View Full Version : 2nd week results of Primo Maxx in PG Ultra
06-30-2004, 07:50 PM
Well, drove past the school today. Again, hardly no rain (<1/4") in the last week, even 2 weeks since I sprayed the Primo.
The grass where it was trimmed down to 1/4-1/2", has all grown back to regular height. It doesn't NEED to be trimmed, but I believe that's mostly due to the fact that the whole entire property doesn't NEED to be mowed. In fact, I'm still trying to deicde if we're just going to skip it this week, since we're going to mow it tomorrow (Thursday) and then no one's around until Tuesday anyways for the 4th.
Anyways, even the tree rows from the previous pics, where I went down one side, then back up the other and overlapped, that grass has grown just as tall as the other.
It IS kinda spotty though, which would make me believe that the low volume of water is what causes the problems, not the Primo itself.
I think the next time I test this out, I'll either use my Lesco skid sprayer, or maybe take a backpack sprayer and spray as I'm mowing / trimming????? :confused:
07-01-2004, 12:38 AM
I made a post on one of your other threads. To overcome the low volume problem inherent with PG's, the guy at PG suggested mixing it at half rate and making two passes over the same area. By doing this you are meeting the minimum 1/2 gal water carrier problem that PG users run into.
If any of you experienced PG users see any holes in this please speak up. I am a new PG user and this makes sense to me. Just a pain in the but since you will need twice as many fill-ups to do the same work.
07-01-2004, 12:57 AM
that is what i hate about the pg u have to 2 passes on some things to make um work better
the hose is the best thing for many products this seemes to be 1
07-01-2004, 08:35 AM
From FLC Dave:
"To overcome the low volume problem inherent with PG's, the guy at PG suggested mixing it at half rate and making two passes"
"that is what i hate about the pg u have to 2 passes on some things to make um work better"
This limitation is (in my opinion) the greatest limitation of the Perma-green. Making two passes is unacceptable, I didn't spend almost $5,000 so that I can waste the time it takes to do two passes. If I had a sense of the scale of this problem before I had spent the money, I probably would buy a different machine.
Fortunately for me, I was a journeyman metal worker in my previous career. So I plan to upgrade my machine to overcome the problems that I have with it this winter.
07-01-2004, 09:17 AM
FLC Dave -
I'll try to snap a picture tomorrow of the tree row where it was over lapped at the 1.3 oz / 1000 mix, which, should then be 2.6 oz / 1000. If you look back at the other thread, you can see where the grass was (looked like) controlled.
Yesterday (Wednesday) when I drove past the school, the grass under these trees is just as tall as the other grasses, even though it was overlapped.
07-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Ill go out on a limb and defend PG here.....I cant believe Im saying this:D
This machine is advertised as a low volume applicator, being a turf professional I knew going in that many products require different amounts of water, I learned that by reading the label of the products Ive used over the years. And I knew that some products wouldn't work
Back when I pulled a hose I was spraying at 1.5 gallons per K, that was low volume, there where products that were labeled for 3-5 gallons per K and they didnt work as well as they should, I didnt blame the spray system for that.
Now I do believe there are many problems with the PG that should be addressed by Perma Green. And these problems are from bad engineering, and design. They do seem to fall on deaf ears because the Ultra is going into its 3rd year without fixes
07-01-2004, 04:05 PM
I agree, it's not the Ultra that's the problem, just the amount of water. I don't believe they could do anything about it, because if you pumped out more water at a given time, you'd have to have a PG with a 200 gallon tank.
It works great, in my experiences for Momentum, but that's labeled for low volume as well at "higher" volume.
Guess it pretty much comes down to what the label says. If it's not rated for low volume, probably going to get spotty results?
07-01-2004, 08:19 PM
You mean those labels mean something? WHo woulda thunk. I thought they just made all thats tuff up to waste ink :)
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.