Glyphosate and trees

[ScottF]

There's a very interesting film been produced by some of my Canadian compatriates called "The World According to Monsanto" (Monsanto being the manufacturer of glyphosate). It used to be on Google movies (where I saw it), but it might not be there any more. A review of it is here:

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/world_according_to_monsanto_review.php

 

The way that Monsanto is trying to very heavily push it's chemicals and GM seeds on farmers in less-developed nations is particularly telling.

 

It's interesting to read what people think they know about this product because what's known about it seems to change all the time- for example, it was originally claimed to be organic, then the claim was retracted, then it was claimed not to persist in the soil, then the claim was retracted etc etc. It leads to what one of the posters said about "what we find out about these products in years to come" in terms of health and environmental impacts.

 

When you're deciding to use a chemical, I suppose the acid test is whether you'd use it on the edible parts of your garden. There are (increasingly inventive) alternatives to dealing with weed competition in new planting. Coir or jute mulch mats work when combined with strimming, and there's some interesting work being done on using natural plant herbicides (allelopaths). Just because the spec says "hose down several times with a chemical whose long-term effects aren't necessarily understood", maybe you can come up with a mutually-acceptable alternative. I've been planting trees in their many hundreds of thousands in all sorts of weird and wonderful places for the past twenty years, and I think I can put up with a little extra manual work to avoid using these horrible things.

[David oakman]

I like the thought of that scott F. i did try it last year because i was in hospital in the spraying season and when i came out the grasses were too tall to spray so i strimmed all my young plantations and it did last the growing season. I do think next year i am going to do less spraying but the hedges will need to be sprayed as they just get over taken with bindweed and they pull the plant over and kill them.

[Quickthorn]

, and I think I can put up with a little extra manual work to avoid using these horrible things.

 

I'm sure a lot of us think likewise, but people won't pay the extra.

[David oakman]

This is where i am lucky the family in the big house are not to concerned how i do the work just as long as it is done. The thing about strimming in the summer is if it is a hot summer and heat stroke and all that, i did get heat stroke once when i was hand weeding young spruce LOL well it was not funny:001_smile:

[18 stoner]

I like what you guys are saying about the practicalities of weed control around saplings.

 

I see there is very little impact as far as residuals go after a maximum of 3 years spraying, afterall you are only band spraying in effect, farmers on the other hand recieve a subsidy to spray off thousands of acres every year, and then return the land back to production of human foodstuffs!

 

My personal opinion is that, provided the operator is competent (ie, not overspraying heavily, mixing correctly etc) there should not be a great impact upon a woodland environment.

 

HOWEVER, when glyphosate is used as a stump killer, often the tendency is to mix on the very strong side, partly influenced by the thought of having a phone call to return and re-treat. This type of application of such chemicals can have a massive impact.

 

Some of the manufacturers of glyphosate advise mixing with such as parrafin on stump treatments for better adhesion-wow!

 

My ten penneth anyway.

[SMc]

Thank you all for posting some very interesting and informative links. It is my personal conviction that we (humans) have become far too complacent with chemicals. I can't tell you how many times we hear "Everyone is using it, it must be safe." The apparent belief in research, IMHO, is that if something didn't fall over dead, on the spot, in a relatively short research study, that makes the product being tested "safe". It's good to go, get it out there on the market. We have an incredible inability or reluctance to look further into the future for long term consequences. We want instant gratification and results.

 

Viewing how many products have been pulled off the market because of side effects which have showed up later, demonstrates how poor of a track record we have. Some of these terrible side effects, it turns out, were even known by the chemical companies but not revealed.

 

I agree with Paul who called it our ignorant acceptance of what we are being told. (Pardon me if I just misquoted you.) We want to believe that products are safe, that we may use them with abandon. But we desperately need to challenge ourselves to think about how best to accomplish our goals without poisoning ourselves and the environment. To say that we have used a product for years with no ill effect is, again IMHO, turning a blind eye to what those effects may be. There are effects. Never doubt that. You do not get something for nothing.

 

It is proven that the life/energy below ground is directly related to the life/energy above ground being put back into it, so having fallow ground or little growth, such as isolated seedlings, does not make a healthy soil or optimum growing conditions. Using chemicals/pesticides creates a chemically-dependent landscape.

 

Perhaps in a woodland environment where trying to grow nursery stock that are being out competed for nutrients, is there a companion plant that might provide a benefit for the nursery stock that would outcompete the less desirable growth? Many legumes, clovers and such, some ferns, are nitrogen fixing. Is this a possibility?

 

I realize I do not know or understand your circumstances exactly, so may not have a clear frame of reference, but I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts.

 

Sylvia

[MattyF]

I really cant see what the problem is when using it for 3-4 years untill the trees are established.

I once had a site where as soon as it was planted the guy sowed grass between the rows and kept it maintained the failure rate was appalling infact i seem to remember he was forced to spray other wise they would make him pay for the grant given to plant the woodland.

I worked on that farm this year for the first time in about 6 years i still dont think he ever sprayed the grass as he died !and the only thing that seems to have survived is willow and a few ash not one beach survived out of 4 acres planted.

[David oakman]

The first year i came to this estate i planted a plantation of mixed trees and some shrubs and the gamekeepers went in and planted artichokes i never let them do that again. It is a shame when landowners and farmers get grants and plant but never look after them.

[SMc]

...I once had a site where as soon as it was planted the guy sowed grass between the rows and kept it maintained the failure rate was appalling infact i seem to remember he was forced to spray other wise they would make him pay for the grant given to plant the woodland.

I worked on that farm this year for the first time in about 6 years i still dont think he ever sprayed the grass as he died !and the only thing that seems to have survived is willow and a few ash not one beach survived out of 4 acres planted.

 

In your above illustration, IMHO, it was a HUGE mistake to plant grass. Many grasses can be allelopathic to some species of trees, particularly seedlings/saplings. Willows being one of the exceptions; so it is not surprising it survived well. If he received a grant for planting a woodland, why did he plant grass? Grass is not one of the beneficial companion plants I was referring to. For acceptable companion planting, I would look to a natural woodland in your area to see what is thriving together.

 

Matty, did you read any of the links provided? With glyphosate killing off 59% of beneficial soil organisms, allowing pathogenic fungi to gain an upper hand in this delicate balance, how can you say there is no harm done?

 

So many times here we see people spraying chemicals to obtain a "desirable" weed free setting, spraying other chemicals to deal with "undesirable" bugs. Unfortunately, the spraying for weeds damages the soil microorganisms thereby allowing the more damaging pathogens an upper hand. The spraying for bugs hits the beneficials as well as the undesirables, creating an imbalance. All the while polluting our soils and atmosphere.

 

If we as professionals can't see this, how can we expect the public to? If we are telling them, don't worry it's not a problem. Why should they be concerned? And, unfortunately, this is exactly what I hear professionals saying. That it is not a problem.

 

It is.

 

Sylvia

[David oakman]

Grass is usuallly planted first then trees and shrubs because in this country most tree planting is sport related. The game birds need the tall grasses for cover and to nest in these situations trees are a second product and not very inportant to most landowners. If you get a good one like me he divides his woods into thirds one for game one for habbitat and one for timber production all are equal:001_smile: