I have been asked by a friend to help with arguing to not spray propyzamide Pesticide database entry He is expected to spray with this during the winter to 'protect' his trees from weed growth in a new (4 yr old ish) mixed woodland - deciduous and coniferous,
Googling herbicide effect on mycorrhizal fungi generally says not affected but only referring to foliar herbicides and this one acts through the soil. I would like to add that I personally am against herbicides and feel that they are detrimental. I am looking for more specific information to persuade timber growers that the timber will be better off without propyzamide
Well considering it is definately carcinogenic why not base the arguement against on the basis most people probably don't want cancer.
If you are growing trees in a woodland environment surely mulch is a much better option anyway. All those plants listed in the pesticide database for propyzamide are not going to survive a thick layer of mulch and as we just had the hottest summer for years it might be best to point out it's water saving advantages too. Most herbicides are not exactly cheap and typically need reapplying some months later so maybe there is a economic arguement too.
Nice answer Henry.
Here are some ways to use these arguments that might get through to the foresters .
Using known carcinogens is plain dangerous for the people that spray it, as well as anyone in a drift area. How smart is it to put yourself or an employee in a cloud of known carcinogenic propyzamide?
Besides the all important for growth rate and overall tree health mycorrhizae being affected, the local soil fungi that form the all important microorganism freeway will be affected negatively as well.
Overall effects will be slower tree growth, higher pest infection rates because of the tree's inability to fight off the pests from the lack of the fungal network as well as the rest of the microbiome.
It is so costly to spray such chemicals both in money spent, fuel used, mechanical upkeep and tree losses caused by soil compaction effecting root spread along with the microbiome wipe out, that it is a counter productive endeavor.
Thank you both for your help.
so you believe that this herbicide would damage the soil fungi - my horticulture tutor tells me that it adversely affects mitosis. Why oh why would you want to spray this anywhere?!
hau Cesca, well the reason people spray anything is because they read the literature that tells them that a. weeds are bad and so we must kill them anyway possible but here is the dandy method and b. that bugs are bad and the only way to get rid of them is to spray nasty stuff (that kills anything it touches, but they handily forget to tell you that you are one of the critters it will kill) so your vegetables will be pretty and with no holes in them. It is part of the chemical companies advertising ploys to sell more of their poison products, never mind what it does to the overall health of those who use it or to the planet overall.
They will literally say, in print, anything that they think will make you part with your money to buy their "products".
Roundup came on the market back in the late 1970's - early 1980's with a vengeance, it was going to get rid of every weed in your crop fields.
Then they found out that it was also wiping out parts of the very crops it was supposed to help.
Enter "roundup ready" seeds, soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, all genetically engineered to withstand the glyphosate (the first use of glyphosate was to make mustard gas in WWI).
Now they have come up with a probably more deadly Dicambia, and US States that have banned it are being pressured by lobbyists to rethink this ban and remove it for the well being of the farmer's pocket book.
Clever ploys but, you spend a lot more money to buy it and apply it than you will ever regain with your crop.
Today these companies tell the farmer "don't worry, once our poisons hit the soil they are inert" it's yet another lie to get the farmer's money into their own pockets by making the farmer believe they have the magic bullet for weeds and bugs.
It is sad, but it must be individual farmers that put an end to this madness by simply moving to more organic methods of farming, where they grow the soil and let the plants do their thing in that superior soil the farmer is growing for them.
This costs far less money first because you aren't buying chemicals to spray, your aren't spending money burning fuel to spray the stuff and you don't need to buy the spray equipment or keep it and the tractors in good running order all year long.
Money the farmer doesn't spend is money in the bank, it makes it easier to see a profit when you aren't burning it up or poisoning their land so they have no microorganisms in their soil forcing them to buy and spread fertilizers.