regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

Discussion in 'Planting, growing, nurturing Plants' started by gardenlen, Oct 15, 2009.

  1. forest dweller

    forest dweller Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    Crazy misguided hippies that think 'nature will repair itself' drive me nuts. Sure, it will fix itself over thousands of years, but are you willing to lose biodiversity whilst we sit back and watch it happen?

    If you want to preserve the biodoversity we have then you have to face facts. Organic weed control is fine on a small area but not on a broad acre siuation. When faced with hundreds of thousands of hectares of weeds (that are killing native species and destroying the environment in which they proliferate) you need to take drastic action. I've been in the environmental rehabilitation business for almost 20 years and can say without question that if it wasn't for chemicals we'd have have lost many hundreds more species to extinction by now.

    Extinction is forever guys and we don't have enough hippies to wander thousands of kilometres and remove weeds before they destroy our forests. Careful chemical use vs. hand removal techniques equates to 1,000,000:1 when you start talking large areas. It's just not practical to hand weed an entire national park. To believe that 'leaving the weeds alone is also okay' is misguided at best.

    Please don't stick your head in the sand without having a true grasp of the situation. Weeds are consuming our natural areas faster than we can pull them out, that's a fact. If we don't use chemicals to control them we will lose many species to extinction.
     
  2. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    Yes, how many millions of frogs were killed -and species made extict- by RoundUp before they discovered how it was killing frogs.
    Dow Corp. has a VERY effective PR department; Please don't stick your head in the sand.

    How does fire go as a weedicide?


    What about non- chemical methods of weed control?

    Kerosine used to be used on weeds, what ever happened to that?
     
  3. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    G'day forest dweller

    Welcome to the PRI Forum.

    Please try to refrain from using terms like 'hippie' in a negative, derogatory sense. I do understand your frustration, however derogatory speech does nothing toward furthering genuine discourse.

    Your input should be most welcome here then. There are many who regularly contribute to these pages who share your longevity in the practice of earth care, however many are going to have an opinion that differs from yours. Please respect that. By all means debate the topic, but leave personal insults out of the discussion.

    There are many (myself included) who have come to the conclusion that the 'war on weeds' (just like the 'war on drugs', or the 'war on terrorism') when 'fought' on the current dominant cultural premise of an "environmental rehabilitation business" model is, in essence, flawed. Many (myself included) would go so far as to say that 'environmental rehabilitation business' is really just code-speak for the profit hungry companies of Bayer, Monsanto, and Dow - just to name a few.

    I would argue that if we redirected material costs away from chemical application (and therefore the negatives associated with this kind of practice) and toward labour intensive initiatives that utilise human capital - groups such as Green Corps (now defunct), Conservation Volunteers Australia (struggling), Landcare (also struggling) etc. - then we would have more than enough people on the ground to get the job done. If the now-famous Bradley Sisters (see: link below) could do it, and do it chemical free, I do not see why we could not roll it out on a grand scale right across the country if, as you say, we only had the people.

    'Bringing Back the Bush' (2002) Joan Bradley
    https://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/2690.htm

    Granted, time is of the essence, and no one is arguing with you that we do not have a huge problem here. However what people are suggesting (myself included) is that we do not have a 'weed problem' per say, what we have is a problem of attracting enough willing and able bodies to counter the spread of invasive weeds via non-lethal (to the off target species, that is) management practices.

    Yes, and we also stand to maybe "lose many species to extinction" through inappropriate use of chemicals. Not everyone has your level of expertise, or obvious desire to take great care. In fact, it is an area of research that I may follow up to see just how many chemical users out there do have the required level of training. I myself have been previously registered with an appropriate chemical user certification body, but since I left the 'professional' revegetation industry some 7-years ago, I have not bothered to update it. If I needed to use chemicals in the various ventures I am involved in today, I would (probably) practice the very judicious use of a systemic such as glyphosate via the 'cut-stump' method, rather than wholesale spraying. But to date, this need has not arisen.

    There is only one solution here, and that is to educate the masses as to the benefits of sound, scientific and non-chemical weed management. Regenerating one acre or one million acres by hand is possible, the only difference is the scale of human help. Let us hope that this rational, non-derogatory conversation we are having here today goes some way toward furthering this outcome.

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  4. forest dweller

    forest dweller Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    My apologies if I offend. I wear my heart on my sleeve and shout till I'm heard. I'm a long time forest campaigner / political activist and could be described as 'subtle as a sledgehammer'. Again, no real offence intended, just trying to push a point.

    I've been involved in politics & business long enough to appreciate what you're saying there.

