Harvest Ethics

[Black Rainbow]

How do you understand the ethics of harvest? Some more specific questions I have pondering are:
 

When is it ethical to remove living material from a plant, and when is it unethical?

How does nativity, culture, conservation, propagation and diversity play into this?

 

Please share relevant opinions and resources in this thread.

 

Food for thought – I retrieved this photo from a great post by Sandtrout on the Nexus. An ethical wild T. tereschekii graft?

https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29716

[DualWieldRake]

IMO it's all good

 

And obviously if you want another harvest leave some behind/plant the seeds, or wait for nature to present a new and improved version

Edited October 6, 2018 by DualWieldRake

[Quixote]

If the plant is endangered, don't take anything from it.

 

If you don't know if it's endangered, it's endangered.

[Black Rainbow]

I feel that in some contexts it must be ethical to take seeds/cuttings from endangered plants for conservation purposes. How can someone determine when/where this is appropriate?

[withdrawl clinic]

it's as well a question, of us all, and how we mature.

when we are young, it's hard to control greed, but many people, in a variety of fields, mature from poacher to guardian.

 

those very same people, that might have chopped a wild specimen, are the very same that, have the knowledge, of how to help the situation.

 

at times I fossick as hobby, now that I am getting older, I am very happy to leave some crystals behind, for somebody else, instead of picking everything up.

back on track, a let's say crested loph, might need removal from the wild, in order to do the ethical thing.

I wonder though, if plants, could as well get depressed when, removed from the wild, and kept like zoo specimens. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by withdrawl clinic

[Black Rainbow]

Is it okay to leave a crested wild loph and risk it dying, to avoid removing it from the wild? Can extinction be preferable to human intervention and life in a zoo?

I think we might need an ethics committee run by plants.

[TheMooseZeus]

Unlike humans, i believe plants solely focus on the efforts of keeping the species alive not the individual.

I believe an ethical harvest is one that does not interrupt the plants natural state of being and more importantly reproducing.

If the plant is harmed or killed, simply replacing the plant or growing one or two in it's place is ethical. ie, if harvesting the plant forcing one to plant two more of the species, not harvesting the plant isn't ethical.

Any importance put on individual plants is human ego and not of the plants concern.

 

On the other hand, many traditions involve leaving gifts such as tobacco for the plants when they are harvested...

 

EDIT: In regards to leaving an offering such as tobacco; it is the difference between mindlessly harvesting a plant and meaning mindful and really thinking about what you are doing (Even more so if you value your tobacco) 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by TheMooseZeus

[kadakuda]

Whenever possible i say cultivate instead of wild harvest.  if not possible, never endangered stuff.  always leave the land undisturbed or try and fix it if made a mess, and if youre going to harvest harvest its entirety dont harvest pieces of many plants.  kill one (if you have to) and take it all, dont injur 100 and leave them open to being infected and dieig.

 

harvesting anything be it food or medicine is mor eor less the same.  we will take things to use them.  dont waste, preserve nature as best as possible, and try and cultivate your own whenever one can.  im personally kind of againts peyote harvest as it can be readily and easily cultivated in enough quantity to totally alleviate the strain on wild populations.  Just the laws get in the way in the states for that.  but they ca be imported,, so mexico and canada get on it....

[Crop]

Interesting thread, I think ethical harvesting is just another way of saying 'sustainable harvesting'. By that I mean it is 'ethical' if you harvest in such a way that allows you to return to the same location every year, with out causing a decline in that particular resource. 

[Black Rainbow]

 I guess I'm just trying to think from the perspective of plants. Are they ever like "fuck I wish these cunts would leave us alone I'd rather we all die than have our kids in some garden prison"?

