pbs Digest, Vol 36, Issue 3

Lynette Stuart lynettestuart2956@gmail.com
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:00:13 PST
Please send

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 11:00 PM <pbs-request@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
wrote:

> Send pbs mailing list submissions to
>         pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         pbs-request@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         pbs-owner@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of pbs digest..."
>
>
> List-Post:<mailto:pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> List-Archive:<http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Incinerating Weeds (Judy Glattstein)
>    2. Bx (Chad Cox)
>    3. Re: Bx (Robin Hansen)
>    4. Re: Herbicides (Tim Eck)
>    5. Re: Herbicides (Jim McKenney)
>    6. Re: Herbicides (Kelly Irvin)
>    7. Re: Herbicides (Peter Taggart)
>    8. Re: Herbicides (James SHIELDS)
>    9. Re: Herbicides (Cody H)
>   10. Re: Herbicides (James SHIELDS)
>   11. Re: Herbicides (Mike Rummerfield)
>   12. Re: Incinerating Weeds (linny@cruzio.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 09:25:31 -0500
> From: Judy Glattstein <jgglatt@gmail.com>
> To: pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> Subject: [pbs] Incinerating Weeds
> Message-ID: <a00ec85a-ee7e-4ab0-7011-7e6e61d8b498@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> I have a Flaming Dragon propane weed torch. Back in 2018 I wrote an
> entry for my web site on coping with weeds, see here:
>
> http://bellewood-gardens.com/2018/…
> As has been mentioned it it good for weeds growing in gravel, in
> crevices, and similar sites.
>
> Another useful method was when I had WWOOFers - world wide opportunity
> on organic farms. You provide room and board for a week or so, they
> provide several hours / day of work. They could weed, safely, if I
> provided samples of what was wanted to be removed. As an aside - we
> would also go visit gardens, an apiary, the autumn fleece and fiber
> event, whatever, depending on their interests. Usually very nice young
> adults. I stopped because the interest seems to be trending more towards
> AirB&B on a beach on Maui
>
> At one point I also had the BelleWood Gardens Gardening School. Limit to
> 6 students at a time, first we'd talk then apply as a practicum. And
> yes, weeding was a popular topic. Sort of Tom Sawyer-ish. And they paid
> for the classes.
>
> Now it is just me. It is disposing of weeds that can be a secondary
> problem. My neighbors sheep do eat multiflora rose shoots, really like
> garlic mustard (which I eat too, but there are more sheep than what I
> can eat).
>
> If I ever win the lottery (which is unlikely since I do not buy chances)
> I'd fund research not on a deer repellent but a deer attractant. Spray
> it on the weeds and let Bambi and family things clean up.
>
> Judy in New Jersey on Imbolc, mid-point between winter solstice and
> spring equinox, where Galanthus nivalis 'Atksinii' and Helleborus x
> ericsmithii are in bloom
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 06:34:31 -0800
> From: Chad Cox <clcox@ucdavis.edu>
> To: pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> Subject: [pbs] Bx
> Message-ID: <E8488D5C-1A6A-43F5-B5C9-A17F5148158D@ucdavis.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Is there any word on when we might ?round up? Another BX?? I for one have
> material to donate whenever the time comes.
>
> Chad in Elverta
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Chad L. Cox, Ph.D.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 07:08:59 -0800
> From: "Robin Hansen" <robin@hansennursery.com>
> To: "'Pacific Bulb Society'" <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Bx
> Message-ID: <000301d5d9da$b36caf40$1a460dc0$@hansennursery.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi, Chad,
>
> ""Is there any word on when we might ?round up? Another BX?? I for one
> have material to donate whenever the time comes.""
>
> The PBS Board is working on finding a new BX Director. I would expect
> we'll have a new director and new policies in place by the end of
> February.  The Bulb and Seed Exchange is such an important part of PBS that
> the Board is working on policies that will provide continuity regardless of
> who the director is.  At the same time, we want to make sure that anyone(s)
> who is in that position is not overwhelmed and overworked.
>
> Expect to see a few changes, probably some designated times for donations,
> and expect some changes in applying for seeds and bulbs to make the process
> as fair to everyone as possible.  I know there have been complaints about
> not enough time to get in a request, so that will be extended.
>
> I will try to give an update by mid-February so that members will have
> some idea of what to expect.  Don't hesitate to contact me or other board
> members directly if you have any questions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin Hansen
> President, PBS
> robin@hansennursery.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:25:21 -0500
> From: Tim Eck <timeck17582@gmail.com>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+ur5ibc_Vk8XHbRC+E4TB_+HWXyx3tvicXjDFXOAVUeS2iG1g@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation is
> in order.  As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple
> orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the
> bills).  This was in the era of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".  Things
> were much different at that time and many institutions have been created
> since to address these problems - institutions that are being undermined by
> the current administration.
