To sift or not to sift – that is the Question??
In the small world of Japanese Knotweed contractors a battle rages for the hearts and minds of the customer…
Every year tales of instant solutions come and go - along with secret techniques and ‘hush hush’ chemicals…
Most of these stories are nonsense – hokum - designed to baffle the customer and gain work for the less scrupulous contractors.
However - one technique keeps coming back year after year to haunt us all - ‘soil screening’.
Imagine…a technique that allows you to remove the Japanese Knotweed rhizome from the soil – without chemicals – leaving you with clean soil!
Wow fantastic….hold on - warning bells ringing?? What’s that smell?? …is it b*****t..??
Let’s examine the facts:
A typical specification would read – … ‘soil screening is a mechanical process carried out in situ which allows Japanese Knotweed contaminated material to be re-used on site’
The above was copied from one of our competitors ‘specifications’ – word for word – so just take a moment to take in the information … allows Japanese Knotweed contaminated material to be re-used on site’…
Is this really what you want? Japanese Knotweed contaminated material being re-used onsite?
FACT - It is impossible to remove – ALL - Japanese Knotweed rhizome from soil.
What screening should be used for is to – REDUCE – the amount of rhizome in soil
In recent conversation with a senior member of the Environment Agency he expressed ‘concern’ that screening would be used as a ‘stand alone answer’ to Japanese Knotweed problems – when it should really only be used as part of an integrated approach
YES – screen your soil, YES you will reduce the amount of rhizome – BUT – you will not end up with clean soil.
What you will end up with is a massive number of small fragmented sections of Japanese knotweed – each with the ability to re-grow
THUS – SORRY - YOU WILL NEED A CHEMICAL TREATMENT STRATEGY IN PLACE for a minimum of five years – and will be at risk of re-growth for up to ten years.
Don’t listen to the b*****t artists – talk to the experts, talk to Alex talk to Mike, talk to Dan, talk to Becca, talk to Suzanne…Sophie, Meg, Sarah, Emma, Phil, Mike, Rick, Pete, James – in fact talk to anyone at JAPANESE KNOTWEED SOLUTIONS – we do what it says on the tin.
Mike C
January 27th, 2010 at 11:43 am
That sounds familiar, and alas also I feel has been subjected to the Mike C “selective reporting” that so often applies.
Is the practise of using sections of reports and methodologies to give a one sided view that reflects your personal opinion and not actual fact as much b******t as those you accuse in your blog.
As with all new systems, there will be debate over effectiveness and methodologies. Biological Control, Stem Injection, Composting and so on. The proof however is in the pudding and having a system which has now been responsible for effectively treating 250,000 cubic metres of material in sites where landfill was the only option and in the process saving the economy 25,000,000 should be embraced, especially in the current climate.
Effective monitoring, identification and communication with the client will see the best results acheived always. Why automatically put chemical into the ground post treatment if it is not needed, surely better to record information and monitor rather than implementing a rash and standard solution that is perhaps not in the best interest of either the client or the environment.
As always I think your blog does spark healthy debate and having a cross section of opinions will help clients make informed decisions, after all they are the people who will make the decisions.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Thanks Nick - sorry - i do tend to write my own personal opinions - the piece was written in reponse to the number of clients who now believe that sifting can sort all of their problems in one quick operation…and who believe that the material produced can then be used on site/or more dangerously taken off site as ‘clean’!!
You know that any system is only as good as the operatives who are carrying out the work and in most cases (i believe?) this is done by unskilled labour under the supervision of an experienced foreman - i have yet to see this kind of relationship work succesfully and i certainly wouldnt sleep well at night relying on sub contract (foreign?..do Polish people even know what knotweed rhizome looks like?) labour.
Im not suggesting putting chemicals onto clean ground for no reason - what I am saying is that to suggest to a client that no follow up treatment is required - is misleading,naive…and b*****t
In answer to your statement that your treatment has saved the economy such huge figures - the proof will be in the longer term success of what many industry experts believe to be a floored strategy - only time will tell…watch this space.
PS Happy New Year mate
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
Again Mike, I cannot argue with the sentiments of your posts. I think a cautious approach is the best option, I would however take a cautious approach that also allows change. The whole market and industry is changing and requires a pragmatic and “best practice” approach. We are not claiming this to be the miracle cure much as CABI and the authorities are not making similar claims about biological control. What we are doing is giving a choice, and in the current climate that needs to be done.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
..I really wish the Industry Standards that we proposed last year had been given more of a chance to get off the ground.
It seems that everytime we come up with something worthwhile somebody else comes up with a cheap version that doesnt work…
Im not having a go at you guys - im having a go at companies that sell the system as a one stop cure all treatment - it devalues the service that is provided by competent companies and makes it difficult (particularly when money is tight) for a QS to choose a more costly option - when somebody is telling him all his problems will go away…
…again only time will tell
Mike C