I've noticed several occasions where forum members suggest using the week killer Roundup.

I just recently read, and cannot recall where, a recent study of Roundup. The results showed something like Roundup remaining in the soil as long as three years, that it could be found in run off and also in ground water, and I can't remember the exact length times, but I thought it was worrisome amounts of time.

Did anyone else read this. . . . . and if so. . . . can you tell me where I saw it? ?

Thanks, Judy

-- Judy (JMcFerrin@aol.com), April 24, 2002

Answers

Any "man-made" poison is just that -- POISON. I wouldn't care what the big shots said about how safe it is or how fast it "disipates",

I DON'T BELIEVE THEM ANYMORE.

My beautiul state is just full of dangerous farmlands, lakes, rivers and wetlands because of people using slow-death-to-the-land-plants- and-animals chemicals. I sure don't want to eat anything that came from a piece of Earth that had poison/chemicals used on it. Please please reconsider using the bad stuff.

One person's weed is another persons dinner. Dandelions, most all herbs and I am sure there are folks who know beter than I how to list these "weeds". GO ORGANIC

-- Susan in Michigan (cobwoman@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

I don't know where you read about it recently but several years ago Organic Gardening Magazine (I haven't subscribed since they went 'yuppie') had a few articles about Roundup and how long it survives in the environment and that wild rabbits have been found to have trace amounts in their bodies. I'm sure if you did an internet search you'd find more than you wanted to know! :o) I can try ro find that article, too.

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 24, 2002.

If anyone will give me an organic alternative to Round Up to control poison ivy, nut grass, bermuda grass, johnson grass, stinging nettle, etc. on 110 acres, I will be glad to listen.

Consider that I am a female with a full time job, rental property, and very little help. I do not have time to pull weeds by hand.

-- Rose (open_rose@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

I'm sorry Rose, I didn't mean to shout at you. I am frustrated with the companys that promote their products as "safe" and leave the rest of us to deal with fish we can't eat and children with disabilities and grownups with cancer. I hope someone has better ideas for you to use in "clearing" your land. Bon Chance and blessings.

-- Susan in Michigan (cobwoman@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

Judy; Check out www.organicgardening.com. They deal with this issue on a regular basis and have lots of suggestions for dealing with weeds organically. Like the others I do not trust any company's claims when they're the one who stands to make millions on your buying their product.

On the other side of the coin however, I've spoken with several 'organic' horticulturalists who feel that, although it has it's definite downside, Roundup is the least toxic and least threatening of all chemical controls. You decide from there.

Russ

-- (imashortguy@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

What about vinegar?

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

Roundup is a fatty acid that clogs the vascular system of the plant. It breaks down in the soil in about 3 weeks.

-- Paul (treewizard@buffalo.com), April 24, 2002.

Really Paul? So can we just use bacon grease?

-- Susan in Michigan (cobwoman@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Sounds like time for a few goats!

-- BC (katnip364@aol.com), April 25, 2002.

Hi.. well im an agricultural student in the UK and i have just checked my notes on weedkillers and other chemicals, and from what I have read, i dont think using roundup is the best option. heres why i think this:

- Roundup is non-selective weedkiller which is taken up by the plant and prevents them from production food, As its non-selective it will kill every plant it touchs or comes near too. It is based on a glycophosphate, which basically means it is absorbed well into the plant.

But what must be noted is that there is research been carried out by US researchers and it shows the use of roundup, has increased Soil fungus called Fusarium. This cn and reqularly does has massive effects upon the crop yields attained on land which has seen th use of roundup.

Although this field requires further investigation it must be noted, that runoff does happen if it rains within 2 hours of application of this chemicals application. It must also be duely noted that, in this day of age when agricultural pesticides are being used and being increased in strength to combat resistance to a population of weeds that you are effectively carrying out speeded up evolution on by selecting to kill those that are unable to survive the use of his chemical in favour of those that can resist. I can only say that (and i fear i dont stress this enough) If we dont as a group decided to move away from the use of chemicals on the land to produce our foods then we are dependant on the chemicals that could actually poison us. DDT for example was used long before they new of the total effects, what about other chemicals on the market today? Why are they still carrying out tests upon these?? if they are safe? And what about pesticide and other chemical residues left on foods in the supermarkets? well Coming from me an agricultural student, i would have to say i would rather use other means of controling weeds than poison myself. which may not be noticeable for a a decade maybe more.

