Skip to Content
Weed control, management, ecology, and minutia
by Thomas March
on March 27, 2023 at 10:42 AM
A couple of comments,  
-If Glyphosate, Ranger Pro, was listed as used in the Table 1, why is it not shown in Figure 1?  
-A 14 day trial is insufficient to for a seasonal study and should be mapped over a 18 month period to compare it to glyphosate or synthetic herbicides. Also include the contracting labor , equipment and material costs the the public can expect.  
-Show the labor and vehicle resources used for return visits and treatments and explain how this is sustainable with repeated vehicle fuel consumption and continued labor efforts?  
-to prevent misleading information, this should be combined with larger lands locations where acres of wildfire defensible space projects are managed to maintain for a longer duration. This will educate the general public to understands the differences of cost and abilities to maintain.  
-Where are the listed risks of the organic herbicides or eye irritant, caustic properties, and how does that compare to synthetic herbicides combined with the known hazards of vegetation to be managed to prevent risk to public property and environment.  
-What is the actual synthetic pesticide use risk, not assumed risk? Can mitigation measures of Best Management Practices be used to of set any risk to person, property and the environment?  
Thank you,  
Tom March
by John A Roncoroni
on March 27, 2023 at 11:10 AM
These trials were simply efficacy trials to compare “alternative” herbicides to the current standard. They were done with the Urban user in mind. Many schools, parks and other public places have been asked to seek “alternative weed control products” Little or no information is available on their efficacy. These were not comprehensive economic nor toxicological studies. The short period of the trials is a reflection of the efficacy of the contact nature of the herbicides Larger, more comprehensive studies are always welcome. Funding for those types of studies, in this kind of situation are not always available.
by Karey Windbiel-Rojas
on March 27, 2023 at 4:24 PM
Thank you for your questions. The article is only a snapshot of the efficacy trials we have been doing. Ranger Pro was not included because it was not used in all trials and the graphs are meant to illustrate the alternative products. For your comments and questions on risk, the mention of signal words addressed that point, and I presume the reader understands the hazards and required personal protective equipment required for each.  
As John noted, this short article is simply to present the preliminary findings of our studies. Certainly more replicated studies are needed to gain a fuller picture. The other considerations of calculating resources for cost and labor were not part of this study.
Leave a Reply:

You are currently not signed in. If you have an account, then sign in now!
Anonymous users messages may be delayed.

Security Code: