Glyphosate and trees

[Nomad]

Point taken.

[Quickthorn]

If my wife, SMc, can produce enough dialog to keep this interest going to get even a few of you to question your usage on some of these products, I will be quite pleased.

Dave

 

Why do you assume that none of us question our usage of pesticides?

[D Mc]

Why do you assume that none of us question our usage of pesticides?

 

I don't assume that NONE of you question the usage.

 

But when I hear comments that rationalize presticide usage with phrases like it's less toxic than salt, where am I suppose to go with that? It is a true statement; it is also extremely misleading. And is the type of phraseology used by ad agencies to make a product they wish to sell appear quite safe. Whether or not that is the truth appears to be irrelevant.

 

Dave

[Albedo]

Spraying a square metre or so around newly planted trees using glyphosate is very, very common forestry practice, and is often done for the first three years after planting. I do a lot of this each spring, and I can't say I've noticed that it's been having a bad effect. If I choose the herbicide, I normally choose glyphosate because the risk of run-off is lower, the product breaks down into reasonably safe compounds and it is normally the safest for the operator (some glyphosate products do not even carry a CHIPS label). My personal belief is that a directed spray will not harm young trees, providing it is applied as instructed on the label. 4 l/ha product is normally enough for most situations; lower doses can often be used, depending on what weeds are present.

 

Sounds pretty unquestioning to me mate:001_tt2:

[skyhuck]

Sounds pretty unquestioning to me mate:001_tt2:

 

I think you need to explain that!!!!!!

 

Sounds too me like some one who has done their homework and is acting on the information available!!

[Albedo]

Where do I start.

 

Quickthorn has now done his homework but if you follow the whole debate right the way thru this thread, its obvious from his orriginal post that he was accepting labels and common practice without question. It seems to me Skyhuck that your'e not up to speed with this thread and would have to get this end of the thread in context by reading the whole thing thru, including the links

[skyhuck]

Where do I start.

 

Quickthorn has now done his homework but if you follow the whole debate right the way thru this thread, its obvious from his orriginal post that he was accepting labels and common practice without question. It seems to me Skyhuck that your'e not up to speed with this thread and would have to get this end of the thread in context by reading the whole thing thru, including the links

 

I have read the thread thanks!!!!!!!!

 

I would say reading the label and following "common" or what is know as "good practice" is in no way "unquestioning"

 

Its this kind of patronizing extremisms that turns people off, when it comes to claims of doom and gloom regarding the use of chemical controls, IMO.

 

I think that Quickthorn is speaking about "real commercial world" situations and has looked at and mentioned alternatives that are unfortunately cost prohibitive, how is that unquestioning?

[Quickthorn]

Where do I start.

 

Quickthorn has now done his homework but if you follow the whole debate right the way thru this thread, its obvious from his orriginal post that he was accepting labels and common practice without question.

 

I don't think many other people would jump to that conclusion.

 

What's happened, paul? Only yesterday you were saying:

 

Its a fundamental core belief of mine that everyone out there in tree work is capable of an effort to be as informed as everyone else. I said 'infantile' for believing stuff without reading up on it. Half the effort Mr quckthorn has put in would do the trick.

 

But when I hear comments that rationalize presticide usage with phrases like it's less toxic than salt, where am I suppose to go with that? It is a true statement; it is also extremely misleading. And is the type of phraseology used by ad agencies to make a product they wish to sell appear quite safe. Whether or not that is the truth appears to be irrelevant.

 

Dave, I might be misunderstanding you here, but if you think I'm trying to mislead anyone with the glyphosate/salt comment, nothing could be further from the truth. Try re-reading that post I put up (#43), and if you still think I'm trying to mislead anyone, please point out the phrases you think are misleading. It's too late to edit that post, but I'll gladly re-phrase it ...if it is misleading.

 

Happy New Year!

[Albedo]

My dial up keeps cutting out so here goes.

 

If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.

 

So Skyhuck, God knows I've been pompous/patronizing in this thread. Criticism accepted, I'll try not to do it again.

 

Quickthorn, I may well have jumped to conclusions, I'll try not to do that again as well.

 

No pomposity and no jumpin. I promise and apologise for any offense, none intended. Can't guarantee it tho you know what I'm like

Edited December 31, 2008 by Albedo

[Albedo]

By the way Skyhuck.

 

Your 'patronizing extremists' comment says more about you than me. You might want to put your brain in gear next time.