> I appreciate how thorough these institutions are as I am following very
> closely the progress of the transgenic American chestnut where the wheat
> rust resistance oxalic oxidase gene was transplanted into the American
> chestnut tree which was destroyed by the chestnut blight the first half of
> the last century.  I have personally been involved in traditional backcross
> breeding efforts to use Chinese chestnut blight resistance genes to confer
> blight resistance in an orchard of nearly ten thousand BC1 American
> chestnut trees that I planted with the help of many volunteers.  Nearly two
> decades ago when I began this effort, the idea of using herbicides and
> insecticides was repulsive to me on many levels.  With the input and
> education from foresters and agriculture professors, I gradually came to a
> different understanding and I could never have taken care of ten thousand
> trees without the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides.  As it turns
> out, the genetically engineered trees are a much better success than those
> from traditional breeding.
> Now, much as I would prefer organic gardening as a way of life, it is
> mostly a lie we tell ourselves - it is a way for the privileged to express
> their enlightenment and assuage their guilt.  I will believe corporations
> are people when Texas executes one, and I will believe organic farming will
> feed the world when the grocery store prices are lower than for
> conventional farming.
> Sadly, the utility of agribusiness is a result of the lack of social policy
> on population control.  But you can't blame academia and agribusiness for
> trying to feed an out-of-control population with innovations like herbicide
> resistant and insecticidal corn and soy, golden rice, photorespiration
> resistant crops and other genetically engineered products.  People are
> clearly the most successful and destructive invasive species the world has
> seen in hundreds of millions of years and they will destroy the natural
> environment with their food crops, whether organic or not.  And yes,
> survival of the fittest guarantees that those who voluntarily do their part
> to reduce the population explosion will become extinct, resulting in a very
> ineffectual protest.  This is indeed a tragedy of the commons writ large.
> Another point I was trying to make is that social media and the internet as
> a whole allow people to choose their answers from "like-minded-individuals"
> - the ultimate confirmation bias.  Whether you believe organic gardening
> will save mankind, vaccines cause autism, pizza-gate, or the world is flat,
> you can find confirmation on the internet and you will never have to face
> new ideas.  Some political pundits have even suggested that social media
> has destroyed knowledge to such an extent that the norms of free speech are
> no longer sufficient for a democracy.
> My only suggestion is that academia has far more integrity in its
> structure, although far from perfect, so ask an agriculture professor.
> Also, Wikipedia is far better than social media since it has a modicum of
> peer review (and you should make monetary contributions if you use it).
> Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are
> far more decisive and arbitrary than academia.  A verdict is often made
> with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to
> separate causation from correlation in determining liability.  For this
> reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded
> damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury.
> Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come
> back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain
> inconclusive.  This has been the case with glyphosate.
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:01 PM SARAH-LISTS <sarah-lists@suiattle.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Mike, I also am in TOTAL agreement with what you say!
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 16:04, Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > ?Jo&Greg,
> > > Thank you for your response and support.  It means so much to me.
> > >
> > > I was very nervous and anxious about sending any response at all to
> that
> > > emailer (I'm trying not to use names in order not to be accusatory
> toward
> > > any individual.  Perhaps this is a mistake).   I thought I could
> possibly
> > > even be banished from the PBS email list, but I just can't be quiet any
> > > longer.
> > >
> > > I'm not a scientist.  I'm a gardener, both by vocation (now retired)
> and
> > > avocation with a keen interest in a healthy planet.
> > >
> > > I just wish more people would stop to think about the results of their
> > > decisions, and I wish I had the intellectual capacity to address this
> > issue
> > > succinctly, articulately, convincingly, and irrefutably (fat chance of
> > > that!).  It all seems so overwhelming.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, the two emails I've received in support of my response
> > have
> > > both come from Canadians.
> > > Yay Canada!
> > >
> > > Thank you again,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:22 PM Jo&Greg <sun-coast-pearl@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Mike--
> > >> Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could.
> > >> Jo Canning
> > >> Vancouver Island
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of
> Mike
> > >> Rummerfield
> > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM
> > >> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> > >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> > >>
> > >> If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is
> > >> contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts from
> > >> "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all the
> > >> research you've done and presented is from "like-minded individuals",
> > and
> > >> industry sponsored and published papers.  It only takes a cursory
> > search to
> > >> find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of herbicides,
> > and
> > >> glyphosate in particular.  You could start with non Hodgkins
> > lymphoma/Mayo
> > >> clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with non
> > >> Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup;  Agent
> > >> Orange/Vietnam veterans;  lawsuits won in court resulting in Monsanto
> > >> having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil
> > particles,
> > >> making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate;
> > >> California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I
> > suppose
> > >> you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on
> > >> and.....................
> > >>
> > >> The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that
> they
> > >> contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup  (most organic compounds
> > >> contain at least one carbon?hydrogen bond, hence the name
> hydrocarbon).
> > >> This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion
> over,
> > >> and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards
> > >> regarding food production and the environment.   Though they share the
> > word
> > >> 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously
> > >> intertwined.
> > >>
> > >> You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is
> so
> > >> safe and useful".  What is this statement based on?  Is glyphosate
> > useful?
> > >> Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides).  Is it effective at
> > >> killing some weeds?  Yes.  Is it convenient and easy to use?  Yes,
> very.
