Pond Boss Forums AQUATIC VEGETATION Controlling unwanted plants Nuisance Willows

Thanks for the explanation Esshup.

I'm pretty sure I have done several illegal things today, most of them probably didn't even know I was breaking the law. I think there were something like 600+ pages added to the federal register today, more than that yesterday, and likely as many tomorrow. I'll get to reading them "real soon now".

"But officer, I only hit 90 on the motorcycle passing that car to avoid a head on collision. Only trying to avoid an accident. Scouts honor."

snrub, there is a reason why I use a Valentine 1 in the vehicle at all times.............

Outstanding advice Bob!
I shake my head in sheer frustration when some folks (who have absolutely no understanding of HOW various herbicides function, or WHY certain herbicide formulations should not be used in specific sites) simply insist upon passing along their home-spun "wisdom", while simultaneously challenging the protocols that were created for our collective safety, in order to appear more enlightened.
Whether it pops up in a public forum or at the local feed store, an off-label pesticide recommendation is a potential liability for all involved participants.

I am John Monroe,,, I just pinched myself and I am not a fictitious person. If you read the label on the Eliminator is says it can be used around drainage ditches. Drainage ditches flow quickly in to the rivers here. But that is nothing from what is happening round my part of the country. Nearly all of the farms around me have brand new drainage underground plastic piping being put in that flow the water containing pesticides, herbicides directly into the rivers. It is a huge business. All of this water flows directly into the rivers which contain fish, waterfowl and water plants and the reservoirs for drinking water, which I kayak. What hypocrisy I see here. Where is the outrage of a billion dollar industry that pores chemicals into our water from the huge chemicals pored from farm and the ten of thousand of acres all around me. Look the other way and you get water killer water like has happen in Flint, Michigan. For those that have a license for water safe chemicals where is the outrage for the real contamination of chemicals draining into our waterway by the millions of gallons. What hypocrisy. Pick on me if it makes you feel good and ignore the real problem.

Now let me explain the real world of chemicals and water. The fields are crossed with excessive expensive plumbing to quickly drain the fields. Because if the fields are wet then planting is delayed. If fields stay wet the the plants don't grow so well. So here is what happens in my fields. In late fall or early spring fertilizer is sprayed on to the field. Next a weed killer is sprayed. Next Roundup resistant corn or soybeans are planted. They come up along with weeds so Roundup is sprayed to kill the weeds. As the plants, (corn) grow they are side dress with more fertilizer. Then if bugs appear the pesticides are sprayed by ground sprayers. If the crops are too high an airplane is used for spraying. In the meantime when it rains all of this that hasn't been used by the plants are washed into the plumbing and into the streams and rivers. These chemicals are not water safe but they go instantly into the water streams and god knows how much into the ground water we drink. So I don't pretend that I don't know what is going on.

Let me get this straight..... You're demonizing pesticides by alleging all sorts of unsubstantiated or completely unrelated calamities, yet you endorse off-labeled applications of some pesticides because your cursory field-observations reveal that they pose "no environmental consequences" (in your opinion).
That, boys and girls, IS hypocrisy at its finest!
It would seem that the later tendency is a much greater catalyst for potential calamities than the legitimate and labeled uses of EPA-registered pesticides.

Kelly,

I agree that the label is law.

I understand that very smart people go through a lot of work to ensure the best results with the least risk.

One of the things I was interested in is the half-life of the chemicals and what happens to them over time. Also, What process is used now to qualify a chemical for certain uses.

Not trying to stir the pot, just thought more info might help all understand the process end to end and why the labels have limits.

Thanks for all the info. I am very thankful for knowledge.

+1

What I would like to know in addition to what Brian asked...

It seems the active ingredients in approved and not approved herbicides for ponds can be the same. My impression is we can buy products with active ingredients like glyphosate or 2-4-D that are safe for ponds or not safe for ponds. It is the "other" ingredients that seem to be the issue. Pond approved products seem to cost more in my experience. Why do the "other" ingredients drive the price up? Why not use the same pond safe "other" ingredients in all the herbicides?

