|
Macro Injection versus Micro
Injection
Notice the well formed trunk flares of
the above trees Photos
Copyright Scenic Hills
Researchers and tree professional
continue to investigate the use of systemic fungicides,
insecticides and nutrients in an attempt to provide safe,
long lasting protection against tree diseases in-order to
provide better health and care for our majestic oak trees
here in the Hill Country. Oak Wilt has become one of the
biggest killers of our live oaks here in the Texas Hill
Country, now present in more than 77 counties. While there
are several injectable fungicides labeled for the control of
oak wilt, many researchers and professional applicators
agree that Propiconazole 14.3% MEC. formulation has proven
effective for the suppression of infectious disease caused
by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum, which invades and
disables the water-conducting system in susceptible trees.
Click on photo to enlarge Photos Copyright
Scenic Hills Nursery
MACRO
INJECTION .... " Drill'em
and Kill'em - Method "
It may be the oldest method of injection, but
it is certainly not the BEST!
For the past 55 plus years, (
See The 4 Photos Below
) tree injection protocols have changed very little and
with few exceptions. The equipment back then was even more
outrageous, 55 gal barrels, 5 gal plastic jugs and anything
that might fit the bill and even douche bags, tied up in the
tree on a gravity flow system. Thank God, for the garden pump
up sprayer, a revolutionary break through for modern tree
injection. However, progress seems to have stopped there, well
slowed down to a near stop. Macro injection research is based
on some pretty shaky science. However, no matter what the
scientific facts are, the myth of Macro Injection will likely
survive.
To day with the garden pump up sprayer, a harness
system of tees as described below has been only prescribe
method that some University Research facilities will sanction
to treat such tree diseases as Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm Disease.
It consist of 3/8 dia. PVC tubing to be cut into 12" lengths
and connected to multiple plastic injection tees, (referred to
as a harness). It evolved as a learn as you go, hodge podge
designed by various researchers back in the 60's. The original
tee design was with a 1/2 in. tapered nozzle that would
provide a water tight seal into the sap wood and allow a
greater volume of fluid uptake. the tees were spaced 5-6
inches apart. Later in the mid 80's, that design was modified
to a 5 / 16 inch size, toting the fact that the reduced size
of the drill would also greatly reduce tree wounding and
provide faster wound closure. In the early 90's the dosage
rates were 2 and 3 mils of Propiconazole per diameter inch
respectively for preventive and therapeutic treatment and
placement of the drill the holes 4-6 inches apart all around
the exposed root flares.. Then came the trial and error
phase. Failures started to show up, they suggested to boost
the dosages to 4 and 6 mils per dia. inch and when that didn't
work again the dosage was again increased to10 mils and 20
mils respectively. This is the recommended dosage rates
used at present day with beneficial success. However, we are
still stuck on the large injection tees and excessive damage
factor.
One Forestry Steward went as far to recommend a 30
mil dosage rate on trees with a diameter of 20" or greater.
His personal, sound good science and assumption that the
larger trees would be better protected and with absolutely no
consideration regarding phytotoxicity
potential of the chemical being
applied at the the higher dosage rate, which can be a
serious health risk during hot dry summers. Propiconazole
will ZAP a tree quicker than oak wilt. On downside part is,
he was recommending serious off label usage and application
of the chemical. This could have meant serious infractions for
the applicator to follow his shanky science off label
recommendations. Worse yet! If you take them to task about
their mistakes you'll get trashed, as the Forestry Service
make NO MISTAKES and they take no prisoners.
(Here is that shaky science again).
As time passed, they also recommended to increase the
number of drill portals and change the spacing from 4'' - 6"
apart that was applied from the early 90's and now 2009
spacing to every 3"inches. The idea here is it might provide a
greater volume of fluid uptake and a more effective
distribution to the entire canopy. However, the increased
number of drill holes caused significant more damage only to
prove someone's agenda. The greater number of drill hole was
not scrutinized by research but, assumed that more is better
and would provide better uptake and distribution, which would
off set high cost of collateral damage to the tree. ( Here's
that shaky science again ). Why has no one ever looked at or
considered the amount of damage imposed to the trees in the
past 20 years?