> > >> Is it safe? * No *(see above).  "There are approximately 280 million
> > >> pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in
> > agricultural
> > >> settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019"  This is *per year*.
> > >> Follow the money.
> > >>
> > >> All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not
> make
> > >> it safe.
> > >>
> > >> Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in
> > matters
> > >> of life.
> > >>
> > >> Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is
> > >> resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not.  It is whether glyphosate is
> > safe
> > >> to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for other
> > >> living things, including us.
> > >> All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are difficult
> to
> > >> control.  Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge.   In my area, two of
> > them
> > >> are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are others.
> > >> Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you
> quickly
> > >> become a torn, shredded, bloody mess.  There are other strategies to
> > >> dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate,
> > though
> > >> they may be less convenient and easy.
> > >>
> > >> I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term convenience
> > and
> > >> ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life.
> > >>
> > >> Most sincerely,
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> pbs mailing list
> > >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pbs mailing list
> > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pbs mailing list
> > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:53:59 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Jim McKenney <jamesamckenney@verizon.net>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID: <958113003.448070.1580666039106@mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  Thanks for another great read, Tim.?
> Jim McKenney
>     On Sunday, February 2, 2020, 12:25:42 PM EST, Tim Eck <
> timeck17582@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation
> is
> in order.? As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple
> orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the
> bills).? This was in the era of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".? Things
> were much different at that time and many institutions have been created
> since to address these problems - institutions that are being undermined by
> the current administration.
> I appreciate how thorough these institutions are as I am following very
> closely the progress of the transgenic American chestnut where the wheat
> rust resistance oxalic oxidase gene was transplanted into the American
> chestnut tree which was destroyed by the chestnut blight the first half of
> the last century.? I have personally been involved in traditional backcross
> breeding efforts to use Chinese chestnut blight resistance genes to confer
> blight resistance in an orchard of nearly ten thousand BC1 American
> chestnut trees that I planted with the help of many volunteers.? Nearly two
> decades ago when I began this effort, the idea of using herbicides and
> insecticides was repulsive to me on many levels.? With the input and
> education from foresters and agriculture professors, I gradually came to a
> different understanding and I could never have taken care of ten thousand
> trees without the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides.? As it turns
> out, the genetically engineered trees are a much better success than those
> from traditional breeding.
> Now, much as I would prefer organic gardening as a way of life, it is
> mostly a lie we tell ourselves - it is a way for the privileged to express
> their enlightenment and assuage their guilt.? I will believe corporations
> are people when Texas executes one, and I will believe organic farming will
> feed the world when the grocery store prices are lower than for
> conventional farming.
> Sadly, the utility of agribusiness is a result of the lack of social policy
> on population control.? But you can't blame academia and agribusiness for
> trying to feed an out-of-control population with innovations like herbicide
> resistant and insecticidal corn and soy, golden rice, photorespiration
> resistant crops and other genetically engineered products.? People are
> clearly the most successful and destructive invasive species the world has
> seen in hundreds of millions of years and they will destroy the natural
> environment with their food crops, whether organic or not.? And yes,
> survival of the fittest guarantees that those who voluntarily do their part
> to reduce the population explosion will become extinct, resulting in a very
> ineffectual protest.? This is indeed a tragedy of the commons writ large.
> Another point I was trying to make is that social media and the internet as
> a whole allow people to choose their answers from "like-minded-individuals"
> - the ultimate confirmation bias.? Whether you believe organic gardening
> will save mankind, vaccines cause autism, pizza-gate, or the world is flat,
> you can find confirmation on the internet and you will never have to face
> new ideas.? Some political pundits have even suggested that social media
> has destroyed knowledge to such an extent that the norms of free speech are
> no longer sufficient for a democracy.
> My only suggestion is that academia has far more integrity in its
> structure, although far from perfect, so ask an agriculture professor.
> Also, Wikipedia is far better than social media since it has a modicum of
> peer review (and you should make monetary contributions if you use it).
> Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are
> far more decisive and arbitrary than academia.? A verdict is often made
> with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to
> separate causation from correlation in determining liability.? For this
> reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded
> damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury.
> Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come
> back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain
> inconclusive.? This has been the case with glyphosate.
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:01 PM SARAH-LISTS <sarah-lists@suiattle.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Mike, I also am in TOTAL agreement with what you say!
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 16:04, Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > ?Jo&Greg,
> > > Thank you for your response and support.? It means so much to me.
> > >
> > > I was very nervous and anxious about sending any response at all to
> that
> > > emailer (I'm trying not to use names in order not to be accusatory
> toward
> > > any individual.? Perhaps this is a mistake).? I thought I could
> possibly
> > > even be banished from the PBS email list, but I just can't be quiet any
> > > longer.
> > >
> > > I'm not a scientist.? I'm a gardener, both by vocation (now retired)
> and
> > > avocation with a keen interest in a healthy planet.
> > >
> > > I just wish more people would stop to think about the results of their
> > > decisions, and I wish I had the intellectual capacity to address this
> > issue
> > > succinctly, articulately, convincingly, and irrefutably (fat chance of
> > > that!).? It all seems so overwhelming.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, the two emails I've received in support of my response
> > have
> > > both come from Canadians.