Good questions. I'll make a feeble stab at answers, without writing a book - the reading of such would actually be my suggestion for in-depth explanations.
A half-life represents the amount of time required for a substance to degrade into half of its original amount (or concentration); which continues - in theory - until minute detection-limits are exceeded.
A pesticide's half-life is affected by many site-variables; namely sunlight intensity (photo-degradation), thermal degradation, hydrolysis and microbial-degradation. Therefore, a pesticide's half-life is rarely a linear time-line, yet it follows a reasonably predictable path under specific site-conditions.
Many folks may remember chlordane, and how well it worked for controlling termites beneath structural foundations. Its half-life generally ranged from 1 to 10 and sometimes 20 years, but site-variables - and application methods, such as sub-slab applications and soil-incorporation, both of which eliminate sunlight exposure - greatly increased that compound's half-life. Based on industry lore, it wasn't until chlordane sustained significant misuse by the general public - i.e. applied to exposed areas where its use was never intended, namely for ants - that it began to show up in surface and groundwater, which ultimately brought about its demise. But I digress...
Suffice to say that every prospective pesticide faces a barrage of site-scenario testing during its lab and R&D phases to determine its half-life potential and many other potential environmental and toxicological issues, ultimately to determine if it should be pursued for marketable uses.
I forget the actual statistics from manufacturers, but if memory serves me, roughly 10,000 compounds are screened for efficacy, toxicology and possible environmental issues for every single compound that actually makes it to the marketplace. I remember a figure of $32 million, from at least a decade or two ago, as the amount that a pesticide manufacturer must invest in a promising compound before they actually sell the first pound or gallon. No doubt this figure has grown exponentially since that time. I know of at least three instances in the past ten years where products had cleared the hurdles (and consumed huge investments), only to be "canned" due to factors that weren't discovered until the final "field development" (pre-sale) phase. Is it any wonder why we see so few "new chemistries" entering the marketplace?
It is for the very reason that my industry strives so hard to insure that currently available products are properly utilized, since there's virtually no new chemistries in the "pipeline" to replace them should they be lost due to user-negligence - or ignorance.

As for comparable active-ingredients possessing different site-labels, several reasons exist for this occurrence. Glyphosate is a perfect example, since it is one of the most common active-ingredients that possesses specific use-site labels. As has been mentioned and previously covered in other posts, some glyphosate formulations contain "other ingredients" that have no place in aquatic sites - particularly those that contain tallow-amine surfactants. This particular type of surfactant (wetting agent) greatly enhances the uptake and activity of glyphosate and is deemed suitable and desirable in many terrestrial sites - but NOT in aquatic sites. Glyphosate products intended for aquatic-use (with one exception) do not contain an integrated surfactant, and require the user to add a suitable (labeled) aquatic surfactant to the mix-tank.
It is generally true that aquatic formulations may cost slightly more to use than their terrestrial counterparts, but not nearly as much as one might believe when making price-per-gallon comparison.
For example: Aquatic-labeled glyphosate formulations generally contain 25% more active-ingredient that their terrestrial-labeled cousins. Assuming one chooses to use an aquatic-labeled glyphosate to treat cattails, the recommended mix-rate is a 3/4% solution, which has (for simplicity sake) the equivalent amount of active-ingredient as a 1% mix-solution of the terrestrial glyphosate formulations.
By the way, mixing a higher rate than what is prescribed on the label is akin to shooting a cottontail with a 30-06, when a .22 will do the job. In fact, mixing some herbicides "too hot" can actually defeat the product's normal mode-of-action, resulting in a plant that may appear "dead" overnight, even though the application simply "burned" the plant's leaf-tissue and put it into "shock". Always remember, YOU CAN ONLY KILL SOMETHING SO DEAD!
Now for a little math-exercise.
I located a 2.5 gal jug of an aquatic-labeled glyphosate herbicide (RODEO) on Amazon for $77, delivered! (I have no affiliation with the seller) That price equates to $30.80/gal, or 24-cents per ounce. Assuming that one follows the labeled mix-rate of 1-oz per gallon of water, the cost per gallon of sprayable-mixture is 24-cents; or $2.40 for 10 gallons of mixture, and so on. At that mixing-ratio, a 2.5-gal container will produce 320-gallons of spray-mix; which may be used in either ponds OR terrestrial sites - legally, effectively and with relative safety. I'm not rich by any means, but that cost seems very affordable - especially when considering that the legitimate aquatic formulation doesn't represent a risk to non-targeted aquatic life within the treated pond or lake.
The other referenced product was 2,4-D (aka 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid / sometimes confused with 2,4,5-T / aka 2 4 5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid / aka "agent orange". They're NOT the same!). Numerous brands and formulations of 2,4-D are available. One of major distinction between the various 2,4-D brands is determined by whether it is an "amine", "ester" or "acid" formulation, as well as its "inert ingredients". Suffice to say that a liquid 2,4-D ESTER should never be used in aquatic sites. Other than that, check the product's label to insure that it is intended for aquatic sites.
I could drone on until I TOO fall asleep, so I'll stop here. Hope this sheds some light on the subject.

