What are your opinions about using Alamo in capsules for DED control? Aside from the wounds to inject, are there other drawbacks you see? AS a preventative treatments, how often do you recommend repeating the treatment?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 01, 1999 at 12:37:19:

David Appel, A&M, 6 months after injection, no detectable levels were found, which would lead one to advocate repeat injections more often than prior knowledge dictated. However!!!, If
you had ever observed the lesions at the injection sites after trunk removal, all xylem
tissue was destroyed due to exposure to Alamo. If
repeat injections are utilized, new ports drilled, further vascular tissue damage will result, so what will kill the tree first? Treatment, or disease. I would recommend the use of the new TRIAZOLE family of sterol-inhibiting fungistats, applied only through microinjection, combined with a nutritional rescue foliar and root symbiont growth stimulators. Are you attempting treatments to trees infected, or proximity specimens?
Alamo has flunked for active disease here in Texas, is often advocated for active, disease trees, only gives supportive data in proximity trees, is too expensive, and deadly toxic to humans as well as vascular tissue.
Read the data on Alamo---it's abil;ity to translocate downward is deadly to root-system
beneficial fungi. Ciba sold it to Novartis last year for a real good reason. It massed millions in profits since the state schools were recommending it, because it funded the damn research. Now time tells us how effective it really was. And how much money was wasted.
Look at Tebuconazol. We are.

Reply to post by Reed Holt, on May 01, 1999 at 12:37:19:

Thanks, Reed. I had been hearing similar reports, that it doesn't do too well as a long term preventive. I will look into the Tebuconazol.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 09, 1999 at 22:19:07:

Beginning last week, a trial on active
ceratocystis fagacearum (oak wilt) has us looking at one-time treatment of vascular injection of Tebuconazol and nutritional "rescue" application of micro-elements to the foliage, and bio-stimulation at the root zone in trees infected with wilt that have at least 50% functioning, asymptomatic leaf surface remaining. We're familiar with the results of the nutritional treatments alone on active disease, but are attempting to turbocharge this approach with some fungi-inhibiting elements-that's where the Tebuconazol comes in. In the past, Alamo has shown us it's unprefered ability to dampen or alter tylosis, making comparmentization in the xylem impossible. We also suspect that early attempts with Alamo may have produced what we're noticing as a "mutation" in the fungi's ability to produce endo-hyphea, or little arms that find the perforations in the vascular cell walls, enabling this nasty little disease to move around and beyond the blockage. We also suspect the casing the disease developes when exposed to Alamo may allow it protection for a limited period of time-valuable time lost while dilution occurs and more injections are prescribed. It took years of epidemic here in Texas before even a correct diagnosis was made as to which disease was killing our oaks. Methodology at the time insisted that wilt couldn't live in our temperature extremes. The State continues to advocate trenching when asked to control underground spread, but sites the trenchlines between two infected specimens!?!~ We have solicited countless efforts to assist the State, or vice-versa, only to be snickered at, so we initiated our own, industry assisted trials here. I promise to let you know the play-by-play as it develops.
If at stage one, we eliminate further leaf drop, we'll celebrate an early success and throw a party here. Ya'll like B-B-Q?