By no means am i sayng that this roundup is indeed going to kill you, but i am saying.. we dont know of the chemicals full effects yet.. and until we do... do you really feel safe taking that gamble?

http://www.biotech-info.net/soil_fungus.html

That link will povide further reading on just one area of research into this product.

-- Craig (Ruskie@absolutevodka.fsnet.co.uk), April 25, 2002.

Rose, Countryside Naatural Products has a product called Burnout that is some type of Lemon extract and I believe some type of pepper that will kill weeds.You can call them at 1 888 699-7088 or 540 932-8534 they are in Fishersville VA and are knowledgable and committed to organics and very helpful. They ship

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 25, 2002.

Roundup (no longer under patent, so you can find the same thing by other manufaturers cheaper) is a contact spray that kills most green vegitation. It is absorbed through the green parts & translocates through the whole plant to kill it. The spray that doesn't hit a plant breaks down in the environment fairly quickly. (Some folks question what it breaks down into as it breaks down, and what _those_ compounds do....)

There are other sprays that have 'residual' action, they last in the soil for a while and will control sprouting weeds as well as those intially contacted. These types can last in the enviornment for a long time, several years for some of them. Roundup is _not_ of this type.

Roundup is popular for several reasons - it kills most all green plants, it is selective to harm only green plants, it breaks down quite rapidly in the environment, and it does not have a residual action, so you can plant a crop right after you spray.

For a while the USA organic standards were considering allowing the use of Roundup in organic production. For what that is worth. Gasoline & motor oil have much higher toxic rates & lifetimes in the enviornment - and we use gallons of that stuff every day. Not sure how that relates to a few ounces of glysophate per year. Just a thought? Are we thinking of the big picture, and relative risks vs benefits, or are we just being negative with the 100% condemnations I see here?

All in all, glysophate (the generic name for Roundup) is one of the safer to the enviornment weed sprays available, and it's mode of action is difficult to reproduce with organic methods.

Whether you feel comfortable using it or not is, of course, up to you. I would note that vinegar is an acid that will mess up your soil ph, while needing a large massive dose to equal the effects of glysophate - are we really safe handling that much acid? Won't a big spill be harmful to the enviornment as well? Lemon & pepper sprays depend on the acid from the lemon once again to break down the plant waxes for the pepper to be absorbed, and are only effective on very young plants - great if that is what you wish to kill, but not exactly a glysophate replacement. In a very old thread here, someone suggested using common salt as a 'non-toxic' way to kill plants - hummm, I would _not_ want to spread salt on _my_ soils as weed control, that will stick around a long time before it leaches out of the soil! :) There is enough salt in commercial fertilizers for the soil to deal with, the thought of using it to sterilize your soil - wow.

In short, be careful of the 'organic' solutions as well. They are not always as safe as some would have you believe, and often work on very different levels - you need to know how they work, and at what growth stages. The organic solutions often actually are more toxic on some levels than herbicides, but are made with chemicals (salt, vinenar, bleach, etc.) that seem so familar to us that we forget they are _also_ hazzardous to us and our enviornment.

To each their own. Me, I don't think I've used a whole gallon of glysophate in my lifetime, just doesn't fit into my current methods. And I do not own a single stock of Monsanto. In fact, I actively have avoided Roundup Ready GMO seeds... So, no personal motivation for this message, other than to promote some thinking on the topic...

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

Very well written Paul. Something for everyone to think about no matter which side of the issue they are on.

You will never get everyone to stop using pesticides, so which is the safest to use for the benefits it produces.

I've used quite a bit of it in the past, especially on field bindweed. Also in minimum tillage crop production.

