View Single Post
Old 05-31-2012, 11:28 AM
LawnSite Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Franklin, MO
Posts: 16
Tree growth and development

Ok, back again.

So, you can see from the photograph I just sent, you all may have some serious issues to deal with. How many of you have hardwood trees that appear weak? And spruce that show little or no growth this spring?

Why can't an apparently healthy spruce tree put out new buds this year? Look at it, the terminal buds appear brown, dead, maybe some new axillary buds trying to pop out behind the terminal.

Ask yourself why?

Because ALL trees and plants on your property have been impacted by Imprelis. Every single plant on your property. You may not see the injury at first, the tree looks ok from a distance, but now, you can begin to look close.

In my opinon:

1. The toxin is still in the soil and causing injury in many areas of the country.

2. Property owners may lose 5 years of normal growth or more before the trees recover, if they recover, you know, they can go the other way and decline over the five years and you have firewood standing in your front yard and your Dec 31, 2013 guarantee DuPont gives you is long forgotten.

3. Trees decline slowly folks. Some faster than others. I saw this in the last DuPont investigation I worked on from 1993 to 2001 with their product Benlate.

4. Trees that don't put on new growth, why..... they don't have the energy reserves to do so. They are growing weaker. Their root systems are damaged and they can't take up water and nutrients. Leaves are light green to yellow in some cases. That means there is no chlorophyll in the leaves folks. You have to have "green" chlorophyll for photosynthesis to manufacture sugars for the tree to live on.

5. Don't let DuPont bully you into a quick settlement like they are doing with Wally. You should be compensated for all of your "lost growth" at a reasonable rate of say $150 to $200 per foot of lost growth depending on the tree size etc.

6. A red maple will grow 1.8 feet per year in the wild according to the USDA. How fast will it grow in your well fertilized and irrigated lawn? But, let's just use the wild growth number 1.8 x 5 = 9 feet. 80% loss is about 7 feet x $150 = $1050 per tree. Do you think this is a stretch of the imagination? This is based on my preliminary work, but, let's assume I'm wrong and it is only 1/2 of what I claim, that is still $500 bucks.

7. Imagine your trees 5 years from now and what they would look like? AFter all, why did you plant trees? Wasn't it with the expectation that they would grow and develop into something you wanted in your back yard? DuPont has taken those expectations away from you and you don't even realize it. So many people do not see what is happening here.

8. Then, how did DuPont measure your tree last fall or whenever they came out? They took a measurement based on the "current" condition of the tree. Ask yourself, I couldn't replant last year, I can't replant this year, maybe, just maybe it will be safe to replant next year. OK

9. So, the replant next year won't grow very much. And, you run the risk of a continued impact of Imprelis on the tree, maybe not, maybe so, even DuPont doesn't know.

10, Therefore, if DuPont didn't poison your tree in 2011, how large would it be at the end of 2013? Shouldn't DuPont pay you for what the tree would have looked like in the fall of 2013? They stole three years of growth, or most likely more like 4 years depending on the size of your replant.

11. In the case of red maple, a 20 foot tree in 2011 would be compensated at $1910, this is DuPont's value, not mine. 3 yrs x 1.8 feet = 5.4 feet. DuPont's value for a 25.4 ft tree is::::: == $3500. That is about a $1500 difference. You just lost another $1500.

12. To those who still think it is best for them to negotiate on their own without the assistance of legal expertise, how far do you think you are going to get with DuPont on your own? Look at Wally, all he wanted to do was have his trees cut down by someone else is how I understand it. Think people, think.

13. I'm not an attorney, I am a plant scientist, I offer no legal advice or suggestions of any kind. None. I just do my job as a plant scientist and report what I see. My findings are just preliminary. Additional research may prove me wrong and that is ok. That is what the scientific method is all about, discovering false and misleading science that can result in erronous expectations. Do not rely on my work since it has not been tested by other reliable scientists and DuPont. They should have a chance to evaluate these opinions of mine and offer their own opinions. I strongly recommended that you contact DuPont and request they conduct their own studies to insure that "good" science and economics will prevail in the analysis and financial evaluation of this toxic event.

That's it.

Have a great day.
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.04189 seconds with 8 queries