SMc

As Yanks, we often are talking about similar circumstances but from different perspectives. Several posts on another thread on this forum "Glyphosate and Trees" raised some questions in our minds. Whether you work with estates, public maintenance or privately could some of you elaborate on what might be your specific circumstances? For instance, if you are planting a large quantity of trees are they in a nursery situation for transplanting, reselling, or are they for shelterbelt situations on estates or agricultural lands? Are they planted from seed, liners, saplings? How do you prep the soil, tilling methods, etc. This is a broad topic and I am trying to improve my understanding of your particular situations large and small. Please share. Sylvia

Thank you for the testimonial, Tom. I believe there are many of us out there convinced that our current practices are wrong and yet overwhelmed by the prospect of change. It is very easy to throw up our hands and say "but what can I do?" It is good to know there are living examples, on larger scales, to demonstrate that this can be done. We just need to do it. Sylvia

Sure looks like a view of the Golden Gate from the Presidio. Cool. Sylvia

Arob, an excellent example of consequences from our actions. Sylvia

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

Dave G. And herein lies our problem. How can we achieve what we need to achieve, efficiently and economically? We have been told by the chemical company that glyphosate is the "safest" alternative available to us today. And that very well might be the truth. I feel compelled to point out in any discussion on this subject that "safest" is not synonomous with "safe". And yet many have made that leap in their minds. But with that said, for some situations it probably is the best alternative at this time. We have, and will, use it ourselves in situations where manual control is not feasible. But it is always as a last resort not a first resource. Sylvia

I am very concerned with people's casual and comfortable attitudes towards pesticides. The general concensus being that as long as they follow the labels all is well. There have been many instances where substances are found to have side effects and long term damaging effects which were initially played down, ignored or not discovered/disclosed. And yet, were in fact, known by the company very early in their production. In the Monsanto view link posted it is brought out that Monsanto was sued for false advertisement twice, once in our country in 1996 and then in 2007 in France. (These cases pertaining to misleading information on their labels.) These were not the only lawsuits Monsanto has been involved in. In listening to the tape, if your skin does not start to crawl regarding the coverups involving PCPs, bovine growth hormones and GMOs, I have no idea what would affect you. This is the tract record of the company that we are then trusting in their labels and research, declaring it sound, and using it as the basis for our decisions, without question. And when some other group, granted who is not as wealthy or as well known, comes up with contra evidence or concerns, all we can say is "who are you?" and be suspicious that they might have a secret agenda. The entire organic community goes on a rant about pesticides in general. Therefore, unfortunately, it is easy for many to put aside their concerns. Where in fact, we should be listening with all ears. It seems that so many times on these products, what they are telling us is that bugs, fish, our pets and children and even ourselves are not going to fall over dead on the spot. And, for some reason, we are fine with that. We are comfortable with results from testing that shows what it takes to kill 50% of our test subjects. Why aren't we concerned with what happens up to that lethal dose? It has been proven there are many ill effects that do not cause immediate demise. But for some reason, we are ok with those? The disruption of the delicate balance in the soil for a healthy growing environment is all too easy to accomplish. The use of pesticides disrupts that balance. That is a fact. Evidently the link for viewing the Monsanto video no longer works on this thread. Google Monsanto. Google falsified documents from Monsanto. But for whatever, read between the lines. It is advised that we not believe everything we read when not from a trusted source. I am saying how can you believe everything a large multi-national company tells you about a product without prejudice when their sole basis for promotion is economics. Whereas, the whole original establishment of the organic community and others for fighting chemical products was concern about the long term effects and the welfare for people and the planet. I urge anyone using these products to give serious consideration as to their necessity. Sylvia

I have heard this comment before with the inference that it is some sort of justification for use of chemical pesticides. We will actually use salt as a sterilant in certain isolated circumstances, again with caution. I am not suggesting that glyphosate is the worst chemical out there, that list is extremely long. It should, however, IMHO, not be used with the apparent lack of concern as you would use when taking an aspirin. So as to which do I think is more toxic: glyphosate or salt? I certainly know what I will use while cooking. But I would not apply it to my garden. Know the consequences of that which you use. Sylvia

Quickthorn, They said "inhibiting" not "killing off". However, it does go on to state: "Glyphosate destroys nitrogen-fixing bateria." referenced from a bulletin by Hendricks, C. W. (1992). And here are additional quotes cut and paste from the abc link in post # 8 by Nomad. Which I encourage everyone to go back and read in its entirety. "Toxic to soil microbes including nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrhizae, actinomycete, and yeast isolates: One study found that glyphosate inhibited the growth of 59% of selected naturally occurring soil microbes. Carlisle, S.M. and Trevors, J.T. (1988), "Glyphosate in the environment." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 39:409-420. Glyphosate, by inhibiting the growth of some microbes allows the overgrowth of others. This includes microbial plant pathogens. Fusarium is a naturally occurring soil fungus that is a plant pathogen. Fusarium invades the roots of plants and either kills the plant outright or prevents normal growth. Subsistence farmers in Colombia have noted that fields accidently sprayed with herbicides in attempts to destroy Coca do not produce at the same level as they did prior to being sprayed, and in some cases, no crops grow at all. Levesque, C.A. (1987), "Effects of glyphosate on Fusarium spp.: its influence on root colonization of weeds, propagule density in the soil, and crop emergence." Can. J Microbiol. Vol 33, pp354-360." This article also points out the damage by inhalation. It points out that its (glyphosate) toxicity level is raised significantly by the active surfactant POEA with which it is used. Other quotes: "The rate of glyphosate degradation in soil correlates with the respiration rate....Of the nine herbicides tested glyphosate was the second most toxic. This infers that with extensive glyphosate use, soil microbes are killed which degrade glyphosate, thus slowing degradation and increasing persistance. Glyphosate is much more persistant in anaerobic soils than aerobic." Carlisle, SM and Trevors, J.T. Glyphosate in the Environment. My whole point here, is that we constantly use, overuse, products that we are led to believe (want to believe) have little detrimental effect on our environment, which in fact is not the case. There is a great deal of desensitization in this process. The more we use, the more comfortable we are with using it; and this should be going the other way. We should be more and more cautious, not less so. Glyphosate is considered one of the "safest" rated herbicides (per consumer perspective). We simply need to use it with extreme discretion not with abandon. Sylvia

David, are you talking about tree protectors (like the white plastic or corrugated tubes)? Are you asking fpeople with a large quantity of young trees annually (for replacement plantings)? Or is this a more general and possibly individual question? What are your tubes made from? We put the tree guards on in the winter to protect from sun scald, but they come off during the rest of the year. In your instances of woodlands on estates, where you are encouraging habitat, I can imagine this is a problem. You want the wildlife, but you need the young trees to thrive as well. Here we tend to go to tall fences in orchard/nursery situations, but then we are trying actively to keep the deer/elk out, not dealing with a cohabitation situation. How do you deal with rabbits? Sylvia

My feelings exactly for mulch. And Matty, that is my point. This is our mindset today. We are convinced that this is our only way. We want high yields with little effort and unfortunately, that is not nature's way. Nature's way is to put out millions of seeds with a relatively low survival rate. We desire much richer rewards. Not to sound melodramatic, but that is our downfall. Sylvia

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

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

He's from the South. They drop multiple syllables there...we were lucky to get two out of him! These girls are why we blondes have a bad rep... Sylvia