Woody, You may have a bit of difficulty getting any pesticides in CA. As you are probably aware, Canada banned the sale of lawn and garden pesticides to homeowners a few years ago. Copper hydroxide and copper sulfate both have some activity against peach leaf curl, although copper hydroxide is supposedly more effective. I use chlorothalonil for leaf curl. As Drew points out, it is rated as a carcinogen to lab animals, as many pesticides are (including Captan) if consumed at prolonged ridiculously high doses. I commonly use products which state something like, "This product is a known carcinogen in the state of California." Thankfully I don't live in California so the products are completely safe for me :-) Copper hydroxide will probably also work fine for your leaf curl. Since Amazon won't ship to you, you might try ebay. I did a quick ebay search and there were several listings for copper hydroxide (Kocide). Here is one which the seller appears to ship worldwide: http://www.ebay.com/itm/CuPRO-5000-Fungicide-Bactericide-3lb-Dry-Flowable-Copper-Hydroxide-61-3-Kocide-/280917380897?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0amp;hash=item4167fb0f21

Hman, I remembered the discussion about Tactic vs. Nufilm, but last year I had a hard time finding Tactic around here, so I went w/ the Nufilm. I was going to order a case of Nufilm for next year, but re-reading our old discussion does make Tactic sound like the superior choice. I will say my experience w/ Nufilm is that it seems very sticky, but our previous discussion seems to point to the superiority of Tactic. One thing that nags me (quite a bit) is that Nufilm has a PHI which is apparently due to it's supposed extending capabilities. In other words, the PHI is not for the sticker itself but because it's supposed to extend the life of the pesticide it's protecting. Obviously, in most cases, chemical companies try to get the shortest PHI approval on their label. I don't understand why NuFilm would have a 30 PHI, while Tactic has 0 PHI. I know enough about pesticide registration that the companies themselves would have had to do a lot of their own documented research during the labeling process. "Olpea...could the PHI on the sticker just be about encapsulating the spray material and not so much the sticker itself? If it is, I guess it is some indication of it's effectiveness. Olpea do you feel a sticker is advantageous when combining with oil? Wouldn't the oil act as a "sticker" in and of itself?" Apple, The 30 day PHI is not about the sticker itself. According to the label, Nufilm can be used up to day of harvest if used with pesticides which have a 0 PHI. This tells me, the EPA has no problem w/ folks eating NuFilm, but that they are worried the pesticides sprayed along w/ NuFilm won't degrade on the crop according to predicted rates. I wouldn't use a sticker w/ oil. Some labels don't recommend it. I've used oil w/ other pesticides, and it does seem like it provides some wash-off protection, although I've not read any studies on it. Oils also provide spreading. It's probably the emulsifiers in the oil that break the surface tension which causes it to act as a spreader.

Regarding tebuconazole/water contamination, the EPA is investigating: "SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is publishing the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) since the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments of 1996. The CCL 3 is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations, that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation under SDWA. Today's final CCL 3 includes 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants." http://www.fralerts.com/2009/10/8/E9-24287.asp It is my impression that our federal government moves slowly. ------------------------------------------- This what the EPA stated in a December 13, 2007 report: ( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/128997/128997-2007-12-13a.pdf First in the summary: "A screening-level (Level I) risk assessment, based on proposed new uses, suggests that levels of tebuconazole (parent compound only) in the environment are likely to result in direct chronic risk to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, acute risk estuarine/marine crustaceans, chronic risk to mammals, a& risk to listed terrestrial dicot plants. Based on the potential for direct effects to these tqa, there may be potential indirect effects to species of concern that depend on these taxa as a source of food, habitat, pollination, etc. Specific risk conclusions for each crop can be found in the assessment." Please look at Table 1. Concerning water contamination, the following 2 sections appear to apply: "Ground Water Advisory ) Tebuconazole is known to leach through soil into ground water under certain conditions as a result of label use. Use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in ground-water contamination. Surface Water Label Advisories This product may contaminate water through drift of spray in wind. This product has a high potential for runoff for several months or more after application. Poorly draining soils and soils with shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoff that contains this product. A level, well maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential for contamination of water from rainfall-runoff. Runoff of this product will be reduced by avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours." ------------------------------ As previously pointed out the European Union has acted. It is my impression that Ontario has a ban for home use; I am not sure about the other Canadian provinces. Could any Canadian readers speak about this? ---------------------------------------- California in a July 16, 2009 report ( http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/priot.pdf ) has placed tebuconazole in its "HIGH Priority" list to be studied for "TERATOLOGY". Teratology is defined at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratology

For many of us, this past winter our plants took a beating with the very unusual winters some of us had with warm weather followed by late freezes. They have what is more typical of drought damage but in this case was caused by the warm weather followed by late freezes. It causes Botryosphaeria dothidea which causes leaves to turn dull green and then brown and roll and droop. Cankers form on branches which may girdle the branch. This is the most common disease of rhododendrons in the landscape. A typical symptom of this fungal disease is scattered dying branches on an otherwise healthy plant. Leaves on infected stems turn brown, then droop and roll inward. These leaves often lay flat against the stem and will remain attached. The pathogen can infect all ages of stem tissue through wounds, pruning cuts, and leaf scars. Heat, drought stress, and winter injury can increase disease incidence. Cankers on branches can gradually grow through the wood until the stem becomes girdled. Diseased wood is reddish brown in appearance. Discolored wood viewed in longitudinal cross section often forms a wedge that points toward the center of the stem, and the pith may be darker brown than the surrounding wood. Sanitation and applying a fungicide such as metalaxyl (Subdue) after pruning my provide some control. Plants should be grown in partial shade, with mulch and kept well watered during dry periods. All dying branches should be promptly pruned out in dry weather and all discolored wood should be removed. Plants should also be protected from rough treatment during maintenance activities to prevent unnecessary wounds. Here is a link that might be useful: Rhododendron and Azalea Troubleshooting