Tag Archive for: Chemicals. Safety Book

Blade Runners Approach: Posting Agronomic Signs

While this requirement for Associations (§ 55-510.3 )may produce added expense for the association it really is a good idea.  This effective communication to your residents, communicates service dates, the QR Code provides and takes residents instantly to the Blade Runners Resource Book. This has all the support documentation of pesticide products to be applied, along with MSDS sheets, product labels, product toxicity info (if any), mixture rates and contact information should they have further concerns. 

Blade Runners has long provided this pesticide sign posting service option for our Homeowner Associations, Condominium Associations and Commercial Sites.  This not just littering the community with pesticide application flags vaguely communicating the ‘something’ was applied. 

Blade Runners Agro Sign

We provide highly visible, solid real estate-style signs placed at specific areas of the property. It contains the dates of application along with the QR Code Link to our resource book and a way to contact Blade Runners with questions. 

Proper implementation for both pesticide notice posting and the agronomic applications takes planning.  Adequate inventories of signs are needed to replace weathered and/or stolen signs.  Coordination planning is necessary in order to time the application after a turf mowing for maximum control along with the required 48 hour advance posting visit to place the signs. In the event of poor weather, an additional visit might be needed to alter the date.  Signs are removed from the site after the application.

As with many things there is more to this than meets the eye. Associations should be careful that there solution is a comprehensive one that adds value.    Turn this annoyance into a positive thing for your community!

See our Famous Blade Runners Resource Book Here–>   Click Here-Blade Runners Resource Book Here!

 

Blade Runners QR Code Link to Resource Book on Sign contains:

  • Product label and MSDS sheets for all products we use.
  • Phone numbers for state and government agencies should the client want addition information.
  • Questions and answers regarding the service & Our methods of production and the manner in which we deliver the service.
  • Blade Runners Agronomic Program Details – with Product Names, Timeline, Mixture Rates.
  • Blade Runners Philosophy “SAFE” Program.
  • S- Safety 
  • A- Accreditation 
  • F- Facts
  • E- Education 

Read all about Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act requirements for new notice of pesticide application 

Virginia HOA Boards, and Property Managers, and landscape contractors were blindsided by a Virginia Statute (§ 55-510.3 ) requiring 48 hours of posting notice for all agronomic applications.

Read the actual statue § 55-510.3. Common areas; notice of pesticide application.  The association shall post notice of all pesticide applications in or upon the common areas. Such notice shall consist of conspicuous signs placed in or upon the common areas where the pesticide will be applied at least 48 hours prior to the application


Blade Runners, Inc. is Determined to use the best products for your site.  Recently Round Up has been in the news, below you will find information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Association of Landscape Professionals (NALP).

– Statements on Round Up from EPA and NALP.

EPA Takes Next Step in Review Process for Herbicide Glyphosate, Reaffirms No Risk to Public Health

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking an important step in the agency’s review of glyphosate. As part of this action, EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The agency’s scientific findings on human health risk are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by many other countries and other federal agencies. While the agency did not identify public health risks in the 2017 human health risk assessment, the 2017 ecological assessment did identify ecological risks. To address these risks, EPA is proposing management measures to help farmers target pesticide sprays on the intended pest, protect pollinators, and reduce the problem of weeds becoming resistant to glyphosate.

Full Statement from EPA –

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-herbicide-glyphosate-reaffirms-no-risk-public-health

The National Association of Landscape Professionals (NALP) recently released an updated statement regarding the recent jury decisions and the safety of Bayer Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer or glyphosate.

“NALP understands the important role glyphosate plays in managing landscapes and delivering crops, and we are committed to promoting and ensuring its safe and effective use based on scientifically supported decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” NALP said in a press release. “NALP members are licensed and certified pesticide applicators that use glyphosate and other products in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.”

The EPA announced on May 6, 2019, that a final interim determination on the review of the herbicide glyphosate was reached.

The EPA’s conclusion was “that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.”