The Macro system, as a commercial
applicator, that meant a lot of cumbersome equipment of over
100 stainless steel 5 gallon canisters, several tubs of the
harness lines and tees. And all the tools and accessories to
complete the set up to inject the trees. This also included a
Grimmer Schmidt 185D air compressor with 250 feet of air hose,
and an Arbor Air Spade, all the parts and accessories to keep
the equipment in working order. The cost of equipment well
exceeded $15000.00. The lines and tees at $1.29 each needed
replacement every two years as an additional on going expense.
The Arbor Air Spade which was developed by private industry,
uses high pressure and high volume air to excavate the soil
at the base of the tree with the least amount of damage so to
speak. However, high volume, high pressure air has a tendence
to become very hot and can damageto the wood tissue, in the
very area where you intend to place the injection sites. This
was adapted by a number of commercial applicators and is now
strongly recommended as protocol by the Texas Forest Service
in the preparation treatment for oak wilt.
To treat a 24" diameter tree,
4-6 inches of soil must be removed in-order to expose the root
flares. It would be necessary to excavate an area three
times the diameter to provide sufficient area to place the 72
injection sites 5/16" dia every 3" apart around the base of
the tree. The harness and tees are then inserted into the
multiple drill portals to a 3/4 ” - 1" depth
( the
present rule is, multiply the diameter time 3 for the total
number of drill holes ).
The 75 foot long harness is connected to an air pressurized
reservoir ( The Garden Pump Up Sprayer ) containing the
prescribed amount of fungicide and water, requires 24 liters
of water and 240 mils of fungicide as the preventive dosage
rate or 480 mils for the therapeutic rate dosage. A word of
caution here, often times a tree will not absorb the total
amount of fluid, leaving as much as 1/3 to 1/2 of the fluid in
the canisters. Once this task is completed the valve is opened
and the fluid completely fills the lines forcing out the air
from the lines. The valve is closed and the lines are joined
to complete a closed plumbing circuit. The valve is turned on
and the chemical and water are gently forced into the tree at
approximately 22 psi. When the tank and lines are empty, or
the uptake has just plain stopped, remove the equipment and
back fill the dirt over the root flares. Make sure your
harness is sterilized in a 10% Clorox - 90% water solution and
your dill bits sprayed with a disinfectant before you proceed
to the next tree. Job done time: 1 hour, 30 min. done the
manual labor way. The Idea here is ... Let's keep it
complicated and expensive for the homeowner.
When I started injection trees
in the beginning in the early 90's our
method of treatment was to put the prescribed amount of
chemical in one tank with one or two gallons of water, and
have a second tank of just water, when the first tank with the
blue chemical became empty, we then switched to the water tank
to flush the lines and the tree would take up what ever amount
of water was needed. This ensured that the tree received full
prescribed dosage, flushed the lines and the spacing was also
very important. On the recommendation of Dr. Bob Dewers,
we placed the injection tees 3 inches apart as he explained we
would achieve greater distribution to the canopy. Almost
twenty years later, Texas A & M claimed, the same spacing
technique which has now become Bible. The
macro method was about the only option we had to treat trees,
so you sort of overlooked the the downside of the amount of
damage, ....... sort of doing your best with what you got..
Click on Images to enlarge Photos
Copyright Scenic Hills Nursery
THE DAMAGE FACTOR
As mentioned above for a 24 inch diameter tree, you will drill
approximate 72 drill portals with a 5/16" drill to a depth of
3/4 " - 1” . We have assumed that the more drill portals,
you achieve better uptake and distribution throughout the
entire tree canopy. When it
comes time to retreat in a years time or two years later, you
repeat the excavation process. HOWEVER, it is recommended to
move at least 2 inches above the previous injection site. You
want to insure you have clean white wood shavings when you
extract your dill. In the white sap wood will achieve the
same uptake results as the first treatment.
The Chemjet
application achieves the same goal of efficient distribution
with 24 small drill portals 11/64" dia palced 3" apart around
the trunk flare above the soil line and the job is out of the
dirt and the damage factor is reduced by more that 85%.
What has just happened
here? You have a 24 inch diameter tree, you have excavated 75
% more area to expose the root flares for the
placement of 75% more drill portals (total of 72 holes), You
have created about 85% more labor and when you treat a second
time you follow the same process moving 2 inches above the
first treatment area. If
you retreat in the previous location, you will encounter the
discolored wood shavings, the tissue and cambium degradation
caused by soil borne microbial and pathogenic infections, and
the weeping canker infected drill portals. They don't want
you see the extent of the tissue damage, caused by 72 holes
from the previous treatment that are rendered non-functional
and greatly reduce the amount of wood available for storage of
energy. When the tank and lines are empty, or of sorts, remove
the equipment and back fill the dirt over the root flares and
ensure that a lot of dirt is dumped into as many drill holes
as possible as we must cover up our dirty deed and best yet,
lets not worry about infection vectors.
The images above illustrates a lot of damage to the trees.
Now look around the base
( 3 images photos below ) and notice the damage to the
small feeder roots that have been hand dug out and broken.
That is even more damage for the tree to over come. This
process has inflicted a lot of damage to in order accomplish a
simple task.
That is a lot of drill holes and they're
big ones too!
Photos
Copyright Scenic Hills Nursery
Click on Images to enlarge
However, the instructors and applicators may not be aware or
concerned of this phenomenon of tissue damage and canker
infections, for reasons that they have not been trained to ask
the all important constructive self-criticism
type questions that would look into really what they are doing
and what is the cause & effect of their actions, which has
inflicted such extensive damage to your oaks trees, all in the
name of shanky science.
Ask
yourself, we have 72 drill portals, on the first treatment and
the tees are all inter-connected together with plastic tubing
altogether about 75 feet of harness. How would you know if you
are getting the 100% uptake and distribution from every hole
as claimed? How many holes are dead holes? How many of all the
holes are absorbing equal amounts of the injection product?
There is no research to verify any of this information as to
whether all the drill holes are really functioning and those
that are might only represent a small percentage of the total
72 drill holes. Also understand, when you drill a number of
holes your dril will get hot and could possibly burn and seal
the wood tissue rendering the drill portal useless. It is all
assumption, not fact. That is the whole purpose of the
harness, the fluid will pass on to the next working tee or
tees that are providing good uptake but, it is all to disguise
any defect and present THE ILLUSION
that the whole process is delivering 100%, of
the fluid and the
client will assume that these facts are absolute and good
Bible. We know there is uptake because the tank may eventually
empty out. But, we will never be certain due to the possible
number of dead hole and to the extent or degree of
distribution to the entire canopy of the tree !!!!!!!!....Again
an Assumptgion .......... Inadequate distribution will
leave the trees poorly protected. It is a hit and miss and
hope for the best next time.
(Here is that shaky science again).
I am wondering, if you wish to attain the efficient
distribution to the canopy, ....... is it relative to the
spacing of the injector tees every 3" apart placed
equidistantly around the stem or is it the total number of
injection sites on the greater exposed area on the root
flares? Understand, the tree can only absorb so much fluid
according to the up take and use required through the
photosynthesis process. So the theory that more tees to
provide more fluid uptake does not match the science. The tree
will absorb exactly the amount of fluids for the process of
food manufacture, . . . . no more no less. With that said
and done, it has to be the spacing of the injector tees in
below soil root flare drilled every 3" apart that you attain
efficient distribution. However, the excessive number of
injection sites is irrelevant to distribution and the fewer
number of The CHEMJET® micro
injection sites above the soil line provides far better
results, at a far lesser cost to the tree.
I repeat !
The Chemjet achieves the
same goal of efficient distribution with only 24
small drill portals 11/64" dia. palced
3" apart around the trunk flare above the soil line and the
job is out of the dirt and the damage factor is reduced by
more than 85%.
HOW MUCH DAMAGE ?
