Pond Boss Forums AQUATIC VEGETATION Controlling unwanted plants Looking for information on these weed products?

Bare with me here, because I may spell these wrong. Aquakleen 24 D, Aquafall Granular, Navagate 150 to 200 per surface acre. Has anyone used any of these to control Coontail? Are the Granular products best for this type of weed?

>>Bare with me here, because I may spell these wrong. Aquakleen 24 D, Aquafall Granular, Navagate 150 to 200 per surface acre. Has anyone used any of these to control Coontail? Are the Granular products best for this type of weed?<<

AQUA-KLEEN and/or NAVIGATE are two forms of granular 2,4-D; aka 2,4-diclorophenoxyacetic acid. AQUATHOL SUPER K is a granular formulation of dipotasium salt of endothal. All of these products may be effective treatments for coontail. But, depending upon the circumstances, SONAR AS or SONAR PR may represent a more cost-effective treatment. Email me with any questions at kduffie@estesinc.com

Hi,
I am a Certified Aquatic applicator here in Pennsylvania. You can purchase generic, aquatic 2,4-d liquid very reasonably in 2 1/2 gal. jugs from a good AG supply. It works GREAT on Coontail. A little goes a long way and it is very cost-effective. Sonar/Avest can't touch it for cost effectiveness as far as I'm concerned. But be careful....check with your state's aquatic pesticide regulations. Some states don't allow it anymore. Kinda ridiculous as it is one of the oldest, safest, tested-to-the-max aquatic herbicides out there.
Harry

I didn't realize that the Tennessee Valley Authority's jurisdiction extends all the way up to PA. In case it doesn't, there are no LIQUID 2,4-D formulations that are EPA registered & labeled, as in "legal", for treating submerged aquatic plant species outside of the TVA's system. A certified applicator should know that a pesticide product's EPA label is federal law. Lets keep the board recommendations safe, legal and cost-effective; preferably in that order of priorities!

Harry - sorry for the blast. One of the things that I don't like about this board format is that one cannot reread another's post while typing a reply.
After rereading your post, you did recommend checking on state pesticide regulations - which is correct. However, a product's Federal label supercedes all state regulations - except with section 18 and 24-C state local-need labels. Otherwise, my comments on 2,4-D subsurface-use stand as stated.

Hey, you are a lunker!!!! Good opinions and factual information are important. Thanks Kellie!!!

bc

Lunker,
I believe you are mistaken that all liquid 2, 4-d is banned by the EPA. WEEDAR 64 has an EPA Registry # 71368-1 AND an Aquatic use label. Of course, like I said before, you have to check-out your states' regulations to see if its approved for use in your state. As for me up here in good ole' Pennsylvania and Delaware, I will keep on using it instead of Sonar, AquaKleen, and Navigate and save lots o' money for my clients.
Harry

Whoever said anything about 2,4-D being banned? I sure didn't!
Actually, I sell about 2 semi-trailer loads of 2,4-D per season to state and Federal agencies, river authorities and lake management companies - who use it for legitimate aquatic purposes.
As for WEEDAR 64; which is one of the oldest 2,4-D labels, originally marketed by Union Carbide, for whom I worked as a technical field rep during the 80s: it is, as are the rest of the 4# aquatic 2,4-D Amine formulations, STRICTLY labeled for surface treatment of water hyacinth and subsurface treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil - BUT the later is ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH TVA TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
Read the product's label!!! Then, ask your state department of agriculture for their opinion on the matter. Please let me know if they favor your viewpoint.
Saving lots o' money for your clients is a noble objective. But, violating Federal law to accomplish that objective isn't advised.
As with many pesticide products, just because it WILL WORK CHEAPLY for a particular need doesn't mean that you're ALLOWED to use it for that purpose.

