# Wait time After spraying Glyphosate



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The garden is a weedfest, including grasses,that we want to control before planting.

How long should we wait after applying glyphosate, to till?

The label does not really say (Drexel Imitator - plus)


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

The Tractor supply brand states the area can be overplanted in 7 days, but I wait 2 weeks just to make sure.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I would not plant in ground that has been sprayed with glyphosate.

Dig your garden. Remove weeds.


----------



## RonM (Jan 6, 2008)

I would not plant a garden where I just sprayed roundup, kinda sterilizes it for awhile....


----------



## southfarms (Apr 4, 2011)

We till and plant our crops 24 hours after a Roundup or generic glyphosate application. We've been doing it for years with no problems, but we don't plant peas and tomatos. Roundup does not have any residual activity on weeds.

Stephen


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> The garden is a weedfest, including grasses,that we want to control before planting.
> 
> How long should we wait after applying glyphosate, to till?
> 
> The label does not really say (Drexel Imitator - plus)


Wait 24 hours. And no, it will not affect your planted seeds at all. Soil contact breaks it down, it has ZERO soil activity. There is absolutely NO sterilant effect. Don't let people fear monger you on that. It is simply not true. And the worms don't die, the soil life does not die, etc. etc. If it did kill soil, I would be killing my livelihood as a farmer who makes my living off of healthy soil.

My question would be why are you spraying, AND tilling? It is sort of counterproductive no? I only mean tilling merely brings up more weed seeds.


----------



## buffalocreek (Oct 19, 2007)

If you're going to poison your soil, why not just buy your food at a grocery store?


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> My question would be why are you spraying, AND tilling? It is sort of counterproductive no? I only mean tilling merely brings up more weed seeds.


I use it at work on ornamental beds; I don't use it my own gardens because I mulch (even with grass clippings for veggies--they do work). FD is right: dig *or *spray.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Round Up sprayed on the ground does not just disappear like the literature used to say.

It's highly toxic, and I wouldn't want it in my garden if I planned to eat those veggies or feed them to my grandchildren.

It's NOT a harmless chemical, folks. Do your own research. This is one time I'm not going to be the google queen for you.

If you care enough to grow your own food, care enough to do it safely. Do not use Round Up.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

LOL
feed the hate....


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

katydidagain said:


> I use it at work on ornamental beds; I don't use it my own gardens because I mulch (even with grass clippings for veggies--they do work). FD is right: dig *or *spray.


It took a while for me: but once you stop tilling and mulch the soil, it thanks you tremendously!:clap:


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

buffalocreek said:


> If you're going to poison your soil, why not just buy your food at a grocery store?


Read the above post. It does not poison soil. Plants thrive whether chemicals were used or not. If chemicals poisoned the soil, soil would not provide conditions needed for plant growth, no?

Do you know how much "poison" is used in each application?

Just curious. It is hard for me to see a post like this without replying. I agree totally on home grown vs. store bought, in freshness, taste and health, but lets be realistic about herbicides, not knee jerk. With utmost respect,

Dale ig:


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

You know, maybe it's not knee jerk. Maybe it's not hate. Maybe it's concern for the health of the next generations. Maybe it's that I have two grandchildren with severe health issues. Maybe it's because I.... never mind. Here's the link to the research.
Biosafety Information Centre
Folks thought DDT and Agent Orange weren't a problem either.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Round Up sprayed on the ground does not just disappear like the literature used to say.
> 
> It's highly toxic, and I wouldn't want it in my garden if I planned to eat those veggies or feed them to my grandchildren.
> 
> ...


Glyphosate of course does not disappear immediately upon soil contact. Soil microbes, organic matter and clay particles tie it up while it degrades. It is not poisonous to the soil, sorry. It is not floating around in the soil solution, it gets tied up. Soil has massive capacity to tie up and break down herbicides. 

An acre of soil to a depth of 6 inches weighs in at 2 000 000 pounds. If you think a litre of glyphosate which has an active ingredient of between 360, and 540 grams or 0.8, to 1.9 pounds spread evenly over an acre of soil, is going to kill the soil, or poison plants, perhaps re-think a little. Of the pound an acre application rate, plants synthesise the vast majority, and some evaporates, so I would wager maybe a tenth of a pound actually hits the soil, per acre. It simply does not make sense. Spread fertilizer on at a pound an acre, and see if you can find the granules, and if you do, take note of how far apart they are. 

