Date: Wed,
03 Oct 2001
To: mulch-L@cornell.edu
From: Stuart Woodman
Subject: mucuna bean
Dear sir,
I read with great
interest your information on the mucuna bean. I am a small vineyard operater
in Eden Valley district of Australia and we are always on the lookout to
improving our soils and the mucuna certainly fits the bill, although I am
told by our primary industries this particular bean is not at this moment
permitted into australia, if possible could you please advise if there is
any other variety that could be of similar benefit.
Thank you for your
co-operation.
regards,
Stuart Woodman
______________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 04 Oct
2001
To: mulch-l@cornell.edu
From: Milton Flores-Barahona
Subject: Fwd: mucuna bean
Mr. Woodman,
What are the reasons
why Mucuna is not allowed in Australia?
Milton Flores Barahona
Centro Internacional de Información, Sobre Cultivos de Cobertura (CIDICCO)
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
______________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 07 Oct
2001
From: Robert Carsky
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Stuart
I would begin with
the SAREP web site at http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/ccrop/
Best wishes,
Bob Carsky
IITA-Benin
______________________________________________________
From: Reid, Aileen
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001
Mucuna is a weed.
Reid, Aileen
Austrailia
______________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 08 Oct
2001
From: Albert Chabi Eteka
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Mucuna is also a crop.
Albert
CIEPCA
Cotonou, Benin
______________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 08 Oct
2001
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
From: Charles Staver
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Mulchers,
There are plenty of
examples of plants that were introduced as crops, as ornamentals, or as
forages and are now problem weeds. From the little that I have read Australia
has quite a few of these going back to Opuntia cactus which is a classic
case of biological control. It is a point to be careful about as we move
plant materials from one place to another in our suitcases. I dont think
we should act surprised that not all the species we see as promising are
not necessarily welcomed around the world.
Charles Staver
(Nicaragua)
______________________________________________________
From: Reid, Aileen
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Mucuna was the subject
of a program on TV here recently which was really not that well researched
and a bit over the top. The program neglected doing its homework properly
because if they had bothered to find out the facts they would have seen
its regarded as a weed species here. Here in the Agriculture Dept we were
deluged with phone calls from people who had watched the program and were
now convinced it is the best thing since sliced bread and didn't like us
telling them they couldn't grow it.
Opuntia certainly
is also a problem here, as is gorse, blackberry, pampas grass, a whole raft
of aquatic plants like Salvinia are now clogging up our waterways, along
with carp which were also an introduced species. Unfortunately with Australia's
diverse climate, any introduced plant is almost bound to find somewhere
it will grow too well for its own good! :-)
Reid, Aileen
______________________________________________________
From: Roland Bunch
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Dear Aileen,
I would be very interested
to know what criterion, or combination of criteria, are used for defining
a weed species in the Australian context. Does it have to do with vigorous
growth, with damage to biodiversity in the wild or on farms, with the losses
caused to farmers or ranchers, with the difficulty farmers or ranchers have
in eliminating it, or with some other criteria? And what was it, specifically,
about mucuna that earned it the honor of being on this list?
Sincerely, Roland
Bunch
______________________________________________________
From: Milton Flores
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Dear Aileen,
Your comments are
very interesting. The reason I asked the other day, is because we received
a phone call from Australia asking if we could provide them with Mucuna
seed. I immediatelly remembered your comment and wrote back to that person
asking her to contact you. Apparently this person does not want the seed
for planting it in Australia but to be shipped to other countries from there.
Here in Central America,
Mucuna behaves like an annual species. It dies of senescense, or due to
dry conditions. In Southern Brazil, it is killed by frost. In any of these
cases it has not become "a weed". We have had minor difficulties in controlling
spontaneous germination of Mucuna the followng year from seeds left on the
fields. However, if properly handled, this could even be an advantage since
the next year, before planting the next crop, the foliage is slashed and
the crop (maize for example) grow in a mulch of Mucuna.
That is why we are
so interested to know how is it that this species has become a weed under
your conditions.
Thanks for the information.
Milton Flores/Honduras
______________________________________________________
From: Ricardo Quiroga-Madrigal
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
It depend of the environment.
Such as some Cactaceae in Australia in the 60´s. They were introduced from
America (Argentina mostly) without their natural enemies (some Homoptera:
INSECTA) so they were a big plague. Biological control of such cacti (genus
Opuntia I guess) were carried out then and that plant was not a problem
anymore.
If Mucuna is considered
a weed in Australia now, such problem wil be solved with the introduction
of its natural enemies. Remember that Australia has geological and biological
evolutive differences with the rest of the world (it is a huge island).
Regards
Ricardo Quiroga
Chiapas, Mexico
______________________________________________________
From: Ricardo Quiroga-Madrigal
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Agree with you Charles,
however, soon or later, just as communications, transport and growth population
is coming along, we will be globalized at all. So, we must address our efforts
in keeping natural balance by studying host-parasite relationships and other
ecological features of introduced plants in new areas, and be prepared for
eventual or accidental introductions. Catalogues of parasites, hyperparasites,
physiological specialization, genetic variation of hosts, environmental
adaptations, reproduction rate and other features must be kept in our regions.
In that way, if someone has a specific necessity, other in the world can
help to solve the problem.
Ricardo Quiroga
Chiapas, Mexico
______________________________________________________
From: Ricardo Quiroga-Madrigal
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Mucuna in southeast
of Mexico is considered a "good weed" ("buen monte"), in comparison with
other noxoius plants such as some Gramineae or Cyperaceae ("bad weeds" or
"mal monte"). Mucuna has fungi and insects that attack it: Sclerotium, Cercospora,
Atta and Diabrotica are the major parasites. Mucuna grows as an annual crop
and finishes its cycle when rain stops. If Mucuna grows with corn, it is
pruned with "machete", but farmers do not like this very much, so Mucuna
is planted in the edges of farms, abandoned areas, or as a rotational crop
as a mulch. Not a problem being a weed here, despite its origin is posted
from Asia.
Ricardo Quiroga
Chiapas, Mexico
______________________________________________________
From: Jose Ferreira
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: mucuna bean
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
Mucuna can is crop
or weed. It depend the objective of the man. If it will occurrence in the
place where it not interfere with objective of the man it not weed. But
if it interference with objective of the man is a weedFor example: mucuna
in the cornthe creasing of the production is weed, but if it for control
of weed is not weed. It is a benefit plant.
Jose Ferreira
______________________________________________________
From: Gavin Zweck
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: mucuna bean
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001
I'm sorry that I can't
give you technical details of what constitutes a weed in Australia as I'm
not an expert, but I can tell you that, in spite of it's potential, I'm
glad that the authorities here are being cautious about letting Mucuna into
the country as so much devastation has been wrought by other plants and
animals brought here for, generally, noble purposes.
One only has to travel
in Queensland and see the millions of hectares of land now covered with
Lantana that's now virtually unusable to know that Australia has suffered
badly with it's imported "weeds" and we certainly don't need any more.
Foxes and Rabbits
were brought here by the aristocratic British so they'd have something to
hunt, just like back home, and they've wiped out a lot of animal species
and plants.
While Mucuna would
probably benefit a lot of farmers here, the potential negatives are also
huge and it's better to be safe than sorry. Also there are only a limited
number of farmers here who could benefit from Mucuna to the same level as
subsistence farmers in S America or Africa etc.
Gavin Zweck
______________________________________________________
From: Roland Bunch
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: Weeds in Australia
Dear Gavin,
Reluctantly (and in
the absence of more technical information), I would concur with you. Australia
does have probably the most unique flora and fauna in the world, and therefore
can allow itself to be guided less by what happens in other parts of the
world. More importantly, most Australian farmers are not suffering from
hunger, so the urgency in terms of human well-being of maximizing production,
as opposed to maintaining envronmental biodiversity, is much, much less
than would be the case in the developing world. In other words, if people
are starving, I would see bringing an important agricultural species into
the country, even with some environmental risk but great positive environmental
potential (see below), as probably being justified, whereas I wouldn't at
all when farmers are doing quite well, by and large (relative to developing
nation situations).
However, at the same
time I would say that it is very important that Austalians realize that
neither of the above justifications for restricting mucuna APPLY TO DEVELOPING
NATIONS. Therefore, I would serously hope that Australians, when referring
to their idea that mucuna is a weed, be careful to add that this is an Australian
appellation, referring only to Australia, and that it is very probably not
to be seen that way in any other context.
Why do I say this?
I have worked with ecologists and conservationists for years. A number of
them were very afraid of introducing mucuna into their particular situations.
Nevetheless, many of them finally did. And they did so because mucuna can
have VERY important positive environmental impacts. It is probably right
now saving thousands of hectares of primary and secondary forest because
it is the best species we have for stabilizing shifting or swidden agriculture.
Now, these same environmentalists are virtually all extremely happy with
the ENVIRONMENTAL impact of having introduced this species.
Furthermore, I have
worked with mucuna, or seen it already used, in practically every environmental
situation in the tropics below 1,500 mts., except pure deserts and very
dry semi-arid areas, and have never found it to be an environmental problem.
I have also never heard a farmer who had worked with it ever complain that
it was a troublesome weed (it is extremely easy to eliminate completely
from a field if one wishes to).
Just so you don't
think I am careless about these things, COSECHA (the institution with which
I work) for more than a decade, has refused to work with the kudzus (Pueraria
spp) and the perennial soybean, or introduce into areas where it does
not already exist, the perennial peanut (Arachis pintoi). In all
cases, this is because farmers in areas where these species exist have told
us they are difficult to get rid of when one wants to. And in all cases,
there are other development organizations that have no qualms about introducing
these species into areas where they do not exist.
So while mucuna's
being classified as a weed in Australia (which may be justified, although
that is hard to know when we do not know the criteria used), this in no
way should be construed to mean it is not something worth introducing into
other tropical areas of the world. And while I would certainly not defend
its being considered the best thing since buttered toast (or whatever the
expression was), it HAS been a very important introduction for tens of thousands
of farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Moreover, its ENVIRONMENTAL
impact, as far as I know, has been considered highly positive by every conservationist
I know who has worked with it for any length of time.
Lastly, allow me to
say, just for the record, hat I by no means feel mucuna is the only green
manure/cover crop worth working with. To the contrary, I believe a lot more
emphasis MUST be given to other gmcc species, or we will begin having serious
problems with a lack of biodiversity in our gmcc species. Furthermore, many
other species have very important advantages mucuna does not, if they can
be used in a given context. This was, in fact, my greatest problem with
the BBC show--it barely mentioned the other species, and called mucuna a
"magical bean." That is going too far. There are dozens of beans and other
legumes that can do a wonderful job--even better than mucuna under most
conditions.
Sincerely, Roland
Bunch
COSECHA, Honduras
______________________________________________________
From: Reid, Aileen
To: MULCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: Definition of a weed
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001
From our weed person:
Technically (as far
as this agency is concerned) a weed is any plant that impacts on agricultural
or environmental ecosystems thereby creating economic or biodiversity costs.
We consider a plants
capacity to naturalise in the new environment, its history of invasiveness
in other regions and the impacts it caused there. Human health considerations
are also considered as are stock and wildlife health.
There are many people
who philosophically do not accept that 'weeds' exist. We don't have that
luxury and have to adopt a more practical approach in dealing with invasive
plants.
Cheers,
Rod Randall
Plant Profiler
Weed Science Group
Department of Agriculture, Western Australia