Besides bindweed, the best use I found for it was riding my garden of bermuda grass. It did a super job when used according to product labeling. That was about 20-25 years ago and so far I've not grown any fingers out the side of my neck.

I figure that Roundup is reasonably safe. When they took it out of the hands of licensed private applicators (farmers, etc.), and commercial applicators, and put it on store shelves for anyone that is not licensed to use, I figured that it had to be fairly safe. About every store carries some form of it anymore. Used to be that you had to go to a chemical dealer to purchase it, and then only if you were licensed.

I fully support the individual choice each of you make. I haven't used Roundup for a long time, but I still think it is a great product and I will probably use in the future.

Anyone know the application rate? Seems I remember it to be about 1 or 2 quarts per acre. Had to be really diluted with water in order to get good foliage coverage.

-- Notforprint (Not@thekeyboard.com), April 25, 2002.

Excellent answers so far. We all must learn to think about what we're doing, and make educated decisions. Most important, read labels and follow directions. One of the biggest problems with any chemical is MIS-USE. More is NOT better!!

-- Bernie from Northern Ontario (bernadette_kerr@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

round up does not harm people,and it doesn't harm any animals (that i know of). it's safe if it gets into streams, etc.--it does NOT kill fish. roundup is one of the more friendlier sprays. of course this does not mean that you don't wash your hands ofter spraying roundup and then make dinner, adn it doesn't mean to let it get into streams. just know that it's not as bad as people think it is. it's pretty darn safe.

-- C (punk_chicadee@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Paul,you may have a point but then again the things you were saying about how safe Roundup is were said about DDT and 2,4 D years ago,had a couple of farmer friends who used those products all the time but had cancer.Was there any connection? Don't know but rather be on the safe side.Just the other day read where frogs exposed to Azrtriane {bad spelling} the weed killer grew multiple sex organs.What does it do to humans? Who knows.

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 25, 2002.

Gary, I love your logic. Better off safe than sorry...right? Have you stopped eating turkey? The toxic dose of turkey is 3.8 tons due to the carcinogen "malonaldehyde."

What about potatoes? An organically grown potato contains some 150 chemicals including arsenic, alcohols, aldehydes, esters, hydrocarbons, and keotones.

Natural carcinogens are present in mushrooms, parsley, basil, celery, cola, wine, beer, mustard, peanut butter, bread, lima beans, and hundreds of others.

The amount of carcinogenic pesticides consumed in our daily diet in 1/20-th of the amnunt of naturally-occuring carcinogens in a single cup of coffee. You probably don't drink coffee....right, Gary?

The amount of carcinogens in the browned (bread, rolls), smoked (jerly, sausage, fish), and burned (BBQ) food we eat is hundreds of times greater than the carcinogens contained in severly polluted air.

The risk from consuming all major pesticides in a typical diet is 400 times less than the risk of eating a typical peanut butter sandwich.

99.9% of all carcingoens on this earth are naturally occuring.

Sorry to scare ya, Gary. But those are the facts, like 'em or not. Maybe you'd be safer if you stopped eating.

-- Cabin Fever (Cabinfever_MN@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Cabin Fever.Folks have been eating the things you described for centuries and the effects are well known,unlike some of the chemicals that haven't been around for that long no one knows, hey you want to be the chemical company's guinea pig go ahead I'll pass.I question the need for alot of the chemicals anyway,have lived on our 180 acre farm plus we rent land also for 50 years now.We have only used herbicides 1 time back in the early 1960's sprayed a small patch of corn with one we saw then it was a mistake and never used any again.We use cultivators,bush hog chain saw and sickle to control weeds and unwanted plants,good exercise plus we aren't poisioning ourselves.Also several chemical farmers in our neighborhood have come gone bankrupt and left while we are still here farming debt free.To each his/her own I guess.

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 25, 2002.

Didn't think there were any specific problems with 2,4D - do you mean Agent Orange where they left the dioxins in and spayed people directly??? Not exactly what is used on ag land in 2002...

