[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
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,
> 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