Forums36
Topics40,979
Posts558,165
Members18,511
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
9 members (Angler8689, Boondoggle, J. R., lafarmpondguy, ghdmd, RAH, DPSMESA, Fishingadventure, Theo Gallus),
1,208
guests, and
222
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,488 Likes: 2
Lunker
|
Lunker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,488 Likes: 2 |
LD - I'm not one to argue with success. Your treatment method may work well, though relatively labor intensive.
A lot depends upon how quickly you apply the herbicide solution to the cut cattails and what concentration-mix was utilized (presumably of glyphosate).
In general, one may use a relatively high dilution-ratio when conducting full-coverage applications to uncut cattails (ex. 1 oz/gal.). Alternately, treatments applied to cut-surfaces need to be done quickly after cutting, and with lower dilution-ratios (higher concentrations - ex 1:1 ~ herbicide:water).
With virtually all systemic herbicides (Rodeo, Aquamaster, etc.), good results usually depend upon the plant's absorption of a sufficient amount of herbicide into its vascular system; whether applied at low concentrations over a large absorptive surface area or high concentrations to a small "cut" surface.
Your post wasn't considered misinformation. It may indeed be a very viable option for those who have moderate levels of infestations and don't want the unsightly appearance presented by a lot of dead cattail debris.
On the other hand, the labor to cut and remove a cattail biomass (ahead of a treatment) might be wasted if the follow-up herbicide treatment was not applied at a sufficient concentration.
BTW: both treatment methods should include a surfactant/wetting agent in the mixture.
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|