Of course you can do as you wish, I don't use it anymore in my garden either, just because I mulch, but lets keep it real, no? Farmers have been using it for decades, and their soil is not dead. On the contrary, because it gives us a chance to stop destructive tillage, it has enhanced soil life, and soil productivity. The moment I see a lack of soil life, and pinpoint it on Glyphosate, I will be the first to stop using it on my farm.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

The jug I just bought says 3 days, but I wouldn't worry about applying earlier. My biggest worry would be cutting down the plant before the poison reaches the roots.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> You know, maybe it's not knee jerk. Maybe it's not hate. Maybe it's concern for the health of the next generations. Maybe it's that I have two grandchildren with severe health issues. Maybe it's because I.... never mind. Here's the link to the research.
> Biosafety Information Centre
> Folks thought DDT and Agent Orange weren't a problem either.


SO in the study, they spray womens placentas directly with roundup, and measure results? hmmmm

It kills amphibians? Why do I have so many frogs, phenomenal soil life, etc. ? They added roundup directly to tanks of frogs, tadpoles etc? And are surprised they are killed? What kind of study is that? It emulates absolutely nothing close to what happens in farming practices. It is ILLEGAL to spray within 60 feet of any waterbody. They also do not state at what rates they added roundup to the tadpole tank, so who knows. They sprayed it on waterbodies? hmmm

They state that DIRECT exposure of glyphosate to rats had some effect on liver function? So does beer! 

My point is, these studies are seriously flawed because they are not replicating anything close remotely to how it is applied on the farm, which is not directly onto waterbodies, directly onto ladies placentas, or directly into DNA/RNA. A fairly major neglected omission I would say. What do I know though, I am a farmer who has excellent soil health, tons of amphibious life, wildlife that would make your head spin, and earthworm densities that are stunning. Practicality? Or "Expiraments done in labs with tanks of frogs, tadpoles, placentas sprayed directly with glyphosate? 

Think what you need to, I don't begrudge you that at all. Opinion is great! But educating yourself on two sides may also be helpful? 

Just saying. And I mean no ill will or harm. Debate is great!

:duel:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmerDale said:


> SO in the study, they spray womens placentas directly with roundup, and measure results? hmmmm
> 
> It kills amphibians? Why do I have so many frogs, phenomenal soil life, etc. ? They added roundup directly to tanks of frogs, tadpoles etc? And are surprised they are killed? What kind of study is that? It emulates absolutely nothing close to what happens in farming practices. It is ILLEGAL to spray within 60 feet of any waterbody. They also do not state at what rates they added roundup to the tadpole tank, so who knows. They sprayed it on waterbodies? hmmm
> 
> ...


 You said a mouthful. 
These are not scientific studies that are being quoted they are Made to Look bad because of how the so called Tests were down in the first place. They do that so the outcome always comes out in the negative corner for anything to do with companies that have dealt with anything to do with the chemical area, and those chem companies have studied chemicals for many years, and how much to use and not use, when to use them when not to etc.


----------



## PD-Riverman (May 24, 2007)

Here is some questions I copied about Roundup That you can read and determine if you want if it is true or not.

Q. Will I need to re-apply?
A. Roundup is a post-emergent and will kill everything that is growing at the time we spray. Roundup is not a pre-emergent weed control and other weeds may germinate from seed. New weed germination is not guaranteed but weeds we sprayed are guaranteed to die 

Q. Is there an organic alternative to Roundup?
A. Yes, BurnOut. BurnOut must be applied where it is sunny and above 70 degrees F. You may want to use Roundup in the shady areas or in early spring or late fall.

Q. How long will it take to see results using Roundup?
A. Roundup takes about 10-14 days to show results. Most results will be apparent within 10 days. There are round up products that will show results within 24 hours but they contain other herbicides, we use only glyphosate which takes 10-14 days to show results.

Q. Will Roundup move in the soil?
A. Yes and No, Roundup will move in the soil a little, but it will not be picked up by other plant roots. An area can be reseeded as soon as 24 hours after this spray. 

Q. Is Roundup safe?
A. Legally we cannot answer that question. You can go to the link on Organo-Lawn website to the pesticide research site, go to the NCAP files and go to the fact sheets under Glyphosate and read the dangers of Roundup. We would recommend using BurnOut instead of Roundup if this is a major concern.

Q. Why should I use BurnOut instead of Roundup?
A. BurnOut is a contact herbicide, therefore it only kills the part of the plant that it touches and results are seen within 2-4 hours. BurnOut is effective on Bindweed if applied in the sun above 70 degrees F. Roundup is a translocation (systemic) herbicide so it will move through the entire plant even if the applicator did not achieve full coverage. Roundup results are seen between 10-14 days after the application. Also Roundup is a synthetic herbicide and BurnOut is made from food grade ingredients.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I think the main point here is that the poor OP showed up asking a simple technical question and some felt the need to inflict unsolicited opinions upon him.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think the main point is free speech and education and sharing our differing points of view.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> You know, maybe it's not knee jerk. Maybe it's not hate. Maybe it's concern for the health of the next generations. Maybe it's that I have two grandchildren with severe health issues. Maybe it's because I.... never mind. Here's the link to the research.
> Biosafety Information Centre
> Folks thought DDT and Agent Orange weren't a problem either.


If you do some research you will find out DDT wasn't a problem. A lot of people blame millions of deaths on the bad science which lead to the total ban on DDT. Thousands of people die each year from insect carried diseases which could be prevented with the proper use of DDT.

As for your sickly kids. My thinking on the increased number of sick kids is we are breeding them. If I had been born a few years earlier I would have died in childhood. But thanks to âmodernâ medicine I lived to pass on to add my bad genes to the pool. Now both of my kids have poor eyesight and asthma which they will probably pass onto their kids.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

DDT was never a problem either.

It wasn't bad science it was tree hugging gone amok.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> If you do some research you will find out DDT wasn't a problem. A lot of people blame millions of deaths on the bad science which lead to the total ban on DDT. Thousands of people die each year from insect carried diseases which could be prevented with the proper use of DDT.
> 
> As for your sickly kids. My thinking on the increased number of sick kids is we are breeding them. If I had been born a few years earlier I would have died in childhood. But thanks to âmodernâ medicine I lived to pass on to add my bad genes to the pool. Now both of my kids have poor eyesight and asthma which they will probably pass onto their kids.


DDT was banned, due to it's toxic effect on the wildlife food chain, not any short term effects on humans.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

tinknal said:


> I think the main point here is that the poor OP showed up asking a simple technical question and some felt the need to inflict unsolicited opinions upon him.


After I posted, I realized what I was posting would spark the usual debate and it's really no problem.

Our garden is quite large, our mulching is not always effective and our work schedule, does not allow for a lot of hand weeding, especially in the garden boundry fencing.

Thanks for _everyones_ input


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> After I posted, I realized what I was posting would spark the usual debate and it's really no problem.
> 
> Our garden is quite large, our mulching is not always effective and our work schedule, does not allow for a lot of hand weeding, especially in the garden boundry fencing.
> 
> Thanks for _everyones_ input


I bought some today. I dare any of you to try to eradicate a serious burdock infestation by _digging._


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> DDT was banned, due to it's toxic effect on the wildlife food chain,


Wrong, DDT was banned because the EPA was headed up by a tree hugging fool with an axe to grind. Scientific evidence was totally ignored in order to show just what an activist could accomplish.


----------



## julieq (Oct 12, 2008)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I would not plant in ground that has been sprayed with glyphosate.
> 
> Dig your garden. Remove weeds.


Totally agree here. We use it along the road and around the shade trees which border our two acre garden/orchard area. But that's ONLY because we can't hoe all the weeds by hand in that large of an area (there's just two of us). Around our fruit trees, berry bushes and in the garden area, which is about an acre, we hoe and/or pull weeds by hand. 

Of course we don't till our garden, preferring not to bring the weed seeds to the surface. We compost heavily between the rows to keep the weeds down and hand pull weeds in the rows. Works for us. :happy:


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think the main point is free speech and education and sharing our differing points of view.


I'll remember that. Prepare for some free speech.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

and maybe some education...


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

sammyd said:


> and maybe some education...


LOL, some folks just don't _want_ to be educated.


----------



## Sherry in Iowa (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm no fan of this stuff. I've been reading and watching for quite a while..while it may not be deemed "toxic", as in eat it and die shortly after, it has some serious consequences related to it.

Drovers Cattle Network

C.O.R.N. Newsletter


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> It's highly toxic,
> 
> It's NOT a harmless chemical, folks.