I'd like to think we learned a lot from DDT, and pesticides are tested a whole lot more now than they were back in the 1950's. No, that's no 100% garentee. Just a whole lot better tho I think?

Heard about the frogs. The grass killer is a possiblity - not a proven fact, but one of several possibilities. Sure hope it gets looked into, & appropriate steps are taken.

At any rate, I like your approach to things Gary, & sure don't want to knock you or your ways. Myself, I do a lot more cutlivation than most of the neighbors, and use cut-rates of chemicals, with more spot treatments where the problem patches are. I don't like the expense & fuss with the chemicals either, but I think they do have a place in things. I prefer using less rather than more tho. )

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

Jeepers it's weird to see this post! I was just doing a search on the ingredients of Round Up a few days ago, because I wanted to know more. I knew it was supposed to be bad, but wasn't exactly sure why. I stopped using it & other weedkillers a couple of years ago, because I want to be an organic gardener. I do use vinegar, but usually in areas away from plants where weed pulling is impossible (in cracks & the driveway) - appreciate learning that it, too, might cause ill-effects. Anyway, I am copying & pasting what came up during my ingredient search. It comes from Greenpeace. I do not want to get flamed for mentioning them, they just happened to be one of the 1st links that came up, & their info was good. I had never been to their site b4. I'm mentioning this, because I have know idea what the feeling is here towards Greenpeace, & I really don't know enough about them to have an opinion at this point. All I know is that the info seemed valid & accurate. It also reinforced my commitment to stay away from Round Up & other Monsanto products!

This fact sheet describes the basic properties of glyphosate and the issues surrounding glyphosate resistance and weed control. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide used to kill crop weeds. Monsanto’s trade name for this is Roundup. Roundup Ready crops are engineered to withstand exposure to glyphosate. This allows applications of the herbicide after crop emergence, killing weeds but not Roundup resistant crop plants such as RRS (Roundup Ready Soybeans). Description

Chemically, glyphosate is an organophosphate like many other pesticides but it does not affect the nervous system as other organophosphates do. It is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide which kills all plants, including grasses, broad leaf and woody plants. It is absorbed mainly through the leaves and is transported around the whole plant, killing all parts of it. It acts by inhibiting a biochemical pathway, the shikimic acid pathway. At low levels of application it acts as a growth regulator.

There are three forms of glyphosate used as weed killers; glyphosate- isopropylammonium and glyphosate-sesquiodium patented by Monsanto and glyphosate-trimesium, patented by ICI (now Zeneca). Other common brand names are Rodeo, Accord and Vision.

Glyphosate is technically extremely difficult to measure in environmental samples. Only a few laboratories have the sophisticated equipment and techniques necessary. This means that data is often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment and existing data may not be reliable.

Use In Weed Control

Glyphosate product sales are worth $1,200 million a year. In the US, glyphosate was used on about 12-25 million acres annually in the 1980s. In the UK it was used on almost 800,000 acres in 1994. Because it is broad spectrum in action it is used to control a great variety of annual, biennial, and perennial grasses, sedges, broad leafed weeds and woody shrubs. It is used in fruit orchards, vineyards, conifer plantations and many plantation crops (e.g. coffee, tea, bananas); in pre-crop, post-weed emergence in a wide range of crops (including soybean, cereals, vegetables and cotton); on non-crop areas (e.g. road shoulders and rights of way); in cereal stubble; forestry; gardening and horticulture. Other uses of salts of glyphosate are in growth regulation in peanuts and in sugarcane to regulate growth and speed fruit ripening.

Human Toxicity

Because the shikimic acid pathway does not exist in animals, the acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. Glyphosate can interfere with some enzyme functions in animals but symptoms of poisoning are only seen at very high doses. However, products containing glyphosate also contain other compounds which can be toxic. In particular most contain surfactants known as polyoxyethyleneamines (POEA). Some of these are much more toxic than glyphosate. These account for problems associated with worker exposure. They are serious irritants of the respiratory tract, eyes and skin and are contaminated with dioxane (not dioxin) which is a suspected carcinogen. Some are toxic to fish.

