Logo Launching of The AgriNews

Karachi: The AgriNews start service with launching of The AgriNews Logo

Why Bamboo should not be planted in your home

Bamboo is a trendy star of the eco-friendly construction movement, with a wide variety of flooring, furniture and other items being manufactured with the strong, fast-growing grass. However, bamboo production should be left to commercial growers. Bamboo’s hardiness and rapid growth make it a problematic plant for most yards. Here are the top five reasons not to plant bamboo in your garden.

1. Bamboo can spread into neighboring yards.

Many homeowners plant bamboo to create a fast-growing privacy screen around their home. Ted Jordan Meredith, author of "Bamboo for Gardens," notes that some bamboo species can grow more than three feet per day. Bamboo can spread as quickly as it grows, and it doesn’t respect fences or property lines.

Bamboo grows particularly vigorously when adjacent to irrigated lawns and gardens or in low-lying areas that collect water. Instead of just blocking the view of nosy neighbors, you could be turning your property line into a war zone by planting bamboo.

Some bamboo species may even be categorized as noxious weeds, meaning a neighbor could legally force you to remove your bamboo. You could also be liable for the cost of any damage to the neighbors’ property caused by your bamboo, and for the cost of removal from their property.

2. Bamboo can be an invasive threat to biodiversity.

Bamboo that spreads and escapes your yard can also cause ecological problems. Many spreading bamboo species are categorized as invasive exotic plants that crowd out native plants and threaten biodiversity.

The best ways to contain spreading bamboo can be expensive and complicated, and may not be worth pursuing for many homeowners. Moreover, they are not foolproof. Experts at the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension office recommend burying thick 60-ml polypropylene or fiberglass about three feet deep, and leaving another two inches of material above the soil to inhibit surface spreading. Morgan Judy of Clemson University Cooperative Extension suggests creating a solid barrier made of concrete, metal or pressure-treated wood at least 18 inches deep around the bamboo.

Any of these barriers should stop shallow bamboo rhizomes from spreading, but Judy still recommends closely monitoring the area for escaping shoots, particularly during the early summer peak growing season.

3. Getting rid of bamboo can take years.

Bamboo is a long-term relationship that should not be entered lightly. It may take years and vigorous effort to remove unwanted bamboo. The first step in removing bamboo is to remove all the root mass and rhizomes. This is easier said than done, and many homeowners with bamboo-loving neighbors complain they can’t get rid of the spreading grass. No matter how much they dig, the shoots keep coming back.

Judy suggests frequent mowing can deplete and starve the bamboo, but it take at least two years of regular mowing to see any results.

4. Getting rid of bamboo may require herbicides.

Moreover, Judy notes that chemical herbicides are often necessary for controlling bamboo. This can be a problem for those trying to maintain organic gardens and avoid herbicide use.

She recommends Roundup Original, Quick Kill Grass and Weed Killer and other herbicides containing glyphosate. This broad-spectrum herbicide has minimal residual soil activity and typically only kills the plants that are directly sprayed. Mow or chop the bamboo and let it regrow until new leaves expand. Then spray the herbicide on the leaves.

Again, this could take years. One application will not solve your bamboo problem. Also, Judy warns that only specialized glyphosate herbicides should be used near creeks, ponds and other surface water. Eraser AQ, Pondmaster and other products are approved for use near water.

5. The right bamboo can be hard to find.

Bamboo’s defenders will argue that not all of the more than 1,000 bamboo species are equally invasive. They recommend clumping bamboo species rather than spreading types. The problem is that even clumping species spread, albeit not as vigorously. It also can be hard to differentiate between the types, and some are mislabeled. Moreover, other similar invasive species may be confused with bamboo. For example, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension officials warn against transplanting or encouraging the giant reed (Arundo donax), a bamboo look-alike that has invaded parts of their state.

Bamboo may seem like an attractive garden option, but it poses serious problems. Stick to a lucky bamboo in a small indoor pot, or avoid growing bamboo altogether. Moreover, do your homework before buying bamboo flooring and other products. It may not be as eco-friendly or durable as you think.

Source: MNN

Published on: 07/17/2011

Top 10 GMO Foods

 

What are ENZYMES???

 

Benefits of Coconut Oil

Paddy farmers a confused lot

Farmers in the district who have raised paddy nurseries in anticipation of good harvest in rabi season, are in confused as to go ahead with transplantation of the seedlings from nurseries to the main fields or drop the cultivation at nursery-stage itself to minimise the losses.

Reason for it is the continuing poor monsoon coupled with insufficient release of water from reservoirs for irrigation.

Already, it has been a poor season for paddy in the district this year with acreage under the crop been almost nil in the just-ended kharif season.

According to official statistics, paddy nurseries have come up on 110 acres to produce the seedlings required for 1,300 hectares of paddy cultivation during the just-commenced rabi season.

K.C.M. Balasubrmaniam, a progressive farmer and a former agriculture economist of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, told The Hindu that in the present drought-like situation, it would be ‘technically’ unwise to go for transplantation to main cultivable areas as preparatory works in the main field itself requires lot of water.

“But with paddy is seen as a major grain crop, the district administration could try out a solution to ensure transplantation by going for micro-level interventions.

