Can I get suggestions for weed killer?

[motownbrowne]

It is unlikely that we'll come to an agreement on this topic. I won't disagree that glyphosate and Monsanto have changed agriculture tremendously; I however can't agree that it's been for the best. I understand that other people don't see eye to eye with me here, but we've been doing this thing we call agriculture for about 10,000 years, and the last 60 or so have been pretty detrimental to the environment. All I'm saying is that since we figured out that we can spray leftover chemical munitions from wartime on our farm fields, people started getting cancer, the soil started dying and washing away, farming communities shrank as farms got bigger and bigger, and the seed companies started suing farmers for saving seed.

It's progress alright, but not in the right direction, at least not on the map I'm looking at.

 

[motownbrowne]

Whoops, duplicate.

 

[Pilot]

Re: Endocrine disruption. From the pesticide information center, Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet

Endocrine Disruption:

Rats and mice were fed a diet containing 0, 3125, 6250, 12,500, 25,000, or 50,000 ppm of 99% pure glyphosate for 13 weeks. The two highest dose groups of male rats had a significant reduction in sperm concentrations, although concentrations were still within the historical range for that rat strain. The highest dose group of female rats had a slightly longer estrus cycle than the control group.32
Researchers reviewed the scientific literature on glyphosate, its major metabolite AMPA, formulated Roundup® products manufactured by Monsanto, and the surfactant POEA. They found no evidence of endocrine effects in humans or other mammals.13
Glyphosate is included in the draft list of initial chemicals for screening under the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The draft list of chemicals was generated based on exposure potential, not based on whether the pesticide is a known or likely potential cause of endocrine effects.33


Cancer:
The U.S. EPA classified glyphosate as Group E, evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans. The U.S. EPA does not consider glyphosate to be a human carcinogen based on studies of laboratory animals that did not produce compelling evidence of carcinogenicity.6 See the text box on Cancer.

So male rats fed as much as 50,000 parts per million 99% pure Glyphosate had some sperm count reduction but still in the normal range. And no evidence of effects on humans or other mammals.

Don't take my word for it, there is a lot more info at the referenced website.

The short answer: Glyphosate is about as safe a chemical as possible and realistically there isn't much to worry about--unless you want to eat 50,000mg per Kg of your body weight per day of 99% pure glyphosate. The sky isn't falling.

 

[Tollster]

I once heard and can't say it to be true, that round up is the old agent orange used in nam.. something to think about no less, particularly if you know any vets that withered away from that ****.!

 

[smstonypoint]

I once heard and can't say it to be true, that round up is the old agent orange used in nam.. something to think about no less, particularly if you know any vets that withered away from that ****.!

Well, it isn't true.

Agent Orange is an approximately 1:1 mixture of two phenoxyl herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) in iso-octyl ester form.........The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound. In some areas, TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Source: Agent Orange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2,4-D is still used today as a broadleaf herbicide, the other ingredient was the problem.

RoundUp's active ingredient is Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine,in the form of its isopropylamine salt.

Source: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Steve

 

[Bird]

Glyphosate (generic Roundup) will do the trick. Prices have gone up in the last year or so

You're sure right about prices going up. I've never used the generic, but just bought a pint of the Roundup Concentrate for $14.99 at Ace Hardware. I don't remember what I paid for the last pint I bought, but it's lasted quite a few years. I don't use much, or very often.

 

[Complete Turf Care]

All I'm saying is that since we figured out that we can spray leftover chemical munitions from wartime on our farm fields, people started getting cancer, This was not the start of cancer, and since most of these chemicals aren't used anymore, cancer has not stopped.

the soil started dying and washing away, farming communities shrank as farms got bigger and bigger, and the seed companies started suing farmers for saving seed.

It's progress alright, but not in the right direction, at least not on the map I'm looking at.

I agree that farms have gotten bigger and bigger, but was that caused by glyphosate? And, with more modern herbicide technology, and farming practices, soil isn't dying, and washing away any more. So, we agree on some things, but we disagree on others.

 

[smstonypoint]

It is unlikely that we'll come to an agreement on this topic. I won't disagree that glyphosate and Monsanto have changed agriculture tremendously; I however can't agree that it's been for the best. I understand that other people don't see eye to eye with me here, but we've been doing this thing we call agriculture for about 10,000 years, and the last 60 or so have been pretty detrimental to the environment. All I'm saying is that since we figured out that we can spray leftover chemical munitions from wartime on our farm fields, people started getting cancer, the soil started dying and washing away, farming communities shrank as farms got bigger and bigger, and the seed companies started suing farmers for saving seed.

It's progress alright, but not in the right direction, at least not on the map I'm looking at.

Glyphosate and other herbicides have facilitated the adoption of conservation tillage and no-till farming practices. Those practices help reduce the erosion that can occur with conventional tillage.

Here are a couple of charts that illustrate some changes in agriculture in the last 60 years.

From A brief history of U.S. corn, in one chart

2013 yields (not shown) were 158.8 bushels/acre.

From http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/03/when-it-comes-to-spending-on-food-as-share-of-total-consumer-expenditures-americans-have-the-most-affordable-food-on-the-planet-and-its-gotten-better-over-time/.

Steve

 

[motownbrowne]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... We can all post charts and studies that suit our needs in this conversation. I can look them up too, but only have web access on my cell phone, so you'll have to forgive me for not doing so.

If you guys aren't worried about using that stuff, I'm happy for you. Think it's less toxic than table salt? Go right ahead and put it on your popcorn then. OTOH, fatality isn't the only thing I'd worry about, lots of chronic issues that aren't fatal.

Also, back to agriculture, saying glyphosate has facilitated soil conservation is a red herring. Glyphosate is used to grow corn. Corn is used to feed beef. Beef eating grass on pasture don't require any corn or any tilled soil, thus no till corn farming to feed animals is beside the point.

Yep, yields have gone up, prices have gone down, farm families are more beholden to the bank and the pesticide company than ever.

 

[smstonypoint]

Also, back to agriculture, saying glyphosate has facilitated soil conservation is a red herring. Glyphosate is used to grow corn. Corn is used to feed beef. Beef eating grass on pasture don't require any corn or any tilled soil, thus no till corn farming to feed animals is beside the point.

Saying glyphosate has facilitated soil conservation is a red herring? Glyphosate use is limited to corn production?

Conservation/minimum/no tillage is used for any number of crops in addition to corn. Glyphosate is used for burn-down prior to planting of these crops and as a post-emergent herbicide for glyphosate-tolerant varieties of crops in addition to corn (soybeans, cotton, sorghum, etc.).

Beef eating grass on pasture don't require any corn or any tilled soil, thus no till corn farming to feed animals is beside the point?

Here's a listing of the corn usage data (million bushels) for the 2012/2013 crop: (World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates)

Feed and Residual 4,329 (39%)
Food, Seed & Industrial 6,051 (54%)*
Ethanol & by-products 4,648**
Domestic, Total 10,379 (93%)
Exports 731 (7%)
Total use 11,111 (100%)

* Wet millers process corn into high-fructose corn syrup, glucose and dextrose, starch, corn oil, beverage alcohol, industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol. Dry millers process corn into flakes for cereal, corn flour, corn grits, corn meal, and brewers grits for beer production.

** Corn processed in ethanol plants to produce ethanol have distillers' grains, corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal, and corn oil.

Corn is a staple in rations for dairy cattle, swine, and poultry (meat and eggs). Are we to depend on free-range production of swine and poultry? Are we to depend on intensive grazing of dairy cattle for our milk supply?

How are we to meet the (ill-advised, IMO) ethanol mandate without corn production?

More power to farmers who make a profit by raising and marketing grass-fed beef. Do you have any idea how much land would be required if all our retail beef cuts came from that source?

Yep, yields have gone up, prices have gone down, farm families are more beholden to the bank and the pesticide company than ever.

Farm families are more beholden to the bank and the pesticide company than ever?

I read this statement as meaning that farmers' equity must be declining. I couldn't find a current chart to show farmers' equity, so I constructed my own using the data from USDA ERS - Farm Income and Wealth Statistics: Balance Sheet.

View attachment farm sector equity.pdf

It appears that the farm sector as a whole is doing quite well.

Steve