies just as much or more to lawn & tree care applicators. Might even use it as a "hand out" for skeptic homeowners. Check it out.

http://iaturf.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicating-sustainable-use-of.html

What's a GOFF course?

Patriot Services
10-23-2010, 05:18 PM
You know goff, with the schtick and bawl you putt in da whole.
Posted via Mobile Device

grassman177
10-23-2010, 07:20 PM
You know goff, with the schtick and bawl you putt in da whole.
Posted via Mobile Device

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

grassman177
10-23-2010, 07:21 PM
I agree with barry, but also, the very cautious use of them is very important. I hope to keep going the route that at least they are getting supposedly less harmful.

I try very hard to use the least toxic products i can , to what degree it has made a difference i dont know. any thoughts on that practice and its merit

phasthound
10-24-2010, 12:32 AM
I agree with barry, but also, the very cautious use of them is very important. I hope to keep going the route that at least they are getting supposedly less harmful.

I try very hard to use the least toxic products i can , to what degree it has made a difference i dont know. any thoughts on that practice and its merit

grassman,

I think you are referring to ICT Bill. I did not post a reply to this thread until now.

Your approach is a wise one.

All I have to say about the article by the BASF technician is that statements contained in the article do more harm to the credibility our industry than many of us would like to believe.

Pesticides do have many benefits, but they are highly regulated because science has shown that they do have detrimental effects to health and the environment. Comparing soap to pesticides is misleading in the extreme.

Before registering a new pesticide – or a new use for a registered pesticide – the EPA must first assure the public that the pesticide is considered safe, when used according to label directions.

I would be very interested in seeing an EPA document that supports this claim.
Do the signal words, CAUTION, WARNING, DANGER refer to safe products???

topsites
10-24-2010, 01:28 AM
I only need them to be educated in the respect of paying the bill when it is due,
on time, and in full, no excuses.

And I realize that's a tall order but it's not much taller than this one and
if that's all I get, I'm happy.

Buck_wheat
10-24-2010, 08:36 AM
wasn't there a guy who ate a tea spoon of DDT in the late 60's or early 70's to prove it would'nt kill you?

OH.. let's see. Where my siccors and glue? Wait, that damaged the screen... hmmm read the directions? The last act of a desperate man!

Please, put this in your signature if you know someone or are related to someone who suffers from stupidity. People need to understand that stupidity is real and should be taken seriously. You could be sitting next to a sufferer right now. There is still no known cure for stupidity, it can be contagious and sympathy does not help, but we can raise awareness. 93% won't copy and paste this, because they don't know how to copy and paste.

Buck_wheat
10-24-2010, 09:07 AM
I will only get on my soapbox for a minute

There was a wonderful substance discovered in the early 1900's, it was a great insulator, it kept areas cool on engines parts so you could run fuel lines in hot areas without catching on fire, excellent if you are flying at 25,000 feet. It was so good as an insulator that it was soon used in almost every instance to "insulate" things. The company that invented it became a huge behemoth it was so successful
in the late 60's and early 70's doctors started noticing the ravaged lungs of people that had worked around asbestos and began to inform the public that this stuff was not a good idea, it took many years to get peoples attention and to remove the product from being produced

We are at the same point with pesticides now and companies like BASF have it in their best interest for you to think that they would not hurt you with their products

Many of these products are endocrine disrupters that directly effect the hormonal system within plants and insects, the companies would lead you to believe that their products do not cross over to vertibrates like us

six legged frogs and other mutations are becoming a common occurance in the farming belt, unisex fish are now common across the US, not just the potomac river

WR Grace is still in litigation 40 years later

off soap box

The preponderance of the problem lies in the indiscriminate application of these beneficial chemicals.

Asbestos continues to be a superior solution for insulation and fire ******ation. The problem was it's indiscriminate application without safety or proper respiratory gear or containment. Many suffering from the lung ailments also smoked and breathed the contaminated air emitted from the plants they were working at. The elimination of asbestos alone is not indicative of the extent of damage done by the other contaminants in the environment of these "victims' since they were also largely eliminated at the same time.

DDT was indiscriminately applied here, and elsewhere for decades without proper application techniques or restricion. It continues to be a beneficial chemical no longer in use resulting in the resurgence of malaria epidemics, particularly in SE Asia.

The major problems with chemicals is the attitude of the applicator, if one part per X is good, then two must be better, or more will fix the problem faster. I get this a lot from geniuses who see a dry patch on the lawn in rainy season and add more water as opposed to investigating the patch for proper treatment... which is usually less water and a beneficial chemical properly applied.

This is especially true for homeowners and other nimrods that don't bother to get the proper education, stay current and exercises "best management practices" and leave the chemical apps to those who are properly licensed to do so.

All that notwithstanding, we live longer and healthier lives today than we did when none of these chemicals existed. American produce is the best in the world as a result of proper chemical crop management (fertilizer included). Do not be fooled about the benefits of "organics" since much of it is less robust, infested with vermin and contaminated with e-coli. The elimination of these beneficial chemicals will result in the exercise of the law of unintended consequences such as the malaria epidemics in SE Asia, food shortages as a result of crops ravaged by insects and vermin.

You may consider looking into the crops that are being ravaged even as we speak by the importation of the White fly from Burma. Cotton, Potato, etc. as an example. Without the benefit of the chemical agents to control them, we will be in another dust bowl.

sclawndr
10-24-2010, 12:08 PM
I will only get on my soapbox for a minute


six legged frogs and other mutations are becoming a common occurance in the farming belt, unisex fish are now common across the US, not just the potomac river

WR Grace is still in litigation 40 years later

off soap box

Bill, you're painting with far too broad a brush. The problem with fish becoming more female for example, is not attributable to pesticides but estrogen coming from sewage systems. It gets picked up and distributed thru the natural water cycle. Studies have shown fish populations at higher altitudes have a normal 50-50 male/female mix but that changes to as much as 80% female as it works its way downstream.

There are many good arguments for organic solutions but they are undermined by wild claims that pesticides are to blame for everything. When you have industries discharging all manner of things directly into rivers, it's ridiculous to single out lawn care pesticides as the main culprit.

americanlawn
10-25-2010, 07:53 PM
I wondered if anybody would pick that the author was a BASF rep. Not saying that's good or bad. The article also had input from land grant University professors -- not saying that's good or bad either.

The EPA originally approved "Silvex" (2,4,5-T) as an excellent broadleaf herbicide. It was also blended (50/50) with 2,4-D during the Viet Nam "conflict" for use as a defoliatent, and they called it Agent Orange. But, it was used at higher than normal rates.

In 1985, the EPA took Silvex off the market due to more involved studies and the effects of the product. (Cancer, night sweats on Viet Nam Vets, etc)

I also understand that just cuz a pesticide is organic (natural organic) does not mean it is any safer than synthetic products than are formulated to be used safely around people, pets, wildlife, and plants.

My concern is to use whatever product that works & does the job. Avoiding off-target applications is JOB ONE (just ask your state pesticide inspector).

[personal note]: This is one reason I avoid using foggers >> kill me on this one if this approach is something you don't want to hear. Don't care. I just want to keep the product on the property I'm hired to treat. This way I avoid liability issues from neighbors and the State.

Kiril
10-25-2010, 09:44 PM
I received this today. It refers to GOFF courses, but it applies just as much or more to lawn & tree care applicators. Might even use it as a "hand out" for skeptic homeowners. Check it out.

http://iaturf.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicating-sustainable-use-of.html

Ahhhhhh, the smell of corp propaganda in the early evening. Thanks for the laugh .... now on to educating the customers for real.

Harley-D
10-27-2010, 10:05 AM
Anything written that has a purpose or took money of any kind to produce the results of such studies could be considered propaganda. Even all those wonderful articles you posess, Kiril. I've seen my alma mater use funds provided by "supporters" (chemical companies) to provide research data for future studies and for consumers. How do you determine what is read is legit.

ted putnam
10-28-2010, 01:19 AM
Anything written that has a purpose or took money of any kind to produce the results of such studies could be considered propaganda. Even all those wonderful articles you posess, Kiril. I've seen my alma mater use funds provided by "supporters" (chemical companies) to provide research data for future studies and for consumers. How do you determine what is read is legit.

:clapping::clapping:

Kiril
10-28-2010, 11:08 AM
Anything written that has a purpose or took money of any kind to produce the results of such studies could be considered propaganda. Even all those wonderful articles you posess, Kiril. I've seen my alma mater use funds provided by "supporters" (chemical companies) to provide research data for future studies and for consumers.

A magazine opinion article by a pesticide company representative and scientific research published in a peer reviewed journal, regardless of where the funding comes from, are not even close to being the same thing, especially when a study has corroborating research from other researchers and publications. That is not to say corruption doesn't happen in research, but to suggest this article can be reasonably compared to a journal publication, or that all scientific research is propaganda is nothing short of silly.

How do you determine what is read is legit.

A few things to determine legitimacy.
What is the research methodology? Is the research published in a journal? Are there corroborating studies?

I have seen a lot of field "studies" that try to pass themselves off as bonifide research but fall way short, nor are they ever published in a journal, and for good reason. These types of "publications" are the ones you really need to look at hard, especially when the "studies" are presented by a company pushing products that have been used in the study, or the "study" is loosely related to a product.

Harley-D
10-28-2010, 02:26 PM
I agree but even journal publications reviewed by peers are subject to bias objectifications of those that performed the review. People are nothing short of flawed and research, no matter how specific, is only as exact as the perfection displayed by the flawed person performing it. A study of bluegrass roots reaching 3' in depth is an awesome find but the specifics can only be so exact. Variables are too great and uncontrollable. A reason that practical LCO's love to use "real world" examples. History is exact, the future is not.

Kiril
10-28-2010, 04:04 PM
I agree but even journal publications reviewed by peers are subject to bias objectifications of those that performed the review. People are nothing short of flawed and research, no matter how specific, is only as exact as the perfection displayed by the flawed person performing it. A study of bluegrass roots reaching 3' in depth is an awesome find but the specifics can only be so exact. Variables are too great and uncontrollable. A reason that practical LCO's love to use "real world" examples. History is exact, the future is not.

Why even bother trying to understand anything then? Let us all move back into caves. :dizzy:

BTW .... when an LCO says "real world" or "common sense", it really means "I have no education and I don't know shiit". Furthermore, "real world examples" or "anecdotal evidence" are more subject to these "great and uncontrollable" variables you mention .... and that my friend, is your taste of reality for the day.

Harley-D
10-28-2010, 04:42 PM
Why even bother trying to understand anything then? Let us all move back into caves. :dizzy:

BTW .... when an LCO says "real world" or "common sense", it really means "I have no education and I don't know shiit". Furthermore, "real world examples" or "anecdotal evidence" are more subject to these "great and uncontrollable" variables you mention .... and that my friend, is your taste of reality for the day.

Reality...meet Kiril. Kiril, here's reality. I'm sure the two of you have a whole lot of catching up to do. :laugh:

BTW... when you post a bunch of meaningless articles and journal entries, don't assume anyone is going to read them. The ones i read are biased.
I'm sure your cave would be very spacious.

Buck_wheat
10-28-2010, 05:55 PM
I see that Kiril has consistency; he's an a$$hole no matter what forum he gets on.

americanlawn
10-28-2010, 07:04 PM
Anything written that has a purpose or took money of any kind to produce the results of such studies could be considered propaganda. Even all those wonderful articles you posess, Kiril. I've seen my alma mater use funds provided by "supporters" (chemical companies) to provide research data for future studies and for consumers. How do you determine what is read is legit.

I always wondered why ISU professors drive new Mercedes :laugh::laugh:

fl-landscapes
10-28-2010, 07:37 PM
I see that Kiril has consistency; he's an a$$hole no matter what forum he gets on.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::clapping:

Kiril
10-28-2010, 08:20 PM
BTW... when you post a bunch of meaningless articles and journal entries, don't assume anyone is going to read them. The ones i read are biased.
I'm sure your cave would be very spacious.

