Truth be told I don't use a sprayer, I use a fogger. And I mix much less then a gallon at a time so I use as little as necessary.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Can ANYONE name the poison Eagle 20 with the active ingredient Myclobutanil??
- Thread starter EclipseFour20
- Start date
- Status
we never use eagle 20 in the vineyard.....they drive an ATV with a sprayer and do sulfur doses...and the grapes STILL get mold..
interesting note....most wine makers will take grapes that have full out botrytis and mold on them....the mold actually makes the wines taste sweeter...
EVERY SINGLE BOTTLE OF WINE is made from grapes that have traces of botrytis and powder mildew....
interesting note....most wine makers will take grapes that have full out botrytis and mold on them....the mold actually makes the wines taste sweeter...
EVERY SINGLE BOTTLE OF WINE is made from grapes that have traces of botrytis and powder mildew....
C
-Capfan-
no idea
I NEED To PEE!!!
dude that thing is dank
new thread:
can ANYONE name 20 things that are better than having the same fucking argument about the same fucking chemical with the same fucking assholes on the internet in perpetuity?
just reading this thread has taken more time off my life than eagle 20 probably ever could.
can ANYONE name 20 things that are better than having the same fucking argument about the same fucking chemical with the same fucking assholes on the internet in perpetuity?
just reading this thread has taken more time off my life than eagle 20 probably ever could.
Odog--thanks for holding my feet to the fire!
The cigar gift was cuz the guy got it...not cuz he got the science right: SPRAY ON WHAT YOU DO NOT SMOKE.
We all know contact fungicide/pesticide/insecticide sprays do their job--if and when the active ingredient comes in contact. Those with greater half-lives usually offer long term protection; if there is no contact, then no effect.
For long term protection some active ingredients have systemic qualities--something inside the plant causes it to defend/protect for days/weeks/months. Some systemic potions are also contact...like imidacloprid (which I don't use...nasty half-life).
If the active ingredient properties can move within the plant--like leaf to leaf (old or new), leaf to root, leaf to flower, or flower to flower...then it has translocation properties. Which myclobutanil does not have.
Not all systemics have translocation properties...and the reverse is also true: not all "cides" with translocation properties are systemic (some are contact only).
Confused? Good, cuz this shit ain't simple!
Comment about the tobacco study--IMO, the reason why residual levels were detected on the cured product--is because tobacco leaves were actually sprayed--then cured for smoking. In cannabis, the leaves are discarded and the flower is cured and smoked. Until someone with some $$$$$ conducts a cannabis study on myclobutanil and bud residual--the next best is to extrapolate what is "known" and apply it to the "unknown".
S
SeaMaiden
Oh my God, FINALLY! I was beginning to think I was the only one who remembered that E20 isn't just myclobutanil.
Krunch, et alia who are focused on myclobutanil--it is not the only ingredient in E20. The question remains, what is used on field tobacco, and why isn't E20 approved for use?
Is there anyone here who knows what must occur to get a substance labeled for use on a given product?
Have any of you looked into other myclobutanil products that don't have the same carriers (napthalene, cyclohexanone)?
My goal isn't to force anyone to change their minds. It's to get them really thinking about what they do, why, and how they do it. And then, whatever you do from that point on will be done that much more intelligently. My reasons for this goal are very simple--diligence. Cannabis growers just don't seem to show it, yet we, as a group, love to indict others who don't do their diligence or who aren't thoughtful and considerate in their actions. I call that hypocritical.
I'm also going to point out that while I am an organic gardener, I'm not a... bandwagoner. I don't believe that everyone has to do everything the same way.
I do believe, however, that if an action taken has effects that are too broad and far-reaching, it must be mitigated. If you're using E20, what are you doing to mitigate? Mitigate necessity to use it more than once, mitigating incidence, as well as mitigating the potential harm that could be done *by* using such a product.
For example, I've used Trilogy. ONCE. I put up a temporary tent over the (outdoor cole) plants that I planned to treat and sealed that baby off. Why? Drift and the problems caused by Neem preparations, especially to pollinating insects.
So, use that E20, but use it responsibly. Learn what the worker protection standards are and why they exist. Learn what PPE is, by heart, and use it.
Or who'll only read the bolded bits..?
Now this is fascinating, and leads toward a discussion, or debate, I've had with other growers regarding the actual harmfulness of powdery mildew for humans.
