dave1949
Super Star Member
Forrester2,
I guess it comes down to one's preferences or philosophy. Being able to create a pond which required no chemicals or mechanical intervention would be something to be very proud of IMO. It would demonstrate a fairly complete understanding of the total environment around the pond area, with maybe some luck thrown in.
If it becomes apparent that isn't working out, I would look for source causes and try to correct or reduce them. If I couldn't improve things that way, I would try mechanical means. If that fails, I would probably re-examine the whole situation. As 20-20 said, we should be playing by Mother Nature's rules. If I really was forced into a chemical solution, I would use the least potentially harmful chemicals I could find. I would be mindful that it is impossible to to just affect the target plants. There will be collateral effects on other organisms.
Glysophate is not a harmless, and totally benign chemical:
Glyphosate Factsheet (part 1 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00
It's no doubt far from the worst chemical one could choose to use, but I am not certain the long term effects of many manufactured chemicals are completely understood. I am also sure their maker's don't want a complete understanding of long term effects. Also, I really question the wisdom of applying tens of millions of pounds of a product annually that contains a 'trade secret ingredient'. That doesn't really seem smart to me.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas Season, and hope your New Year brings prosperity.
Dave.
I guess it comes down to one's preferences or philosophy. Being able to create a pond which required no chemicals or mechanical intervention would be something to be very proud of IMO. It would demonstrate a fairly complete understanding of the total environment around the pond area, with maybe some luck thrown in.
If it becomes apparent that isn't working out, I would look for source causes and try to correct or reduce them. If I couldn't improve things that way, I would try mechanical means. If that fails, I would probably re-examine the whole situation. As 20-20 said, we should be playing by Mother Nature's rules. If I really was forced into a chemical solution, I would use the least potentially harmful chemicals I could find. I would be mindful that it is impossible to to just affect the target plants. There will be collateral effects on other organisms.
Glysophate is not a harmless, and totally benign chemical:
Glyphosate Factsheet (part 1 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00
It's no doubt far from the worst chemical one could choose to use, but I am not certain the long term effects of many manufactured chemicals are completely understood. I am also sure their maker's don't want a complete understanding of long term effects. Also, I really question the wisdom of applying tens of millions of pounds of a product annually that contains a 'trade secret ingredient'. That doesn't really seem smart to me.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas Season, and hope your New Year brings prosperity.
Dave.