In California, glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints to the UK’s Health and Safety Executive’s Pesticides Incident Appraisal Panel. New formulations, with less irritating surfactants, have been developed by Monsanto (e.g. Roundup Biactive), but cheaper, older preparations are still available.

Environmental Toxicity

Glyphosate is one of the most toxic herbicides, with many species of wild plants being damaged or killed by applications of less than 10 micrograms per plant. Glyphosate can be more damaging to wild flora than many other herbicides, as aerial spraying with glyphosate can give average drifts of 1200 to 2500 feet and ground spraying with glyphosate may cause damage to sensitive plants up to 300 feet from the field sprayed. Glyphosate use is thought to affect hedgerow trees, causing die-back, and may reduce trees' winter hardiness and resistance to fungal disease

The direct toxicity of glyphosate to mammals and birds is low. However, its effect on flora can have a damaging effect on mammals and birds through habitat destruction. The US EPA concluded that many endangered species of plants, as well as the Houston toad, may be at risk from glyphosate use.

Fish and invertebrates are more sensitive to formulations of glyphosate. As with humans, the surfactants are responsible for much of the harm . Toxicity is increased with higher water temperatures, and pH. In Australia, guidelines state that most formulations of glyphosate should not be used in or near water because of their toxic effects on tadpoles and adult frogs. The newer, non-irritant formulations such as Roundup Biactive are not included in this advice.

Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate was found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts. However, when glyphosate comes into contact with the soil it rapidly binds to soil particles and is inactivated. Unbound glyphosate is degraded by bacteria. Low activity because of binding to soil particles suggests that glyphosate's effects on soil flora will be limited. However, some recent work shows that glyphosate can be readily released from certain types of soil particles, and therefore may leach into water or be taken up by plants.

Impact Of Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistant Crops

The introduction of crops engineered to be resistant to glyphosate could have two particularly damaging effects. Firstly, it will increase the use of the herbicide, and secondly, it may encourage the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds.

Monsanto claim that the introduction of herbicide resistant crops will reduce the overall amount of herbicide used. They argue that glyphosate will replace other, more environmentally damaging herbicides, because only glyphosate need be used rather than several different compounds. They also argue that weed killer will be used less frequently on resistant crops. Importantly they also consider glyphosate to be 'environmentally friendly' and a 'safe' herbicide, basing this claim on its reduced soil particle binding and low toxicity to humans.

Other herbicides used on soybeans and other crops are unquestionably harmful to the environment and human health. The question is whether glyphosate is really any less harmful and whether herbicide resistant plants will reduce the amount of potentially damaging chemical to the environment. Evaluating overall amount of use on a weight or volume basis does not allow for the differences in toxicity between chemicals. Weight or volume of total herbicide may decrease simply because glyphosate is more effective at killing plants than many other chemicals. Glyphosate is already the eleventh most widely used pesticide in the US on a volume basis. Its damaging impacts on the environment have already been described.

Whether there will be a reduction in the number of times herbicide is used is also questionable. In their documents prepared for the US authorities, Monsanto say that under current regimes, between one and five applications of different herbicides or herbicide mixtures are needed to control weeds in soybean crops, while with Roundup Ready soybeans only "one or possibly two" applications of Roundup will be needed. Yet in their information for farmers in Argentina, Monsanto recommends Roundup be used with Roundup Ready soybeans before sowing, when the young plant has three to four leaves and then whenever the farmers find weeds. This is "at least twice and probably more frequently".

Herbicide Resistance In Weeds

One of the major concerns of weed scientists is that the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds may be encouraged by the use of herbicide resistant plants. Herbicide resistance arises in an analogous fashion to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Mutations occur in plants and when one arises which makes it resistant to the herbicide, it will have an advantage and grow and flourish when other plants are killed Resistance to glyphosate is easy to induce in plants in the laboratory. Monsanto claims resistance to glyphosate is unlikely to emerge in the field because it does not persist in soil. However, weed resistance to paraquat, an herbicide which has a shorter soil persistence than glyphosate, is already a serious problem. One weed specialist concluded, by comparison to paraquat, that "Presumably glyphosate resistance can also be obtained with multi-annual treatments" (Gressel, in Cassley et al, 1991). Roundup Ready soybeans are intended to be used with "multi-annual treatments" and so the emergence of resistance will be encouraged. Even before the increased use of glyphosate expected with the introduction of resistant crops, there has already been a report of glyphosate resistance in a weed which occurred in ryegrass in Australia.