> > > Yay Canada!
> > >
> > > Thank you again,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:22 PM Jo&Greg <sun-coast-pearl@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Mike--
> > >> Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could.
> > >> Jo Canning
> > >> Vancouver Island
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of
> Mike
> > >> Rummerfield
> > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM
> > >> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> > >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> > >>
> > >> If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is
> > >> contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts from
> > >> "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all the
> > >> research you've done and presented is from "like-minded individuals",
> > and
> > >> industry sponsored and published papers.? It only takes a cursory
> > search to
> > >> find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of herbicides,
> > and
> > >> glyphosate in particular.? You could start with non Hodgkins
> > lymphoma/Mayo
> > >> clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with non
> > >> Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup;? Agent
> > >> Orange/Vietnam veterans;? lawsuits won in court resulting in Monsanto
> > >> having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil
> > particles,
> > >> making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate;
> > >> California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I
> > suppose
> > >> you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on
> > >> and.....................
> > >>
> > >> The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that
> they
> > >> contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup? (most organic compounds
> > >> contain at least one carbon?hydrogen bond, hence the name
> hydrocarbon).
> > >> This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion
> over,
> > >> and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards
> > >> regarding food production and the environment.? Though they share the
> > word
> > >> 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously
> > >> intertwined.
> > >>
> > >> You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is
> so
> > >> safe and useful".? What is this statement based on?? Is glyphosate
> > useful?
> > >> Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides).? Is it effective at
> > >> killing some weeds?? Yes.? Is it convenient and easy to use?? Yes,
> very.
> > >> Is it safe? * No *(see above).? "There are approximately 280 million
> > >> pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in
> > agricultural
> > >> settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019"? This is *per year*.
> > >> Follow the money.
> > >>
> > >> All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not
> make
> > >> it safe.
> > >>
> > >> Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in
> > matters
> > >> of life.
> > >>
> > >> Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is
> > >> resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not.? It is whether glyphosate is
> > safe
> > >> to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for other
> > >> living things, including us.
> > >> All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are difficult
> to
> > >> control.? Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge.? In my area, two of
> > them
> > >> are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are others.
> > >> Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you
> quickly
> > >> become a torn, shredded, bloody mess.? There are other strategies to
> > >> dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate,
> > though
> > >> they may be less convenient and easy.
> > >>
> > >> I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term convenience
> > and
> > >> ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life.
> > >>
> > >> Most sincerely,
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> pbs mailing list
> > >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pbs mailing list
> > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pbs mailing list
> > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:29:33 -0600
> From: Kelly Irvin <kellso@irvincentral.com>
> To: pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID: <101a8a26-3f90-a5e9-a37f-c446bb2c383f@irvincentral.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> truth
>
> --
> Mr. Kelly M. Irvin
> 10850 Hodge Ln
> Gravette, AR 72736
> USA
>
> Home Phone: 479-787-9958
>
> USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 6a/b
>
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kelly.m.irvin
>
> On 2/2/20 11:25 AM, Tim Eck wrote:
> > Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are
> > far more decisive and arbitrary than academia.  A verdict is often made
> > with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to
> > separate causation from correlation in determining liability.  For this
> > reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded
> > damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury.
> > Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come
> > back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain
> > inconclusive.  This has been the case with glyphosate.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:45:46 +0000
> From: Peter Taggart <petersirises@gmail.com>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAELwaKiQmuk+v_UCXfX-5-Vn+ojFSFb0Si6gNmnzePGj31fEvA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I remember a history teachers comment on my essay, when I hadn't done
> enough home work to make the essay the requisite length.... but spun it out
> anyway that I could....
>
> My Fathers garden, built and planted over circa 50 years, contained about
> 12000 species of plants. Built on approximately three acres, It is one of
> the most bio diverse sites in Scotland. For most of its existence it was
> built and maintained by one person, with one helper, though the
> individuals changed with time.  Chemicals were kept to a minimum during
> periods when my father, or I ran it. It was always apparent when chemicals
> had been used in an area. There would be a disproportionate number of
> problems. Plants would recover more slowly from damage, others would die
> out inexplicably.  Fauna would become unbalanced, leading to infestations-
> rust, canker, caterpillars, weeds, aphids, slugs. Chemicals such
> as glyphosate are certainly useful to me as a gardener, but with minimal
> use. I have seen symptoms on annual weeds years after applying it to
> perennial weeds in the same site, though unknown to me the brand may have
> had other poisons in it.
>
> I am aware that I cannot know all the effects that my actions will have on
> plants, bacteria, bryophytes, mites, nematodes, insects, mycorrhiza and
> other inhabitants of the soil and its surface. Most of them I will have
> never seen or heard of. These organisms interact to create the growing
> environment in which I garden, so it well behoves me to be cautious with
> potent chemicals. When I do apply glyphosate, it is as a weak solution, and
> repeated, and I rarely spray. I drip it onto the leaves of the plant I am
> attacking, or run the leaves through the wetted fingers of a gloved hand,
> very effective for rhizomatous grasses in the roots of other plants. I keep
> about ten acres of garden for myself, and clients, I rarely use  a pint of
> glyphosate solution in a year.
> Peter (UK)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 14:48:16 -0500
> From: James SHIELDS <jshields46074@gmail.com>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAPSFtJC1NATyxMhnu7bYLQSPrF11eyOnJ2krgzLOxkq88thRYQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Tim,
>
> I stand with you and back your remarks 100%
>
> Jim Shields
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:25 PM Tim Eck <timeck17582@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation
> is
> > in order.  As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple
> > orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the
> > bills).  .....
> > <http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…>
> >
>
>
> --
> James E. Shields             jshields46074@gmail.com
> P.O. Box 92                      jshields@indy.net
> Westfield, IN 46074
> U.S.A.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:36:24 -0800
> From: Cody H <plantboy@gmail.com>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID:
>         <CAAgPc_6Mz=WjFO2TetbL3E1AEGsHEDePhtTifq43xusoKzz=
> uQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Thanks Tim for your reasonable response.
>
> On the topic of discussion in general, I would like to remind everyone that
> reasonable, respectful discussion is valuable. It allows people to share
> ideas, and we can all learn from each other?s different perspectives and
> knowledge. There is no topic in existence for which it is true to say that
> any single person knows everything there is to know about it. I like the
> PBS list because for the most part, reasonable and respectful discussion
> has been the norm here for the past few years during which I have followed
> the list.
>
> On the topic of ecological sustainability, there are many things which
> frequently go unmentioned. For instance, the ecological and social costs to
> developing nations of producing goods at competitive rates and prices for
> demanding first world markets, or the costs of shipping those products
> thousands of miles to reach those markets. There are very high ecological
> costs to manufacturing a huge number of products that we in rich developed
> countries take for granted (cars, appliances, electronics, materials for
> the home, furniture, clothing, paper products, etc.).
>
> I cannot nor would I try to claim that I have a made a set of superior
> choices to anyone else in this or any other group, but I do try to make
> responsible choices to the extent I see reasonable. That involves
> attempting to buy mostly local produce, buying organic products as much as
> I can afford to, happily paying more for things from distant countries if
> they have a ?fair trade? or similar proclamation, putting in effort to
> recycle as many products as I can, trying to contribute as little as
> possible to companies with wantonly consumerist policies I don?t agree
> with, using as few harsh agricultural chemicals as I can get away with to
> keep my plants alive, etc. However, that doesn?t stop me from taking
> airline flights to distant places for fun, or eating meat, or bananas and
> mangos, etc. from thousands of miles away, or using products involving
> petroleum (e.g. nearly any kind of plastic), or going out to restaurants,
> or driving my car, or having dogs as pets, or sometimes *not* buying
> organic products, etc.
>
> I?m always interested in learning new information about the environmental
> impacts of things I might or do use, in case there might be an opportunity
> for me to make some kind of change for the better. So, I?m interested to
> know what the rest of you knowledgeable and diverse people know about
> things like glyphosate, and I like hearing about other people?s approaches
> to dealing with common problems we all deal with such as nasty weeds. But
> I?m interested in the truth, which I have come to accept is in most cases
> complicated, and I have to say that arguments of the form ?you should
> believe me that X is [horrible/amazing] and if you don?t believe me then
> you?re just bad/immoral/confused/ignorant/part of the problem, etc.? are
> neither convincing nor helpful. Reasonable, respectful discussion involving
> verifiable information and logical arguments based on facts, is helpful.
>
> Furthermore, I don?t believe anyone in this list is in a position to claim
> unequivocal ecological superiority in terms of their life choices. I would
> be willing to admit I am wrong about this if anyone can honestly claim they
> consume only renewable, ecologically sustainable, local products sourced
> from people paid a living wage, who *also* consume such sustainable
> products sourced from people who meet all the same requirements, etc. all
> the way back up the supply chain. If you don?t fit those criteria, please
> keep in mind that:
>
> 1) nobody is perfect (including you)
>
> 2) just participating in modern society means you are also contributing to
> the decline of nature
>
> 3) if you want to make an actual impact on the world, it?s much more
> effective to address opportunities in your own life than it is to rant
> about other people not living up to your standards, and
>
> 4) if you want to convince other people to see your point of view, you need
> to treat them respectfully and be willing to listen to theirs as well.
>
> I hope that we can continue to have productive discussions about topics
> like the ecological trade offs of herbicide use, because being able to
> effectively share knowledge about these kinds of topics is a necessary step
> on the path to anything resembling real ecological sustainability.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:48:34 -0500
> From: James SHIELDS <jshields46074@gmail.com>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPSFtJBFBigoDBXKgGz9Y+u=fZ=
> nx52W1Z_W21Z4K1VmB5ASrg@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Tim Eck
> Jan 24, 2020, 6:37 PM (9 days ago)
> "Can anybody suggest a good pre-emergent herbicide that is safe to use on
> amaryllids? ..."
>
> To address the original question, I have in the distant past (30 - 40 years
> ago) grown Crinum, Hymenocallis, and Ismene on a annual basis, planting the
> bulbs outdoors in early summer and digging them up again in early autumn.
