What is the best way to get rid of Brambles please. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Brambles
- Thread starter Job_n_knock
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Thanks for your answer. I should have mentioned that they keep popping up through my lawn. I'll certainly will get some round up.
Sponsored Links
given that we have a water treatment and supply infrastructure, and don't dig wells in our back gardens for drinking water anymore, the levels of chemicals in tap water is carefully monitored and regulated..
A had a massive bramble problem when I moved into a house with a garden that had grown wild for years.
Tried constant cutting an many sprays with roundup. As soon as I thought the problem was solved more popped up.
In the end I found something that works, SBK Brushwood. Follow instructions on bottle and you'll be rid of them for good in a few weeks.
Tried constant cutting an many sprays with roundup. As soon as I thought the problem was solved more popped up.
In the end I found something that works, SBK Brushwood. Follow instructions on bottle and you'll be rid of them for good in a few weeks.
Thanks to all. SBK Brushwood looks like the thing to try. 
The point I was making was that the manufacturers and others with vested interests and others who just use the stuff without thinking, say that it is inactive as soon as it hits the soil, and only affects the plants on which it lands. That is not the case, as it kills other things as well, and has other effects, the information about which is available if you bother to look. But then perhaps you garden by poisons.
I use weedkillers.
What evidence you have that the statement on the packaging on a common weedkiller, which says that it is inactivated when it reaches the soil, and kills only those weeds where it touches the leaves, is untrue?
I don't garden at all and currently have a wildlive preserve where I should have a lawn and patio...
but it does say in that article ( IIRC ) that it gets into the ground water where they spray it on the fields, indicating a much higher dose than one or 2 dozen weeds on a path..
it also doesn't mention being inactive when it hits the ground, it says it's broken down by bacteria.. which takes time and they can only eat so much so fast.. if they saturate the field with the stuff then they won't cope with the sheer volume of it..
as it says Fields, I was assuming that it would be in a remote or rural location where there is likelyhood of the farm or whatever having it's own wells..
they would use these for irrigation also so efectively re-cycling the contaminated water again and again building up the concentration of the contaminents..
but it does say in that article ( IIRC ) that it gets into the ground water where they spray it on the fields, indicating a much higher dose than one or 2 dozen weeds on a path..
it also doesn't mention being inactive when it hits the ground, it says it's broken down by bacteria.. which takes time and they can only eat so much so fast.. if they saturate the field with the stuff then they won't cope with the sheer volume of it..
as it says Fields, I was assuming that it would be in a remote or rural location where there is likelyhood of the farm or whatever having it's own wells..
they would use these for irrigation also so efectively re-cycling the contaminated water again and again building up the concentration of the contaminents..
Thanks
perhaps I should have said "what evidence do you have, from a reputable organisation that I have already heard of"
I couldn't find anything on the BBC or UK newspapers, or on Danish sites. It seemed odd to get news about a Danish ban from a Chinese campaigning site that I've never heard of.
I was particularly unimpressed to read "This has been shown from tests done by the Denmark and Greenland Geological Research Institution (DGGRI) in an as yet unpublished article."
The sites you link to include claims that Mad Cow Disease is caused by pesticides, or by additives in Petrol. so I am not trustful of them.
perhaps I should have said "what evidence do you have, from a reputable organisation that I have already heard of"
I couldn't find anything on the BBC or UK newspapers, or on Danish sites. It seemed odd to get news about a Danish ban from a Chinese campaigning site that I've never heard of.
I was particularly unimpressed to read "This has been shown from tests done by the Denmark and Greenland Geological Research Institution (DGGRI) in an as yet unpublished article."
The sites you link to include claims that Mad Cow Disease is caused by pesticides, or by additives in Petrol.
so I am not trustful of them.You say "the sites", are you including pan-uk.org?
I'm sorry I didn't post from sites you have already heard of, but how would I know which those are? Just because you don't find it on the BBC or in newspapers (NEWSPAPERS????? since when were they bastions of truth?) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
On a different subject, but an illustration of what doesn't appear on the mainstream news media, look at http://warmwell.com/ and particularly research the last foot and mouth outbreak. Most of the information was not on the BBC or any other mainstream broadcast, but what there is, is shocking. http://warmwell.blogspot.com/2007/11/far-too-cosy-word-to-describe-what-goes.html
You are right not to necessarily trust information on the internet, but in that case, where does anyone go to get authoritative information? Certainly not newspapers, and manufacturers' information is known for selective editing of the facts.
I'm sorry I didn't post from sites you have already heard of, but how would I know which those are? Just because you don't find it on the BBC or in newspapers (NEWSPAPERS????? since when were they bastions of truth?) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
On a different subject, but an illustration of what doesn't appear on the mainstream news media, look at http://warmwell.com/ and particularly research the last foot and mouth outbreak. Most of the information was not on the BBC or any other mainstream broadcast, but what there is, is shocking. http://warmwell.blogspot.com/2007/11/far-too-cosy-word-to-describe-what-goes.html
You are right not to necessarily trust information on the internet, but in that case, where does anyone go to get authoritative information? Certainly not newspapers, and manufacturers' information is known for selective editing of the facts.
http://www.indsp.org/A GM-Free Sustainable World.pdf does not work.
I have never heard of pan-uk org.
I am not impressed by their document that says "However, recent independent research indicates that glyphosate may not be as safe as previously thought." but does not include a link to the source.
The examples of toxicity it mentions are such as "Glyphosate was found to be irritating to the eyes and slightly irritating to the skin when tested on rabbits" and "Exposure of farm workers to smaller amounts of Roundup, for example by rubbing in an eye" but this is not what we normally do with it and the concentrations of chemical involved are not stated. No doubt comparable results would be obtained by applying many other household chemicals or soap to the eye.
It also says "Aerial spraying of large areas in Colombia to eradicate cocoa (sic) and poppy crops has caused poisoning in over 4,000 people and very many animals in one area, and health impacts among over 35,000 indigenous people(36)." but evidence to support this claim is not provided. The reference is to some anti-pesticides campaigner I have never heard of.
There must be some reason why the articles seem to originate in 2001/3/4 and not more recently.
I have never heard of pan-uk org.
I am not impressed by their document that says "However, recent independent research indicates that glyphosate may not be as safe as previously thought." but does not include a link to the source.
The examples of toxicity it mentions are such as "Glyphosate was found to be irritating to the eyes and slightly irritating to the skin when tested on rabbits" and "Exposure of farm workers to smaller amounts of Roundup, for example by rubbing in an eye" but this is not what we normally do with it and the concentrations of chemical involved are not stated. No doubt comparable results would be obtained by applying many other household chemicals or soap to the eye.
It also says "Aerial spraying of large areas in Colombia to eradicate cocoa (sic) and poppy crops has caused poisoning in over 4,000 people and very many animals in one area, and health impacts among over 35,000 indigenous people(36)." but evidence to support this claim is not provided. The reference is to some anti-pesticides campaigner I have never heard of.
There must be some reason why the articles seem to originate in 2001/3/4 and not more recently.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Death-by-Multiple-Poisonin-by-Barbara-Peterson-090325-948.html
Here's a recent one, no doubt there is something in this that makes it questionable. Do you not think the claims of the manufacturer are just as questionable?
It's relatively easy to find the web pages so I'll leave it to you to find them, then I won't be implicated in misleading people.
DIYnot can be just as easily dismissed in it's entirety since there are plenty of errors generated by the posters on the site. Is that rational?
Here's a recent one, no doubt there is something in this that makes it questionable. Do you not think the claims of the manufacturer are just as questionable?
It's relatively easy to find the web pages so I'll leave it to you to find them, then I won't be implicated in misleading people.
DIYnot can be just as easily dismissed in it's entirety since there are plenty of errors generated by the posters on the site. Is that rational?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
