Pond Boss Forums AQUATIC VEGETATION Controlling unwanted plants Whitecap evaluation - six weeks in.

First pic that did not post.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CyQlsIoaHmc/UD4D4nT9TvI/AAAAAAAAI_A/2U5-mstaKUA/s640/Pond%2520Pics%2520049.JPG

Update: 18 months after treatment...

Awesome. The only greenery in the HBG pond consists of some FA, and 4 cattails....love this stuff.....

Also a big fan of Aquashade..

Final update, two years after initial treatment. I'm starting to see vegetation returning, (aside from FA).......I haven't waded out to get a sample, but it looks like Egeria, or possibly (gulp)....Hydrilla. Either way, it has to go, probably the sooner the better.

I'm completely satisfied with the performance of the Fluridone. Two years weed free was better than I had hoped, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it again if the circumstances required it. Matter-of-fact, I may just do that.

Sprkplug, thanks for all the great updates!

I've been following this thread since joining PB last May as I had a horrific DW and Coontail problem in my 2 acre (avg 5' depth) pond and also treated at 45 ppb. The DW and CT both disappeared but the CT is coming back this year with a vengeance! Not to blame the Fluridone as I've learned that it is common for CT to rebound in the season following a fluridone treatment; from seeds that didn't germinate during the initial season's treatment. And the suggested treatment for CT is 90 ppb (45 for DW).



My thoughts exactly! Tomorrow I'm treating at 90 ppb for the CT along with 1 gal of pond dye that went in yesterday, because I've come too far turning this pond around (thanks to the great folks on PB) to get caught up in that stuff on every cast.

All in all I can't agree more on the success of Fluridone (mine was Alligare as it replaced Whitecap). It was just amazing watching the slow death to an eventual weed-free pond!

I have before and after pics in another thread with one PB member describing the before photo as "atrocious". And it was! The 5-weeks later photo was Duckweed and CT free.

Glad to hear you got nearly 2 full years without the weeds because as you stated, this stuff is pricey!

Also, they say it's common to have an FA explosion after a Fluridone treatment but I was fortunate it didn't happen last year (applied 7-4-12). I read where you periodically treated some FA but did your pond suffer from that "explosion"?

Thanks again Sprkplug!

Keith

You think the manufacturer could bring the price down now that it's diluted and made in China.

Yes, it’s reasonable to expect a price-decline for a relatively mature chemisty, regardless of its production-origin. However, here are a couple of points to consider.

1) The actual production-cost of any pesticide is generally irrelevant when it comes to its selling-price. Most manufacturers - of anything, including pesticides - utilize "value-pricing" models to determine the price that the market will endure, relative to competitive products and alternative approaches.
With fluridone, there are no other products (IMO) that come close to yielding a comparable "value" (ie. long-term results relative to product and/or labor costs). Of course, this applies only to specific circumstances that favor fluridone's use, since fluridone doesn't "fit" all treatment situations.
Sometimes, site-conditions won't allow or justify fluridone’s investment-risk (esp if the potential of transient water exists). In other situations, the targeting of isolated pockets of vegetation doesn't warrant the cost associated with treating an entire BOW (which is usually required with fluridone). Lastly, the potential for collateral/non-targeted impact that fluridone poses may preclude its use. These variables generally dictate the use of alternative treatments that normally prove more costly per-acre or per-season – or both.

2) The cost of any pesticide is also influenced by the mfgr’s ability to recover the unavoidable costs of research, development, registration and marketing expenses. In short, a high volume of product-demand permits the recovery of such costs over a broad sales-base of gallons or pounds.
For instance; if estimated R&D, registration and marketing costs total $50MM for a product, it is less noticable to recover such expenses over 500k gallons of sales (ie. a $100 investment-recovery fee is assessed per gal), compared to a product with only 100k gallons of sales (ie. a $500 investment-recovery fee is assessed per gal). So, volume-potential has a significant influence upon the rate of investment-expense recovery.

FYI: There are some newly introduced formulations of fluridone that appear suitable for many small pond and lake situations. They’re definitely not “cheap” by anyone’s standards, yet they’re still very cost-effective compared to many alternative treatments (based upon the duration of control, if site-conditions warrant and when water-use restrictions permit).

Look up SONAR GENESIS (liquid) and SONAR ONE (pellets) for more details.