I lost all of my reply somehow. To make this quick. I use a little bit of off water label herbicide in my bermed pond that water cannot escape into the environment and yet all of the gallons of approved chemicals for land farming that goes into the rivers when it rains is OK that I use and is never mentioned here. I do this and that's ok? That all of my farm chemicals are OK to escape from my farm into the waterways.The reason is the chemical industry is so huge and the people that are employed for cheap food is necessary for modern civilization to exist that water is the casualty. But let's at least acknowledge this. This is the gorilla and elephant in the room that cannot be mentioned. I think I have been registered on Pond Boss since the early 2000's and have never seen the whole scale use of chemicals in the water ways mentioned by anyone except me. Chernobyl's half life really hits home with half lives to me but half lives kinda misses the big picture. If you don't put it into the water then you don't have to worry about half lives of chemicals.

Thanks for the info Kelly!

One more question from me. Since products like Rodeo require a surfactant, why don't they just put it in there in the first place? Is it different applications require different surfactants or quantities of surfactant?

And while we are on the topic of Roundup, how about the fact that we all are peeing roundup daily? Is that toxic, harmful, or cancer causing?

See this study..
Roundup excrement

Canyon, are the regulations and application rates for Roundup the same in Europe as here in in the USA? If they are different, then I would have a hard time applying test results that were determined in Europe to test subjects here in the USA.

Because of my testing/R&D background, I have a hard time believing test results and "numbers" in general because the test results can be deceiving in so many ways. Were there no test results published from US Citizens because the test results were not what the tester wanted to see and publish?

Good points esshup. Prior to reading that article I just never considered testing the average Midwest living US citizen for roundup in their urine. It was a bit disturbing to read that everyone was positive for it in the European study. Would that mean that US folks in the grain belt would all be positive too? Way positive mainly?

Is passing roundup in the pee a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not trying to stir the pot as I see much more good than bad out of GMO crops. I heard a story on the way home from work that said that the sugar beet farmers in Minnesota and probably MI (huge sugar beet growing state) see a sudden skew in prices of sugar where raw sugar from sugar cane is getting cheaper and raw sugar from sugar beets is spiking. Big candy companies are getting pressure from their consumers that if it ain't NON-GMO sugar they won't eat the candy. Since the beets are hard to grow without using roundup, and since modified beets that are roundup ready are not in the fashion/vogue anymore by the consumers the farmers are scratching their head at what to do. The farmers say they will go back to growing non-GMO beets because they will do what the customer wants, but then they have go back to using a whole soup of 5-6 herbicides, spray more on more frequently, etc. How is that better?

I guess sugar cane still is not genetically modified so they win even though when you go to the pile of raw sugar from cane vs beets it looks the same, tastes the same etc

Kelly,
Thanks for the info. I often wonder why somethings are the way they are.

More times than not in my line of work procedures are written in blood. Understanding how things work and why it is the way it is answers a lot of questions. Once I understand, I can better work. Knowing antibiotics are misused by many does concern me. So when I see a correlation in the pond week control sector, I take notice.

Clearly this is as important and should be held under the same light. Used correctly, we all benefit, however if they are used incorrectly, we all pay a price.

Brian: Thanks for your comments, and attitude toward this topic.

Bill: I’ll speculate on your question based on my own technical and business theories.
Tallow-amine surfactants are probably (speculation) the most “cost-effective” wetting-agent for enhancing glyphosate’s activity and performance, yet they aren't suitable (safe) for use in aquatic sites. Therefore, the various manufacturers of aquatic glyphosate formulations use the void/space left by omitting the tallow-amine surfactant to increase the formulated product’s a.i.-content, and let the end-user decide which aquatic-approved surfactant to employ – as well as its tank-mix ratio, since various means of applications (aerial, ground-boom, hand-gun, etc) may require more or less surfactant relative to the herbicide in order to accomplish the task at hand. In general, a “quality surfactant” is more expensive than the formulated glyphosate product on a v/v basis. For those who choose to use dishwashing detergent, instead of a commercial surfactant, be aware that dish-soap is primarily “detergent” with surfactant added for wetting-purposes. Furthermore, dish soaps contain anionic surfactant, instead of a non-ionic surfactant that herbicide-labels specify. Also, the foam created by dish-soap make refilling the mix-tank a pain – if not risky – since the product-laden foam usually billows out of the mix-tank’s opening long before it is refilled with water. Again, a “quality surfactant” will generally produce much less foam than dish soap, and whatever foam is created during the tank-refilling process usually breaks down quickly due to integrated defoaming-agents.