Glyphosate resistant weeds could also arise if there is gene flow between the soybean and a related wild plant or if the soybean survives to emerge as a weed ("a volunteer") in the subsequent crop. Gene flow is possible in the Far East where soybean originated and wild related plants exist. Herbicide resistant volunteers may be a problem where mild climates occur and overwintering of soybean is possible.

Herbicide resistant crops are an expensive problem for farmers. Having weeds resistant to another herbicide, triazine, have been estimated to cost farmers up to $10 an acre in extra weed control expenditure. There would be an extra penalty for farmers growing glyphosate resistant crops if glyphosate resistant weeds evolved, because not only would they have to change their weed control practices but they would have paid a premium for the herbicide resistant seed in the first place.

Thus herbicide resistant soybeans promise increased herbicide use and associated damage to the environment, together with an increased risk of weed resistance, which would be a costly problem for farmers.

Sources:

Active Ingredient Fact Sheet: Glyphosate. Pesticide News 33 pp28-29, September 1996.

Breeze, V, Thomas, G & Butler, R (1992) Use of a model and toxicity data to predict risks to some wild plant species from drift of four herbicides. Annals of Allied Biology 121: 669-677

Carlisle S.M. & Trevors, J.T. (1988) Glyphosate in the environment. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 39: 409-420

Casley J C., Cussans G W & Atkin R K (eds) (1991) Herbicide resistance in weeds and crops. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann

Marrs, R H, Williams, C T, Frost, A J & Plant, R A (1989) Assessment of the effects of herbicide spray drift on a range of plants of conservation interest. Environmental Pollution 59: 71- 86

New Scientist, 6 July 1996, p6

Petition for determination of nonregulated status of soybeans with a Roundup Ready gene. Agricultural Group of Monsanto to APHIS, USDA, 1993.

US-EPA RED Facts: Glyphosate, September 1993

Yates W E., Akesson N B & Bayer D E (1978) Drift of glyphosate sprays applied with aerial and ground equipment. Weed Science 26 (6): 597-604

GREENPEACE, April 1997

1436 U St. NW, Washington DC 20009

-- Erica (natureselegance@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

Ok, you asked for opinions on Greenpeace. I'll guess I trust them about as much as you or Sue would trust a press release from Monsanto. :) Heck, _I_ don't trust a press release from Monsanto either, I wouldn't think of bothering to quote one here. Likewise, Greenpeace has it's own political agenda, and I really never find much truth in their conclusions.

By that I do not mean to bash you (or Sue!!!) in any way. Just my opinion. I think about the same of Monsanto & Greenpeace - folks that each have an axe to grind, a political & business position to protect & defend. Both are equal extremists in this case.

As to what you quoted here, all of it seems fairly factual if dated. RR Cotton & Corn have been produced, and RR wheat & alfalfa have been developed, if not sold commercially. Roundup often requires 2 applications in the USA in soybeans. Weeds becoming resistant has not been an issue yet, but if it does, then tillage or other sprays with different modes of action will take care of that. Not really an issue? There is a very big difference between killing weeds & killing bacteria, so that comparision is for show, not to actually prove anything. Weeds do not become increasing resistant to all things in the same fashion as bacteria.

Roundup is designed to kill green plants. So, if you happen to spray some endangered plants, they will die. Duh? Don't get their point on all that. That would make a hoe dangerous to endangered plants as well - if you use the hoe on the plants! Duh. Roundup seems to have a very low drift risk from what Greenpeace is saying, better than the stuff it replaces.