Why doesn't it surprise me that if a study finds something you don't agree with, you will find it meaningless and bias. :laugh:

Don't assume anyone isn't going to read the linked studies .... not everyone here wants to be a knuckle dragger.

I see that Kiril has consistency; he's an a$$hole no matter what forum he gets on.

Funny .... I think some of the biggest aholes on this site live in this forum ..... and now that you are here, I am even more convinced of this.

Patriot Services
10-28-2010, 08:46 PM
Let's if the moderators remove that one.
Posted via Mobile Device

rcreech
10-28-2010, 09:28 PM
I am sure there are many "peer reviewed" articles that we could shoot holes in. It all comes down to politics and MONEY!

Look at GLOBAL WARMING! :laugh: Purely a hoax and thank goodness it made Al Gore out to be a goon and the liar that he really was. Was that theory peer reviewed? I don't know and don't care, but I bet it was. Because the scientist that were backing him admitted they lied! :laugh:

Moral of the story is you can't believe hardly anything you read anymore...but I do put a lot of faith in proven science and common sense!

Doctor's "practice" medicine everyday and if you really want to look at it we "practice" lawncare, just as some "practice" making cars, and some "practice" teaching kids. We all "practice" what we do and try to get better every day!

Too much political bull crap and money involved. Keep it simple and do what works!

Eat beef, drink beer and work hard I say! You can never go wrong!

BTW...Kiril has been an ass on here for several years now, so don't take it personal! It is a really bad habit he has formed!

Harley-D
10-28-2010, 09:30 PM
So how does the study of bluegrass roots in mid-west america that were not treated in anyway like turfgrass bluegrass, apply to anything anyone on this forum would ever have a question about as far as root depth for bluegrass? You think soil samples should be taken at 12" or better? Have fun man but you lose a lot of credibility on here when others read that junk. And since you've said it before, i'll hit you with your own smack...if you cannot rebut with an adult response, you result to name calling. Mature.

ted putnam
10-28-2010, 10:34 PM
[QUOTE=Kiril;3771390]Don't assume anyone isn't going to read the linked studies .... not everyone here wants to be a knuckle dragger.



When I finally reach your level of evolution, I hope I'm able to levitate just like you!:laugh:

Kiril
10-29-2010, 07:58 AM
So how does the study of bluegrass roots in mid-west america that were not treated in anyway like turfgrass bluegrass, apply to anything anyone on this forum would ever have a question about as far as root depth for bluegrass? You think soil samples should be taken at 12" or better? Have fun man but you lose a lot of credibility on here when others read that junk. And since you've said it before, i'll hit you with your own smack...if you cannot rebut with an adult response, you result to name calling. Mature.

What the hell are you talking about Harley? What do these have anything to do with this topic? Are you losing your mind bud?

BTW .... what exactly do you know about soil sampling or potential/effective root depths? I am betting very little.

sedge
10-29-2010, 09:54 AM
Reality...meet Kiril. Kiril, here's reality. I'm sure the two of you have a whole lot of catching up to do. :laugh:

BTW... when you post a bunch of meaningless articles and journal entries, don't assume anyone is going to read them. The ones i read are biased.
I'm sure your cave would be very spacious.

I see that Kiril has consistency; he's an a$$hole no matter what forum he gets on.

At least he is 100% consistent.........:laugh:

Do you think he was born that away or this was a developed trait?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::clapping:

Let's if the moderators remove that one.
Posted via Mobile Device

[QUOTE=Kiril;3771390]Don't assume anyone isn't going to read the linked studies .... not everyone here wants to be a knuckle dragger.



When I finally reach your level of evolution, I hope I'm able to levitate just like you!:laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Kiril
10-29-2010, 10:01 AM
Gee .... look, sedge made his way out of the political forum for some bashing. :rolleyes: Back to your room now boy. :waving:

sedge
10-29-2010, 10:58 AM
Gee .... look, sedge made his way out of the political forum for some bashing. :rolleyes: Back to your room now boy. :waving:

You know Kiril, you are an intelligent bloke for sure, too bad you are so abrasive. If you weren't, some one might even be able to learn a thing or 2 from you. As it stands though, your so pompous, every one throws out everything you say from the very beginning.