Glyphosate and Roundup Revisited

[ahughes798]

No thank you. The test for an applicator's license is given once a year in the dead of winter here. Plus, I can read and follow instructions. I know how to use glyphosate(Haven't used it in years, I did use it 4 years ago to establish my prairie). I read it on the back of the bottle. In fact...it comes pre-mixed in garden centers...so I don't even have to figure out dilution rates, it's already at the proper strength.

Joe blow using RoundUp on his dandelions once a year is doing really negligable damage to the environment. My car does more environmental damage than Joe Blow and his glyphosate.

[MaineDesigner]

I'm somewhere between ahughes798 and the TheLorax on this issue. Almost anything including a number of the wingnut "natural" gardening remedies can be dangerous if misused. My beef with the existing locked sticky is that it includes erroneous information and no sources are cited for any of the information. Never mind scientific publishing conventions you don't even produce a freshman college paper without citing your sources.

One glaring example of the problems with the existing sticky is the contention that gylphosate is extremely toxic to humans/mammals. This is is simply nonsense from every credible source I've seen.
[url]https://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/glyphosa.htm[/url]
The "inert" ingredients in Round-Up are substantially more toxic to humans/mammals than glyphosate itself.

[NEWisc]

I think MaineDesigner has a very important point. A locked sticky represents more than one person's opinion or philosophy. It has a status of being permanent, and is presumed to be an important statement of the site. As such, they need to be carefully selected. It is essentially held up as an unchallengeable truth. This particular sticky has lots of problems with bias and unsupportable statements.

This kind of permanent post reflects on the philosophy of the membership as well as the site. It's kind of a guilt by association type of thing. I think that feeling is what is behind some of the strong emotions expressed.

[TheLorax]

The "inert" ingredients in Round-Up are substantially more toxic to humans/mammals than glyphosate itself.

Bingo. And those very same “inertâ€

[webmaster]

A locked sticky represents more than one person's opinion or philosophy.

A locked sticky (or any other thread) means it's an old discussion and it's locked because of that. I periodically go through the forums and lock old discussions because they tend to meander and morph into something other than what the OP intended. The intention is to prevent huge threads that are off topic and rendered useless as a consequence. That's all the locked status denotes.

In the case of that thread nobody responded and during the course of locking old threads I locked it. It's a finished discussion and any new discussions must be started on their own. Hence my suggestion, Start a new discussion, which is what you're reading today.

[TheLorax]

Regardless of why some threads are locked while others aren't, this particular thread was made a sticky and stands as such currently for all who visit THG to read. Barring incorrect and incomplete information, the content of that post was delusive in the absence of productive debate even for the year in which it was originally started... yet it is allowed to remain as a sticky?

With so many name brand and generic glyphosate formulations out there readily available to the buying public in addition to RoundUp containing the surfactant polyethoxylated tallowamine, the altruistic intentions of the person who started that thread to inform are being undermined every time a gardener reads it and conscientiously chooses to NOT purchase RoundUp in favor of purchasing a product such as UltraStop or any other glyphosate formulation du jour containing polyethoxylated tallowamine. We've all read other posts of the person who started that thread and I'd wager a thousand bucks it was NEVER his intent to mislead anyone.

In this particular situation, it's the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine) that is deadly not the active ingredient glyphosate. That information is absent from the sticky.

In consideration of information being shared currently, please consider "unstickying" (sp?) the thread so it drops down and out of sight. I don't believe for one instant that anyone who cares about our environment would want any gardener looking for a quick fix being led to believe that RoundUp is the only glyphosate formulation product out there to steer clear of purchasing and using around one's children, a pregnant wife, wildlife, or pets. RoundUp may be the most popular and hence purchased more frequently due to aggressive marketing campaigns, but... it certainly doesn't stand alone in the category of products containing polyethoxylated tallowamine as that sticky would have others believe.

[ahughes798]

I'm sorry...but there just isn't anything much better in the restoration world than watching a Japanese Honeysuckle, or buckthorn, or phragmites, or mimosa, or mellealuca, or purple loosestrife die a slow death due to application of glyphosate.

Nothing I've read has convinced me that WHEN USED SPARINGLY, AND IN THE DILUTION RATE RECOMMENDED ON THE DANG LABEL, that Round-Up has much environmental impact. It DOES have environmental impact...but it's minimal.

Yes, if you stand in a shower of full strength glyphosate..it's not good.

Oh, and by the way....you can't cut back a plant to the point it dies. I've seen Queen Anne's Lace and Canada Goldenrod bloom and set seed at 2" tall.

[webmaster]

This is a great thread and I think it embodies the spirit of what makes you all good community members. It's the way the members can discuss these issues and come to their own decisions. And it seems no two members are coming to the exact same position on the issue.

Let's see them try that on GardenWeb! LOL

Nice discussion.

[ahughes798]

Actually, I'm quite fond of GardenWeb. Been a member for over 10, closing in on 15 years. Has it's pros and cons.

[TheLorax]

Japanese Honeysuckle is so shallow rooted you can generally pull those out with a riding lawn mower no matter how mature they are. Hook em up and then yank them out. All the others you mentioned, with the exception of the Phragmites australis and the Lythrum salicaria, can be pulled out with a weed wrench non-chemically if you get them young enough (under a 2" caliper). For mature nasties of Rhamnus spp., Albizia julibrissin, and Ailanthus altissima... I'm ok with using a chain saw on them and painting the stump with an appropriate chemical because they sucker repeatedly and even if you tried to get them out mechanically you'd end up with a crater considerably larger than the size of those really old satellite dishes and then those THINGS would still be popping up elsewhere and you'd still be left with a crater sized hole. I won't use RoundUp though and the surfactant I've been using with Rodeo concentrate and AquaMaster concentrate is this one-
https://www.forestry-suppliers.com/product_pages/View_Catalog_Page.asp?mi=1891
Actually, I'm now using Accord concentrate with the above surfactant instead of AquaMaster but Rodeo is still out there.

Phragmites australis can actually be drowned. All you have to do is repeatedly cut it down below the water level. Incredibly, same thing with Typha angustifolia. Granted, that often requires flooding an entire area and water to flood out several acres isn't always easy to come by however you can sometimes work with nature and get out there late winter cutting them down real low and then just pray for heavy spring rains. Lythrum salicaria is a little bit trickier but I have had ***some*** success digging up whole plants particularly when they've gone terrestrial.

Nothing I've read has convinced me that WHEN USED SPARINGLY, AND IN THE DILUTION RATE RECOMMENDED ON THE DANG LABEL, that Round-Up has much environmental impact. It DOES have environmental impact...but it's minimal.

Gosh, ever since I took that adult continuing ed class on how to do Internet searches I feel as if I've slept at a Holiday Inn Express every time I google...

https://www.catoxics.org/pdfs/cottonwoodcrAppendixA.pdf
Selected excerpts from the above-

Product: ROUNDUP (also Rodeo, Accord)
Active ingredient: GLYPHOSATE
Type: HERBICIDE, (Systemic)
Other ingredients: includes polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA) and isopropylamine

Although the active ingredient for Rodeo and Accord is glyphosate, they are NOT formulated with polyethoxylated tallowamine although RoundUp is.

TOXICOLOGY
Active ingredient
While often touted by manufacturers as relatively safe and nontoxic, glyphosate and its formulations can in fact cause serious health repercussions, most commonly respiratory or contact symptoms. The eye and skin irritation is sometimes quite severe and can persist for months.5 Roundup is a potential endocrine disrupter, depressing cytochrome P450 activity in human placental cells and thereby potentially compromising toxin metabolism.6 While glyphosate is not classified as a carcinogen or mutagen by the EPA, a widely received Swedish study has linked glyphosate exposure to the lymphatic cancer non-Hodgkins lymphoma.7 Additionally, glyphosate is nitrosated “very readilyâ€

[TheLorax]

Oops, people were posting while I was on a roll!

Just noticed that THIS thread was made into a sticky... ugh!

If Garden Web shows up in a search engine for me, I have to really really really want to read what ever I found because I hate having to clean up my computer every time I try to read something over there. Admittedly, they do have several heavy hitter members based on some of what I've read. If you're a member over there, please invite them over here ;)

No, no one is ever going to agree. That's virtually impossible because to each situation is brought a new set of variables and we do all have different life experiences we draw upon when making the best decisions we can make for ourselves however I don't like the long lasting effects of all the blast advertising that Monsanto did back over 10 years ago. And all they were fined was 50k??? That sucks considering so many people are still brainwashed into thinking RoundUp is safe (and this doesn't include ahughes who hasn't used the product in 4 years). Monsanto did pull all of their RU advertising however by the time they did so, the public had it ingrained in their heads that RoundUp was perfectly fine to use around children and pets so the damage was already done.

Here's another link I found-
https://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Roundup.html
And his work was funded by by the United States government's National Science Foundation.

This research has no anti-pesticide, anti-agriculture, or anti-forestry agenda. We simply asked the question, "What happens to tadpoles if Roundup is present in aquatic habitats"

[ahughes798]

So, what you're saying is that the problem is not the glyphosate...it's the surfactant that's the problem.

It's kind of like ciggarettes...it ain't the tobacco..it's the additives.

Since I trust your sources, I'll stick with straight glyphosate and Joy in the future, and encourage my workplace in the same direction.

[TheLorax]

Excellent analogy to cigarettes and the additives.

Although in my mind glyphosate is most certainly a cause for concern, it's no where near in the league of polyethoxylated tallowamine which is used as the surfactant in RoundUp as well as in many other readily available products.

Here's where Accord can be ordered-
https://www.forestry-suppliers.com/product_pages/View_Catalog_Page.asp?mi=1899

Interestingly enough, I notice your location as being Wauconda Illinois. Check out this supplier located in Wauconda IL-
https://home.conservfs.com/index.cfm
Very knowledgeable people there.
I don't know where you work but if your employer has been relying upon RoundUp, a change over to Rodeo and an appropriate nonionic surfactant would be a major improvement to your work environment. Mineral Oil will work, so will Joy or Dawn. Considerably more economical, easier to use, and less foamy to use a product like Cide-Kick II though.

I wish you all the best when attempting to encourage your employer to make the change over.

Thank you for trusting my sources, that means a lot to me. Besides which, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express recently so I'm off to diffuse a bomb or perform brain surgery somewhere!

Question for you ahughes, would you have your employer check this product out please and share with me what they know about it if anything-
https://www.helpfulgardener.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38510&highlight=#38510

[ahughes798]

While I don't disbelieve that the additives in RU are a problem...I wonder how much of that problem is due to inappropriate use, I.e., people who can't read and follow simple directions, etc.?

If round up were used by everyone in the correct concentration...would the additives still be a problem?

Just a thought.

And finally, I keep coming back to this question....has anyone surveyed the problems caused by stuff like Weed N' Feed?

[TheLorax]

Even if everyone was using RoundUp properly; I'd still be a proponent of removing it, as well as every other product formulated similarly, from shelves. It defies logic to make formulations such as that available to the public when there are so many non-chemical options out there as well as products formulated without highly toxic "inert" ingredients for everyone.

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with Weed-N-Feed however I haven't kept up to date on it since I canceled the lawn service years ago. I didn't want our kids rolling around in chemicals and my lawn service refused to share with me what they were using on my lawn. I checked into that Weed-N-Feed product at the time as well as a host of others out there and decided to stick with the corn gluten meal as a pre-emergent until at such time as I am able to eliminate my lawn. That particular product stuck out like a sore thumb to me because of the ingredients (I recall Dicamba being one of the ingredients but would have to look up what else was in there- probably nasty not to mention those "inert" ingredients) as well as the fact that it is a combo product and in granular form. Birds will pick up the granules and one of the active ingredients was Dicamba which is carcinogenic.

[opabinia51]

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Round Up:

In tests by Monsanto Manufacturer of the herbicide Roundup, up to 140 days were required for half of the applied glyphosate to break down of disappear from agricultural soils. At harvest, residues of glyphosate were found in lettuce, carrots and barley planted one year after the glyphosate treatment

Glyphosate Can Drift Test conducted by the University of California found that glhphosate difted up to 400 meters during round applications, and 800meters during aerial applications.

Glyphosate is actutely toxic to humans Ingest three quarters of a cup can be lethal. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, lung congestion and erosion of the intestinal tract. In California between 1984 and 1990, glyphosate was the third most frequently reporte dcause of illness related to agricultural pesticide use.

Glyphosate shows a wide specturm of chronic toxicity in laboratory tests. The National Toxicology Prgram found that chronic feeding of glyphosate caused alivary gland lesions, reduced sperm count and lenthened the estrous cycle. Other chronic effects found in laboratory tests included an increase in the frequency of lethal mutations in fruit flies; an increase in the frquency of pancreas and liver tumours in male rats along with an increae in the frequency of thyroid tumours in females and cataracts.

Roundup contains toxic trade secrete ingredients. These include plyethoxylate tallowamines, which can cause nausea and diarrhea and isopropylamine, which can cause chemical pneumonia, laryngitis , head and burns.

Roundup kills beneficial insects Test conducted by the Internation Organization for Biological Control show that Roundup causedmortality of live beneficial species when tested on predatory mites , lacewings, ladybugs and predatory beetles

Glyphosate is hazardous to earthworms. Tests using New Zealand most common earthworm show that glyphosate, in amounts as low as one 20th standard application rates, reduced the earthworms growth and slowed development.

Roundup inhibits Mychorrhizal Fungi Canadian studies have shown that as little as one part per million of Roundup can reduce the growth or colonization of mycorrhizal fungi

Glyphosate Reduces Nitrogen Fixation Nitroen fixing bacteria, shown to be impacted by glyphosate, include the species found on soybeans and several species of bacteriafound on clover. Amounts as small as two parts mper million had significant efftects. Effects were measured up to 120 days after treatment.

Round up can increase the spread or severity of plant diseases
Treatment with Roundup increased the severity of Rhizoctina root rot in barley, increased growth of take all fungus (a wheat disease), and reduced the ability of bean plants to defend themselves against Antracnose.

Furthermore, a study conducted in 2005 by a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh exammined a ponds entire community, foudn taht Roundup caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiveristy and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles (which of course are amphibians).

[TheLorax]

And one of RoundUp’s “inertâ€

[ahughes798]

Don't mind glyphosate being toxic to earthworms, they aren't native to my area, they're starting to cause problems, and good riddance.

However, the fact that it's the surfactant that is toxic, and not the glyphosate, just strengthens my resolve in believing that glyphosate is the "safest" herbicide to use.

[mdvaden]

Roundup is a low risk herbicide to use at home in my opinion.

Any real hazard would seem to stem from overuse and not preventing drift.

If I were ever to be concerned about Roundup based on what's published now, I may as well have my family walking around our yard and town wearing respirators.

Because on a microscopic level, there is so much stuff in the air we breath, that it makes Roundup rather minor and inconsequential.

I tend to apply it at our residence at just 50% of the recommended label strength, and it seems to work fine, although a bit slower.

Culturally though, I think the USA could easily get by with just 1/3 as much of that product.

One key to using less herbicides residentially, often involves increasing the frequency of applications.

The following phrase is possibly amusing:

Glyphosate is actutely toxic to humans Ingest three quarters of a cup can be lethal.

I've read that before, and right away recognized it. I've never met a person in my life that would drink or ingest nearly a full cup of Glyphosate. To show how rediculous that phrase is, it's not even talking about Roundup. Roundup is usually not even 50% Glyphosate.

That means someone would have to ingest a cup and half of Rounduup.

How many people have we ever met that ever filled a shot glass with Roundup, or even Glyphosate, and took a straight shot. As we really start to imagine someone taking a straight shot of the stuff, the panic and desparation behind some of these informational sources becomes evident.

It's not like they are just lying. A lot of the info is factual, but it's twisted and compiled in a way as to distort the real scenario.

A typical residential application using a 2 gallon sprayer, will probably hold a diluted 1/2 oz. to 1 oz. of Glyphosate in it, and that small amount will primarily be applied to an area that can be as large as 1000 square feet, with an infinitisimal amount in the air.

If the use got but even a single drop of the active ingredient in their system, I'd be surprised.

This is exactly how we were taught to evaluate this kind of stuff in college level pesticide classes so we could make decisions about using these products and sift through different informational sources.

We've used Glyphosate in all our yards for the last 20 years, and there are earthworms present still in every square foot of the soil.

And in the areas that get occassional spot spraying with Roundup AND get cultivated for gardening, the number of earthworms has increased.

Carefully highlight any use of "CAN" or "MAY" such as "Roundup can" or Roundup may"

Such sentences rarely say Roundup "WILL".

See ... I can say Driving a car "can" kill you. Why not - someone will die in Oregon today at the wheel of a car. Or ... Driving a car "may" kill you. But it's different to say that driving a car "WILL" kill you.