(Here is a comparison to size: O
= 11/64"
and O=
5/16"
and remember there are a lot of BIG
holes) The overall hole volume comparison is 75% less
You do the math: For the a 24"
dia. tree and by drilling three time the diameter size, that
is 72 drill holes 5/16 " dia. And 3/4”- 1" deep into the root
flare. That looks like you took a chainsaw and cut a gash 3/4”
-1” deep, 5/16 inch wide by 24 inches around the tree (
It takes 3 holes to equate
to 1 inch ) and that adds up to 1/3 of the
circumference around your tree. With The
CHEMJET® , the gash would equate to 3/4” deep, 11/64"
wide and only 4 inches long, thus reducing the damage and
labor to less than 85% to accomplish the same goal . So treat
your tree twice with the MACRO "The
Drill'em & Kill'em Method" and then the third time and
you have caused sufficient damage to completely girdle the
tree. Or save time and just cut the tree down, avoid all the
hard work of repeated treatments and eliminate your fear of it
getting OAK WILT. Take another look at the drill sizes
comparison above, and ask yourself, do I really want to create
that much damage to my tree? The
CHEMJET® demonstrates the best all around results at a
lesser cost to the tree.
We have reaffirmed and determined
by the dictate from Texas A & M guidelines that spacing the
injector sites 3 inches apart will insures the most effective
results for uptake and efficient distribution to the entire
tree canopy. The amount of fluid uptake is determined by food
manufacture, time of day, weather, sunny, windy, humidity,
rain and temperature etc. The gross number of drill portals is
nothing more than a lot of hype and overkill.
The CHEMJET®
are placed on the trunk flare
4-6" above the soil level and spaced 3 inches apart, would
only require 24 tree injector syringes. The Result....same
effective distribution to the canopy ....... less
drilling, less labor, and most importantly with more than 75%
less overall damage.
The CHEMJETS®
are placed 3" part, the
red handle
will indicate the
process of uptake. If "the tree is healthy the uptake is near
the 100% mark. If you have one or two dead holes, just drill
one or two more SMALL holes "O",
that is still about 46 holes less. AND YES, My experience is
that you come across very few defective drill sites in the
trunk flare stem. Your drill may have been too hot and sealed
the wood tissue. The process is not perfect but, you can see
for yourself, the efficiency of micro injection, with reduced
damage, far less labor and effective equivalent distribution
due to the 3" spacing of the injectors, Your tree wins!
Injection time about ten minutes
The Macro Injection
exposed 75% greater area for the placement of 75% more drill
portals, that create 75 % larger drill size and volume, 75%
more labor and time, 75% more equipment to do the job and 100%
more drill portals to filled with debris and exposed to
pathogenic microbes, all in hope to achieve thorough
distribution. Worst yet, the damage imposed on the tree will
not become apparent for years later until the subsequent
treatments. That is shanky work.
The CHEMJET® maximizes efficient
distribution, minimizes collateral energy cost and damage
with far less intensive labor, reducing all the above factors
by 75% to achieve the same results.
Science at it best.
Now, you read the results. Is it
worth the macro over kill with 72 holes? The price here.......
A whole lot of holes, a whole lot of damage only to possibly
prove that more is better ….. I SAY
BETTER IS...... WITH ONLY 24 individual ( small
11/64" size nozzle "O" ) for more efficient distribution
with a very little damage. The overkill drill'em and kill'em
macro method makes about as much sense to fire up an 18
wheeler tractor and trailer to pick up a loaf or bread at the
convenience store.
Click on Images to enlarge
Photos Copyright Scenic Hills Nursery
Numerous small feeder roots and the flare roots damaged
extensively with digging tools.
With macro
injection into the root flare, showed evidence of internal and
external damage, delayed wound closure, and wet wood problems.
The greatest drawback is the tree’s lack of ability to
stimulate only limited wound closure in the root flares below
soil level. None of these problems are realized because the
dirt is replaced, thus hiding all the evidence. As the life
line of the tree, water and nutrients move upward from the
roots via the vascular system and the solutes move via the
phloem to roots for growth and storage and any amount of
repetitive damage to this critical area can be very serious to
the tree's vigor and over all health and ultimately can and
will cause eventual death.
