We have a stream that we have cleared away the reeds from the banks.

But now the reeds are growing up through the grass on the grassy banks.

Will continual mowing the reeds stop them eventually, or is there a
better way ? Thanks.

On 27/05/2021 11:51, john west wrote:
>
> We have a stream that we have cleared away the reeds from the banks.
>
> But now the reeds are growing up through the grass on the grassy banks.
>
> Will continual mowing the reeds stop them eventually,  or is there a
> better way ?   Thanks.

in general nothing over an inch survives constant mowing, but selective
weedkiller might work as well

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 27/05/2021 17:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/05/2021 11:51, john west wrote:
>>
>> We have a stream that we have cleared away the reeds from the banks.
>>
>> But now the reeds are growing up through the grass on the grassy banks.
>>
>> Will continual mowing the reeds stop them eventually,  or is there a
>> better way ?   Thanks.

Do you mean reeds (Phragmites australis) or one of the other big
marginal grasses - reed canary grass (Phragmites arundinaceus) or reed
sweet grass (Glyceria maxima)? Reed canary grass is the one that more
commonly grows on land as well as at the water's edge.
>
> in general nothing over an inch survives constant mowing, but selective
> weedkiller might work as well
>

You'd be hard pressed to find a weedkiller that killed reeds and not
other grasses. And using weedkiller near streams is not generally a good
idea.

--
SRH

On 28/05/2021 14:02, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
> On 27/05/2021 17:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 27/05/2021 11:51, john west wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a stream that we have cleared away the reeds from the banks.
>>>
>>> But now the reeds are growing up through the grass on the grassy banks.
>>>
>>> Will continual mowing the reeds stop them eventually,  or is there a
>>> better way ?   Thanks.
>
> Do you mean reeds (Phragmites australis) or one of the other big
> marginal grasses - reed canary grass (Phragmites arundinaceus) or reed
> sweet grass (Glyceria maxima)? Reed canary grass is the one that more
> commonly grows on land as well as at the water's edge.
>>
>> in general nothing over an inch survives constant mowing, but
>> selective weedkiller might work as well
>>
>
> You'd be hard pressed to find a weedkiller that killed reeds and not
> other grasses. And using weedkiller near streams is not generally a good
> idea.
>
No, I agree on both points.

I had a problem with some yarrow in my lawn that had been left to wild
after I left my (ex) wife in the house.

Glyphosate got it but killed the grass as well, but constant mowing has
allowed grass to grow back and the yarrow whilst still there, is merely
in patches, and not doing well.

In the end mowing is a highly selective weedkiller. Not much survives
regular mowing and nearly all that does is amenable to 'weed and feed'

--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

In article <s8vkr7$f8a$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 28/05/2021 14:02, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
>> On 27/05/2021 17:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 27/05/2021 11:51, john west wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have a stream that we have cleared away the reeds from the banks.
>>>>
>>>> But now the reeds are growing up through the grass on the grassy banks.
>>>>
>>>> Will continual mowing the reeds stop them eventually,  or is there a
>>>> better way ?   Thanks.
>>
>> Do you mean reeds (Phragmites australis) or one of the other big
>> marginal grasses - reed canary grass (Phragmites arundinaceus) or reed
>> sweet grass (Glyceria maxima)? Reed canary grass is the one that more
>> commonly grows on land as well as at the water's edge.
>>>
>>> in general nothing over an inch survives constant mowing, but
>>> selective weedkiller might work as well
>>>
>>
>> You'd be hard pressed to find a weedkiller that killed reeds and not
>> other grasses. And using weedkiller near streams is not generally a good
>> idea.
>>
>No, I agree on both points.
>
>I had a problem with some yarrow in my lawn that had been left to wild
>after I left my (ex) wife in the house.
>
>Glyphosate got it but killed the grass as well, but constant mowing has
>allowed grass to grow back and the yarrow whilst still there, is merely
>in patches, and not doing well.
>
>In the end mowing is a highly selective weedkiller. Not much survives
>regular mowing and nearly all that does is amenable to 'weed and feed'

Glyphosate and the weedkillers in 'weed and feed' are disastrous when
they wash into streams, and neither should ever be used where that is
likely to happen (as in this case).

Also, 'weed and feed' renders the grass cuttings toxic, so they can't
even be composted safely at home and, what's more, has essentially no
effect on some lawn weeds, like lesser bindweed and bluebells.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 30/05/2021 11:42, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Also, 'weed and feed' renders the grass cuttings toxic, so they can't
> even be composted safely at home and, what's more, has essentially no
> effect on some lawn weeds, like lesser bindweed and bluebells.

well i let the grass cuttings mulch into the lawn, so that no big deal
anyway ;-)

Its again a disputed matter as to how long any given herbicide hangs
around.My path clearing ones certainly dont outlast a winter
And my weed and feed needs to be regularly applied too.

And have used weed and feed right up to the edge of my pond.

