Calculating N rates on iron products

[Think Green]

Greendoctor,
Agreed!
I am still around thank goodness after being exposed numerous times to Chlordane, Lindane, Chlorpyrifos, and nicotine sulfates.
There is a more in depth reason besides a herbicide like MSMA that controls pretty much foliar burning to eliminate a weed through starvation.
You, Skipster, Ric all have good points as to the removal of older herbicides as a scientific stard, but I feel that my responses is a little basic but the fact still stands.
There has been thousands of products removed from the market for reasons of toxicity...yet it is still sold, used and imported back to us from foreign markets that has no strict standards.
The US Customs Dept. can't catch them all, especially those products that slips into our seaboards.
I do not; for a second feel that all loss is from improper management and application of these products. If the same formulation is made for the general consumer) no wonder it is under fire from the industry. There is more products flushed down toilets, into ditches, waterways than one can imagine. (It is not from the Professional). It very well may be resistance that springs to mind first.!!
I have read that, once a product becomes the cure all in the industry standard, it becomes infiltrated and saturated into deep cracks. The product is like any product.......once the saturation is completed, it isn't a necessary money maker and must be removed. So, the only legal way to remove a standard use product is to scheme a Medical condition as a result of and have it sent to the RUP sector. From there it is subjected to review and a lot of paperwork.
Since all States do not mandate strict management of herbicide, insecticide uses to be documented, it is impossible to distinguish negligent uses. All the industry can do is trace all containers purchased. They cannot trace who, what, where, when and why!!!
This is just how I feel!!!!!
I know this has nothing to do with calculating the N content of Iron liquid so sorry for highjacking this thread.
So if products is mismanaged.......lets not blame the industry, it is those that represent the industry. Like I said--" If the materials are not forced on the exams, then who is really to blame?" I am for not going beyond the bun in education......but that is because I dont use liquid fers much. The other is the industry leaders of each state for not being responsible themselves for higher learning.

[phillie]

Originally Posted by greendoctor

FQPA, ala Carole Browner also has something to do with this process. Products for which there are no practical replacements are being or have been removed from the T, O, and N markets in the name of "saving the children". The cheaper products with their simpler chemistry were also good tools and even more valuable now for resistance management. Most insecticides are either pyrethroid or neonicotinoids. Turf fungicides are all DMI or strobilurins. I am still around even though diazinon and mancozeb were used on home lawns. My parents just told me to keep off the grass.

I also agree. I think the EPA regulates us further than golf courses and sod farms is because we are treating other peoples lawns. Sod farms and golf courses are treating their property. We are also carrying these products on our trucks on a regular basis making for a higher risk of contaminating the environment. I dont believe it's because the EPA thinks we are ignorant by any means.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by phillie

I also agree. I think the EPA regulates us further than golf courses and sod farms is because we are treating other peoples lawns. Sod farms and golf courses are treating their property. We are also carrying these products on our trucks on a regular basis making for a higher risk of contaminating the environment. I dont believe it's because the EPA thinks we are ignorant by any means.

I don't think, I KNOW the EPA regulates Horticulture heaver than Ag or Golf Courses. READ THE LABEL They are under Ag regulations and we aren't. They still have a list Chemicals that were ban to us. Dursban (Lorsban) is just one that everyone should understand.

.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Ric

I don't think, I KNOW the EPA regulates Horticulture heaver than Ag or Golf Courses. READ THE LABEL They are under Ag regulations and we aren't. They still have a list Chemicals that were ban to us. Dursban (Lorsban) is just one that everyone should understand.

.

Oops Sorry I left out two very key words in my above post.

AGRICULTURE LOBBY


BTW It is HUGE.

[Skipster]

I don't see EPA regulating LCOs any more than it does golf courses or sod farms. But, there are many more acres of lawns than golf or sod and there are more LCOs than golf courses or sod farms. Although fines to golf courses are typically larger than to LCOs, there are way more LCOs with violations than golf courses.

The bottom line is that the regulators think they can trust the golf and sod guys more than LCOs because golf and sod producers are typically more educated (I know -- not always, but typically) and the barriers to entry are higher in those industries. All it takes to be an LCO is a truck, spreader, and sprayer.

If we demonstrate that we are interested in education and that we follow labels and regulations correctly, maybe the regulations will lighten up.

Did it ever occur to anyone why MSMA is not banned for golf and sod use, but it is for LCOs, even though the main risk (and reason for re-registration denial) was a golf application? The regulators think they can trust the college educated golf course superintendent more than the hillbilly-in-a-truck LCO.

Not passing a judgement on anyone -- that's just what they think and I think we can change that, but it's goign to take a concerted effort.

[turfmd101]

Originally Posted by Skipster

I don't see EPA regulating LCOs any more than it does golf courses or sod farms. But, there are many more acres of lawns than golf or sod and there are more LCOs than golf courses or sod farms. Although fines to golf courses are typically larger than to LCOs, there are way more LCOs with violations than golf courses.

The bottom line is that the regulators think they can trust the golf and sod guys more than LCOs because golf and sod producers are typically more educated (I know -- not always, but typically) and the barriers to entry are higher in those industries. All it takes to be an LCO is a truck, spreader, and sprayer.

If we demonstrate that we are interested in education and that we follow labels and regulations correctly, maybe the regulations will lighten up.

Did it ever occur to anyone why MSMA is not banned for golf and sod use, but it is for LCOs, even though the main risk (and reason for re-registration denial) was a golf application? The regulators think they can trust the college educated golf course superintendent more than the hillbilly-in-a-truck LCO.

Not passing a judgement on anyone -- that's just what they think and I think we can change that, but it's goign to take a concerted effort.

Golf courses get to keep products because the higher the turf quality. The higher the golf traffic which generate lots of tax $ for the state. Golf is tax $. Important state revenue. They can keep good products to keep quality high to get rounds of golf played and making $.

Turf applicators generate no state $. There apps don't count as much. In Fl anyway.
Posted via Mobile Device

[clemsonturf]

Originally Posted by Skipster

Did it ever occur to anyone why MSMA is not banned for golf and sod use, but it is for LCOs, even though the main risk (and reason for re-registration denial) was a golf application? The regulators think they can trust the college educated golf course superintendent more than the hillbilly-in-a-truck LCO.

I disagree. It's got more to do with reducing home site exposure and economics.

The arsenical committee saw the light and realized they were going to wreck the sod business, in turn, wrecking local economies. It would have been a big set of dominoes the economy wouldn't have been able to handle.

[cgaengineer]

Originally Posted by Skipster

Sorry, I was a bit harsh on that one. But, I think that labels are important and knowing how to calculate product, fertilizer, and active ingredient amounts is what separates professionals from amateurs. Any lawn boy can follow directions -- mix some of this with some of that. Any lawn boy can mix 2-10 oz/M (and use the wrong unit abreviations to do it), but it takes professionalism and critical thinking abilities to understand what that mix rate means and how to apply it to a business in which no two lawns are the same. You can bet that the big companies have guys who can do that, and do it every day.

This lack of understanding of products and labels is why the EPA and state regulators come down hard on LCOs, but not as hard on golf courses and sod growers -- they see that the golf and sod guys have more education and know how to read labels, which makes EPA think they are smarter and better than LCOs.

Did you guys know that MSMA use was continued for golf course, sod farm, and ROW use, but not for home lawn use? The decision not to include home lawns in the use extension was precisely because LCOs are showing EPA that they can't understand product labels and won't follow them.

In your post, ArTurf, calculating the amount of N in a liquid fertilizer is exactly the same as calculating the amount of active ingredient applied from a liquid herbicide. You still need to know how to find the info on the label and do the simple math.

I don't want to belittle you or slam you for asking a simple question -- asking questions is how we learn. But, we're fighting a battle of perception here. EPA and the state regulators see the golf course and sod guys as having college degrees andbeign active in state and national organizations that require continuing education beyond the minimum level to maintain your pesticide license. They look at LCOs as lawn boys who only meet the minimum for state certification and can't even read a label.

I'm sorry I turned this into such a rant, but I want everyone in our industry to rise to the level of the college educated golf course superintendent. The big boys have several college educated guys on thair staff and even some PhDs sprinkled in, so they can make the case to the regulators that they're better than everyone else. If we can't be at least as knowledgable about what we do as the college educated guys, LCOs will always get the sort end of the stick from the regulators.

You my friend are a broken record.
Posted via Mobile Device

[timturf]

Originally Posted by Ric

I don't think, I KNOW the EPA regulates Horticulture heaver than Ag or Golf Courses. READ THE LABEL They are under Ag regulations and we aren't. They still have a list Chemicals that were ban to us. Dursban (Lorsban) is just one that everyone should understand.

.

My 2 cents

The golf course supt are much more educated and spend alot more time continuing their education.

What % of lco operators have a 4yr ( bs degree) in horticulture or a turf degree? Wonder what % of gc supt have one?

Now I know their are plenty of very well educated lco operators, but just review all the thousand of dumb question....and thank you all for learning on this site............and you know I'm right

[Ric]

Originally Posted by timturf

My 2 cents

The golf course supt are much more educated and spend alot more time continuing their education.

What % of lco operators have a 4yr ( bs degree) in horticulture or a turf degree? Wonder what % of gc supt have one?

Now I know their are plenty of very well educated lco operators, but just review all the thousand of dumb question....and thank you all for learning on this site............and you know I'm right

Tim

Big Difference in the Money per sq ft spend on Golf Course Turf and Home owner turf. BTW LS is like all forums. You must wade thur a ton of BS to find a grain of knowledge.

.