    Now that's an insulting comment. There are thosuands of uni / TAFE graduates out there giving very good 'eco-advice' that would beg to differ. We don't push the barrow for the chemical companies. In fact, most of us are always looking for the best (safest) way to do things. My business works on the prinicipal of 'safety for our people and our environment'. My staff joke that I'm 'Safety Sam' because I'm always on at them about protecting themselves and the environment.

    Joan Bradley, the Grandma of Bush Regeneration in Australia (and now the world) was quoted as saying that she thought we would need to use chemicals strategically if we were ever to get ahead and save our endangered ecosystems. She used chemicals herself quite a bit in latter years.

    Cool, could you tell me how to remove hundreds of acres of willows that are choking the Cox's River then?? I'll start at one end with my drill and herbicide bottle and you start at the other. I'll meet you at the halfway point and we'll see who has done the least amount of environmental damage. I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek but I'm sure you get my point. Herbicide treatment is often the least damaging.

    I'm a huge advocate of proper training / certification.

    I couldn't disagree more. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment I know that it's highly unlikely to happen. If it does it will take a while to 'motivate the masses'. In the meantime I plan to stop flying foxes from becoming extinct by killing the weeds that are smothering their roosting / breeding trees.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no chemical salesman. i just think that carefully utilising all options is the best way to manage a situation. We often don't use chemicals in our business, or use them in a very minimal and strategic way. I've studied permaculture, horticulture etc and have restored hundreds of hectares of bushland, wetland etc over the years, with & without chemicals. I just think that blanket ideas like 'all chemicals are the work of Satan' are crazy and misguided. We have all sorts of hazards in our world, eliminating all of them would mean that modern society would cease to function. If cars are 'bad' then no one advocates just banning all cars, we work towards making better cars. If mobile phones give us brain tumours (debatable) then we design safer phones etc. If chemicals are 'bad' then we need to make better chemicals. If we stopped using chemicals (to kill weeds) tomorrow we'd lose more species than we'd save within the next few years, no question at all.

    I might add that using things like kero (mentioned by someone else) or copper sulphate, boron, sump oil etc like they did 'in the old days' is paramount to environmental vandalism / terrorism. I'm of the opinion that people that use these such chemicals, with no idea of science or chemistry, should be locked up.
     
  5. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    I often laugh (sometimes out loud) when i read or hear how people are being enviromentally responsible by spraying chemicals to eliminate weeds. I have also on occassion wondered if there is a higher order of species looking down at us and laughing their butt's off.

    We are led to believe the use of chemicals to eliminate weeds (or anything that needs to be killed - Pest) is somehow being Environmentally responsible. Being Environmentally ''responsible'' would involve bending over and pulling the weed out by hand (if we can't physically do it, pay someone else).

    From the research i have done (I stopped counting the hours ages ago...) the conclusion always seems to be... ''We know chemicals are bad but the end justifies the means..." So it would seem eliminating the weed problem is more important than the health of our own families (i'm laughing out loud).

    We seem more concerned with saving the Black spotted 3 eyed mountain frog than our own kind. If we do whats right by our own kind... the frogs will be fine. I have been studying the principles behind Natural Sequence Farming and there is a huge degree of logic asociated with it.

    Crops used to be in manageable size lots. If a weed appeared it could be manually dealt with (either pulling it out or burning it). The introduction of synthetic chemicals allowed for bigger paddocks, bigger tractors, bigger boom sprays and more time at the pub for farmers who at one time were the hardest working people in the country. Farmers now are working longer hours, because they have bigger properties to manage. Fortunately, chemicals can't fix fences, repair tractors, etc, chemical mixtures also can't mix themselves, though it would seem most everything else can be done from the Cab of a John Deere.

    And before i got blacklisted for being against farmers or for calling farmers lazy, I have a LOT of respect for the Dairy Industry and the financial slump they are in at the moment (especially in Tasmania) is completely due to corporate greed. All i can say is... SUPPORT LOCALS...
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    G'day forest dweller

    No, not without doing an ecological assessment of the entire Cox's River watershed. For example, are the trees in question Crack (Salix fragilis) or Weeping Willow (Salix babylonica), or maybe some other species altogether? Is their any other species (flora or fauna) at risk if the Willows are removed? Are the Willows the only exotic spp. present? What is the condition of the streambed? Is it at pre-contact level, or has it been eroded/raised? I know you say the Willows are "choking" the river, but what risk is there to the survival of other species (native fish, for example) when the canopy is opened up? What about pollutants? Upstream overspray/inject from rouge 'professional' regenerators, for example? Willow root beds are a proven method of removing the harshest of toxins from the water cycle. Are you planning to take all the plant? If this is the case, how do you propose to stabilise the bank? Are you planning on injecting, then waiting for the plant to die before removing? How do you propose to limit the amount of vegetative material from leaving the removal site and thus ensuring that the regeneration of Willows further down stream does not occur? What do you propose to put back in their place? Do you propose to do it 'mosaic' style, so at least some species that have adapted to the micro-ecology can escape/adapt?