I have used the macro injection
for18 years, I have personally observed all these symptoms of
tissue damage, discolored dead wood and cambium, canker
infection, and wet wood. Year after year the results were
the same, never getting better and with no possible
improvement methods.That is a lot of damage to a lot of trees
every single year. Wouldn't we betterserve our treatment
proticol with a minimun of damage?
I spent over a year researching and
two years using the The CHEMJET®
and its track record and use world wide. In comparison
to other micro injection methods The
CHEMJET® demonstrated superior results both in reduced
damage and efficient deliver. Best of all it is a tool that
the homeowner can also effectively use and is cost very
effective.
It is not surprising that the original flare root injection
methods and protocols are over a half a century old. However,
just because it was one of the first methods, does not mean it
is the "best"
in all situations. It is time to look at new ideas with a more
scientific and practical approach. Old ideas change as new
discoveries and technologies are made. Texas A & M has left
matters in the hands of private industry to provide better
injection technology that would reduce invasive damage and
maintain efficient distribution all at a lesser cost to the
tree. It would certainly be a major scientific break
through if the Forestry could accept this idea of technology
as well.
The CHEMJET® injector with a diameter of 4 mm (11/64”)
worked as well as the more widely used 8 mm (5/16”) macro
injector in all cases, with the added advantage of reducing
wound size and decreasing healing time.
The CHEMJET® has
done just that with a thirty year track record shared
worldwide. The problem is not research, it is to instill an
attitude and mind set that the old ways and old technologies
are better served by more modern methods that provide better
health care for trees. The Forest Service are at a stale
mate and need to make every attempt to consider these
alternative treatment methods that have been thoroughly
researched by many Universities here in the USA that have
shown with out doubt very positive results..
Out of the dirt and with
a minimum amount of invasive damage.
A good
Patriotic Combination .... so its got to work !
THE CHEMJET® - Tree Injector Syringe METHOD
THE CHEMJET® A simple, hand-held,
plastic liquid injector for trees bears a likeness to an
overgrown syringe and works on much the same principle. The
system is said to be a cost efficient method for injecting
insecticides, fungicides, fertilizers, and trace elements into
any limb or trunk of 2 in. diameter or greater. After an
injector has been filled by submerging its tip in solution and
pulling up on the spring-loaded RED
"T" handle
which is then 1/4 twist locked, it is ready to be tightly
inserted into a pre-drilled hole and unlocked. The internal
spring then applies steady pressure delivering the injector's
contents, usually in 3 to 5 hours depending on weather and sap
viscosity. Once empty, The CHEMJET®
injectors with their bright red handles
are easily seen, quickly retrieved, cleaned, and ready for use
again.
SO----- Do it In the Dirt - It is Out of Site - Out of Mind
WHY? It all in the name of research, this the way we did it
fifty years ago and this is way we are still going to do it. That's Our
Way and We're Sticking to It ! ..... We never change!
(Here is shaky science again).
Old ideas change as new
discoveries are made.
The end photo here showes a Micro Injection!
Job done - 5 minutes One injector every three inches 24" dia.
- 24 Injectors, NOT 72 - Drill'em - Kill'em - Drill Holes.
Photos Copyright Scenic Hills Nursery
With CHEMJET® trunk
stem MICRO injection for a 24" diameter tree, the syringes
should be placed just above soil level, with only 24 injector
syringes spaced 3" apart around the trunk stem, the drill size
is 11/64" on a slight downward 45 degrees angle. Proper
location of these injection sites is critical for proper
distribution of the fungicide to the entire canopy. Inadequate
distribution will leave the trees poorly protected. Other
micro injection systems recommend the placement 6 inches
apart, thus limiting and reducing the distribution factor by a
possible 50 percent and the injection products being applied
are of a lower volume of 7 mils and a far lesser concentration
level of 4 and 6 % which may very well explain the cause of
so many failures and dissatisfaction by the home owner.
