[nafex ibiblio list] Autumn Olive

Lawrence F. London, Jr. lflj at bellsouth.net
Tue Jan 10 06:09:23 EST 2012


On 1/9/2012 10:34 AM, Road's End Farm wrote:
> But I don't think anybody in this conversation has recommended any
> such thing as "massive removal in areas where they are not a problem".

No, not here but I sense that that is often done in ignorance these days 
around the US (while burning of the Amazonian and Indonesian rainforests 
is carried out) by people with questionable motives, affecting land that 
could be left as is with no ill effect. Ex. a Permaculture list post 
from my friend Mark, reflecting on a phone conversation we had a day ago:
"We discussed invasive plants last night.  At the MNA's
(michigannature.org) copperbelly reptile preserve here in Michigan, 
after the  reorganization 6 years ago, the Stewardship Director, along 
with many  volunteers, removed russian olive shrubs on a field hill, 
also targeting  purple loosestrife around the wetlands.

The snakes didn't mind those plants being around - they  used them as
cover, shade and basking sites, just like they do on cattails, 
buttonbush, tree limbs, logs, brush piles, muskrat and beaver lodges, in 
  the water itself. Don't buy into any propaganda that says that purple 
  loosestrife displaces cattails, which has very strong rootstalks."

There is no question that invasive plants can and are causing huge 
problems with ecosystems, diversity and agricultural production.
I have fought them tooth and nail and lots of dollars on my small 6+ 
market farm: bamboo, Bermuda grass, redroot pigweed, ryegrass, ash 
saplings, Johnson grass, Pensylvania smartweed and Bradford pear, spread 
by seed from nearby trees producing thorns causing multiple flat front 
tires on my JD 3020 tractor. Control of these invasives should be 
measured, not indiscriminate and carried out in a timely fashion by 
people who understand ecosystems and are not using herbicide, only 
mechanical or human power.

My previous comments about invasive were definitely cavalier but were my 
reaction to the massive destruction of prime farmland all over the world 
by herbicide, other pesticides and gmo use; talk about cavalier;
if they can make money doing this then they will, regardless of 
consequences, lives and livelihoods, Gaia and preservation of species.

Read this article from Joe Cummins:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SANET-MG] A report to the parliament  of Britain
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:50:54 -0500
From: jcummins <jcummins at UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG at LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Dr.Eva Sirinathinghji of The Institute of Sciencer in Society
(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/USDA_scientist_reveals_allFull.php)
reports on a speech by Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue
University and USDA senior scientist delivered to the UK Houses of
Parliament a damning indictment of glyphosate agriculture as a most
serious threat to the environment, livestock, and human health . The
speech was made at All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology Meeting, 
Huber DM “The effects of glyphosate (Roundup®) on soils, crops and 
consumers: new diseases in GM corn and soy and animals fed with it”, 20 
November 2011, Houses of Parliament, UK An excerpt from Dr.Eva 
Sirinathinghji's report on Huber's comments states:"The conversion of US 
agriculture to monochemical herbicide practice has resulted in the 
extensive use of glyphosate herbicides. Coincidentally, farmers have 
been witnessing deterioration in the health of corn, soybean, wheat and 
other crops, and epidemics of diseases in small grain crops. All are 
associated with the extensive use of glyphosate, which has increased 
further since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready 
(RR) crops. Glyphosate immobilises nutrients required to maintain plant 
health and resistance to disease. This weakening of the plants defence 
could explain the infestation of GM crops with the new pathogen, which 
has now been observed in horse, sheep, pigs, cows, chicken, multiple 
animal tissues including reproductive parts (semen, amniotic fluid), 
manure, soil, eggs, milk, as well as the common fungal pathogen that is
currently infesting RR crops, Fusarium solani fsp glycines mycelium. All 
are coming into contact with glyphosate either through direct exposure 
or consumption through animal feed. It is also highly abundant in crops 
suffering from plant Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome.
The pathogen can be cultured in the lab, and has been isolated from
livestock fetal tissue, replicated in the lab and re-introduced back
into the animals. It appears to be very common and may well be
interacting with the effects of glyphosate on both plants and animals,
exacerbating disease and causing reproductive failure in livestock (see
below). Although great expectations have been placed on Huber to publish 
his findings, he insists that before this can be done, further resources 
are necessary to be able to characterize the ‘entity’ and identify what 
type of species it is, including sequencing of its genome. This is a 
slow process and once complete, it is his intention to publish the work 
in a peer-reviewed journal."
It is wonderful that the government of Great Britain has undertaken an
unbiased report on Prof. Huber's findings.The academic bureaucrats in
the United States have disparaged Huber's findings most unfairly without 
having even looked at the data behind his studies and even some claiming 
to be environmental advocates have accepted the ignorant views of the 
bureaucrats from academia. I have previously pointed out the sad state 
of academic agroecology in US where public relation exaggeration by 
academic and government bureaucrats have begun to displace the full and 
truthful reporting of science.
<>
I think the main point is that Prof. Huber has the right to  discuss his 
findings before final publication. He put the work forward  because he 
believed the work  had broad significance  both inside and outside of 
plant pathology. He should not be condemned or hampered  until he 
presents his final data  in a peer reviewed publication. That important 
work  should not be damned  until the data have been published in full 
and found to be faulty. There are a number of important findings in 
genetic engineering that have been published in Europe and Russia  but 
witch have been vilified in US because they  threaten corporate 
interests and those findings have been forced underground to be ignored 
by both government and academic bureaucrats  . My friend  Arpad Pusztai 
was abused by the Royal Society even though his work was published in a 
peer reviewed journal  and verified many times. It seems far to early to 
disparage Huber  and his work should not be driven underground  because 
it threatens corporate interests. Suppression of results threatening 
corporate interests   itself should not be called science . sincerely, 
joe cummins

> What I was talking about was that it's not a good idea to ship plant
> matter from one continent to another without checking whether, not
> only the plant matter itself, but any diseases or pests it might be
> carrying, could cause a problem.

That is certainly true.
>
> Someone else suggesting using populations already present, instead of
> importing additional material from elsewhere.

That is always a good idea. Use what is already available to you.

> Neither of those are "hysterical" recommendations.
>
> I like organic practices at least as well as you do. But that's really
> a separate issue from the invasiveness question. Even when growing
> organically -- maybe especially when growing organically -- one needs
> to pay attention to whether what one is planting is suited to the
> specific area it's to be grown in.

This means that everyone needs to take renewed interest in their
property, learn permaculture and take responsibility for what grows on 
their land. I have to contend with "gifts" from neighbors: Bradford pear 
and worse, bamboo and poison ivy.


More information about the nafex mailing list