[MPWG] Question of the month: Invasives removal amidst harvestable medici...

[Cafesombra at aol.com]

I'd like to make a few comments about this just as food for thought, not 
having exact scientific answers to offer.

Is it best to seek answers about how to make monocultural agriculture work 
well?
(I'm asking this because it seems to me that use of Round-up would encourage 
monoculture.  I do understand that the Round-up suggestion is just one 
possibility, but frankly it is the possibility of choice these days...)

How do we balance the value of cash crops against the value of natural 
diversity?

Is the work of conservation truly possible without prioritizing natural 
diversity?

Should use of Round-up pass organic certification?
(This question uses the word "organic" in its holistic sense.  i.e., that the 
desired end of organic agriculture is not merely a lack of chemical residues 
but rather, a full range of best practices that enhance soil producivity, soil 
vitality, natural balance and biodiversity, that prevent soil erosion, 
protect watersheds, in addition to worker's health, while providing a high-quality 
product, and a livelihood for farmers).

Is there an alternative to Round-up?  (or more to the point, does Monsanto 
corporation have to benefit from all aspects and sectors of farming?)

One point I'd like to find out more about is, how reliable is the research 
about the safety of Round-up?  My understanding is that the research tends to be 
in-house, generated by or funded by Monsanto.  I'm wondering because it's use 
in Columbia (where it is literally "raining Round-up" as drug control agents 
spray it from airplanes on the jungles to eradicate coca production) has 
generated some controversy in that some villagers claim to suffer from stomach and 
head aches which they attribute to the Roundup in their environment, but 
there's no science to prove it, and so the spraying continues.

Invasives can be viewed as serving a specific role in the environment.  For 
example, I used to live on an apple farm which was abandoned (and therefore 
went un-sprayed) for 8 years.  Over the course of that 8 years, poison ivy had 
taken over so badly that some of the trees were literally blanketted in the ivy. 
 
Poison ivy is an indicator species for a lack of nitrogen in the soil.  Some 
would say also that poison ivy likes to grow prolifically in places where the 
Earth "wants" human beings to stay away for a while!  (I know, a bit of a 
spacey reach -- but many people can actually rsonate with the idea that the land 
was enjoying a rest from the huge chemical applications of conventional 
orcharding... interesting that other animals do not suffer from poison ivy the way 
humans do.)   Additionally, where red clover grew (a nitrogen fixer), there was 
zero poison ivy.  So, red clover might be an answer to invasion by poison ivy, 
reversing the depletion of nitrogen in the soil while offering the farmer a 
potential cash crop, as feed for animals or as a medicinal herb cash crop -- 
also offering an on-farm medicine for use at home.
At any rate, I tell this story just to suggest that there may be ways of 
looking at the presence of invasives which answer the question of what to do about 
them, of how to restore the balance, perhaps requiring no agrichemicals at 
all.  This means rather than asking "how can we get rid of this plant" as a 
starting plant, we ask "why is this plant so prolific in this environment?" as a 
starting point.

I look forward to other comments,
best regards, Jennifer Chesworth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20040701/4dd0d5a1/attachment.html>