The long and the short of it is this--I can't find ANY evidence, not one whit, that shows that powdery mildew fungi cause harm to humans. I've queried medical professionals, scientists, ag students, state ag inspectors, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, even Santa Claus! No one, not one single person, can point me toward a single study, or even a report, that suggests powdery mildew causes harm to living human tissues; i.e. human beings in living form (no idea about the zombies).
Where does that lead us? I can tell you where it leads me. While it's been over two years since I've seen PM on my cannabis, I have seen it on some of my squash. I spray the fruiting body off with the hose, and that's it. I haven't seen any this year, but if I do I'm going to try milk before anything else.
So, which is worse? Smoking something treated with E20, or smoking PM bud?
Don't let the knees jerk! Think about it before you answer.
Funny thing is...you dont need myclobutanil to get rid of PM..if you know how to activate the plants SAR system through a few different pathways...the plant will laugh in the face of that shit 24-7 365.... You reap what you sow right 
What are your methods of activating?Funny thing is...you dont need myclobutanil to get rid of PM..if you know how to activate the plants SAR system through a few different pathways...the plant will laugh in the face of that shit 24-7 365.... You reap what you sow right
S
SeaMaiden
Aspirin is one way. Certain seaweed/kelp concoctions may as well. Mostly I think he's suggesting that people try upping their game so the plants don't get PM in the first place. Easier said than done, I can't even get a damned Brix reading off anything in the first place.
There are also good methods of IPM that include using physical barriers. JMS Stylet oil is my primary weapon and it's good for dealing with other problems, too, such as spider mites. Nothing develops resistance to it, either, unlike E20. Oh... SNAP!
There are also good methods of IPM that include using physical barriers. JMS Stylet oil is my primary weapon and it's good for dealing with other problems, too, such as spider mites. Nothing develops resistance to it, either, unlike E20. Oh... SNAP!
http://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ijpp.2011.63.71
International Journal of Plant Pathology
Year: 2011 | Volume: 2 | Issue: 2 | Page No.: 63-71
DOI: 10.3923/ijpp.2011.63.71 Pathogenesis-related Protein and Phytoalexin Induction against Cucumber Powdery Mildew by ElicitorsMuneera Alkahtani, S.A. Omer, M.A. El-Naggar, Eman M. Abdel-Kareem and M.A. Mahmoud
Abstract: Six different abiotic elicitors (oxalic acid, potassium oxalate, salicylic acid, Bion, Fungastop and Photophor) were used to study their effect on induced resistance of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) against powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca fuliginea) disease. The inducers efficiency was evaluated depending on disease severity calculation and measure the biochemical change in both pathogensis Related Protein (PR) and phytoalexin accumulation in treated plants comparing with the control. Pretreatment of cucumber plants with all tested elicitors recorded a decrease in powdery mildew disease severity. Bion recorded the most effective inducers (63.8 and 72.4%) while potassium oxalate recorded the lowest effective one (37.0 and 58.3%) in both single and booster spray. Induced resistance of cucumber against powdery mildew recorded an increase in PR-proteins (peroxidase, polyphenoloxidase, Chitinase and β-1, 3 glucanase) activity as well as an increase accumulation of phytoalexins. Application of abiotic agents in these experiments enhances the induced resistance in cucumber against powdery mildew. It would therefore be the proposal to use abiotic inducers as alternatives to the fungicides and one of a wide range of disease management tools.
International Journal of Plant Pathology
Year: 2011 | Volume: 2 | Issue: 2 | Page No.: 63-71
DOI: 10.3923/ijpp.2011.63.71 Pathogenesis-related Protein and Phytoalexin Induction against Cucumber Powdery Mildew by ElicitorsMuneera Alkahtani, S.A. Omer, M.A. El-Naggar, Eman M. Abdel-Kareem and M.A. Mahmoud
Abstract: Six different abiotic elicitors (oxalic acid, potassium oxalate, salicylic acid, Bion, Fungastop and Photophor) were used to study their effect on induced resistance of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) against powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca fuliginea) disease. The inducers efficiency was evaluated depending on disease severity calculation and measure the biochemical change in both pathogensis Related Protein (PR) and phytoalexin accumulation in treated plants comparing with the control. Pretreatment of cucumber plants with all tested elicitors recorded a decrease in powdery mildew disease severity. Bion recorded the most effective inducers (63.8 and 72.4%) while potassium oxalate recorded the lowest effective one (37.0 and 58.3%) in both single and booster spray. Induced resistance of cucumber against powdery mildew recorded an increase in PR-proteins (peroxidase, polyphenoloxidase, Chitinase and β-1, 3 glucanase) activity as well as an increase accumulation of phytoalexins. Application of abiotic agents in these experiments enhances the induced resistance in cucumber against powdery mildew. It would therefore be the proposal to use abiotic inducers as alternatives to the fungicides and one of a wide range of disease management tools.
