Glyphosate and trees

[Nomad]

Quickthorn,

you're not wrong and as you say it is very, very common forestry practice, I would go as far to say it it industry standard, however that doesn't mean to say it is right. I have, do and will spray more of the stuff than I care to admit and my personal belief is it isn't right. The more I've looked into it over the years the less I want to know as sometimes it provides me with the only work available that I would want to take on. Perhaps it's the things we can't generally see such as Mychorrizae, soil bacteria etc. And also the things that we won't be around long enough to see that we should be concerned about. One day maybe check out those links I posted.

And actually that was a L/A that told me that-I don't think you should spray the root zone of trees until at least the third year after planting.

[Albedo]

Well done nomad. Thanks for the links, loads of really good referenced info. It'll keep me quiet for a while seeing if I can find some of the papers that are referenced. If you have any more links on the subject, squirelled away please feel free to post them.

 

This is where arbtalk comes into its own with often priceless info on all aspects of treework, that you just wouldn't have found on your own. Its also helped me a lot in setting up my business, in all sorts of ways.

[David oakman]

Quickthorn is right in what he says i at a large estate plant sometimes upto 10,000 plants and they are all sprayed around to keep weeds down, every year i have to beat up and it is allways less than 1% but one year i forgot to spray a large plantation and i had to beat up about 40% they just cannot compete with the weeds in the first few years the root system needs to establish then the tree is away and you don't need any more spray. this is the system i use and i rarely have any trees die:001_smile:

[Albedo]

A good bit of science you could do Dave O would be to spray normally, except on say 2 rows, where you control grass etc without chemicals, i.e manually.

 

You could see if the non chemical ones have increased vigour or not.

 

They obviously survive the odd spraying, and also from your experience you can't just do nothing. But would you get more timber more quickly without spraying, thus making the extra labour cost effective.

[Marcus B-T]

Many moons ago in a former life I used to develop products for a large agrochemical company and I would like to just point a few things out. You will probably think I am an old kill joy but there are important legal reasons for some of these. Firstly it is actually illegal to give advice (paid or unpaid) about the use of pesticides in the public domain without a BASIS qualification, so think carefully about what you say to people. Secondly I think some of the uses that I hear Glyphosate and other chemicals used for are not actually autorised uses so make sure it is a labled or a specific off lable use, otherwise it's illegal. Thirdly the risk assessment requirements for pesticide use require an IMP stratergy to demonstrate the need for the appropriate use of a chemical control. This is important if there is an accedent or an environmental incedent. It also helps to reduce incedences of pesticide tollerance/resistance.

 

Re glyposate, I seem to remember it works on EPSP sythnase, an important plant enzyme in growth. So although you apply it to leaves it acts at growing points in plants, so it is translocated around the plant from leaves to growing areas where it kills off the tissues. Some of these will of course be in the canopy but is not strickly speaking a folir acting herbicide like the Paraquate/Diquate family for example. You apply it to leaves because they are relatively permiable tissues, so a good point of entery. New root growth would be another point of entry but usually the Glyphosate binds to organic matter and is relatively quickly degraded by micriobiological activity. There are two points here though, one: is if you don't have a organic matter present it has nothing to bind to, and two: if there low microbiological activity it will not be quickly degraded. Low organic matter and microb activity sounds like many urban soils to me. It also depends on how much you are applying. This is all on the product lables though, and if the chemical has been advised by someone with BASIS they should be pointing this out.

 

The last thing I would like to say is although the LD 50 for glyphosate is relatively high i.e. you need to take in a great deal before it will kill you. It is still a biologically active chemical and should be treated with respect.

 

Merry Christmas to you all

 

Marcus B-T

[daveindales]

Warning: dont use Glyphosate on stumps that are the same species as any adjacent remaining trees. From past experience it has the potential to kill these trees. Perhaps its due to the roots grafting together?

 

Solely as a stump killer; Glyphosate works a treat. Paint it on a freshly cut stump and it won't come back.

[Albedo]

I used to develop products for a large agrochemical company and I would like to just point a few things out. You will probably think I am an old kill joy but there are important legal reasons for some of these. Firstly it is actually illegal to give advice (paid or unpaid) about the use of pesticides in the public domain without a BASIS qualification, so think carefully about what you say to people.

Marcus B-T

 

Marcus, I don't want to shoot the messenger, but I just googled BASIS and read thru the sylabus of the qualification you are talking about. Its for people selling agrochems and is a few days at NPTC level to get a basic trade certificate (NPTC level stuff).

 

I hold a 1st class BSc Honours Degree in Environmental Science, which took 4 yrs of my time as a mature student. I did the science using gas chromatography, on organo phosphate pesticides, which include glyphosate/ roundup, so If I'm not qualified to talk about it I don't know who is. Frankly I piss all over your BASIS bullshit qualification.

 

I am furious at any attempt to gag the exchange of information in our industry.

 

I'm tired of people quoting HSE or beurocratic legislation, which you would understand, if you knew anything about the way world works, is there to protect vested interests as much as the end user. Monsanto is capitalism at its worst, trust its labels at your peril

 

You have a very good understanding of glyphosate, but if you'd read the article posted by Nomad earlier in this thread, it would be better, and unneccesary to post it.

 

One of the articles also gives some clues to those innocent people who place a, frankly, infantile faith in the legislative authorities, as to why their trust might be misplaced. Follow the clues, read up on it.

 

I dont mean to be offensive, nothing infantile about you or anyone else. but I'm sick of the trust that people place in the powers that be and this is what I am calling infantile, as I believe (and know for a fact from understanding the science involved in establishing these guidelines) this trust is misplaced. I'm so sick of low level poorly researched, wrong legislation and wrong science that I cannot contain my anger any more than this ... Paul Brash BSc Hons Env Sci

 

Ba humbug by the way, as it is the 25th today

[volvo]

Just remember to use the proper material if you are working anywhere where there is a risk of a watercourse if you dont you MIGHT have a huge bill.

Contact the manufacturer of roundup who will issue you with stat sheets as there is 3 different types.

[Quickthorn]

They obviously survive the odd spraying, and also from your experience you can't just do nothing. But would you get more timber more quickly without spraying, thus making the extra labour cost effective.

 

Once again, rightly or wrongly, it boils down to short term costs..

 

You really need to kill the weeds around each tree..mowing or strimming would not eliminate competition for nutrients, so mulching would be the preferred option. I've seen 1 m sq. mulch mats for about 35p each, and labour might be about 15p to fit..so 50p per tree. An alternative might be organic mulch, but you'd probably need about 75 cu. m to mulch 2000 trees, and that would be applying it pretty thinly. Last time I asked, bark chip was £20 / cu. m delivered, so that would be 75p / tree before paying anyone to spread it Meanwhile, a spraying contractor would probably be looking for around 10p a tree, so a 3 year weed control programme would work out at 30p / tree. If you ask landowners or their agents, councils, FC, (or just about anyone in England, anyway) to pay 20p per tree more than they could get away with, I think you can guess the answer.

[David oakman]

Good points quickthorn, i have tried the mats and mulch the mulch dddid not work very well as the thistles grow in it and take all nutrients, and the mats the grasses grow over them by far the best is to spray just before flushing when the trees need all there energy, the old forester here used to also spray in autumn but there is no need as the trees are shutting down apart from some root growth but i do spray my newly planted hedges in the autumn as this gives them a head start in the spring. As you say this is only needed for three or four years but the FC does like six years as do some woodland consultants.