Alice is right. The EPA lists it as "noncarcinogenic", but there have been studies that link it to myloma and hodgekins lymphoma. I think the EPA kind of just kisses Monsanto's rear and lets a lot of their crap go through regardless of problems. But that is just my opinion. Here is just one study, but you can look up more on the web.
Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study

I honestly have never used Round up anywhere in my garden or even on the yard near the house. I do know that when my husband's company lays parking lots or driveways, they tell the owners to spray with the product at least 24hrs before the blacktop is laid. But of course that is blacktop, not food.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

that's quite a study, spent half the time saying there might be a problem then the other half of the time explaining how the study could be wrong.....
If you keep paring down the data until you only have info that supports what you are looking for it's pretty easy to find a problem......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

sammyd said:


> Wrong, DDT was banned because the EPA was headed up by a tree hugging fool with an axe to grind. Scientific evidence was totally ignored in order to show just what an activist could accomplish.


Who was the "tree hugging fool "?
What was the "axe to grind" ?
What "Scientific evidence was totally ignored"?
Who was the "activist"?




The *U.S. Department of Agriculture*, the federal agency with responsibility of regulating pesticides before the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970,* began regulatory actions in the late 1950s and 1960s* to prohibit many of DDT's uses because of mounting evidence of the pesticide's declining benefits and environmental and toxicological effects. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962 stimulated widespread public concern over the dangers of improper pesticide use and the need for better pesticide controls.

DDT - A Brief History and Status | Pesticides | US EPA


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. 
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that &#8220;DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man&#8230; DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man&#8230; The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.&#8221;
Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus&#8217; aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

This quote is from Mekamom's link.



> This prospective study of cancer incidence provided evidence of no association between glyphosate exposure and most of the cancers we studied, and a suggested association between glyphosate and the risk of multiple myeloma.


So is this one.



> A decreased risk of lung cancer was suggested for the highest tertile of both cumulative and intensity-weighted exposure days


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

plowjockey, give it 7 days to work on the roots. Some say it does not take that long and they may be right, but if you are gonna spend the time and money, I would give it a week.


----------



## mooman (May 19, 2008)

I might point out that most of the pro glyphosate crowd is talking about using it to eradicate weeds before planting and the con crowd is railing against spraying it on "roundup ready" food crops. Seems like apples and oranges to me. Plants do not in any way take up roundup through the roots so even if it is in the soil its not being taken up by the plants.

I also find it interesting when I see pictures of of the anti glyphosate crowds gardens. They tend to be either very small or mechanically cultivated using large machinery.

Try single handedly maintaining 5,000 sq ft of garden while holding down a full time job and that jug of glyphosate starts to look pretty tempting....... You can't control weeds by "mulching" 5,000 sq ft. Just something to think about.

Oh, almost forgot. This should always be the first link in any glyphosate discussion.
EXTOXNET PIP - GLYPHOSATE

thats non biased science based toxicollogy report, not some half arsed study from a group with clear political motivations.


----------



## poorboy (Apr 15, 2006)

Arsenic of Lead wuz the choice for potato bugs up til the sixties..Grandma an Grandad used it for years..grandad only made it to shy of 85 yr.old..Granma 108yrs.+...jist sayin...


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2012)

When I was a kid, bald eagle populations fell dramaticly in the lower 48. Minnesota was one of the last places with breeding bald eagles, mostly in areas with little agriculture. I always considered it a treat to see them. 

DDT doesn't break down and was said to build up in these top predators and cause very thin egg shells. Usually the eggs would break before the incubation was done so reproduction was poor.

DDt was banned and the bald eagle population came back. Now, when I get excited about an eagle sighting and point it out to my niece and nephew they are not exited at all. 

I don't think that the rebound in the eagle population just after DDT was banned was a coincidence. 

I don't use any pesticides or herbacides on my garden. The only fertilizer is natural (composted chicken poop, wood shavings, cow poop, and wood ash). 

I am very sceptical of any manufacturer's claims that their product is safe. The list is long of products that were proven to be toxic. DDT, agent orange, Thalidomide, arsenic, and others. 

It may be a little late for me now but I am trying to eat as healthy as I can.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

that's a nice story but all false. Bald Eagle populations were on the rise from the 1920's when they were threatened with extinction.
After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. There used to be a bounty on Bald Eagles in Alaska.
No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.
There has never been any real evidence that DDT causes egg shell thinning. There have been some experiment that tried to show it but were found to be feeding a diet that was severly deficient in calcium which was the real cause of egg shell thinning.
I know it is hard to disbelieve the myths but the fact is just about everything you have learned about DDT is false.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

One thing I need to point out because it keeps coming up as well, and it is aggravating to an extent, is how bad chemical fertilizers are, versus organic inputs like manure. Many places I read, and hear that once you use chemical fertilizers, you need to keep using more and more. POPPYCOCK! Simply not true. You feed the plants what they need according to soil and plant tissue analysis. It differs from year to year. And the extra root production, and crop residue production from land well fertilized, build soil organic matter, especially if not tilled.

