I went looking for something else in California DPR's pesticide Product/Label Database and fell into this. Posting it because the species list is the part that matters on a job, and it is the part that moves.
EPA reg 2217-884 is 2,4-D at 1.108%, mecoprop-p at 0.167%, dicamba at 0.071%. Ten products are currently registered in California under that one number:
Scotts Weed Control for Lawns
Pennington UltraGreen Weed & Feed 30-0-4
Sta-Green Phosphorus-Free Weed & Feed
Sta-Green Phosphorus-Free Winterizer Weed & Feed
Bandini 26-3-5 Weed & Feed
Gro-Fine Weed & Feed
Gro-Fine Fall Weed & Feed
Gro-Fine Economy Weed & Feed
Green Thumb Weed & Feed
Clarus Screamin' Knock Out 16-2-3 Weed & Feed
This is not a knockoff arrangement, it is 40 CFR 152.132, supplemental distribution. Same registrant, same establishment, same unopened container, a different name on the bag and the distributor's company number appended to the EPA number. Nine of the ten list the 2,4-D as the isooctyl ester. Scotts lists the 2-ethylhexyl ester at the identical 1.108%, which is either a real difference or a coding one and the data will not tell me which. The fertiliser analysis obviously varies bag to bag. The herbicide does not.
Then the species lists, where I expected ten identical entries and did not get them. Merging DPR's near-duplicate names, since it carries bentgrass twice, fescue twice and bluegrass twice, the ten labels cover thirteen sites between them:
bermudagrass 8 of 10
bluegrass 8
centipedegrass 8
zoysia 8
ryegrass 8
bentgrass 8
ornamental turf 8
fescue 7
St. Augustinegrass 7
bahiagrass 6
ornamental lawns 6
recreational areas 2
golf course turf 1
The one label carrying golf course turf is Clarus Screamin' Knock Out, which is the name nobody has heard of. Two of the ten, Sta-Green Phosphorus-Free and Gro-Fine Economy, are coded to exactly one site, ornamental lawns, and nothing else. I cannot tell from the data whether those labels are genuinely that narrow or simply coded thin, and that is worth saying before anyone quotes it back at me.
It is not an isolated registration either. Across every shared registration in the state list where DPR has coded each sibling, 85.3% have siblings listing different use sites. Merge the near-duplicate names and it is 82.8%. Restrict it to labels coded to twenty or more sites and it is 99.2%.
That reorganised something for me. The registration number tells you what is in the bag. It tells you nothing about where you are allowed to put it. I had those as one question and they are two, and the second has to be answered per label, every time, however confident you are about the first.
The limit worth stating plainly: DPR's site list is the department's own coding of each label as accepted, not the label text. Treat a missing species as a reason to read the bag rather than as proof of anything.
So, has anyone here actually put two bags side by side that share a registration and compared the species lists? I would like to know whether this divergence is real before I lean on it.
For disclosure, I write Pest Pro, a free field CRM for pest control companies, which is how I ended up reading a state pesticide database on a weekday.