    A lot of questions, I know, and there are a thousand more. These are just some of the things one needs to consider before undertaking any major weed management project. Back home, on my birth country, David Holmgren (co-founder of the permaculture concept) has been waging a war with the local Landcare group and CMA (Catchment Management Authority) over the removal of Willows from Spring Ck (Hepburn Springs, Victoria, Australia). To date, he and a dedicated team of academics, local landholders, and others have managed to get the CMA to place a moratorium on the further removal of Willows to indeed address many of those questions I have raised above. You can follow the whole story of David and the Willows here:

    https://www.holmgren.com.au/ click on 'Spring Ck'

    I agree with you that we have to take an integrated approach to the management of the entire ecology, and that sometimes this management approach may just include the judicious use of chemicals by fully trained professionals. However, let's do the research first, hey? Yes, we could go in there and slash, burn, spray, rip out and apply more spray to save a species that is endangered, but what happens if by doing so we put many other species at risk? The precautionary principle needs to apply here, and while we are in the process of applying it, we can simultaneously work at getting more bodies on the ground in order to 'do the least harm'.

    Cheerio, and good luck with the Cox's River project. I would be very interested to see how you get on.

    Mark.
     
  7. butchasteve

    butchasteve Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    just browsing your answer/question.. you do bring up a valid point, yes just poisoning the trees because they are weeds is flawed in its effects on the ecology.

    all good landcarers know that to remove a weed, it has to be replaced with the native alternative. Working on camphor laurel infestations in brisbane, we dont just go and inject the whole lot with poison and walk away, and to think people would do so if quite frankly insulting.

    our method is to hit the juvenile to medium sized trees, and make sure that whenever something will die, an endemic species of the same size is planted or is already growing sub-canopy.

    over time selected larger trees can be culled, allowing gaps in the canopy for the required light for the native regeneration. It is a long and tedious process. taken into account are the erosion factors and plantings of healthy understory is also necessary.

    as for the removal of vegetation? great habitat old dead trees (spread the word, so many being cut down when they are almost more valuable than the living). anything dropped is then recycled on the ground.. OH WAIT, that will contaminate the ecosystem with poisons!!!! no, sorry, glypho doesn't biomagnify,its not fecking DDT, it does decompose, maybe not as quickly as claimed, but by all accounts no longer than 2 years in soils, much less once being processed by warmer bio-active soils.

    Protecting our children?? from potential cancers ?.. then we give them mobile phones, walk them in streets exposing them the car exhausts, feed them fish full of mercury...

    In Urban catchments, the main source of flow is from the roads, that means every nasty heavy metal, oil and poison from our cars and tyres is already flowing into our waterways. A little glypho to get the balance back is definitely for the greater good..

    In response to the "manpower" argument. I have worked with greencorps and other of the like under my supervision, and managed to acheive more (purely grubbing, no herbacides) by myself than a team of 10 able bodied young adults. Why? perhaps work ethic, but to be honest, they didn't really care, they were there instead of the dole. I agree with needing more manpower, because there are many situations where herbacide isn't even possible never mind the most effective way of removal, but underpaying kids for hard manual labour that they couldn't give a stuff about is not the answer.

    I am glad we can have a frank, honest discussion of the subject. but I firmly agree with forestdweller, in some situations careful, calculated and followed up use of herbicides are the only way we can save some species and try to maintain some iota of our biodiversity. Even with the use of herbicides there are still billions of workhours to be done to even come close to dealing with the issue... this is not a big money industry, people don't get into the game to get rich.
     
  8. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    G'day butchasteve

    Phew, glad we agree on that biggy.

    No intention to insult your good self, but it (inject and walk away) does happen. Not all landcarers are 'good landcarers'. See the Holmgren/Spring Ck saga I have linked to previously for a graphic and comprehensive account of when landcarers 'go bad'. Personally, I have seen some pretty rough practices being carried out in the bush, and all in the name of 'good landcaring'.