[kadakuda]

On 30/10/2018 at 6:45 PM, Wile E. Peyote said:

 I guess I'm just trying to think from the perspective of plants. Are they ever like "fuck I wish these cunts would leave us alone I'd rather we all die than have our kids in some garden prison"?

probably, but then we starve.  the natural world goes round because things consume other things.  no way around it.  so if a person makes a true effort to limit pain and suffering, avoid population catastrophes and generally respect what you are killing, thats about as ethical one can spin killing shit.  Even the hardcore crazy vegan buddhists here when i question them about how plants also feel and how that is justified over an animal they can only answer:  "We still need to eat".  in the end we choose what we like to eat and justify ourselves to feel ok about it

 

in the end a garden left to grow is liekly much more ethical than a caged factory farm of chickens.  Farming animals that prefer crowded dark environments (ie insects) makes much more sense than caging up large animals like cows who are at home in large fields walking around.  these are the ethical differences i live my life by..  we all still eat, but we can eat without negatively impacting things as much as other ways.

 

The holier than thou peopl ewill always disagree with something, so probably just as well to ignore them when they get too preachy.  They eat too.

[Black Rainbow]

I recently I read this post by Gee Bee, an administrator of The Trichocereus Community FB group. More cultivation ethics than harvest ethics, but still of some relevance:
 

“Excerpts of an email Conversation with Keeper Trout...
 

Through my interaction with the community on FB, an issue of great concern has come to my attention. To be clear, I am not a grafter. I utilize vegetative propagation. The issue of concern is the matter of mentor grafting. A mentor graft is defined by the following characteristics... The rootstock is older and mature and larger than the Scion. Leaves are left intact (if applicable), and is the rootstock is robust. The Scion is comprised of young, undifferentiated tissue (such as a seedling, or areol), and is small in comparison to the rootstock. The leaves of the scion are removed (if applicable). This configuration causes the Scion to be completely dependent upon the rootstock for nutrition. Under these special conditions, the scion is ‘mentored’ by the rootstock, and may take on characteristics of the rootstock. Through my research, I have found that this technique has been used for 100’s, if not 1000’s of years in arboriculture. Recently, science has uncovered the mechanisms responsible. A phenomena known as choloroplast transfer is responsible for a transfer of genomic material through the graft fusion. The studies refer to (primarily) solanaceous plants. However, trichocereus and Lophophora are both dicots, so the research may apply; even if only in part. Choloroplast transfer is a natural phenomena and can result in habitat through natural root grafts and through arial, gaseous emissions of adjacent plants. So, gene swapping does occur. The research indicates that with mentor-style grafting, genomic transfer is occurring; sometimes with whole genomes The transfer can result in hereditable alterations in the DNA, and shows up in the seeds for several generations. In some instances, we have seen the scion take on visual traits from the rootstock. This would support the hypothesis.
 

The primary transfer occurs localized to the graft fusion. In fact, if one were to cut a thin section of the graft fusion and tissue culture that section, a hybrid of the rootstock and scion plants would result. This is how chimeric and variegated plants are produced in the horticulture industry. So we see that the mentor graft is a very powerful tool of genetic engineering and allows the blending of interspecific plants.

Now, tissue culturing aside, if that same graft fusion were to produce a lateral pup, that pup would be a hybrid the same as the tissue culture of the graft fusion. As mentioned previously, we see that with the mentor-style graft, some changes in the DNA result in hereditable characteristics. This being the case, the scion itself has also been altered.
 

I see that within the community, the mentor-style graft has been widely adopted as a propagation technique for especially rare and unique clones and plants. The concern of course is this... If these plants are being altered genetically, and unintentionally, then there is a systematic degradation of the genome. This could result in tremendous losses and great confusion, and has the potential to negate decades of diligent work in this field. Some plants no longer exist in the wild, so if subjected to genetic changes, are lost forever. I don’t object to hybridization, or grafting. But it is essential, in my view, that this matter be properly studied and the practice halted if necessary. There is a difference between graft propagation and graft-hybridization. In graft propagation, the rootstock and scion are of similar age/size. In this case, genetic transfer has not been shown to take place... Do you have any thoughts on this matter?.... There is much invested in these grafts.... This issue is contentious and controversial.
 