NALP says the EPA reached this determination after extensive human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted. NALP also notes that the interim final determination followed the publication of a draft assessment on glyphosate in 2017, which also found that glyphosate was not harmful to public health when used in accordance with label instructions.
Full Statement from NALP-

https://www.totallandscapecare.com/chemical-care/nalp-releases-update-statement-on-glyphosate/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=02-06-2020&utm_campaign=Total%20Landscape%20Care&ust_id=618b2f2a66c9b083e396ebb22f135d9e4588923a&oly_enc_id=7998G9338467F6R

 

 

 


The common weed killer Roundup (glyphosate) is back in the news after a US court ruled it contributed to a man’s terminal cancer (non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Following the court’s order for manufacturer Monsanto to compensate the former school ground’s keeper US$289 million, more than 9,000 people are reportedly also suing the company.

In light of this, Cancer Council Australia is calling for Australia to review glyphosate’s safety. And tonight’s Four Corner’s report centres around Monsanto’s possible cover-up of the evidence for a link between glyphosate and cancer.

Juries don’t decide science, and this latest court case produced no new scientific data. Those who believe glyphosate causes cancer often refer to the 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified the herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

What did the IARC and others find?

Glyphosate is one of the most used herbicides worldwide. It kills weeds by targeting a specific pathway (the shikimic acid pathway) that exists in plants and a type of bacteria (eubacteria), but not animals (or humans).

In terms of short-term exposure, glyphosate is less toxic than table salt. However, it’s chronic, or long-term, exposure to glyphosate that’s causing the controversy.

Pesticides and herbicides are periodically re-evaluated for their safety and several studies have done so for glyphosate. For instance, in 2015, Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment suggested glyphosate was neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic.

But then came the IARC’s surprising classification. And the subsequent 2015 review by the European Food Safety Authority, that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard, didn’t alleviate sceptics.

The key differences between the IARC’s and other reports revolve around the breadth of evidence considered, the weight of human studies, consideration of physiological plausibility and, most importantly, risk assessment. The IARC did not take into account the extent of exposure to glyphosate to establish its association with cancer, while the others did. Supplements like SARMS are able to combat any negative effects very easily as well.

Demonstrating the mechanism

Establishing whether a chemical can cause cancer in humans involves demonstrating a mechanism in which it can do so. Typical investigations examine if the chemical causes mutations in bacteria or damage to the DNA of mammalian cells.

The studies reviewed by IARC, and the other bodies mentioned, that looked at glyphosate’s ability to produce mutations in bacteria and to mammalian cells were negative. The weight of evidence also indicated glyphosate was unlikely to cause significant DNA damage.

Animal studies

Animal studies are typically conducted in rats or mice. The rodents are given oral doses of glyphosate for up to 89% of their life spans, at concentrations much higher than humans would be exposed to.

Studies examined by the European Food Safety Authority included nine rat studies where no cancers were seen. Out of five mouse studies, three showed no cancers even at the highest doses. One study showed tumours, but these were not dose dependent (suggesting random variation, not causation) and in one study tumours were seen at highest doses in males only.

This led to the European Food Safety Authority’s overall conclusion that glyphosate was unlikely to be a carcinogenic hazard to humans.

Human studies

The European Food Safety Authority looked at 21 human studies and found no evidence for an association between cancer and glyphosate use. The IARC looked at 19 human trials and found no statistically significant evidence for an association with cancer. It did find three small studies that suggested an association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (not statistically significant).

As already mentioned, the large Agricultural Health Study found no association between cancer and glyphosate in humans. And the 2016 review by Australia’s regulator concluded glyphosate was safe if used as directed.


Our Lawns: “To Treat” or “Not to Treat”, and what about Organic Options?

The goal of a turf care professional is to provide a healthy lawn with a low weed population.  Healthy green fescue lawns improve the appearance and enhance the value of a property. Healthy lawns also provide significant environmental benefits.

The lawn treatment (lawn care) industry is huge in the United States and for good reason.  Lawn care programs are generally inexpensive and work very well. Lawns left untreated will quickly be overrun with weeds and turf will eventually disappear.  Evidence of this can be seen on roadsides and unmaintained areas at public schools.

Procedures for Maintaining a Healthy Lawn

Step 1: Establish a threshold:  Property owners and managers need to decide on the ultimate goal.  Is it a no tolerance policy on weeds, something in-between for maintenance, or simply no concern for a weed population? This will dictate the level of services ordered and the approach of the provider. By way of example, homeowners and fancy commercial sites generally have a “no tolerance” weed policy and may have irrigation systems.  Homeowners associations and budget conscious owners take a medium approach.  Schools, roadsides, and certain retail centers may have no concern for weed populations or turf health.

Step 2: Establish a cultural practice: Make sure your mowing provider cuts fescue no lower than 3.5”. The mower blade must be sharp.  Consider an irrigation system for the maintained area.

Step 3: Decide on fertilizer: Too often, the quality and amount of annual fertilization is overlooked and not watched. This could be the most important element of your program. Poor fertility means poor grass, more weeds, and more chemicals. It is also an area where contractors cut corners.  There are 100% organic fertilizers but Blade Runners does not recommend them. The nitrogen is not stable and tends to release all at one time. Much of this drains from the property into the Chesapeake watershed. It is important to have a large slow-release component in the fertilizer. This can be a blend of organic and traditional nitrogen product.  The slow release will feed the turf slowly, remain in the soil profile, and not leach into the sewer.

Step 4: Decide on seeding: Make sure that full core aeration of the property and seeding is part of the program.

Step 5: Ensure your PH is correct and apply lime annually

Step 6: Determine the weed control approach: Notice how far down the list we are.  EPA regulated herbicides do a great job and are cost effective. Organic is a buzzword of interest for all of us, especially when it involves agriculture.  There are organic approaches to weeds to consider. As is the case with all products and services, we need to be sure they deliver on the organic commitment, and provide the stated results.

Organic Weed Control Products

Corn Gluten: Corn Gluten is a by-product of the wet milling process utilized to make cornstarch. Research has shown that application in the spring and fall can serve as a preventive to crabgrass. Unfortunately, it is expensive and requires 4 times as much granular product applied. The cost for corn gluten alone will be twice your total overall program including the fertilizer.

Chelated Iron Weed Controls: These can be effective on weeds but it does not kill them. It burns the surface part of the plant and does not kill the root. For this reason, the weeds re-emerge and require more treatments. The product is more expensive and corrosive to metals and equipment. Many of these products are not regulated by the EPA, and traditional weed controls are.

Mixed Products: There are numerous home remedies to be found on the internet. Many of them involve the use of vinegar and other household products.  We cannot speak to how effective they are.  Blade Runners is prohibited by regulation from the Virginia Department of Agriculture from making our own concoctions.

Step 7: Watch out for the sling shot:  If you decide on a no-chemical weed control approach, make sure you plan to adhere to it. Understand what the results will be at the outset.  In many cases, clients can take an about face when the weeds overrun the property. The result is a net increase in chemical use and cost, to bring things back in line. We see this happen in most cases where clients elect to suspend applications.

At this time, Blade Runners’ recommendation is not to use organic weed and crabgrass control products.  We feel they do not produce results and are too costly.  We would prefer you suspend all weed control applications and simply apply lime and fertilizer. The results will be the same and the cost much lower. With that said the industry is always changing. There may come a day when things will be different.  Our ears are open to anything you bring to our attention. We are willing to examine any proposed organic alternative and let you know our thoughts.


I just wanted to praise the efforts of Rosa, who answered my inquiry regarding weed control spraying occurring in my HOA community of Beauregard Manor. I have young children and pets, so I called the number on the sign placed in our community notifying us of the application and left a couple detailed messages with our account manager. Since it was a Friday, I was concerned when I did not receive a call back after leaving a morning and afternoon messages with our account person, Raoul Chavez. So, I called the main line. Rosa was apologetic and fantastic- even tracking down the person who knew more information on the application used. I just want to be sure and let you know when one of your employees does right. Thank you to Rosa! I tried to mention this to Raoul, but for some reason, our phone call connection ended abruptly. Thank you!

© 2024 Copyright - Blade Runners