> Some years I used pre-emergent herbicides of various sorts on the beds once
> planted, other years I did not.  These bulbs were all planted totally below
> the surface, and they pulled themselves deeper during the growing season.
> As far as I can now recall, I never noticed any effects of the
> pre-emergents on the plants.  Some years they nearly completely prevented
> grasses and weeds, other years less so.
>
> I also sometimes used them on beds of young daylily seedlings.  These
> seedlings were started indoors under lights during winter and transplanted
> outdoors into their semi-permanent beds in early summer.  After planting
> outdoors, the pre-emergents were applied, at the lower range of possible
> dosages, and at least partially suppressed grasses and weeds without
> killing the daylily seedlings.  I no longer have any detailed notes on
> materials used, dosages, or procedures used.
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 14:59:40 -0800
> From: Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CACvUPLcNqoWyhVprzyNzQ4hOfT17NTAK8yDkVPVxbo_ESE97ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Note: you can totally skip this email if you're not interested in this
> subject.
>
> I'm not sure we are so very far apart in our perspectives -  we are not in
> opposition - we are all in this together.  I agree with most of the body of
> your post.  Neither academia nor agriculture, per se, can be held solely
> responsible for the direction of our society.  We would truly be lost
> without them.  PersonalIy, I place a *very* high value on Science and
> Academia.  For all the good they do, it is when we place unquestioned trust
> in those institutions, and the money behind them, that we can get into
> trouble.  This is a complex, complicated, many-tiered subject and we
> certainly won't solve the problems here.  But we *can* address our own
> perspectives, outlooks, hopes, and actions for a way of life that sustains
> our Earth and all that lives upon it.  I think we're often still living
> under the promising sounding moniker, "A Better Life through Science", in
> the hope that science will solve all of our problems.  Science has provided
> innumerable, invaluable solutions, and for that I am thankful, but it is
> also in a constant dance to solve the problems it produces in trying to
> solve the original problem it was addressing originally.
>
> I'm certainly not against progress, nor afraid to "face new ideas".  That
> would be counterproductive and naive.  Not all of us are inextricably tied
> into social media.  I, for one, am by choice not on social media, unless
> you include email, and the PBS mailing list as being in the social media
> milieu in a major way.  I'm not on Facebook, nor Instagram, nor..........
> I do my own independent reading and research.  Of course, we are all
> influenced by the information we take in, no matter the source.
>
> You say, "I will believe organic farming will feed the world when the
> grocery store prices are lower than for conventional farming."
> -  If that is the only basis for making a decision then I think we need to
> ask ourselves, what are the actual and true costs (and, yes, benefits) of
> any system that we are knowingly and willing to pay for?  Do we poison
> ourselves into oblivion in order to feed ourselves with the food we've
> poisoned on the way into our future?  "Organic gardening" is not the
> solution, but it is a very hopeful and practical beginning, and a part of
> the solution.  I think that it is when 'organic' *agriculture* evolves and
> accommodates to become the predominant 'conventional' agriculture practice,
> whatever that may mean, that there will be the possibility of continuation
> of life as we know it and need it.  At one point conventional agriculture
> *was* organic agriculture.  When you kill off the beneficials and intact
> systems, you inherit their work.
> At this point, something that I think is important to keep in mind is that
> some of the pesticides, and/or their derivatives, in use today were
> developed during World War 2 as nerve agents with the intention and use to
> kill human beings during the war.  It was a developed product looking for a
> new market after the war. [Follow the money]  We are using these products
> on the food we eat.
> For disclosure - I don't know the genesis of herbicides, but, consider
> Agent Orange in this context.
>
> Yes, things change over time.  Hopefully we will find our way, a direction,
> that leads to a healthy planet on which we all depend for our very lives.
> And it starts with us -  in this case, are we willing to continue to use a
> product in our lives, namely glyphosate, that has so many downsides?  I
> will admit that glyphosate is very seductive in its ease of use.  It is our
> decision.  All of our lives, and everything we hold dear could be in
> jeopardy if we don't place responsible controls on our actions.
>
> Also, I agree that population growth beyond the ability of the Earth to
> sustainably provide for that population is *the* root cause of many of the
> problems we face today.  You can only take so much out of a system before
> it collapses.  We need to ask ourselves, what is true, sustainable growth
> and progress?  What, or what are we not, willing to accept or to sacrifice
> for that progress to occur?
>
> Thank you, Peter, for you insights.  Your experience bears out my own.
>
> And thank you, Cody, for your practical and reasoned post.  For what it's
> worth, if I understand you correctly, I am in agreement.  We each are
> searching for or own way to navigate through the travails and triumphs of
> life in the best way we can.
>
> In the end, it's our decisions and actions that determine our future; do
> our policies and actions destroy life or promote life.  We, as a continuing
> society and the environment that supports it, will live with the results,
> good or bad.
>
> Before I end, I want to put in a plug for Nature.  It has its own intrinsic
> value irrespective of humans.  Its wisdom is far, far beyond ours.
>
> Mike
> (No minds were seriously harmed in the formulation of this post, [but mine
> is seriously exhausted]).
> (The opinions expressed herein are those of the author. They do not purport
> to reflect the opinions or views of the PBS or its members:)
> Any lack of coherency is also my doing - or undoing.
> Now, if I can just find my way off this pulpit.  Where was I?  Oh yes, --
> geophytes.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 9:25 AM Tim Eck <timeck17582@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, I was going to let the issue drop but it seems a further explanation
> is
> > in order.  As I mentioned, I was raised on an organic farm and apple
> > orchard (although my parents had to work at a local university to pay the
> > bills).  This was in the era of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".  Things
> > were much different at that time and many institutions have been created
> > since to address these problems - institutions that are being undermined
> by
> > the current administration.
> > I appreciate how thorough these institutions are as I am following very
> > closely the progress of the transgenic American chestnut where the wheat
> > rust resistance oxalic oxidase gene was transplanted into the American
> > chestnut tree which was destroyed by the chestnut blight the first half
> of
> > the last century.  I have personally been involved in traditional
> backcross
> > breeding efforts to use Chinese chestnut blight resistance genes to
> confer
> > blight resistance in an orchard of nearly ten thousand BC1 American
> > chestnut trees that I planted with the help of many volunteers.  Nearly
> two
> > decades ago when I began this effort, the idea of using herbicides and
> > insecticides was repulsive to me on many levels.  With the input and
> > education from foresters and agriculture professors, I gradually came to
> a
> > different understanding and I could never have taken care of ten thousand
> > trees without the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides.  As it
> turns
> > out, the genetically engineered trees are a much better success than
> those
> > from traditional breeding.
> > Now, much as I would prefer organic gardening as a way of life, it is
> > mostly a lie we tell ourselves - it is a way for the privileged to
> express
> > their enlightenment and assuage their guilt.  I will believe corporations
> > are people when Texas executes one, and I will believe organic farming
> will
> > feed the world when the grocery store prices are lower than for
> > conventional farming.
> > Sadly, the utility of agribusiness is a result of the lack of social
> policy
> > on population control.  But you can't blame academia and agribusiness for
> > trying to feed an out-of-control population with innovations like
> herbicide
> > resistant and insecticidal corn and soy, golden rice, photorespiration
> > resistant crops and other genetically engineered products.  People are
> > clearly the most successful and destructive invasive species the world
> has
> > seen in hundreds of millions of years and they will destroy the natural
> > environment with their food crops, whether organic or not.  And yes,
> > survival of the fittest guarantees that those who voluntarily do their
> part
> > to reduce the population explosion will become extinct, resulting in a
> very
> > ineffectual protest.  This is indeed a tragedy of the commons writ large.
> > Another point I was trying to make is that social media and the internet
> as
> > a whole allow people to choose their answers from
> "like-minded-individuals"
> > - the ultimate confirmation bias.  Whether you believe organic gardening
> > will save mankind, vaccines cause autism, pizza-gate, or the world is
> flat,
> > you can find confirmation on the internet and you will never have to face
> > new ideas.  Some political pundits have even suggested that social media
> > has destroyed knowledge to such an extent that the norms of free speech
> are
> > no longer sufficient for a democracy.
> > My only suggestion is that academia has far more integrity in its
> > structure, although far from perfect, so ask an agriculture professor.
> > Also, Wikipedia is far better than social media since it has a modicum of
> > peer review (and you should make monetary contributions if you use it).
> > Also worth mentioning for those unaware of the difference, the courts are
> > far more decisive and arbitrary than academia.  A verdict is often made
> > with no conclusive scientific evidence and a court has no obligation to
> > separate causation from correlation in determining liability.  For this
> > reason, a pesticide applicator who uses many products can be awarded
> > damages from a product that had no causal relationship to the injury.
> > Also, the courts WILL reach a verdict while the scientific studies come
> > back with varying degrees of uncertainty and even the meta-studies remain
> > inconclusive.  This has been the case with glyphosate.
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:01 PM SARAH-LISTS <sarah-lists@suiattle.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Mike, I also am in TOTAL agreement with what you say!
> > >
> > > Sarah
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 16:04, Mike Rummerfield <mikerumm@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ?Jo&Greg,
> > > > Thank you for your response and support.  It means so much to me.
> > > >
> > > > I was very nervous and anxious about sending any response at all to
> > that
> > > > emailer (I'm trying not to use names in order not to be accusatory
> > toward
> > > > any individual.  Perhaps this is a mistake).   I thought I could
> > possibly
> > > > even be banished from the PBS email list, but I just can't be quiet
> any
> > > > longer.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a scientist.  I'm a gardener, both by vocation (now retired)
> > and
> > > > avocation with a keen interest in a healthy planet.
> > > >
> > > > I just wish more people would stop to think about the results of
> their
> > > > decisions, and I wish I had the intellectual capacity to address this
> > > issue
> > > > succinctly, articulately, convincingly, and irrefutably (fat chance
> of
> > > > that!).  It all seems so overwhelming.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, the two emails I've received in support of my response
> > > have
> > > > both come from Canadians.
> > > > Yay Canada!