“Accordingly, the farmers who are struggling the most for the water need to be identified and then provide them with at least six hours of uninterrupted power supply daily for almost two months as ‘emergency cases’ to enable them draw groundwater for irrigation,” he said.

Considering the seriousness of the situation and protect the paddy acreage, the department of agriculture is planning to enthuse the farmers to go for a ‘modified’ implementation of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) technique so that whatever water available through canal irrigation could be judiciously used.

“Use of SRI methodology has advantages as it requires ‘reduced height of standing water’ when compared to traditional cultivation practices,” Joint Director of Agriculture M.K. Sherif said.

This apart, the department will also be distributing power weeders at subsidised rates to remove weeds for ensuring better root growth and power sprayers to help farmers fight pest attacks.

Regulating Pesticides -- an Impossible Job

It's an old joke that one should never look too closely at how sausage is made or how legislation is passed. That's also true for how pesticides are regulated.

I began to look too closely when three of my colleagues were working on a pesticide data base. I watched them, asked questions, and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the amount of pesticide in our food.

For those who haven't the stomach to delve into the details, here's the main conclusion. No one really knows how much of the 1.3 million tons of pesticides used annually by U.S. farmers shows up in our food. No one knows what a safe level of pesticide ingestion might be. The EPA is working in a haze of statistical and scientific uncertainty.

Now, for you brave ones who want to look at the innards, here's how the process works.

A company wanting to market a new pesticide must test it by feeding increasing amounts of it to laboratory animals. The toxicity of the pesticide is measured by how much it takes to kill 50% of the animals outright. Other tests of internal and external exposure determine whether the chemical causes cancers or birth defects.

The test data are submitted to the EPA. They are scientific observations, fairly incontestable as long as the test lab is honest. The EPA must then convert these animal results to permissible human exposures and farm application procedures. That requires a lot of assumptions.

First the EPA determines a No Observable Effects Level (N.O.E.L.) -- the daily dose that produces no visible ill effect on test animals. Assumptions: 1) no observable effect means no actual effect; 2) there is some safe level of exposure to this chemical (except for carcinogens, where the assumption is that no exposure is safe -- an assumption hotly contested by the chemical companies.)

Then comes the problem of converting data from animals to human beings. Assumption: humans are 10 to 100 times more sensitive to pesticides than are test animals. The EPA takes the N.O.E.L., divides it by some number between 10 and 100, and calls that the Acceptable Daily Intake (A.D.I.).

The EPA determines, for example, an A.D.I. of .05 milligrams of Captan per kilogram of body weight per day. Captan is a fungicide used on apples, tomatoes, peas, sweet corn, onions, beans, squash, carrots, and oranges. How can the EPA know how much of each of those foods you eat every day, so it can set permissible residue levels for each crop that won't add up to more Captan than you should be eating?

Assumption: we all eat the average American diet. The EPA has survey data on what a sampling of Americans eat. It averages us all together, you and me and your finicky two-year-old and my vegetarian grandfather.

Given the average diet it sets tolerances for each chemical and crop -- maximum permissible amounts of Captan on apples and beans. Then it lays down field procedures specifying how much Captan can be used on each crop, and what period must elapse between application and harvest, to assure that crops will meet tolerance.

A lot more assumptions creep in here. 1) The public's only exposure to a pesticide comes through food ingestion. 2) When several pesticides are present in the diet together, they do not do more damage than they would separately. 3) Farmers obey field guidelines. 4) Obeying field guidelines results in tolerances being met.

Crop samples are taken by the Department of Agriculture to test for compliance. Some of the samples do have pesticide levels over tolerance. Many crops have residues far below tolerance, and some farmers use no pesticides at all.

My colleagues did an experiment to test just one of this long string of assumptions. They calculated the pesticide exposures of people who do not happen to eat the average national diet. They used data on the actual diets of people of different ages, sexes, and ethnic groups. Their findings were especially striking for children.

According to their calculations, children 1-6 years old receive more than the acceptable daily intake of 10 out of 18 fungicides they investigated. Some of the calculated overexposure levels were enormous -- from 5 to 200 times the acceptable daily intake. (Calculations were made for only 18 fungicides out of 600 possible pesticides.)

Does this mean our children are being poisoned? Probably not, but the EPA can't be sure of that. All anyone can say is that, assuming that foods contain pesticides at the tolerance level, and assuming the EPA's definition of safe exposure, the average child eating an average child's diet, as revealed by one nutrition survey, is overexposed to 10 of the 18 pesticides investigated.

The EPA has no choice but to operate on assumptions. No one fully understands the effects of pesticides on the human body. The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs has a finite (and shrinking) budget. The task of regulating 600 chemicals on 376 crops in the hands of 3 million farmers who feed 240 million people is far beyond what any agency, no matter how well-funded, can handle.

My personal conclusion from this exercise in looking too closely is that, if we are to go on using pesticides, much more research and monitoring needs to be done. It should be paid for by the chemical companies who are profiting from this massive experiment in which we are all the white rats. And in the meantime, I'll get as much food as I can from my own garden and from farmers whose methods I know and trust.

Copyright Sustainability Institute
This article from The Donella Meadows Archive is available for use in research, teaching, and private study. For other uses, please contact Sustainability Institute, 3 Linden Road, Hartland, VT 05048, (802) 436-1277.