    Concerning Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora): Yes, a tedious job to do it properly, and not many have the stamina. Unfortunately it is the latter, fly-by-nighters that give genuine bush regenerators a bad name. I have a mate in Northern NSW, he is half way through a 25-year plan. For every one senescent CL he removes (beautiful, scented timber - he has reused a lot of it in the decorative cornicing and reveals throughout his hand-built house), he puts back 25 mixed indigenous species. Eventually where the one CL (and these are largish - up to 75cm dabh) once stood, in 100-years time he is hoping to have any one of the now endangered rainforest giants, such as the mighty Red Cedar (Toona australis) standing in its place. We will never see it, but our children's children might. Of course in the meantime, he has a carefully planned a succession of bushfoods, such as the Davidson Plum (Davidsonia spp.) growing in the area of the opened up canopy, and ground covers to minimise invasives. If only the world was full of 'good landcarers' like my mate. When I am up there, helping with the task, we use a certain well-know brand of bio-glyphosate - only because we have no other option! However, we have done our homework. The only reason I still use that product on the very rare occasions when I need to, such as CL removal on my mates place (not only because I know he, or his children, will never just paint the stump and 'walk away'), is because I have thoroughly researched the product and the effect it has in that particular environment/bioregion. An example of this research follows:

    Ecological restoration activities, including reforestation, often involve the use of herbicides for the removal of weedy plant cover. Little is known, however, about the effects of herbicides on assemblages of non-target organisms that colonize restored patches. We describe a field experiment to investigate effects of glyphosate herbicide (Roundup ® Biactive™) on rainforest-associated soil and litter-dwelling macro-arthropods. Our experimental protocol differed in two ways from other ecotoxicological studies of herbicides. First, we applied herbicide at a rate considerably greater than the manufacturer’s recommended maximum in order to simulate worst-case scenarios that may occur in the practice of forest restoration. Second, our field experiment was carried out under dense canopy cover with sparse understorey vegetation, so that indirect impacts caused by the loss of existing vegetation were eliminated. Paired herbicide-treated and control plots were created within five rainforest remnants on the Maleny plateau of subtropical eastern Australia. Macro-arthropods were collected using litter extraction before, approximately 3 days after, and 3 months after herbicide application. Responses of arthropods were analysed at two levels of taxonomic resolution: ‘coarse’ arthropods (arthropods sorted to Order/Class), and ant species. Our results suggest that the use of glyphosate herbicide formulated as Roundup ® Biactive™ is suitable for the control of unwanted plants in rainforest restoration sites as it appears to have minimal impact on assemblages of soil and litter macro-arthropods or at least those typical of intact rainforest.

    Source: Nakamura, A. et al (2008) 'Effects of glyphosate herbicide on soil and litter macro-arthropods in rainforest: Implications for forest restoration'. Ecological Management and Restoration, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp. 126-33.

    And yes, for anyone who has trouble getting access to a full copy of the above (which includes a disclaimer to what appears to be a 'clean' funding stream for the research conducted), please feel free to contact me and I will 'get' you a copy.

    Yes yes, good good.

    Concerning vegetation removal from the site: I have personally witnessed some 'not-so-good' landcarers push the timber into piles and burn it! But yes, thankfully these old practices of the past seem to be diminishing.

    Concerning 'biomagnification': See the above research paper.

    Yeah well, considering I did not bring the kiddies into the debate, I will let someone else respond to that one. But yeah, the amount of times I have seen 'environmentalists' (uni used to be good, coming back from field trips) scoff shit like MacBurgers down their throats... but that's another story.

    Yes, exactly the reason why we sometimes need to keep Willow spp. in waterways (at least until a more effective means of bio-remediation of stormwater can be implemented). I know of no native (indigenous) plant that can lay down a root mat as quick as, then begin to remove the toxins that 100-plus years of industrialisation has bought flushing down our urban drains and out into our urban/peri-urban/rural waterways each rain event, than the good old Willow. If you know of an indigenous plant/s that will do the same job in every circumstance (bioregion) where I need it (perhaps for future jobs), then please let me know.

    Exactly the reason why I stated earlier that all money from ineffective chemical treatment programs should be redirected back into human capital - ie. training and decent wages/conditions. The amount of shit I have seen literally poured on the ground because of ("If we take it back full the boss will think we have not done a good job") poor training and low moral bought about by pathetic wages in the bush regeneration industry beggers belief. I hope things are getting better. Your experiences, and the retelling of them here, certainly gives me hope.

    You will not get an argument out of me on that point:

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  9. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    There is no solid evidence to suggest BioMagnification occurs with Glyphosate. Glyphosate formulations including its surfacent DO BioAccumulate.

    There IS Evidence to suggest Glyphosate forumlatons are associated with non-hodgkins lymphoma & infertility. It is also a known Endocrine Disruptor.

