Glyphosate and trees

[David oakman]

Dave.G. Spraying is what the FC tells us to do we have to do it. My plantations i spray for between 4-6 years and the losses are never no more than 1% if you tend to your new plantings any tree or shrub you see dying cut it to the ground and watch it grow again.

[Dave.G.]

Dave Oakman

Thats exactly what I have always done. sprayed new plantings in the belief that it was the right thing to do and the "safest" option and if I had access to some composted woodchip then a quick couple of shovels seemed to do no harm. Then started thinking about the damage to the soil by driving a trailer of woodchip through the woods and so cut back on the mulch. Now after following this debate the advice seems to be cut back on the glyphosate as well.

As Smc says above there are times when we have to spray unless anyone can come up with any other ideas.

[Arob]

In case anyone is interested in doing a bit further reading, I found the Blueprint for a Green Economy series by David Pearce to be interesting reading.

It consistently points the difficulty we have in assigning values to things.

 

The main thrust, as I read it, is that the difficulty arises from the fact that our economic system relies upon a simple system of pricing. As we all know, to be viable a business must make a profit, and that profit is produced by keeping the level of sales above the level of costs.

 

If we take a familiar whipping boy as an example; deep sea pair trawlers are going to cost a bit to buy, equip and run. They go out to sea for a few days drag a heavily weighted net across the bottom of the sea and come home hoping they can sell their cod for enough to cover their costs and produc a profit.

Now what determines the price of fish? Supply and demand. Right?

As it won't keep indefinitely, there will be traders who are in touch with wholesalers, who in turn are in touch with restaurants and chip shops who in turn are in touch with their customers. If other boats have already landed a load of fish, they may struggle to cover costs, if there's a bigger demand they get a better price.

Whatever price they get is determined by the end user's willingness to pay, (there is a maximum) less the costs of the various people in the supply chain, ideally each person makes a small profit and everybody's happy.

 

But, there is a further cost, that is the damage to the sea bed. This is not very obvious to most but its effects are cumulative, dramatic and unbalance the food chain.

Eventually cod stocks go into severe decline, prices to the consumer go up.

Traditionally free market economists have cited this as self-regulating, after all who's going to pay thirty quid for a fish supper? The problem with this is it doesn't account for the ability of stocks to recover, (assumes that they will recover or that it doesn't matter if they don't), or, for the knock-on effects on non-target species. So who pays this cost?

 

Similar examples can be found in all major industries; forestry, agriculture and mining to name a few.

 

It is not unrelated to the fact that cheap, sugary, fatty, heavily processed and additive laden food is cheap to buy, but expensive to consume. Hats off to Jamie Oliver for his school dinners.

 

This, it seems, represents the challenges that we face.

 

One example of an alternative to GDP is http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1016266,00.html

[SMc]

Dave Oakman

Thats exactly what I have always done. sprayed new plantings in the belief that it was the right thing to do and the "safest" option and if I had access to some composted woodchip then a quick couple of shovels seemed to do no harm. Then started thinking about the damage to the soil by driving a trailer of woodchip through the woods and so cut back on the mulch. Now after following this debate the advice seems to be cut back on the glyphosate as well.

As Smc says above there are times when we have to spray unless anyone can come up with any other ideas.

 

Dave. G., I am a firm believer in the use of woodchip mulch (we prefer whole tree chips). The nutrients that are put back into the soil and the benefits that this process produces for the soil and accompanying microorganisms is significant. They also assist in suppression of the unwanted growth. So I believe you were on the right track with using mulch.

 

I commend you for concern about compaction due to vehicular traffic around your wooded area. How do you spray? Are you applying with a backpack applicator? If so, then is this area fairly small? Perhaps a trailer pulled by a quad type vehicle with wide, all terrain tires (I don't know what you would call them there) would be an answer as they impact the ground very little.

 

Obviously, I don't know your situation exactly so my comments may or may not be reasonable, but I would prefer to see less chemical and more mulch rather than vice versa.

 

Sylvia

[SMc]

Arob, an excellent example of consequences from our actions.

 

Sylvia

[David oakman]

Where i am i plant some years upto 10,000 trees and shrubs. so i use a quad with low flotation tyres, the grass pops up as you pass by and does not know you have been. I used to knapsack spray but one woodman could not keep up with the maintenance with the planting numbers for every year. As well as all the other woodmans jobs:001_smile:

[Will Hinchliffe]

Excellent thread comrades!

[Arob]

So can mulching provide a viable alternative to spraying? If so, when?

What kind of mulch (raw chip, composted chip etc) and what regime is required to keep weeds suppresed?

 

I'm not a revolutionary thanks Phenom, though it seems it may be prudent to speak to experienced people to learn about effective alternatives to current accepted practice, even if that practice is endorsed by the FC. Don't wish to be harsh or over critical of the FC but look at the reversals in planting policy over the past couple of decades, these things change, and not without reason.

[David oakman]

I planted an area this year very small only 200 trees and shrubs it is next to a small wood and the small field next to it is cover crop but is being planted next winter about 3500ish plants. In the light of this thread i am going to mulch the small area and see how it does and how the trees grow how many die ect and keep you posted. As i said the only trouble we had with mulch before was thistles and nettles but if i keep on to it these will both hand pull.

[Dave.G.]

I attended a lecture a couple of years back about veteran trees and the comment was made that "if you drive a quad bike through a woodland the damage to the soil will still be evident some 50 years later". The comment was off topic and it wasn't until after that I started thinking about this and my own mulching practices. So it was with this comment in mind and the thoughts of the transfer of disease through wood chip that I cut back on mulching. I still mulch some trees if access is suitable and I am not suggesting anybody should stop rather its just another thing to keep in mind.

From my own very small scale trials newly planted trees will benefit greatly the bigger the weed free area around them, a tree in a border will always establish better/faster than a tree in a lawn with a little circle of mulch. But to try and replicate this in a woodland takes a lot of chip and thats allot of wheel barrows.