> > > >
> > > > Thank you again,
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:22 PM Jo&Greg <sun-coast-pearl@telus.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Mike--
> > > >> Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could.
> > > >> Jo Canning
> > > >> Vancouver Island
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of
> > Mike
> > > >> Rummerfield
> > > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM
> > > >> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides
> > > >>
> > > >> If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is
> > > >> contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts
> from
> > > >> "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all
> the
> > > >> research you've done and presented is from "like-minded
> individuals",
> > > and
> > > >> industry sponsored and published papers.  It only takes a cursory
> > > search to
> > > >> find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of
> herbicides,
> > > and
> > > >> glyphosate in particular.  You could start with non Hodgkins
> > > lymphoma/Mayo
> > > >> clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with
> non
> > > >> Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup;  Agent
> > > >> Orange/Vietnam veterans;  lawsuits won in court resulting in
> Monsanto
> > > >> having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil
> > > particles,
> > > >> making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate;
> > > >> California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I
> > > suppose
> > > >> you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on
> > > >> and.....................
> > > >>
> > > >> The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that
> > they
> > > >> contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup  (most organic compounds
> > > >> contain at least one carbon?hydrogen bond, hence the name
> > hydrocarbon).
> > > >> This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion
> > over,
> > > >> and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards
> > > >> regarding food production and the environment.   Though they share
> the
> > > word
> > > >> 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously
> > > >> intertwined.
> > > >>
> > > >> You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is
> > so
> > > >> safe and useful".  What is this statement based on?  Is glyphosate
> > > useful?
> > > >> Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides).  Is it effective
> at
> > > >> killing some weeds?  Yes.  Is it convenient and easy to use?  Yes,
> > very.
> > > >> Is it safe? * No *(see above).  "There are approximately 280 million
> > > >> pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in
> > > agricultural
> > > >> settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019"  This is *per year*.
> > > >> Follow the money.
> > > >>
> > > >> All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not
> > make
> > > >> it safe.
> > > >>
> > > >> Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in
> > > matters
> > > >> of life.
> > > >>
> > > >> Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is
> > > >> resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not.  It is whether glyphosate
> is
> > > safe
> > > >> to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for
> other
> > > >> living things, including us.
> > > >> All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are
> difficult
> > to
> > > >> control.  Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge.   In my area, two
> of
> > > them
> > > >> are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are
> others.
> > > >> Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you
> > quickly
> > > >> become a torn, shredded, bloody mess.  There are other strategies to
> > > >> dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate,
> > > though
> > > >> they may be less convenient and easy.
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term
> convenience
> > > and
> > > >> ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life.
> > > >>
> > > >> Most sincerely,
> > > >> Mike
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> pbs mailing list
> > > >> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > > >> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > pbs mailing list
> > > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pbs mailing list
> > > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pbs mailing list
> > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2020 15:50:13 -0800
> From: linny@cruzio.com
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Incinerating Weeds
> Message-ID: <597d0b8d46e81ddcbb7ff81fd6302e6f@cruzio.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi, Judy,
>
> I would send this to you individually,  but I don't think I've got a
> list of member's email addresses.  Just wanted to say I'll be
> celebrating Imbolc tonight with my Moon sisters.  Shall we call you in?
>
> Lin
>
> On 2020-02-02 06:25, Judy Glattstein wrote:
>
> > I have a Flaming Dragon propane weed torch. Back in 2018 I wrote an
> entry for my web site on coping with weeds, see here:
> http://bellewood-gardens.com/2018/…
> As has been mentioned it it good for weeds growing in gravel, in crevices,
> and similar sites.
> >
> > Another useful method was when I had WWOOFers - world wide opportunity
> on organic farms. You provide room and board for a week or so, they provide
> several hours / day of work. They could weed, safely, if I provided samples
> of what was wanted to be removed. As an aside - we would also go visit
> gardens, an apiary, the autumn fleece and fiber event, whatever, depending
> on their interests. Usually very nice young adults. I stopped because the
> interest seems to be trending more towards AirB&B on a beach on Maui
> >
> > At one point I also had the BelleWood Gardens Gardening School. Limit to
> 6 students at a time, first we'd talk then apply as a practicum. And yes,
> weeding was a popular topic. Sort of Tom Sawyer-ish. And they paid for the
> classes.
> >
> > Now it is just me. It is disposing of weeds that can be a secondary
> problem. My neighbors sheep do eat multiflora rose shoots, really like
> garlic mustard (which I eat too, but there are more sheep than what I can
> eat).
> >
> > If I ever win the lottery (which is unlikely since I do not buy chances)
> I'd fund research not on a deer repellent but a deer attractant. Spray it
> on the weeds and let Bambi and family things clean up.
> >
> > Judy in New Jersey on Imbolc, mid-point between winter solstice and
> spring equinox, where Galanthus nivalis 'Atksinii' and Helleborus x
> ericsmithii are in bloom
> > _______________________________________________
> > pbs mailing list
> > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> > http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pbs Digest, Vol 36, Issue 3
> **********************************
>
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…




More information about the pbs mailing list