    Serious though it is, i had to laugh again yesterday. The Special School our daughter now attends had a gardener in with a spray tank on the back of his ute. He was dressed up in waterproof overalls and wearing a mask spraying his chemicals while parents picked up their kids from school and other students waited to catch the bus.

    What makes this gardener so important that he has to wear protective gear while the students were not only exposed to the toxic fumes, but will also play or walk on the exposed area today ?

    Ah, but the elimination of weeds will always be more important than our physical health. We need something to fuel the health industry after all.

    We can choose not to use mobile phones, we can see cars and can minimise our exposure to fumes by avoiding heavy traffic areas where possible, we can choose the type of fish we eat - Salt water fish have lower or no concentrations of mercury compared to fresh water fish.

    When you can tell me where glyphosate (or any chemical) has been sprayed so i can avoid it, i'll shut up.

    In the meantime, we need to increase the demand to have all chemicals used in the growth process listed on consumable food and related products.
     
  10. butchasteve

    butchasteve Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    see the results of the mercury testing done on tuna caught near thailand, the worlds largest supplier, its quite frightening. can't remember the source but i got it off the interweb originally, try google scholar.

    its probably safe to assume anything without the words "certified organic" on it probably has come in close contact with glypho.
     
  11. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    What chemical would i have if i mixed...

    Metarex, MCPA, Ambush and Altrazine (First ones to come to mind). Lets say the new chemical is called "MMAA''

    Is there any research that would tell us what the active ingredients in these 4 products would become if mixed together ?

    The MSDS for each individual chemical states their individual toxicity - not the combinations of. When tests are conducted on crops they are done for the levels of each individual product. No tests can be conducted on the new chemical ''MMAA'' because no one knows what to test for.

    In my early years of education i discovered mixing 4 different colours together produced a 5th colour that looked nothing like any of the 4 parent colours. Mixing 2 colours also gave a new colour. Chemicals are no different.

    When we consume food we are told it is safe because it was tested for safe levels of each of the chemicals used... But what about ''MMAA''...? thats a whole new chemical that possibly no one has used or even seen...
     
  12. forest dweller

    forest dweller Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    The problem with all forums is that things become 'simplified' and people tend to fill in the blanks themsleves. You then end up with a situation where a thread becomes more about presumption than anything else. I'm a trained / qualified ecologist / horticulturist and have been doing bush regeneration / landcare type work for almost 20 years. To even think that I would merely 'squirt' something and just walk away is ludicrous at best.

    I've written management plans for entire catchments, studied endangered species of plants and animals and helped to write recovery plans for numerous species / forest types. We take a wholistic approach to everything we do. The permaculture training that I have certainly helps in that regard.

    Anyway, back onto subject - My main point was that to 'lump' all chemicals as bad is just narrow minded and shows a high degree of both ignorance and arrogance. You know the old saying -"a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"

    If someone suggests injecting Koalas to treat them for Chlamydia - no one has a problem.
    If a team of vets comes up with a wonder drug to cure Tassie Devil jaw cancer - bloody fantastic.
    But god forbid that a team of bush regenerators should attempt to inject some Privets or Camphor Laurels with herbicide to try and save a rainforest.

    Go figure?????
     
  13. forest dweller

    forest dweller Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    3 points -

    1. Mixing chemicals 'off label' is illegal for a reason.
    2. Legal 'mixes' of chemicals ARE tested. Quite intensely these days actually.
    3. Colour and chemistry (though related) have nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Let's keep to the subject and argue the facts.
     
  14. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    I'm not saying chemicals are mixed before spraying. Though i'm sure there are people that would. Intelligence IS a learned thing.

    However, a plant does absorb chemicals when they are applied. Thats why many chemicals have a systemic action. Stomata on a plants leaves allow it to breath. It would be impossible to say a chemical can be totally flushed from a plant. When the next chemical is applied it is also absorbed into the plant... maybe days or weeks after the previous application.

    When we eat food or consume any product that has had chemicals applied - especially multiple chemicals - we risk being exposed to an unknown chemical.

    Scientific fact = ?

    Logical fact = !!
     
  15. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    Not all chemicals are bad. I've had to consume several chemicals over the years as medication. We can make individual choices about injecting or otherwise dosing the individual species.

    Chemical sprays are NOT selective. Though, the "visible" effect after application may appear selective. When chemicals are sprayed on everything the consumer who is trying to avoid chemicals has had their right to choose taken away.

    I can choose to have chemo if i have cancer. Choice is a good thing.
     
  16. Bird

    Bird Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: regeneration/ - was: Brush cutter attachment for weeds.

    Hear Hear
     

Share This Page

-->