Canyoncreek: I fully respect your concerns when viewing such “information”. However, just because such “news” appears on the internet doesn’t mean that it’s factually-based "scientific information".
As I grow older, I’ve become much more skeptical of many things. Ranked at the top of my list of skeptical things are: smiling politicians, wealthy lawyers, weathermen, gas-pains after eating Mexican food and "news media” – especially web-sites that masquerade as “news media”. For the later, I always question the website’s driving motivation for "enlightening" the masses; AND where the site derives its funding.
The below excerpt came from the home-page of the site that you referenced in your post (adding my own emphasis on key words and phrases).

In September 2013, EcoWatch became a Certified B Corporation and joined more than 1,300 companies that leverage the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. In May of 2014, EcoWatch became a member of 1% for the Planet, an alliance of businesses that are financially committed to creating a healthy planet.

Last time I checked, a “business” must somehow turn a profit – or otherwise cease to exist (except for Amazon, but that’s another story). In the case of EcoWatch, it’s safe to assume that this entity is funded by the “alliance of businesses”, who are graciously seeking to save mankind from himself – undoubtedly for a profit. That said, let’s now take a tangent.
It is far easier to scare the populace about something of which they know little or nothing about than it is to educate them on a highly technical topic that requires years of higher education to properly understand.
HOWEVER! What if scaring the populace through misleading information and skewed or meaningless “statistics” were to shift the public’s perceptions, financial resources, consumption-demand and political-allegiances in the “alliance’s” favor? Sounds like a well contrived business model to me!

I have no intention of debating allegations that appear on such websites, especially when they fail to reference peer-reviewed data or "studies".
BTW, the term “researchers” is flaunted by such sites when referencing their so-called “studies”; which brings up one more inductee on my list of skeptical things.
“Researchers” are either contracted or employed – by someone – to do their bidding, whatever it may be. As a student of statistics, I can design a “study”, and “interpret” the data to insinuate almost anything - especially if I want something to appear as a “suspected causal-agent”.
In true circles of science, is up to the critical peer-review process to determine if my research methodology and data-interpretations are technically correct and worthy of endorsement. Without peer-reviews, a so-called “study” is nothing but propaganda-fodder.

I’m done here. I’ve got an early-morning swim-meet tomorrow – for my son, not me. G’nite all!

Canyon, on the flip side, what if there was no trace whatsoever in Midwesterners? What would that tell you?

Got to this posting thread late. All new pesticides are tested for environmental persistence including their soil binding properties, water solubility, and leaching potential. We can find any number of things in urine due to improvements in detection methods that can now detect parts per trillion (or lower) in some cases. We can find arsenic in most human urine samples too since it is found in many foods and comes from its natural occurrence in many soils. Risk = hazard x exposure. In other words, the dose makes the poison. Many required dietary nutrients are also toxic at high levels. Finally, follow pesticide labels. They are the result of many years of testing for effectiveness, human safety, and environmental safety.

Scott, with modern technology's ability to detect substances at the ppq level (that's parts-per-quadrillion, or 10 to the minus 15), we can now detect substances that virtually aren't present. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised to detect almost anything, everywhere, when using a testing procedure that flags the specific substance.
The fact that a substance does pass through an organism is far better - IMO - than one that doesn't (i.e. one that "accumulates").

Well said RAH

As a guy, I've always found peeing outside to be somewhat satisfying...unsure why this is, but now that I know I may be passing herbicide in my urine, I'm even more into it. I'm upping my daily water intake and declaring war against that patch of crabgrass off the west end of the house. Sorry neighbors.

+1

Knowing for years how the dog leaves a brown spot in the lawn wherever he pees, I have always aimed for weeds!

Although I have no scientific evidence of its effectiveness

RAH: agreed, very well said.

Lovin: check it out after eating asparagus. Not sure if it's a stronger acid-release or the aroma that fries plant tissues.

Bump....anybody know the answer to this question?

Funny you mention that, Kelly! I've nearly cleared out a public restroom after a large dose of asparagus!

The first time it freaked me out, now I just stand proud

(Sorry for the interruption, Bill!)

Bill - I addressed your question late last night, but it was quickly buried deeper in the thread. Thanks Scott