Often, this is not a matter of "Buyer beware" - but of "Reader beware".

A far more realistic way to approach this are just simple approaches to reduce the amount of herbicide applied. Like reduced rates. Not pumping the pressure too high which causes a drifting mist. Don't spray when there is wind. Avoid spraying dusty weeds, but just do clean ones. Stuff like that.

[webmaster]

Chemicals in the garden is so fifties. That mindset where chemicals are going to save you should really go the way of the basement bomb shelter. We're in the 21st century now. We know it can be done a better way. So let's move on.

Sorry, but Opabania's post is pretty clear that Roundup disturbs the natural order from the fungi to beneficial insects. It's entirely possible to have a great garden without resorting to these kinds of products.

My friend has a couple acres of vegetables, trees and fruits all grown organically. He has no problems with pests. The key is working with nature.

[mdvaden]

You are right.

It's entirely possible to have a good garden without chemicals.

Likewise, it's entirely possible to maintain a healthy yard and keep insects, mycorrhizae and earthworms with a certain amount of herbicide use.

There are 2 options.

If there was a lecture at a local garden show that introduced that ingesting 3/4 of a cup of Glyphosate was lethal, the audience would smirk, and in a few minutes half the crowd would trickle into the next meeting room.

In our area, the average urban dweller needs presentations that are believable. If people are listening and focused, it's more likely to get more people to quit herbicide use altogether.

But folks around here just wouldn't relate spraying diluted Roundup with ingesting or drinking vessels full of concentrated full ingredient. Even if true - it's not their language.

In this neck of the woods, I think that much of what hinders people from reducing herbicides more than they do, is especially due to a few cultural things:

1. They work too much
2. Many kids don't like gardening
3. Keep up with the Jones's

[milifestyle]

I use this quote a lot these days...

I am reminded of the old guy sitting in the pub having a smoke. A young guy walks up to him and says "those smokes will kill you ya know", to which the old guy replies... "I've been [cough] [cough] smoking ALL my life [cough] [wheeze] and it [cough] hasn't done anything to [wheeze] hurt me [cough] yet.

The effects of chemical use can be right under our noses... the majority are either blind to it or simply don't believe there is a connection.

Glyphosate on its own... probably not going to cause a health epidemic any time soon.

However, together with the dispersent used and glyphosates reaction and interaction with other chemicals on the market. I feel there is no where near enough interaction research undertaken to prove the products safety in ANY application.

I used to use glyphosate all the time in my business, together with other chemicals. My first child was born with a Genetic deletion causing a severe multiple disability - Is anyone going to say there was no connection between my chemical use and her disability - perhaps there wasn't, but I'm not going to leave my head in the box and pretend there was no connection just because the product makes life mildly easier.

My cousin has just had a new baby (about 2 weeks ago). Her husband works in the agricultural industry. Surrounded by chemicals daily. The baby was born with a 6th finger on each hand - maybe there was no connection...?

Before agreeing with or believing any research results, make sure the research was NOT carried out by the product manufacturer or funded by an industry that supports the products use.

[milifestyle]

I grew up on a farm and currently work on a farm where Round-up, 2-4-D, and several other chemicals that you have probably never heard of are used on a regular basis. While I agree that greater care and caution are needed, these chemicals save millions of dollars to the agriculture industry. In the days when parcels were only 5 acres and were used to feed a family, it was fine to walk through the rows with a hoe and manually weed. However, in todays society, it is impossible to weed every acre on a 5000 acre farm or even a 200 acre farm by hand and still make a profit doing so. On a smaller scale, such as a backyard garden, I'm all for the organic method and envy the people who can do this successfully, but for large scale operations this is simply impossible. In my area we are not feeding families but are feeding nations and to do so without the aid of herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides is simply impossible. Here there is probably a higher concentration of Glyphosate in the air then most places in the country and it has been there way since it was invented. There cancer rate here in below the national average, the mortality rate is higher. We welcome all those kids with 6 fingers, 3 arms, or whatever, because that gives them one extra finger or arm to pull the weeds with in the organic gardeners gardens. If you can increase your weeding capicity 16% by adding 2 additional digits or 50% by adding that extra arm, maybe you should consider adding more Glyphosate to the water you drink so we can have enough organically grown food to feed us all.

Of course, manually weeding a large scale farm would be logistically impossible. Unless of course you wanted to halve your (any) countries unemployement rate.

However, I have heard of many successful large scale farmers who use varying methods to eradicate and control weeds, pests and disease.

Pigs are great weeders. I know a few farmers who use pigs to root out weeds by strip feeding larger pastures inbetween crops. Pig manure is amongst the most fertile out there. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

Cattle and/or sheep (sheep especially) are also good for strip grazing.

Goats are a wonder of nature. Put them near just about any plant and they will eat it bare. Watching a goat eat through a blackberry bush is amazing.

Not only can these go a long way towards removing weeds but they can also increase a farmers profit during a down turn or off season.

One of the biggest causes of disease amongst crops is suffocation. Let some more light in. Adjust your hopper to allow your plants to breath. A slight reduction in output would be no greater loss than the chemical cost used to control it.

Pests often live on the "disease" in a crop. Eradicated the cause of the disease first and minimise pests.

[JONA878]

If the world wants to continue to have relatively cheap food and be able to feed the huge population increase that the next couple of generations will see, then I cannot see how this will be achieved without extensive chemical or genetic interferance in agriculture and horticulture.
In the garden it will allways be possable to pull the weed and kill the pest with the hand and boot. Not so in the larger world.
The great increase in mono-culture of crops will present the ever greater need for pest and disease specific controls.
It will be up to the goverments and food agencies to make sure that the control of these methods are as strict and safe as possable, while ignoring the pressures applied by the chemical giants.

Meanwhile those of us fortunate enough to be able to grow our own can at least keep our produce as near to natural as we can.

Jona.

[milifestyle]

Tilling is not the best method when it comes to land degredation, but I'd personally rather see large scale farmers use slash & till methods instead of using chemicals.

With the number of chemicals sprayed over food crops to control weeds, pests and disease, how long before we will need a Doctors prescription just to have a Salad for Dinner ?

[JONA878]

I agree in an ideal world it would be lovely to return to slash and till methods of food production.
There are a few very disturbing figures that bode no good for the future if we pretend that we can produce enough food for all by using such methods alone.

In the last 40 years we have lost a third of all agricultural land in the world through various reasons.
There are between 1 and 2 billion people already on the undernourished list.
By the end of the century it is estimated that in Africa alone 184 million people will die through famine and disease caused by drought and loss of land.

We in the richer nations live in a world that is cushioned from the harsh realities of true hunger. We can afford at present to ignore the plight of many as we in fact have over production of many food crops.
Allready though huge amounts of food crop land is being removed to grow Bio-fuel crops and as oil production decreases more and more will surely go the same way.

It's a huge and disturbing problem for the next generations to tackle and I believe that all avenues have to looked at.

Jona.

[milifestyle]

Using weeds to increase soil fertility will increase output from food crops. Theres a lot more available plant food in decaying "living weeds" than in decaying "dead weeds".

Millions of tonnes of animal and human waste gets flushed away every year. Theres is huge potential for converting this waste into plant food and soil conditioner.

My first job in the organic field was removing broadleaf dock, capeweed and blackberry from a 10 acre (in-conversion) property - By Hand. Took me 15 weeks. Hard work. But the most rewarding 15 weeks work I've ever done.

Bio-Fuel is a good idea, but it should be a by-product from the food industry, not a stand alone crop... surely our scientists are smarter than that - we pay them well enough.

If we had a "life attitude" instead of a "kill attitude", we'd have natural oasis' all over the world.

[rootsy]

Unfortunately the masses have driven chemical use in ag to a large degree... We seem to demand cheap food... We demand that all of our produce be picture perfect with zero imperfections when browsing at wally world... Maybe not one or two people reading this but the balance of the 300 million others in this country do...

On large scale... Weed and pest control, as I've stated before, is impossible when you're growing a thousand acres of something. Any weed pressure at all will significantly diminish yields... Pests can decimate certain crops.. whether that is corn borer or ear worm in dent and sweet corn or aphids in soybeans.

Farming is a business and farmers are in it #1 as a way of life and #2 to make a living... I don't know a single farmer that does not take chemical application quite seriously, me included, if I must use any...

This isn't the early / mid 20th century where farms were on a much smaller scale and a farmer could make a living off of 80 acres a year and micro manage every square foot with manual tillage. Those days are long gone. The only way to make a go of it and see a good return on investment is to have a lot of acreage. At least in cash crop farming (dent corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat).

Chemicals of today are 100X more safe than chemicals of the last century too... In fact you'll be hard pressed to find chemicals that were available in the mid to late 20th century. If you do I can almost guarantee the USDA will have forbid their use...

[milifestyle]

Hi rootsy,

2,4D is still a common Herbicide, even more common than Glyphosate in some countries. MCPA, more common in most countries, is from the same phenoxy group. Granted, MCPA is a milder form of 2,4D but its accumulative effects have not been fully studied. There is still little research available on the Bio-Magnification properties of MCPA.

In many cases any pro-use research that has been undertaken has been funded by either the manufacturer or a 3rd party connected with a positive outcome from the products use.

[rootsy]

Hi rootsy,

2,4D is still a common Herbicide, even more common than Glyphosate in some countries. MCPA, more common in most countries, is from the same phenoxy group. Granted, MCPA is a milder form of 2,4D but its accumulative effects have not been fully studied. There is still little research available on the Bio-Magnification properties of MCPA.

In many cases any pro-use research that has been undertaken has been funded by either the manufacturer or a 3rd party connected with a positive outcome from the products use.

Yep 2,4D is still quite common. It is also under attack and aside from professional use is probably going to disappear within the next few years.

There is a reason why most chemicals are RUPs....

[JONA878]

In many cases any pro-use research that has been undertaken has been funded by either the manufacturer or a 3rd party connected with a positive outcome from the products use

This is where the trouble begins.
It should not be in the hands of chemical companies to have the power to geneticaly breed plants to be resistant to a particular chemical.
This should be the remit of Research Stations that are goverment funded with the results available to all..
Trouble is that world wide such funding is drying up fast.

As a result much seed is produced and sold to farmers in the poorer areas of the world with the suicide gene added to stop the farmer from retaining seed for the following year from his crop.


Who gets rich with this, and who really benifits....I guess not really the farmer.

I'm with you Rootsy on the chemicals we use today.
Most farmers try to use pest/disease specific sprays although they cost far more than the old ' Kill everything ' ones.
As a result there are far more natural preditors left to protect the crops grown.
The use of Pheremone traps and other natural disturbers all contribute to a greater reduction in chemical use....but as has been said...in mono crop situations where vast areas are down to a single species of cropping then pest and disease levels are bound to warrant chemical control.

Jona.
Jona

[The Helpful Gardener]

So Jona, isn't the hit here on monoculture? Michael Pollan thinks it's a big part of the issue. Bill McKibben thinks it supports agribusiness, the big corps, running Mom's and Pop's out by dragging prices down. Some pretty smart folks think we are doing it wrong, so why do I hear so much resistance from growers? The artisanal food movement is proving that small focused growing has a market that pays better than traditional chemically based growing, so why are farmers and growers fighting back so much?

Seems this would be a good thing for most farmers if we moved to localized food production done organically. It would only hurt the huge guys and the increased profits would help preserve farmland as open space in our communities, not just on corporate farms the size of communities, monocultural communities with limited habitat and food values for any species other than our own.

Smaller farms and diverse crop selections are the winning combo we find in CSA agriculture, the fastest growing form of agriculture and the one big agribiz is most worried about. CSA's are a win for the farmer too; he keeps all the profit that used to go to the middlemen, gets direct feedback from the end users, and best of all gets paid up front, in cash mostly, so he isn't out a big nut, gambling Mother Nature isn't going to do something wierd this year (a decreasingly attractive bet in this day and age of global warming and climate change).

But it is easier to keep growing acres and acres of corn, despite the evidence that corn is a main causal agent in America's obesity issue, using more and more fertilizers to work descreasingly fertile soils, despite the damage to waterways and oceans, and using atrazine and other chemicals despite increasing evidence of toxicities we hadn't even thought about yet, let alone tested for.

For instance (he said, trying to bring this back to point), there have been a number of pros on this thread assuring everyone how harmless glyphosate is. Oh, I agree that next to some of the other junk it isn't too bad, but some of my professional colleagues, in their rush to assure everyone of the safety of this stuff, say no one has ever done a study that shows that glyphosate is harmful. I would say they were wrong there. Here's one that finds it actually [url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n]kills embryonic and placental cells[/url]; this research done after an epidemiological study of Ontario farming populations showed that exposure to glyphosate nearly doubled the risk of late miscarriages. As for low soil residuals, why sure it's low there; it's rinsing into water where it can have a three month life span before it starts to break down, and have we mentioned yet that it is [url=https://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Roundup-Amphibians-Community1jul05.htm]quite deadly to amphibian populations[/url], knocking juvenile populations back by 40%?

And the manufacturer's claims of quick breakdown in soils? Truish (it appears [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC183471/]rhizobacters do break it down[/url]without ill effect to the soil biology), but misleading... what does it break down to? The first big break down is an amide called [url=https://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Roundup-Amphibians-Community1jul05.htm]Sarcosine[/url]. This is one of the toxins that they have been trying to get out of circulation for years, it forms a [url=https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/f-w00/nitrosamine.html]nitrosamine[/url], a group that has been linked to cancer for fifty years, with 90% of them being found to be carcinogens, yet they are still found everywhere, from make-up to pesticides.

Why? I don't know. Ask the myriad industry groups that have spent millions to block research and legislation; maybe they do.

Why do we need to find data like this in places like [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XdBe64fAsiwC&dq=glyphosate,+Seralini,+miscarriages&source=gbs_navlinks_s]these[/url]? Why weren't these stories reported? I don't know. Ask the newspaper owners and TV moguls, all three of them. It seems that the best interests of big business have more money to throw at the "science" (read PR) on this than little guys like me sqwauking away on our little website. What a suprise...

Recombinant testing with pesticides is still not required; our sarcosine recombines with natural soil composition to form nitrosamine, seems even our organic pyrethrins can be deadlier when combined with sunscreen ingredients (makes the skin more permeable)? Why no testing? And why no law like Europe, that says you must prove the chemical harmless? Instead people with no money or support are forced to prove a chemical harmful before we pull it from the shelf! Why is that? I don't know; ask the folks at EPA...

Why is business and profit more important than human health? Or the health of ecosystems we are part of? Why are humans more important than the rest of species combined? Joseph Cambell once said the great question of the 21st Century would be whether mankind served humanity or The Machine. I think this is exactly the sort of thing he was talking about, and I think it's finally crunch time. Professionals have been just as bamboozled as the public, fed a line from companies that know better to keep the bottom line black, and to h*** with everything else, but you can find the truth if you really want to find it. I encourage everyone, but ESPECIALLY professionals to investigate further. Believe me, I have just showed you the tip of the tip of the iceberg...

Don't take my word or anyone elses...DIG!

HG

[gixxerific]

Great thread. I don't use roundup and have no weeds, at least in my small garden. I kill them organically with mulch.

That's all, just wanted to subscribe, last time I posted (I believe it was in this thread) it was deleted and I got another strike closer to being banned.

[MaryDel]

I suspect someone at the site has an environmentalist agenda, and that is the reason that these type of threads (anti non organic gardening threads) are not kept in the Organic Gardening section where they belong.

Bashing others for using legal products fosters a great sense of community

Pathetic

[The Helpful Gardener]

MD, we don't bash here, we just try to inform. It is legal to smoke, drink, and gamble as well, yet we still feel it is best not to do these things in anything other than minimal quantities .

Take smoking. We know it causes cancer, it has been identified as a health concern for five decades for any of a dozen other concerns besides, yet it is still legal. It wasn't until the connections to second hand smoke began to surface in just the past few years that a real concerted governmental effort was made to start abolishing smoking. The why is very clear; the tobacco industry was allowed to derail regulation for decades; the government was complicit in the continuance of this deadly health hazard by it's inaction in the face of huge payouts to campaign funds. (In an interesting and ironic side note, many of the worst toxins in tobacco, like arsenic, are present only because of the long term use of lead arsenate and other pesticides still contaminating tobacco fields decades later...).

So your assumption of legality as a measure of safety or sound environmental use is seriously misplaced; the government is the last place to look for help from a corporate driven health hazard. Let the record show that it takes fifty years to get to the right answers...

We at THG have taken it upon ourselves to at least continue the conversation on these chemicals. Corporate entities that are driven only by bottom line rather than health or environmental concerns make poor decisions; we have a Gulf full of oil to prove that out in a most immediate way. We do not bash those who wish to continue their support of these corporations or endanger their lives with these untested toxins. We just try to inform them so they might make better decisions. We are simply leading horses to water; we are most awware of our inability to make them drink...

Again, don't take our word for it, people; do your homework!

HG

[Alan in Vermont]

I think I'm pretty much middle of the road as far as chemical use/tolerance. IMHO I see more comments that are rabidly (might be the wrong choice of words but it was the most appropriate that came quickly to mind) opposed to chemical use than I do From members who are more like myself or (gasp) proponents of liberal chemical use.

I sometimes wonder just how many "antis" (that is not meant to be derogatory, typing with 1.2 hands so this makes it easier) have experience with more than a 32 sq. ft. bed and a book written by another anti. At any rate, bear with me a bit, I'm having a little trouble trying to put my thoughts on a very large issue into the short form for here.

My own background includes family history and friends in the dairy industry in the NE, not a lot of similarity with huge grain acreage but some of the mindset runs pretty close.

Some of the ag practices of today can be traced back to the "dustbowl" era. Excellent cropland being cultivated in areas where there were no natural windbreaks. By and large small farms but a lot of them, grouped together, covering a lot of area. Soil was plowed and harrowed every year, then cultivated through the growing season to suppress weed growth. A lot of it fall plowed, providing perfectly bare soil for the wind to grab.

Throw in a drought and we got a disaster. Hard times hit everyone involved in agriculture until the rains came again. A lot of good land no longer had any occupants, the last ones having bailed out, leaving their broken dreams behind.

One of the things that was done to prevent a recurrence was to plant vegetation in strips around the fields. Primarily trees and shrub type plants these windbreaks delineated small fields. With water the crops could grow again.

One constant in agriculture is the almost obsessive need to expand. One small landowner is able to buy out a neighbor due to death, health issues or financial problems. A lot of the farm boys who went off to war didn't come home to the farm. Some didn't come home at all, others took city jobs, unwilling to commit to the lifestyle needed of a farmer any longer. Farms get steadily bigger.

At the same time the equipment was getting bigger also. A farmer could till more acres in the same time as before. The bigger equipment was a bit clumsy working in small fields so the shelterbelts(I was fighting to remember that word earlier, it just popped into my head now) got ripped out, many small fields got converted into a few big ones.

Did the wind stop blowing or did we just forget something?

Corn used to get planted in clumps. The equipment used a wire stretched across the field to trigger the drop mechanism. "Check row" planting spaced the plants in both N-S and E-W axes. Some lucky farmer drove through the field in both axes, cultivating, probably the dullest way to spend several weeks, maybe months of summer.

Enter the early ag herbicides! Now you can plant in rows, which increases plant count. And you're not burning fuel keeping the weeds down. You can deal with more acreage again and the guy next door wants to move to town sooo,,,,.

All is wonderful,,, but now there is no vegetation left in the corn stubble to help cut the wind. Herbicides are developed for other crops than corn and more acres are left with no soil cover. How quickly we forget!

It is finally recognized that we might get the conditions to make another dustbowl. One of the things being done to deal with that(some people are planting, or advocating the planting of, shelterbelts) is no tillage farming. Planting is done in the stubble of last years crop and herbicides are used to control weeds, no freshly turned soil sits exposed for winter winds to carry it away.

Agribusiness is just the extension of the expansion of private holdings. It's not something I agree with but it is a fact of life now. When you get into bashing agribiz don't scream too loud at the executives for "corporate greed". Their job is to manage the operations of the company so that the stockholders see a return on their investments. With that said, I wonder how many here have ADM stock in your retirement portfolio?

As for finding the "truth" about chemicals and their use I pulled these two comments out of posts made earlier in this thread.

In many cases any pro-use research that has been undertaken has been funded by either the manufacturer or a 3rd party connected with a positive outcome from the products use.

Before agreeing with or believing any research results, make sure the research was NOT carried out by the product manufacturer or funded by an industry that supports the products use.

These happened to be made by the same member. Sorry, milifestyle, I'm not trying to pick on you.

Why is it that the antis will urge caution about information from a "Pro" orientation but offer, as recommended reading, all manner of "Con" information presenting information equally twisted to the anti point of view? I'm probably wrong but I don't remember seeing so much of that from the moderate or pro factions.

As much as anything it annoys me that I have to wade through reams of blatant propaganda in an attempt to glean any truth that might be there.

Having run across "rabid anti" in real life and getting well lectured on what is wrong with how we live I think I can offer a little advice on trying to effect change in how things are done.

The ways things are done now IS the way they are done, NOW! Right or wrong attempts to change that can be likened to a military force attacking a well dug-in enemy. I think the military use a figure of 3-4 to 1 is needed to root out the enemy. Short form is that you need numbers on your side. To get those numbers you need people converting to your beliefs. You don't get converts by insulting their intelligence with biased information or comments like "Their is no need for pasteurized milk, ram milk keeps fine in my refrigerator for 6 weeks!" It's true, it must be true, that was told to be by a rabid believer.

I could go either way. I'm gardening enough that I might be able to deal with it organically but, without some real compelling arguments, it is easier to make sparing use of the technology available.

I also pulled this out of a previous post. I don't want this to come across as attacking the poster but to me it comes across as one of those things that plays better in words than reality.

So Jona, isn't the hit here on monoculture? Michael Pollan thinks it's a big part of the issue. Bill McKibben thinks it supports agribusiness, the big corps, running Mom's and Pop's out by dragging prices down. Some pretty smart folks think we are doing it wrong, so why do I hear so much resistance from growers? The artisanal food movement is proving that small focused growing has a market that pays better than traditional chemically based growing, so why are farmers and growers fighting back so much?

Seems this would be a good thing for most farmers if we moved to localized food production done organically. It would only hurt the huge guys and the increased profits would help preserve farmland as open space in our communities, not just on corporate farms the size of communities, monocultural communities with limited habitat and food values for any species other than our own.

My first thought is whether or not those names mentioned or those "pretty smart folks" have a clue about anything real world or if it's a "great idea" they can bounce around amongst others of like "experience".

I don't like the whole monoculture concept but that just happens to be the most cost effective method at this time. Like it or not, business, whether big or small, strives for efficiency to maximize profits. Is there something different between a business trying to torn a profit or an individual trying to get the best standard of living he can out of his working hours?

The artisanal food movement is proving that if you have a sizeable enough population there will be a percentage who will, and can afford to, purchase a the higher priced of two or more similar products based on their perceived value of the more expensive. It does not indicate that everyone would jump on artisanal foods if they were more widely available. Maybe we could get all growers involved, flood the market to where prices drop to a point that nobody can make money at it.

"Localized food production" sounds nice too, and is a nice concept. I don't know the numbers but how many acres would be needed to feed the population of NYC? Take out all that is not able to produce a crop for one reason or another and you're going to have a huge semi-circle there. Just how far do you go before "localized" becomes 500, or more, miles away?

No, it would hurt more than the "huge guys". Organics cost more to produce so where would be the benefit to someone on a limited budget? If we got every acre now farmed converted to organic we might be able to feed our own population. But the cost, to everyone would be higher and there would be no shiploads of grain to send to others.

I could be wrong but I think it is better to be comfortably fed with the "bad" food we are now growing than to be hungry while living on an inadequate supply of those wonderful-for-us organics.

[rainbowgardener]

Alan, thanks for taking the time to write out a such a thoughtful post.

I absolutely agree that sometimes figuring out "the truth" (to the extent that there is any such thing) is difficult, because each source has their own prejudices, blinders, axes to grind, etc.

I've been discussing some of these same questions in this thread:

https://www.helpfulgardener.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=157592&highlight=yeild+yield+organic+agriculture#157592

I firmly believe that moving to more organic/ natural agriculture, while it might require more labor from more people (I don't think necessarily a bad thing), does not have to reduce yields and at least in some circumstances may increase them. Cities can go a long way towards feeding themselves with more backyard and vacant lot gardens and rooftop gardens (which provide other benefits, keeping the buildings cooler, etc). My son lives in very urban Oakland, CA, across the bay from SanFrancisco, in a 8 story apt building, with rooftop garden and composting.

[The Helpful Gardener]

Lots to support RBG's suspicions on polyculture and organic methodsa not being decreases in production, but actually increasing yield per acre. Expansion is NOT a necessity if you are willing to make adjustments to growing technique; polyculture allows for 50% higher yields if you are adding just one more crop, let alone if you bring many crops together. While it does make the food production more labor intensive, in a day and age of increased unemployment, more work would make sense to me... (for instance, a polyculture of purselane with your corn example would make the corn more productive, grow another food crop that acted as a green mulch, retaining soil moisture and tilth, and could be left in place, allowing for true no till without competition from bigger weeds).

Ah, but that means more expense for food, doesn't it? There is the real problem; not decreased food but increased cost. THAT seems to be the real sticking point. Here in the U.S. we enjoy the lowest per capita food expenditure in the world (as percentage of personal income). Most places in the world are averaging fifty percent expenditure on food; we are around sixteen percent. That artisanal food IS more expensive than the monocultural ADM/Cargill stuff. Or is it?

What has this bounty of cheap food brought us? Obesity at epidemic proportion (now the leading cause of disease and mortality in the U.S.), the new RUR crops that were going to decrease pesticide use are showing a tripling of usage (and that ain't among backyard farmers, either, Alan). We have increasing dead zones in our coastal areas, decreasing their ability to feed us (lobster yields are down again in my Long Island Sound this year, but that is more lawn ferts than agriculture. Still...) What are the unseen costs here? Not even unseen really, just ignored...

As for the bias to one side or the other on scientific data for chemical toxicities, places like the U.N. and U.S. government are starting to do testing and reaching new conclusions as to safety; expect to see more and more stuff coming off the shelf. The corporate control of scintific data is starting to shift as new scientists come to the fore, more concerned for environment than getting that cushy job with Monsanto or Dow.

I have not forsaken all things chemical completely; there are times when judicious use of a chemical is the best answer to a given problem. But it should be the answer of last resort, an emergency fall-back, not prophylitic spreading on your lawn four times a year just because MAYBE there might be an issue, or blasting away at "weeds" because we haven't bothered to ascertain WHY that plant is growing there or what values it might have for us (I have eaten a good deal of lambsquarters this year and like them better and better; who knew?).

We simply need to keep discussing this topic; to keep adjusting to new data and new ideas, and maintaining a good dialogue from both sides of the topic. Thank you Alan, for a reasoned and reasonable post; we may not see completely eye to eye but you raise some excellent points as to how the discourse should progress, and I will take those to heart.

HG

[Mr green]

New studies about the Co-formulants of round-up that is now know to be endocrine disruptors.
Link to an article about it that also has the link to the study: https://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news ... disruptors

So now people cant claim round-up is safe due to the main ingredient being safe (wich its sure is not) heres more evidence of the dangers this chemical soup holds.

Also I'm happy to have read that the state of LOVELY California is gonna label Round-Up with "Known to cause cancer"
Also read that Monsatan´s economy is really falling apart very good.

Very good development!!! I'm happy with it.

[Mr green]

A very good documentary about this dangerous chemical: