To spray or not to spray, that is the question

by Tom Wolff

A couple of months ago someone sent a message to our Instagram account asking for our opinion on chemical use in bush regeneration. In some circles it's a subject of regular debate and doesn't yield easy answers. But it did force me to sit and think - what is my stance on this issue?

I've been on different sides of the fence over the years — I've worked as a bush regenerator myself for a number of operators, contracted them to work on various jobs, and been in plenty of discussions about bush regeneration more generally. And throughout that time I've met some people who are staunchly pro-chemical use, others who are ardently against it and a majority who sit somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. What's that old saying, 'everything in moderation.'

At the time, I responded to the enquirer with the following:

It's a pretty complex question, but if I really think about it I’m probably in the camp of using chemicals if we want to achieve change at the landscape scale. But I'd be suggesting people be pretty careful about its use and especially when it’s in close proximity to waterways.
I think there’s probably crews that do this well, and maybe others that don’t do it so well. But I think if our economic system underwent a significant overhaul, and we could expend large amounts of capital on ecosystem restoration, then you could just supplement chemicals with huge inputs of labour and maybe some innovation with bush regen methods and technology.

Maintenance is so vitally important here in the subtropics. It's such a tricky thing with funding cycles and the financial costs of that work. I've seen some great examples of chem-free regen, but I'm still left unconvinced about those approaches at scale when we always have limited resources allocated to environmental restoration - that’s been my experience at least. I just keep coming back to the fact that ecosystem restoration needs to be scaled by orders of magnitude to achieve the outcomes we need locally for ecosystems and globally for the climate. Should that include the use of chemicals? One day, hopefully not. 

The first thing that jumps out at me from that response is the idea of diversity. Just as ecosystems flourish with diversity, you could make an argument that an industry does too. As our understandings around chemical use and its impacts change over time, its possible that industries may look to alter their best-practice guidelines over time. 

The recent advocacy by a collective of neurologists warning against the dangers of the extremely potent herbicide Paraquat (a herbicide used in agriculture) and its strong correlation to Parkinson's Disease suggest that all chemical use should involve careful consideration. When it comes to industries like bush regeneration, this could mean adopting methodologies like cut and paint or stem injection rather than wide-scale spraying where possible. 

It's also worth noting that chemical use in bush regeneration accounts for a very small amount of the national total. Agriculture accounts for the vast majority, with varying figures suggesting around 75-80% of all chemical use is attributed to agriculture. Regenerative agriculture provides potential alternatives for food production, but remains in the minority overall. 

Regenerative agriculture not-for-profit Farmers' Footprint have recently released a podcast series on Glyphosate called The Invisible Ingredient. I'm yet to listen but will it change my mind on the topic? Who knows.

Do you have strong opinions on this issue? I'd love for you to write a piece for us, regardless of your stance. Send us your thoughts here.