With the
CHEMJET®, functionally, I
believe you achieve far better results in distribution and
product delivery, less invasive damage, reduced drill size by
half and 48 less drill portals. The
CHEMJET®, micro injection efficacy
has been proven time and time again world wide and by
numerous Universities here in the United States with
extremely positive results. The Texas Forest Service will not
consider the track record of the CHEMJET®
as being of greater efficiency but, will only refer as an
alternative method or something less favorable because of
their lack of knowledge and closed mind set. The present
MACRO method creates 72 holes, to achieve similar delivery
results, causing a lot of invasive damage which is a very high
cost for the tree, whereas the CHEMJET®
provides a very minimum of amount of collateral damage. The
tree can focus less energy to recover from the reduced 85 %
damage factor.
Which is better
this" O "
or this
"O"
see... no contest ..!!.
The
CHEMJET® stands by it's record of a better uptake is
within three to five hours providing maximum distribution to
the canopy. I have had less failures over past two years using
the CHEMJET® micro Injection
system. When the injection process is complete, the equipment
is cleaned and refilled in the evening hours preceding the
injection schedule and the actual installation is less than 15
minutes per tree. Your tree wins every time!
Photos and illustrations - Copyright Chemjet
Trading Pty,Ltd, Australia
In simple terms,
you are getting the job out of the dirt, reduce drill size,
fewer drill portal and the faster wound closure. Most
important of all was the uptake from trunk stem injection , it
achieved greater efficiency and distribution
 throughout
the tree's canopy, as it is beginning of the constricted
bottleneck of the upper trunk. In oak trees, the water
movement is at the rate of 92 feet per hour and therefore,
providing greater efficiency and a very rapid chemical
distribution throughout the tree's canopy.
The CHEMJET®, delivers the same
prescribed volume of the fungicide ( Propiconazole 14.3 % MEC
) at the preventive rate of 10 mils per diameter inch, in a
50% concentrated solution measured at 20 mils per injector and
placed 3" apart around the tree above the trunk flare. Since
each syringe contains 10 mils of the fungicide, the spacing
not only provides an accurate dosage rate application, as
well as the precise distribution factor.
THE DOSAGE RATE
Illustrations - Copyright Chemjet Trading Pty,Ltd,
Australia
The CHEMJET®,
delivers the preventive dosage rate of 240 mils of
propiconazole for the 24" diameter tree, includes with a
50/50% chemical - water solution. The
CHEMJET® syringe procedure
with the higher concentration is much like a booster shot of
an antibiotic, that goes to work immediately and with more
effective results, as the application uses the water within
the tree for dilution and transport to the leaves for complete
distribution.
The macro
injection system, with a very high volume water with
prescribed dosage of 240 mils of fungicide diluted with
approximately 8 gallons, that equates to about 1 oz per gal of
water or a very few parts per million ratio.
OAK WILT
INJECTION Demonstration
I can not help sounding critical, but
these work shop sponsored by Forest Service and the local
Extensions Offices are like a feeding frenzy for a bunch of
sharks. “People just eat this stuff up and keep repeating
it,” Injecting a tree demonstrates that it is easy, ( 1 1/2
hours for excavation ) the tree is before hand excavated, but
the homeowner only see the 30 minute demo
of the drill placement,
the harness lines and tees installed around the tree and then
all is connected to the reservoir pump up tank and let the
injection begin..... ( Total 2 hours labor) Now, Wasn't that
easy, Any Questions?, Oh! ... sorry we're out of time. Now
send them home with a silent prayer. God be with you and hope
like hell they get it right. Well many don't and it is damn
hard work, and the whole idea is frustrating, and worse
still. Where is the damn operators manual? Two years later, I
arrive to find some sort of apparatus up against the tree with
some tees in the tree, lines filled with a dark brown fluid
and some lines broken and covered with leaves and etc....
their only comment, ....." Well it didn't work like they
showed us" .
LETS MOVE FORWARD
I think it is time to
move into the 21st Century, and abandon to old blood letting
or The Drill'em - Kill'em - method and ideas for treating our
trees and spend some research time, listening and observing to
some of the attributes on the new methods of micro injection.
We know what chemicals to use for most tree problems. We must
understand, there are easier methods of doing a lot of jobs,
so lets make treating trees a more pleasant and a much easier
task with better and more effective results. The Forestry is
aware that there are new methods available that have merit and
most important, they need to stop the closed minded and
negative thoughts that their protocol is the only protocol. I
am sure they are aware of the excessive damage caused by their
method but, I can not understand WHY the cling to a procedure
that is so excessive and out dated. That doesn't say much for
the Forestry's attitude towards protecting our trees. They
would prefer to go down with the ship, than admit to defeat.
I pray, they will take time to listen and investigate the
new ideas and technologies that are out there in the private
industry sector.
I am not against tree injection, I
am against what, I believe is very out dated and very bad
injection protocols, which create excessive damage to
accomplish the same goals that the
CHEMJET®
method perform with better efficiency
and 85% less damage and labor. “It’s frustrating when you to
try and set the record straight, that the information is
simply just being ignored because, we didn't invent it.”
The Forestry Service’s policy looks at the oak
wilt, and other tree related problems from only a forestry
point of view, and that kind of policy sets limitations and
serious drawback for the Forestry Service. I believe the
solution would be better served if it was looked upon from a
chemical and a scientific point of view, just as we do for
human diseases and cures.
The
Texas Forest Service really needs to take a hard looks at
their protocol of the Drill'em and Kill'em method and realized
the extent of damage to the tens of thousands of trees treated
in the last twenty years and thousands more that will be
treated in the future. It is almost like we really don't care
about the damage as long as you are following our HALL MARK
proticol for the treatment for oak wilt. Would their attidude
change if they hade to pay for the lost value of your trees?
I would like to see the Forestry Service to make an
honest effort to look at some of the options that are on the
market and acknowledge the most promising micro injection
methods for their merits that provide equal or better results
than the present macro methods.
Universities in
California, Agriculture Research Facilities & Service of
California, Florida, The North Eastern USA, Missouri ,
Georgia, and Alabama have purchased and endorsed the
CHEMJET®
Syringe to further their research on various related tree
diseases. The CHEMJET® has proven
to be a very important tool, as part of their research
applications and part of their guide lines are, less invasive
damage is better and maximizing greaterefficiency in
distribution.
There are many applicators that are in a mindset that will
never change. They are dinosaurs and they have without a
doubt, never taken the time to read or familiarize themselves
on oak wilt or any other subject relating to trees or much
less, the label for the product they are injecting to save
your trees. The Forestry and ISA have established an Oak Wilt
Certification program for the Certified Arborist with the only
intention to preserve and ensure that the Drill'em and Kill'em
macro method may live on forever in the name of preserving our
trees. DAMAGE is IRRELEVANT!
Their agenda is money and lets make it look
complicated so we can charge more and keep our jobs.
One
applicator in particular, over all the years, has never, taken
the time or is even concerned enough to sterilized the
injection equipment or drill bits from one job to the next. In
general, his equipment would be better recycled in the local
land fill. Efforts to excavate the root flares is less than
mediocre at best and yet, the customer is charged for
services, all in good conscience. I say, "A bad taste stays in
your mouth for a long time."
Private industry has focused on new techniques and developing
systemic formulations of insecticides, fungicides and mineral
nutrients that are very effective in low volumes, maximizing
uptake and distribution and at the same time minimizing wound
effects. Research started in the early 60's on micro-injection
and are continuing in the direction of potential systemic uses
for new health care chemicals and offering the applicator a
new clinical tools for better and safer tree health care
technology, better protecting the applicator and most
important our environment. Micro-injection is both an
evolving, research-based technology and a clinical tool for
the tree health care practitioner.
Where has all the
research gone?
I
remember in May 1990, when I got the early news that Alamo was
approved by the EPA for the use in the treatment of Oak Wilt.
The news had not been published and when I
called around, it seemed that no else had heard of the news
including the local extension offices. A few days later there
was a buzz everywhere as the word got out. The first workshop
I attended was in San Antonio, and then to every town within
30 miles of Kerrville. I attended everyone of them and so did
the public. Everyone wanted to be informed about Oak Wilt and
became involved in the treatment methods to save their trees.
It was great. A new science and new hope.
These workshops were well organized and very informative and
many communities had them twice a year and more often if at
all possible. The results were great, enthusiasm plus everyone
in the communities wanted to learn more. You could get a hold
of more literature than you could read. My business was
booming and I was in it for the long haul as part of my Tree
and Lawn & Care business. There were a few failures along the
way with regard to dosage rates but that was solved by
increasing the dosages to a 10 mil and 20 mil for preventive
and threapeutic as proved to be a more realistic dosage
formulation.
As
years passed, by the late 90”s the enthusiasm started to wear
off and the number of workshops dwindled to the rare occasion,
to one in a community once every two to three years. It seems
that it all came down to everyman for himself. Research had
literally stopped and the day to day business was applying a
preventive treatment applications and trenching to stop oak
wilt.
Oak Wilt was in less that 50 counties twenty years
ago and we have it in more than 77 counties to date and
spreading fast and I am sure with more than one hundred
thousand oak wilt centers throughout central Texas which are
only confirmed by the Texas Forest Service. Private
applicators do not and can not report their information to the
Forest Service to include with their statewide statistics as
The Forestry Service's policy will only accept the information
directly from the landowner. It has to be done our way or
nothing!
Trenching has not stopped the rapid spread of the
disease but, has made better conditions for roots to regrow and
intergraft in the newly excavated trenches. Treatment with
the Alamo and subsequent products has saved tens of thousand
trees but, has not slowed the progression either. Is this the
best we can do? There is no further research. That is exactly
where we stand to day, using the same basic ideas, tools, same
chemicals and application protocols, but with still
devastating results.
Research is the back bone of industry and this country, it is
progress and it’s the future. From the NASA research, we use
thousand of products in our daily lives and would never exist
without the NASA research.
I
will use the example of Dutch Elm Disease. It has been around
for more that 60 years, I grew up with back in Canada and
research is still ongoing to this day. The US and Canada lost
millions of elm trees, Britain lost over 20 million and The
Canary Island are void of Elm trees. Canada is not trying to
treat the fungus but, applying a treatment of prevention for
the Dutch Elm Disease. The treatment instead stimulates the
tree’s own natural defense system. The treatment has a strong
protective effect because it activates the tree's natural
immune defense response to Dutch elm disease.
This clinical discovery was made more
than 36 years ago by a Yale University graduate of molecular
biology. Dr D. M. Roy was offered carte blanc research
facilities in Toronto in 1968 and just three and a half
years later, he discovered the all natural cure for D E D.
However, it is not well accepted here in the USA even to this
day 36 years later. Oak Wilt research here in Texas is like
the Latin Language… DEAD! We are not looking for possible new
natural biological treatments nor to improve the treatment
protocols to reduce labor or the invasive damage to better
serve our MAJESTIC OAKS. It is continued research and new
technology that will provide the answers and a possible cure
for oak wilt.
The
treatment is based on a special natural protein which was
discovered by the University of Toronto scientific team as a
result of intensive advanced molecular biology research. The
overall project was looked at from a chemical point of view
and not a forestry point of view’ as we do for oak wilt here
in Texas. The protein elicits a defensive response in the tree
which enables it to resist the onset of the aggressive and
deadly strain of Dutch elm disease. The treatment is unique
because it is all natural - it contains no synthetic chemicals
and is non-toxic. This treatment was first applied in 1972
before I arrived here in the USA and its an on going research
to this day. It is not an absolute cure as not every tree
responds the same according its general health is a major
factor. Canada and Britain are also looking at injectable
insecticides to control and destroy the two species of the elm
bark beatles.
The
History of Elm Disease : http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/natural_disasters/clips/13912/
Elmcare :
http://www.elmcare.com/disease/dutchelm/innovative_new_treatment.htm
The man
who cured Elm Disease : http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/natural_disasters/clips/6964/
|
