I mean I literally provided evidence of lower efficacy on wet plants, which is wasting chemical and the entire point of the topic you made. Also the place it is applied is irrelevant so not sure why you are hanging on to this turf issue. A weed is a weed, a non selective isn't going to work differently between the grass and a bed on the same weed.
Also I spend more time listening, learning, and working than spewing every bit of nonsense from my mouth as it comes, which explains my low post count. You should try it. Maybe you wouldn't feel so threatened by your new hires that know more than you do.
. Like imagine being in this industry for 40 years and still not knowing basic things.
I was thinking about this as I was applying herbicides to dry turf. Well, might have been a bit of moisture a stray shower had gone through earlier.
It depends on what you're applying. Some it wont do anything, some it will reduce or increase the efficacy, some it will cause it to run off and deposit heavier in a low spot causing turf damage or get into a storm drain which is a big no no and usually state on the label to not apply to saturated soils. I mean it's pretty easy to grasp the idea that if the plant is saturated, and the soil is saturated, any additional liquid could potentially run downhill especially if you are using 2gpm or something. Then you have the potential of applying in saturated conditions and another storm or even the homeowners sprinklers come on before its had a chance to dry completely ruining the application and potentially killing spots in the yard. This goes double for preemergents. How is the chemical going to get into the soil if it is at capacity already?...It's just going to get moved off target.
So the only answer is to be responsible and to read the label and use common sense. If you are doing small yards after a rain and more rain is coming you might want to reconsider.
#1 I realize I wasn't 100% clear. But once again, in my mind it was clear...horticulturists do not perform turf care.
#2 You start throwing in all kinds of straw man arguments. Plant saturated. Soil saturated. Run off. Another storm. Sprinklers. Chemical getting into the soil if it's at capacity.
-I DID clearly state it was not raining and no rain on the radar.
-I also stated it had just rained and it was like a heavy dew.
-You're assuming the chemical we were applying was systemic and needed to get into the soil. I know I didn't state either way, but you completely assumed facts not in evidence. With your vast
vast experience you should know not all pesticides are systemic.
Now for an English lesson.
When you say nonselective are you talking about roundup because there have been several studies I've come across over the years indicating that it is at its highest efficacy at low carrier volumes at about 5gpa or so with lower spray coverage compared to more diluted mixtures aiming for 100% coverage.
Also about applying it to dew laden leaves;
"Glyphosate may provide the best weed control in late morning and afternoon applications with reductions in control being observed with early morning and evening applications. Recent research has demonstrated that the presence of dew on weed leaves may contribute to the time-of-day effect with glyphosate. When heavy dew was present, adjusting the carrier volume or nozzle type did not alter control of common waterhemp with glyphosate (unpublished SIU data). The net result was approximately 20% less control of common waterhemp when glyphosate was applied at 7 a.m. compared with 1 p.m. Conversely, no difference in glyphosate efficacy was observed for some glyphosate applications performed at 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. when no dew was present at the early morning applications."
It seems like your horticulturist may be on to something.
#1 Definition of "may"
past might
ˈmīt ; present singular and plural may
1
a
—used to indicate possibility or probability
You stated:
I mean I literally provided evidence of lower efficacy on wet plants, which is wasting chemical and the entire point of the topic you made.
Yet the study you quoted-only part of with no link to read the entire study-clearly states MAY and is only discussing waterhemp, which is a weed that is showing resistance to gly no matter if it's wet or dry.
Also the place it is applied is irrelevant so not sure why you are hanging on to this turf issue. A weed is a weed, a non selective isn't going to work differently between the grass and a bed on the same weed.
You sure you want to go there? Gly does not work the same way as 2D/Confront. Herbicides have different modes of action. Gly inhibits photosynthesis and becomes inactive when coming in contact with soil. Something like 2D/Confront works systemically, not on contact.
I would think with your vast experience and your attempts to belittle me you would have known that not all pesticides work in the same manner.
You should try it. Maybe you wouldn't feel so threatened by your new hires that know more than you do.
. Like imagine being in this industry for 40 years and still not knowing basic things.
SKW...I am not in the least bit threatened. I am fully aware that I don't know everything which is one of the reasons I asked the questions I did here. Kinda makes you look silly for stating the complete opposite. Read the last sentence in my very first post.
And then you attack my person, which is what one does when one has lost the argument, because the points that one has made have been proven wrong but one does not want to admit it.
Maybe you could post the link to that gly study...how long ago was that study performed?
Without knowing how long you've been in the industry, are you claiming you know everything there is to know about turf care?