The plants and soil do not care a bit what form of nutrient they are fed. The nitrogen once in the soil and converted to plant available n (same for all nutrients), is identical in chemical fertilizers and "organic" fertilizers, breaking down organic matter, and nitrogen fixed by legume crops, etc.. Now, I realize the non-nutrient benefits of manure and legumes, I use them all myself, but I am talking striclty the nutrient issue.

Just saying. I know it is way off topic, but plants and soil organisms can not tell the difference. Neither can our bodies tell the difference. Cheers!


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> One thing I need to point out because it keeps coming up as well, and it is aggravating to an extent, is how bad chemical fertilizers are, versus organic inputs like manure. Many places I read, and hear that once you use chemical fertilizers, you need to keep using more and more. POPPYCOCK! Simply not true. You feed the plants what they need according to soil and plant tissue analysis. It differs from year to year. And the extra root production, and crop residue production from land well fertilized, build soil organic matter, especially if not tilled........................................................
> 
> ......... . Cheers!


Dale is correct in this. Fertilizer input does not have to increase simply because of use. The only reason for a increase in amount of fertilizer input is in order to take advantage of newer and better varietys that could increase in yield if fertilized accordingly. Am I making sense? In other words, you gotta put more in if you want more out... In the old days we put on 30 lbs of N to get 30 bushel of wheat per acre. Now we aim much higher.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

ksfarmer said:


> Dale is correct in this. Fertilizer input does not have to increase simply because of use. The only reason for a increase in amount of fertilizer input is in order to take advantage of newer and better varietys that could increase in yield if fertilized accordingly. Am I making sense? In other words, you gotta put more in if you want more out... In the old days we put on 30 lbs of N to get 30 bushel of wheat per acre. Now we aim much higher.


I was always told to avoid chemical fertilizer because it would cause reliance on such. I don't think I was told the truth. 

My grandfather used cow manure from the barn pushed into the spreader, a few dead chickens from their egg operation (yes they were in a barn--2 stories), chicken droppings when the barn was cleared and what was left of groundhogs grandma's dog, Sandy, and I hunted (sometimes not much) to put on cornfields. I don't know if he added fertilizer (this was in the 60s) but I'm suspect he did since they owned a SS franchise and those were large fields--to this 10 year old. They plowed annually until my uncle got into no till but until then anything that wasn't crop or silage was turned under. (compost, yes?)


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Its interesting to see peoples take on things and how once information is laid out there it sticks in peoples minds regardless of any subsequent revelations that disprove or cast question on the original assumptions. DDT is is a prime example and I remember having to read "Silent Spring" in Jr HS school but by the time I was through college Silent Spring and the whole DDT makes egg shells weak and thinner was mostly discounted by most scientists. I see the same thing happening with AGW today, no matter what evidence comes to light in the future on this issue the original claims will remain stiuck in peoples noggins.

We try to use very little herbicides or pesticides and when we do we try to go organic (i.e., we are big proponents of Neem Oil) but we chose GlyPhosate for some things after studying about it precisely because it was LESS toxic and didnt remain in the soil for long periods of time. 

But there is a solution to this debate, if you dont like it dont use it.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2012)

Sammy,

It does seem that there are some dissenting opinions on the effect of DDT on bald eagle eggs but more articles on the web like Bald Eagle Fact Sheet still assert the correlation. 

It may well be that there were more eagles counted in 1960 than 1941 but that could be due to many reasons. A ban on shooting them was passed in 1940. There may have been better counting methods in 1960 than 1941 or a more intense effort at counting in 1960. You can make the numbers say anything you want. (Did you hear about the statistician that drowned in a river whose average depth was 3 inches?) I did observe the decline in numbers from when I was young untill I was in my late 20s. Then the population went up again.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't trust the manufacturer of any chemical who says that it is safe. There are too many examples where they were proven to be harmful. Ask a thalidimide baby or vets that applied agent orange.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

It wasn't just the manufacturer. There have been countless studies that disproved the DDT/thin shell thing that Carson advanced with her pack of lies called a book. 
DDT did not cause the decline of the Bald Eagle. And banning DDT did not cause it to return.
If you want an eyewitness account then I believe that the current use of glyphosphate has actually caused the number of Bald Eagles to increase since there are more of them in this area than I can remember as a kid. So Hats off to Round Up for bringing back the Eagle....


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

LOL sammyd! exactly!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Roundup breaks down so fast that just using hard water reduces its effectiveness. If trace minerals "neutralizes" it in the tank, just think what it does when it hits dirt!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Good point Haypoint. I overlooked that one.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Snicker. I knew soon as I saw the thread title that within 3-5 posts somebody would be scolding the OP for using it. 

It is a mystery to me how reasonable adults who seem perfectly intelligent in some ways can still believe in the boogeyman when it comes to GMO foods or roundup or some other things.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> When I was a kid, bald eagle populations fell dramaticly in the lower 48.
> It may be a little late for me now but I am trying to eat as healthy as I can.


Interesting.... I have never eaten a bald eagle.... are they similar to chicken?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

sammyd said:


> It wasn't just the manufacturer. *There have been countless studies that disproved the DDT/thin shell thing that Carson advanced with her pack of lies called a book. *DDT did not cause the decline of the Bald Eagle. And banning DDT did not cause it to return.
> If you want an eyewitness account then I believe that the current use of glyphosphate has actually caused the number of Bald Eagles to increase since there are more of them in this area than I can remember as a kid. So Hats off to Round Up for bringing back the Eagle....


Nothing like objectivity. :hammer:

FWIW Glyphosate is a weed killer.

DDT is a pesticide.

They have two completely different purposes.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

yes but some folks around here have an irrational fear of either.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

Why on earth would anyone use herbicides when you can use plain old vinegar. 

Use vinegar to kill weeds naturally and give Monsanto's Roundup the heave ho


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I would rather use my vinegar on spinach along with butter. Never waste food on weeds when chems will do it. And besides Vinegar* won&#8217;t move through the plant to kill the root*, like some chemical sprays will do. So within a week or so ya have to do it all over again. no Thanks.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Why on earth would anyone use herbicides when you can use plain old vinegar.
> 
> Use vinegar to kill weeds naturally and give Monsanto's Roundup the heave ho


Try it and get back with me.
That web site you posted is full of false information on other topics, so I question this article.


----------



## BarbadosSheep (Jun 27, 2011)

I am having to garden in raised beds with new soil this year. So my garden is not nearly as big as I need for it to be. I have no choice though. This land used to be a coastal bermunda hay field. It's also full of nutgrass. There is not a mulch in the world that will keep those two "weeds" from coming through into my garden. There is no way to dig them either, short of using heavy equipment to remove at least 10" of my top soil. I am tired of trying to fight these weeds by mulching and pulling. So this year, the garden is in raised beds in a different spot and I am waging all-out war on the weeds. Round-up is my weapon of choice. I don't like using it and have resisted for a long time now, but I am wasting my efforts trying to garden with these aggressive grasses. The land will recover just fine from the use of this chemical and next year my garden will be weed-free and I can use mulch to keep the annual weeds at bay.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Why on earth would anyone use herbicides when you can use plain old vinegar.
> 
> Use vinegar to kill weeds naturally and give Monsanto's Roundup the heave ho


 Buffy, vinegar works okay for newly emergent weeds in an already tilled and planted garden but all it does is kill off the leaves and structure above ground; most weeds will just grow right back, Vinegar does not work for prepping garden beds prior to planting and its completely ineffective for many of the uses Roundup is used for such as persistent stemy weeds and grass growth or for invasives like poison ivy. We grow most of our veggies organic, vinegar is not our prime choice for weed control as we have found its not very effective, For us we use mechanical cultivation and we just live with a certain amount of weeds.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Why on earth would anyone use herbicides when you can use plain old vinegar.
> 
> Use vinegar to kill weeds naturally and give Monsanto's Roundup the heave ho


Costs... have you priced vinegar lately?  A gallon of round up will clean up acres of weeds for around 50 bucks.... enough vinegar to do the same acreage would be thousands.


----------



## gettingready (Sep 20, 2021)

farmerDale said:


> Read the above post. It does not poison soil. Plants thrive whether chemicals were used or not. If chemicals poisoned the soil, soil would not provide conditions needed for plant growth, no?
> 
> Do you know how much "poison" is used in each application?
> 
> ...


Like haypoint not all chemicals are bad the problem is the average person does not read and understand how they work But if the use of them bothers you don't use them, And by the way if you had any idea how much cyanide was used in making of most of your jewelry you would not wear it. Or how much aluminum you ingesting by your cook wear you would not use it. Honestly, I'd be a whole lot more concerned about the COVID JAB.


----------