Cheers,
 

g

 

 

Hi G,
 

Some people actually try to push that envelope to deliberately create those chimeras you mention....

 

The relationship of a graft to a host takes on some features of a parasite except that parasites leave their hosts alive and grafts eventually drain and exhaust their stock.

 

What you refer to is an under appreciated problem that is increasing due to grafting and tissue culturing being used for amplification of rare plants intended for wild reintroduction.... but the subject you have concerns about is at the heart of modern conservation efforts.
 

All the best
 

Kt”

Edited November 4, 2018 by Wile E. Peyote

[kadakuda]

Very interesting stuff, though ethical harvesting and population reintrouctions and conservation are perhaps not he same thing in that the direction of DNA and end use is quite different.  Harvested plants essentially end up as fecal compost, whereas cultivated plants for reintorduction end up in the wild and introduce possibly new things to such regions.  both have ethical and moral aspects, but i feel far far more important to protect the export fo dna into the wild compared to the import for consumption.

[TheMooseZeus]

How would the harvest of root bark for example Acacia Confusa ever be ethical...

[Crop]

2 hours ago, TheMooseZeus said:

How would the harvest of root bark for example Acacia Confusa ever be ethical...

Where I am now, the local people harvest lots bush medicine, including root barks. They go to the same patch of trees their grandmother showed them, dig down, take a little bit from each tree. They come back again and again and will show their own grand kids the same spot. It's not really rocket science. That said, of cause growing it is far better. It's still usually more efficient to sustainably harvest than it is to kill the tree and start again. I think greed is an illness we will either overcome or it will be the end of us.

[withdrawl clinic]

14 hours ago, TheMooseZeus said:

How would the harvest of root bark for example Acacia Confusa ever be ethical...

if it helps you, to tell a good story,

which in the long run, totally supports, "ethical harvest". 

but even more so protection, of said genetics-healing plant.

 

wc tip: 2nd latin name always small capital

"Acacia confusa"

Edited November 10, 2018 by withdrawl clinic
INTOXICATION

[kadakuda]

 

On 09/11/2018 at 8:03 PM, TheMooseZeus said:

How would the harvest of root bark for example Acacia Confusa ever be ethical...

 

 

On 09/11/2018 at 10:28 PM, Crop said:

Where I am now, the local people harvest lots bush medicine, including root barks. They go to the same patch of trees their grandmother showed them, dig down, take a little bit from each tree. They come back again and again and will show their own grand kids the same spot. It's not really rocket science. That said, of cause growing it is far better. It's still usually more efficient to sustainably harvest than it is to kill the tree and start again. I think greed is an illness we will either overcome or it will be the end of us.

 

in the specific case of the species you mention, the explanation by "Crop" would also not be realsitic because Acacia "C" is a very vulerable speceis to both fungal and bug attack.  especially from rieshi mushroom, Ganoderma multipileum.  so harvesting some of the root and lettin git grow is not a viable option as you are just killing the tree.

 

the more sustainable way is to use trunk bark which is equal in strength and has much much more mass.  there is an article written about this issue ;)    also in the native habitat where it grows the ethical aspect can be dealt with easily based on the country's insane weather.  typhoons blow them down all the time.  road crews knock em down too when they do road work or power line work, there is a lot of material for those willing to do the work, which many are not as its really tiring.  in Hawaii they get money from teh governemnt to kill the trees and harvest that way, so it doesnt seem unethical at all for this species as both sources are done so almost totally "ethically".  the few people goign around stripping bark of parts fo the tree and doing it to many trees are unwillingly killing eachone they do that too and thus is pretty unethical albeit probably out of ignorance.  take the whole tree and once and have a stash for a while.

 

generally speaking many root species of trees from moist areas i would not consider sustainable as they more often than not kill the tree.  annual plants, weeds, dry climates etc may be a different case.