As far as glyphosate goes, it is only poisonous on foliage, not on root
systems, and its presence or not in hydrosystems while a great red rag
to the nuttier ecoloons, is not actually demonstrated to be a huge problem

Evidence of *A* problem is most evidence of a *serious* problem

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

In article <s8vsif$d41$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Also, 'weed and feed' renders the grass cuttings toxic, so they can't
>> even be composted safely at home and, what's more, has essentially no
>> effect on some lawn weeds, like lesser bindweed and bluebells.
>
>well i let the grass cuttings mulch into the lawn, so that no big deal
>anyway ;-)
>
>Its again a disputed matter as to how long any given herbicide hangs
>around.My path clearing ones certainly dont outlast a winter
>And my weed and feed needs to be regularly applied too.

Only among non-scientists. The fact that they cease to be effective
against their intended target does NOT mean that they aren't still
highly toxic to other organisms.

>And have used weed and feed right up to the edge of my pond.
>
>As far as glyphosate goes, it is only poisonous on foliage, not on root
>systems, and its presence or not in hydrosystems while a great red rag
>to the nuttier ecoloons, is not actually demonstrated to be a huge problem

You should look at the actual data. It's a serious problem, though not
as bad as that caused by some other chemicals.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 31/05/2021 12:16, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <s8vsif$d41$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, 'weed and feed' renders the grass cuttings toxic, so they can't
>>> even be composted safely at home and, what's more, has essentially no
>>> effect on some lawn weeds, like lesser bindweed and bluebells.
>>
>> well i let the grass cuttings mulch into the lawn, so that no big deal
>> anyway ;-)
>>
>> Its again a disputed matter as to how long any given herbicide hangs
>> around.My path clearing ones certainly dont outlast a winter
>> And my weed and feed needs to be regularly applied too.
>
> Only among non-scientists. The fact that they cease to be effective
> against their intended target does NOT mean that they aren't still
> highly toxic to other organisms.
>
>> And have used weed and feed right up to the edge of my pond.
>>
>> As far as glyphosate goes, it is only poisonous on foliage, not on root
>> systems, and its presence or not in hydrosystems while a great red rag
>> to the nuttier ecoloons, is not actually demonstrated to be a huge problem
>
> You should look at the actual data. It's a serious problem, though not
> as bad as that caused by some other chemicals.
>
I prefer to look at what happens in my actual garden.

'data' is subject to too many 'adjustments' and 'interpretations'.

>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I prefer to look at what happens in my actual garden.

How closely do you look, though? Regular, sensitive soil
tests for chemical contaminants? Careful hecks on biological
activity and health? There are probably quite a lot of
problems that might be missed by an everyday "does the
garden look nice?" visual check.

#Paul

On 31/05/2021 19:33, #Paul wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I prefer to look at what happens in my actual garden.
>
> How closely do you look, though? Regular, sensitive soil
> tests for chemical contaminants? Careful hecks on biological
> activity and health? There are probably quite a lot of
> problems that might be missed by an everyday "does the
> garden look nice?" visual check.
>
> #Paul
>
Having had many plants actually destroyed by contaminated 'organic'
horse manure that we were 'given' and having had a soil inspector in to
confirm it, I can assure you that NOTHING matches that, by way of
glyphosate or weed and feed, or indeed back in the day sodium chlorate
and or kerosene spills...

Some of us look to the real world for our data, others read it in books
and off websites.

There are people who prefer to believe the met office when it tells them
what temperatures are, rather than a thermometers

"There are probably quite a lot of problems that might be missed by an
everyday "does the garden look nice?" visual check."

What bollocks!

'probably' 'quite a lot' 'might' 'contaminants' 'sensitive' - this the
the language of propaganda!

And if the garden looks nice, that is in fact what its purpose is!

I don't care if there are giant mutant ninja toadstools, decaying
nuclear piles and an unexploded WWI bomb under every square meter of it,
as long as they stay there.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

In article <s952s3$3ae$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>Having had many plants actually destroyed by contaminated 'organic'
>horse manure that we were 'given' and having had a soil inspector in to
>confirm it, I can assure you that NOTHING matches that, by way of
>glyphosate or weed and feed, or indeed back in the day sodium chlorate
>and or kerosene spills...

That is is egocentric bollocks. The problems caused by run-off into
watercourses include the local extinction of species, the destruction
of ecologies, and contamination of the water supply. What's more,
several of the chemicals and their decomposition products scarcely
degrade at all in the conditions that occur in the mud at the bottom
of the streams, lakes and ponds, so it's a long-term issue.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 02/06/2021 12:52, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <s952s3$3ae$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>> Having had many plants actually destroyed by contaminated 'organic'
>> horse manure that we were 'given' and having had a soil inspector in to
>> confirm it, I can assure you that NOTHING matches that, by way of
>> glyphosate or weed and feed, or indeed back in the day sodium chlorate
>> and or kerosene spills...
>
> That is is egocentric bollocks. The problems caused by run-off into
> watercourses include the local extinction of species, the destruction
> of ecologies, and contamination of the water supply. What's more,
> several of the chemicals and their decomposition products scarcely
> degrade at all in the conditions that occur in the mud at the bottom
> of the streams, lakes and ponds, so it's a long-term issue.
>
>
A wonderful specific free fact free hand wavy summary

Anything I put on my garden is dwarfed by what the farmers put on the
land around me.

To grow the food that you eat.]

> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton