Another Way To Handle Tree Stumps?

Page 2 of 3  
I suggest going to the "unwanted trees" section of the info at http://www.monsanto.com.au/images/Roundup_brands/labels/roundlbl.pdf
I also suggest that you consider that the product is immediately degraded by exposure to soil. Even mixing it with pond water can cause a completely ineffective solution to be produced, because of the dirt likely to be in it. So I suggest that 'ground water pollution' not be seen as such a likely problem. All of the sprouts need to have the product brushed onto their leaves, and they'll take it back into their collective systems, and the trunk as well. Also, I suggest checking to verify that the tree is a type designated as being susceptible to the product. In other words, following manufacturer's instructions.
Also, feel free to give alternate info, such as from hardcopy of
"Feng, J.C., and Thompson, D. G., 1990, Fate of glyphosate in a Canadian forest watershed. 2. Persistence in foliage and soils: J. Agric. Food Chem., v. 38, no. 4, pp. 1118-1125."
if applicable.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If there still is a stump, drive copper nails in it. That may stop the new shoots.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have often seen it repeated that unwanted trees can be killed by driving copper nails into a tree, &amp stumps can be stopped from suckering. One method is to completely ring the bottom of a tree with 10d copper nails at one-inch intervals, then wait two years. I've never seen any actual study that proved this would work; if it did seem to work, I suspect it would be because of the damage done to the bark; removing the bark from around the base of a tree would be vastly more certain way to kill the poor tree.
Copper at high enough levels certainly is toxic to plants, & can suppress, for example, algae growth in a pond. At extremely low levels however it is not harmful, & copper as a solid is so slow extremely slow to decay that copper was traditionally used in roofing & boat manufacture as one of the most stable metals. I do not know for certain, but I do not believe a toxic level of copper can leached out of copper nails.
If it could, then so too would copper trellises & copper watering pots & copper flower pots kill stuff, & water running off roofs with copper trim would be toxified. I'm aware of no evidence that this is true. Here is a typical line of garden products made of copper: http://www.gardenartisans.com/arbor.html If they were ground up into filings & mixed into the garden they would be harmful, but nothing short of that I'd reckon.
To kill whatever life is left in a stump, drilling a few holes &amp filling them with copper sulfate might indeed kill whatever life is left in it. Copper sulfate is available from a plumber supply. I'd do some more research before I tried it though. By right of killing funguses, copper might SLOW DOWN the decay of a stump, which will otherwise be broken down over time by funguses.
The copper nail thing might be credible, but I'd have to see some data to believe it. It seems that just about everyone has HEARD it works, but almost nobody knows where to get copper nails, so I suspect it's just one of those perpetually repeated rumors that no one has actually tested. When I made a quick-search for any study or proof, I could find nothing definitive, though the International Society of Arboriculture says it is a myth, that if there were any truth to it, fungicides which deliver vastly greater amounts of copper to a plant or tree would kill it <http://www.wcisa.net/myths.asp . Another non-study which nevertheless makes a lot of sense is on-line at Garden World, a footnote to an article on building stuff with copper for the garden: "It is a commonly held misconception or 'old wives tale' that copper nails kill trees. Copper in its metallic form is not toxic to trees. The only damage that may have occurred is simply mechanical. Thus, if there are enough nails around the circumference of a tree to completely girdle it, then it will die, but otherwise there will be little damage other than a potential point of entry to decay fungi." <http://www.gardenworld.co.uk/project-copper.asp
A real field study would be more valuable, of course, but I strongly suspect the assessment of this notion as an "old wives tale" is the correct assessment.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seagoing boats are (well, were) copperbottomed because it's sufficiently toxic to reduce the amount of crud that grows on them. I don't know if that's true in fresh-water, or not. In any case, maybe copper nails would help if you then pissed all over the stump in question? I'm still in favor of an axe and shovel. --Goedjn

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where does one get copper nails? I'm not sure I want to know. vampire supply house?
--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, Stormin Mormon at cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com wrote on 7/7/04 5:38 PM:

I do not know about copper nails per se. Maybe someone still nails copper bottoms onto boats.
In any event, if you dip steel nails into copper sulfate, comper will plate out on it. If you start with a clean nail, the copper may even end up sticking.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. RoundUp does absolutely nothing to groundwater or indeed, to the ground. Glysophate is an extremely effective herbicide, NOT a poison for people or animals or insects.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. But lets see how many lying Monsanto employees we can beat out of the bushes to tell whoppers (the company instructs its employees to contradict the truth on the web & on UseNet whenever they see actualities mentioned). Here goes:
The surficant in RoundUp is directly responsible for extreme & lasting damage that has been done to watersheds & water tables. Separate studies have found it directly responsible for eradication of frogs.
There is more surficant in RoundUp than glyphosate, so it is a huge danger to watersheds just on its major ingredient. But as for glyphosate in watersheds, glyphosate easily nitrosates, forming N-nitrosoglyphosate, an unsafe chemical in its own right, & which degrades into Formeldehyde Sarcosine, Methylamine, & aminomethylphosphonic acid -- so if it were even slightly true glyphosate per se does not migrate to water, this would be because deadly break-down chemicals do so instead.
To Monsanto this translates "glyphosate does not migrate to water." Well, actually, it does, & Western Australia studies have proven it, but even in environments where the glyphosate itself is broken down rapidly hence cannot itself migrate to water, the harmful chemicals it breaks down into, some of which are additionally carcinogenic, DO migrate to water.
The Institute for Environment & Resources at Denmark's Technical University concluded that regional wells in Roskilde and Storstroms cannot be safely used for TEN YEARS because glyphosate has so badly polluted the water table. The Institute has said it point-blank, and the Danish Environmental Ministry has repeated it point-blank: Monsanto's claims that glyphosate is rapidly broken down by bacteria in the environment is false. False. What is true is that this claim has never been supported by any research other than was bought & paid for or conducted by Monsanto.
A western Australia study established that three species of frog were now extinct because of glyphosate products. Separate & supportive studies on loss of frogs & tadpoles in Canada have further established at least ONE permanent & irrepairable effect of glyphosate products on frogs: Extinction. The studies that have indicated that glyphosate itself may be involved in the rising rates of lymphatic cancers in humans is frightening enough, but the chemical mixes that have reach wetlands are undeniably involved in the mass extinction of frogs -- so the only sensible decision in light of even that one issue would have to be STOP USING THESE POISONS.

Nonsense. The most common chemical injury presenting in California emergency rooms turns out to be from RoundUp exposure & other glyphosate-containing products. The majority are eye injuries & accidental injestion by children or suicide attempts -- it is a very effective chemical if you want to commit suicide.
Vigfusson & Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH and Hardell & Erickson in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY find evidence of glyphosate as a cancer causing agent, a likely cause of the increase in nonhodgson's lymphoma.
More studies need to be done on glyphosate as a carcinogen, but many other dangerous problems with glyphosate are well established by INDEPENDENT research. A Finish study found that glyphosate lingers at toxic levels for long periods, with an average half-life of 249 days (as opposed to the maximum 60 day halflife claimed by Monsanto).
A half dozen studies on glyphosate's long-term destruction of beneficial funguses in the soil credit glyphosate usage for rendering soils entirely incapable of supporting life for many years at a st retch, once the mycorrhizal webs are interupted. Virtually all Absolutely Safe findings about glyphosate are either generated in-house by Monsanto for self-serving purposes, or paid for by Monsanto. Genuinely independent research is rarely if ever so positive as the Monsanto-generated studies.
Monsanto, while fighting in the Australian courts to not reveal what the miscellaneous ingredients in their glyphosate products really are, & to limit the scope of eventual bans on several once-normative uses of glyphosate in western Australia, rather like the cigarette companies at first would not admit to any faults in their products, but eventually did admit their glyphosate products had indeed caused "severe local effects" in the Australian environment, & also finally admitted that the low-organic-matter soils in Australia meant their glyphosate products would not biodegrade even after a full year.
The public is not even allowed to know what the miscellaneous contents of products like RoundUp really are. The lab tests on pure chemicals ultimately do not apply to the toxic "mixes" of chemicals in these products. "Mixes" of chemicals can become increasingly dangerous; for instance, Monsanto doesn't want anyone to know that glyphosate used in the proxity of phosphates triples in toxicity -- which means really the label should carry the "Warning: do not use near areas that are fertilized." In 1996 Judge Robertson by court order forced Monsanto to reveal other ingredients of their glyphosate-based brands, but the list was then sealed by court order, so the public still does not know. Fifteen chemicals ARE known for RoundUp alone, but the packaging lists far fewer.
NO STUDY has ever been done on the actual chemical mixes in play, and the public and independent researchers are not even allowed to know what those chemicals might be. But independent studies have measured toxins in watersheds, & it is clear that these deadly Monsanto products already pollute exactly the kind of areas Monsanto-purchased studies pretend aren't harmed.
Make no mistake. Glyphosate is dangerous stuff. If you and I were the only two dumbass shitheads ever to use it, then it'd be okay, but tons and tons and tons are being dumped everywhere, and Monsanto is developing glyphosate-tolerant crops so that they can sell three, four, TEN times the amount of glyphosate to be dumped on the planet. Monsanto's future hinges on their ability to sell lots of glyphosate to use on glyophosate-resistant crops -- expect them to continue to fight with every weapon they can to keep governments from responding rationally to a very large threat to the environment & human health, to continue to buy of government officials, & to keep the public too confused by Monsanto misinformation to be sure of anything.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:30:12 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@netscape.net (paghat) wrote:

I looked up every respectable (gov't, U) safety data sheet I could find some time ago. None of them reported anything more serious than cautions to use on a windless day to avoid aerosol drift.
Vinegar is more toxic (as an irritant) to humans, and salt *much* more detrimental to soil and water that is to be used for growing plants. Not to mention contamination of water supplies by "natural" waste products.
I always wonder exactly where the line between "natural" or "organic" -- that is, GOOD -- and "chemical", which is EVIL lies. Don't use a "chemical" insecticide; use soap. So soap, 'though it doesn't grow on trees or appear as a by-product of organic compost, is "natural." Chlorine bleach is "natural" and recommended as an alternative to bad "chemical" weedkiller. Take a look at the safety data sheets on chlorine bleach!
I'm far from a "throw a chemical at it" garden problem-solver. I know that most pesticides kill both desired insects and pests, so I avoid them. I've never used fertilizer, insecticide, or weedkiller on my lawn. But I *do* get tired of this reflexive "all 'chemicals' are bad" attitude. Glysophate is a very effective herbicide with virtually no evil side-effects. I believe it is viewed as evil *because* it is effective. For those who've spend hours and hours hand-digging weeds, only to see them re-sprout from root fragments, RoundUp is like magic. And therefore, must be evil. The Puritan says you *must* do it the hard way, because that's the only natural, pure way. Anything easy is degenerate by definition.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Paghat, of course, tells half the truth. The Danish restrictions are based on a general proscription against *any* herbicide in the ground water at any level above 0.1 micrograms/L, as opposed to a risk-based acceptable level of 700 micrograms/L in the US. The levels that Demnark found unacceptable were not, in fact, found in the groundwater or aquifer, but in drainage water. and were 5.4 micrograms/L (compared, again, to a risk-based limit of 700). And in contrast to Paghat's claim, the Danish study did show rapid degradation, which is why the levels were high in drainage water, but not in stable groundwater, where the levels remained below the 0.1 limit.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How about a planter?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i cut mine low and built planters over them.
randy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Contact paper?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:03:44 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@home.net (BroJack) wrote:

Move. I got rid of moles that way.
--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(BroJack) wrote:

I just move enough dirt around them so I can get enough room to cut them off flush with the ground with a chainsaw and then ignore them. We mow right over them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9 Jun 2004 07:26:17 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Tim) wrote:

You better watch it.
You'll have the animal rights people after you.
BroJack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No problem, the same treatment works just fine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BroJack wrote:

I've read in many places across the internet that powdered milk will greatly accelerate the rotting.
I drilled 1/4" holes all over mine and then wet it down. Then sprinkled it liberally with powdered milk.
I don't know if it really did anything, but it did rot pretty quick.
See here:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/martin/newsletters/newsarticles/twigs/stumps.html
and here:
http://www.progressivefarmer.com/farmer/homes/article/0,19846,593839,00.htm l
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I strongly suspect that drilling 1/4" holes all over it and putting *anything*,
or even nothing, in them would greatly accellerate rotting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.