 

 

 

[TheMooseZeus]

4 minutes ago, kadakuda said:

the more sustainable way is to use trunk bark which is equal in strength and has much much more mass.  there is an article written about this issue ;)

Because of the nature of phyllodes being a modified branch/ stem i can't see how they would contain any less alkaloid content than the bark? I feel Julian Palmer often speaks about how this is the case, at least for Obtus and flori.

[Crop]

15 hours ago, TheMooseZeus said:

Because of the nature of phyllodes being a modified branch/ stem i can't see how they would contain any less alkaloid content than the bark?

Good point. Unfortunately according to this _Australian_Psychoactive.pdf it's not so. Further more 'Useful Tropical Plants' claims phyllodes taken during dry times can be toxic. http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Acacia+confusa

_Australian_Psychoactive.pdf

_Australian_Psychoactive.pdf

_Australian_Psychoactive.pdf

[Crop]

16 hours ago, kadakuda said:

are unwillingly killing eachone they do that too and thus is pretty unethical albeit probably out of ignorance.

Mate some great examples of ethical harvest. I think anyone contemplating wild harvesting, anything, should really do their homework. Here root barks are only taken during the dry season, even then, some species only have a short window. As far as confusa is concerned, Taiwan is one thing, but outside of it's natural range (most of Oz), this thing is considered extremely invasive. Away from it's home territory, probably the only non ethical form of harvest, is to plant it first. 

[kadakuda]

phyllodes barely jsut like young stems.  nto only weak, they ar so filled with oils its next to useless.

 

distribution should for sure play into ethical, so if its native it becomes a greater thing.  though where AC is native, the concern isnt killing it so much as its very common and planted by the government, but it stops soil erosion.  so teh real issue with harvesting it is landslides, not killing trees.  in OZ, Hawaii etc its a pest, and could justifiably be killed without thought and they do.  in these cases, perhaps the most important issue is land management, as one needs to protect the ecosystem.  so how you kill them, remove them, in what densitiy and how you are planting after/during is the main thing.  making a slope bald to get rid of an invasive tends not to work out well for the mountain.

[Crop]

On 04/12/2018 at 9:11 PM, kadakuda said:

the most important issue is land management

Great land management points. Personally I think the native thing can distract from the bigger issue of invasivness. Will this plant add to biodiversity, or reduce it?

[Crop]

On 07/10/2018 at 10:47 AM, Wile E. Peyote said:

it must be ethical to take seeds/cuttings from endangered plants for conservation purposes.

Mate, I think this can cause serious problems, if its only half done. Which it usually is. Pretty soon you have hundreds, then thousands of plants being sold, all from a single cutting, from a single plant. Most of the remaining individuals of that species would have the same DNA. Even in the case of seeds from one or a few. Chances of long term species survival, reduce, the more you water down the gene pool.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Crop
Spelling & grammer.

[Strontium Dawg]

6 minutes ago, Crop said:

Mate, I think this can cause serious problems, if its only half done. Which it usually is. Pretty soon you have hundreds, then thousands of plants being sold, all from a single cutting, from a single plant. Most of the remaining individuals of that species would have to same DNA. Even in the case of seeds from one or a few, chances of long term species survival, reduce, the more you water down the gene pool.

Whenever I go seed collecting, I always try to take a few pods only from the largest number of trees to maximise diversity that I distribute.

But I'd argue that it's still better to propagate from a single tree than to let a local population die out entirely. Between bark rippers, drought, council boom sprayers, fires and land clearing, I'm seeing a lot of my local trees dying and not being replaced. I've taken on the task of replanting back into the area to help them out.

[Crop]

33 minutes ago, Glaukus said:

I always try to take a few pods only from the largest number of trees

 

34 minutes ago, Glaukus said:

I've taken on the task of replanting back into the area

Here you've nailed it. I think the problems start when money, becomes the drug of choice. It makes perfect, economic sense to go to the quickest, easiest plant you know of, strip it of all it has, while rushing to get it to market. Least amount of work for the highest profit. However I don't get how even a money junky can really call it working; going for a stroll, in as many beautiful places you can think of, grabbing a sample from each tree as you pass.