Keyword Phytoalexin
Not doing all the homework for you guys...but this is a great start
Not doing all the homework for you guys...but this is a great start
Seamaiden...if we could estimate the quantity of each component that actually resides on the plant, then we could guestimate (based on science) the range of residual we could expect to have when the bud is cured.
To properly calculate this--one would have to know the spray efficiency; how much of the solution sprayed actually "enters the plant" and how much is "over-spray". Based on the mess I clean up on the floor, I would say a good portion is overspray.
For the sake of illustration, let's assume the "overspray" is equal to 50% with the remaining 50% of the solution actually lands on the plant. Of that amount, how much actually enters the plant? Half? Third? Quarter? Certainly not ALL.
For the sake of simplicity, lets assume 20% of the actual spray that touches the plant actually enters the plant--which is then equivalent to 10% of the spray bottle (50% x 20% = 10%).
Now...how many plants can I spray with a gallon of Eagle20 solution? 20? 50? That really depends on the size of canopy...but, for the sake of illustration (and so we can do the math in our heads) lets assume 10 plants per gallon.
So lets pull it all together--
Facts:
1ml of Eagle20 is equal 0.197ml of myclobutanil (19.7% active ingredient, some use more...some like me use less)
1 gallon is equal to 3785 ml
1 gallon of Eagle20 solution contains 0.197ml myclobutanil at the rate of 1ml/gallon
1ml of Eagle20 solution contains 0.0000520475561426684ml of myclobutanil (0.197 ÷ 3785ml)
Assumptions:
50% of the spray is overspray
50% of the spray actually comes in contact with the plant or 1892.5 ml (3785ml x 50% = 1892.5ml)
20% of the spray that comes in contact is actually absorbed by the plant 378.5ml (1892.5ml x 20% = 378.5ml)
1 gallon of spray will service 10 plants
Each plant absorbs 37.85ml of spray solution (378.5ml ÷ 10)
Therefore based on the above facts and assumption--
1. Each of the 10 plants should receive 0.00197ml of myclobutanil ( 0.0000520475561426684ml x 37.85).
2. If I yield 1/4 pound (114g) of flowers per plant, then the gram equivalent is 0.000017280701754386ml of myclobutanil (0.00197ml ÷ 114)
Now...if someone smarter than me and can do the half-life calculations for 60 day flower cycle and 30 day dry/cure--then I think we have a number that most certainly is smaller than 0.000017280701754386ml myclobutanil per gram of herb I guestimate.
Huge problem! Who sprays only 10 plants per gallon...I can spray 30-50 plants with a gallon of spray. So divide that number by 3 (for 30)...and 5 (for 50). How tiny does this potential residual number need to be?
Where is the outrage and hysteria regarding toxins in a joint? Go to that cannabis vaporizer study I linked below and check out Table 4 (starts on page 12) where all 111 compounds found in a joint are listed. Notice the handful of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on the list? These are known byproducts of combustion that are thought to be a major culprit in smoking-related cancers. Where is the outrage? Where it the hysteria? And that study is over 8 years old.
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/jcantgieringervapor.pdf
BTW...one of the privileges of being the author of this post--is I can create the assumptions. I have NO IDEA what the spray efficiency rates are...or what they should be. If someone has better facts/info then I will gladly do a "recompute".
Now...anyone know the exact amounts of napthalene and cyclohexanone are in 1 ml of Eagle20 and half-life? My guess both are super super tiny.
Funny thing is...you dont need myclobutanil to get rid of PM..if you know how to activate the plants SAR system through a few different pathways...the plant will laugh in the face of that shit 24-7 365.... You reap what you sow right
Already brought that up. It was overlooked like other good pieces of info. This is key......or one of the keys......
Funny thing is...you dont need myclobutanil to get rid of PM..if you know how to activate the plants SAR system through a few different pathways...the plant will laugh in the face of that shit 24-7 365.... You reap what you sow right
Kinda narcissistic thinking--to believe one's cure should be everyone's cure.
IMO, there are too many variables in play to even start thinking there is a single silver bullet that works 100%--all the time.
But since PM spores are everywhere, imho--I say genetics play a larger role than "environment" does; to conclude PM spores only accumulate around shitty growers with dirty grow rooms--is without any science. It is simple--what works for you, may not work for me.
Mia
Active member
My suspicion is you're probably right about the naphthalene and cyclohexane but we could be totally wrong.
I spent a few minutes data mining this morning but did not get much. I did find some info from another forum where some guy stated spectracide doesn't use naphthalene but I don't know that to be true.
Some SAR inducers include chitosan, salicylic acid, and harpin protein.
Yellow bottle has a foliar spray that has all that and then some and is supposed to be pretty good in case anyone is interested. There is a second generation harpin protein called messenger or elite I believe that is reasonably priced. My limited understanding is the harpin protein is the most potent.
I spent a few minutes data mining this morning but did not get much. I did find some info from another forum where some guy stated spectracide doesn't use naphthalene but I don't know that to be true.
Some SAR inducers include chitosan, salicylic acid, and harpin protein.
Yellow bottle has a foliar spray that has all that and then some and is supposed to be pretty good in case anyone is interested. There is a second generation harpin protein called messenger or elite I believe that is reasonably priced. My limited understanding is the harpin protein is the most potent.
For anybody who wants to induce SARS organically:
chitosan via Crab meal
salicylic acid via willow bark
Don't know too much about H proteins but found this:
The protein combined with other ingredients will be sold under the name Messenger(tm) by Eden Bioscience Corp., Bothell, Wash., under license from the Cornell Research Foundation, which aids in the development of Cornell-discovered technology. Since entering into a licensing agreement in 1995, Eden has conducted over 500 field trials of the product on about 45 crops in four countries.
Curiously, the protein is derived from a plant pathogen, Erwinia amylovora, the bacterium responsible for fire blight, a scourge in Northeast fruit orchards since the 18th century. The bacterium attacks apple and pear trees and many ornamentals in the rose family, leaving blackened branches, trunks, leaves, flowers and fruit.
http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/B/200001636.html
I dont believe messenger HP is organic due to manufacturing methods.
Because harpin protein is commercially produced by E. coli, some strains of which can be pathogenic and produce endotoxin, testing to evaluate the potential for Messenger® use to pose associated risks was conducted. The strain of E. coli used for production of harpn protein (strain K12) is reportedly incapable of surviving long enough in the intestines of various mammals, including humans, to colonize and become pathogenic. In addition, while some endotoxin remains in the Messenger® product, the levels present when mixed with water were determined to not exceed the naturally occurring levels in tap water and creek water sampled for this study. Nevertheless, the USEPA required several studies as a condition of Messenger® registration, including studies on the survival of pathogenic microorganisms in the Messenger® product and on the presence of residual plasmids. These studies are due for submission to USEPA by April 19, 2001.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/biopest-biocont/bioprotein/harpin/messngr_reg_0401.html
chitosan via Crab meal
salicylic acid via willow bark
Don't know too much about H proteins but found this:
The protein combined with other ingredients will be sold under the name Messenger(tm) by Eden Bioscience Corp., Bothell, Wash., under license from the Cornell Research Foundation, which aids in the development of Cornell-discovered technology. Since entering into a licensing agreement in 1995, Eden has conducted over 500 field trials of the product on about 45 crops in four countries.
Curiously, the protein is derived from a plant pathogen, Erwinia amylovora, the bacterium responsible for fire blight, a scourge in Northeast fruit orchards since the 18th century. The bacterium attacks apple and pear trees and many ornamentals in the rose family, leaving blackened branches, trunks, leaves, flowers and fruit.
http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/B/200001636.html
I dont believe messenger HP is organic due to manufacturing methods.
Because harpin protein is commercially produced by E. coli, some strains of which can be pathogenic and produce endotoxin, testing to evaluate the potential for Messenger® use to pose associated risks was conducted. The strain of E. coli used for production of harpn protein (strain K12) is reportedly incapable of surviving long enough in the intestines of various mammals, including humans, to colonize and become pathogenic. In addition, while some endotoxin remains in the Messenger® product, the levels present when mixed with water were determined to not exceed the naturally occurring levels in tap water and creek water sampled for this study. Nevertheless, the USEPA required several studies as a condition of Messenger® registration, including studies on the survival of pathogenic microorganisms in the Messenger® product and on the presence of residual plasmids. These studies are due for submission to USEPA by April 19, 2001.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/biopest-biocont/bioprotein/harpin/messngr_reg_0401.html
Last edited:
- Status