Great information in the above posts. I have a SEVERE Curleyleaf Pondweed problem here in Southern Michigan. It is covering approx 60%+ of my 7 acre pond and is so thick that you cannot get a boat thru it. In priority order....#1-that it is a leagal product to use in water, #2- that it is effective and #3- it is fairly reasonable in cost...am I reading correctly that Aquathol Super K granual would be my best bet to bring it under control? (The $325 a pint products are absoutely out of the question on my retirement pension.)
Assuming that I am able to locate the Aquathol would treating approximately 25% of the problem area at a time be too much? I don't want to put too much stress on the bass and walleye.
Or would aquatic 2,4-D be a better choice?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Dan,
#1: I've had minimal personal dealings with curlyleaf pondweed (P. crispus). It seems to be more common in the northern US. However, it does appear to be a relatively easy specie to manage (compared to others).
#2: Consider a hypothetical situation that involves a house in need of paint. Which option is more economical? Painting only a section of a house with a paint that will likely require re-application later in the season. Or, painting the entire house with one coat of paint which will last the entire season - maybe even multiple seasons.

Basically, judge the economy of a herbicide treatment NOT ONLY by the cost-per-acre, but also by the months of control that the treatment will provide. Assuming that you'll own the pond for multiple years, the true cost of any herbicide treatment is a ratio of cost-per-acre relative to the length of weed control that the treatment provides.
Although the "$325/pint" product certainly causes sticker-shock amoung most laymen, it may actually be a far more economical option in comparison to a $70/gal. or an $18/lb. product. The decision greatly depends upon your objectives and up-front availability of funds > since the more cost-effective treatment requires a whole-pond treatment (at a LOWER cost-per-acre & per month of control) vs. a partial-pond treatment with the other product (at a HIGHER cost-per-acre, and per month of control).

Whew! After digesting that long-winded monolog, here's my suggestions:
1) Neither the liquid nor granular 2,4-Ds are labeled for curlyleaf pondweed.
2) Either AQUATHOL K (liquid) or AQUATHOL SUPER K (a polymer granule) are very effective for treating curlyleaf in AREAS of a pond - although you shouldn't treat too small of an area, since the product may disperse outside of the treatment area too quickly and not provide satisfactory results. 1.5 gal. PER ACRE-FOOT of the liquid or 7-13 lbs. PER ACRE-FOOT of the SUPER K should give great results, provided that the product stays put for at least a couple of days. Plants will show impact within approximately 5-7 days, if not sooner. In some cases, retreatments with AQUATHOL may be required during the same growing season - since it isn't a systemic herbicide.
3) SONAR AS (liquid) may be used at 2 - 3 OUNCES PER ACRE-FOOT for curlyleaf (there are 16 ounces in a pint). However, this treatment requires a long contact-time (30 days +), so treatments should not be made to ponds with frequent or constant outflows. Plant-impact may require 2 weeks to become noticable, with "control" requiring 45-90 days, but usually lasting all season - if not multiple seasons.

Personally, I usually draw the "economic line" between these two treatment options when the targeted infestation and/or desired area of control exceeds 30% of a waterbody's surface area.
As for stressing the pond inhabitants, that's tough to assess without more knowledge of your specific situation. However, it may be risky to take down such a severe infestion (biomass of plants) in a single-stage treatment. It is best that you confer with a local professional (with proven credentials) on that issue.
Sorry so long. But, it isn't exactly a simple subject to address. Hope this helps.
Kelly

Thanks Kelly I understand your example of painting a house but my suggestion for treating only 25% at a time was entirely to prevent any undue stress on the fish. I have no problem treating the whole area at one time if the chemicals or the dying plants will have no effect on the fish. It is just the end of May and I already have this serious weed problem.
Due to the design of the pond I can fairly easily seal off about 1/4 of it with a single sheet of 4X8 plywood and treat the smaller area. If the fish in that area will be safe being trapped without an escape to the larger open area I could start there. The pond has several springs and no inlet or outlet, other than the overfloe pipe, so if done on a calm day dispersement should not be a major problem.
I'll figure out the cost per acre-foot for the various products and go from there now that you have made it clear that cheaper ain't always better.
Thanks again.
Dan

Isolating a treatment area may provide advantages from a herbicide-performance standpoint; but certainly isn't the best option if fish (and low dissolved oxygen levels) are a concern.
Instead, I'd suggest using the AQUATHOL to treat the semi-isolated area WITHOUT trapping the fish within that area. Presuming that moderate circulation exists throughout the pond, the vegetation within the larger untreated area may help to partially offset the 02 demand from the decomposing plants that were controlled within the treatment area.