So, the whole point is that the surfacants in the mix are the bad thing - and that is basically the action of vinegar or lemon in an organic spray??? :) If you think about that.... no, you wouldn't want to think too hard about that... :)

We aren't going to raise crops without chemicals. Too many people want cheap food. The bottom line is that Roundup is a far less dangerous chemical than many others that would be used in it's place. The Greenpeace quote basically admits that.

Frankly, reading this makes me think Roundup is a better, more ecco-friendly product than I thought before reading it? I don't know what others would see in there that is bad?

The only part that seems to be pure fiction is the very last paragraph. Makes no sense at all.

Now, once we mention Monsanto, there is another issue that comes up. Monsanto is a big company that wants to get bigger, & they are following Microsoft's licencing ideas and software protection ideas to protect themselves. I do _NOT_ like those efforts by Monsanto _either_, and it is a major reason I do not plant RR crops. But let's keep these _business_ situations seperate from the issue of this thread, which is the danger or safety of glysophate - not the business practices of the manufactuerer.

So, thanks for the quote. I think we will differ on how we view the data, but certainly there is room for different opinions, and I just humbly offer mine for pondering:

If you hate, truely hate, ag pesticides, then it's not Roundup, or Monsanto, or DDT or 2,4D or any one of these. You probably hate them all, and have no room in your life for _any_. (That would be Greenpeace's position.)

For the world we live in right now, it seems ag pesticides will be around for a long time yet. Using Roundup, based on science's best examination, is a more environmentally sound choice than the older alternatives.

Nothing, not a bee, not a bucket of water, not a tree is 100% safe. But we can see that Roundup is safer that the older chemicals. For some of us, that is a step in the right direction, even as we hope for more steps to come in the right direction.

Cars used to come with no seatbelts at all. Now they come with seat & shoulder belts & airbags. But that is a far cry from the 6-point harness, helmet, rollbars & HANS device that NASCAR uses. To be truely safe, we need the 6-point, helmet, & HANS. Does that mean we should critisize the airbags & seatbelts? Or should we at least admit it's better than the old cars with no safety equipment at all? We can still hope to improve what we have, but let's not throw dung on the steps to improvement and remain in the more dangerous past.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

Susan you can use anything you want, bacon grease, even the venom that seems to flow from your own vascular system. The question was about roundup. If you want organic try Cyniade, of arsinic, they are organic.

-- Paul (treewizard@buffalo.com), April 26, 2002.

Actually, Paul, Erica specifically did NOT ask for your opinion on Greenpeace, and did it quite gracefully.

Oh, dang, I ate 3.8 tons of turkey just this past Sunday...guess I'm doomed.

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 26, 2002.

Hey, at least I didn't suggest using 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T mixed together in used motor oil! Brother and Dad used to use this all the time. Brother got some on his arm and it ate a hole in his arm. He didn't learn. I did. I really think some herbicides & pesticides have their place. HOWEVER, I don't really appreciate when the farmer next door uses a spray on his field and my son and I have to hide in the house until the overspray has dissipated. You'd think he'd realize that he's losing money by spraying it into the air. My fruit trees suffered THAT year, lemme tell ya. Anyway, I will only say roundup when I am talking about the goats, poultry, rabbits, or horses get out. :o>

p.s. I've had pretty good luck with salt water or vinegar on unneeded plants... Does anyone know how to get rid of creeping charlie? It was used for giving the bitter to beer before we used hops and it's rampant! It's the kudzu of the north...

-- Gailann Schrader (gtschrader@aol.com), April 26, 2002.

Gailann, you asked about what to use on creeping charlie when we are discussing Roundup? Um, I assume you are asking about non chemical means. Otherwise---- lol.

Erica, I realize the you didn't ask for our opinions of Greenpeace, but here is mine anyway. I'm sure not much for Greenpeace because of the tactics they use. Peaceful organizations of any kind are just fine in my book, but when they destroy research projects or get violent I get a little, no I get quite upset. Makes me want to tell the companies doing the research to just bypass that phase of their research phase and take the product to the consumers because of the delays inflicted on them.

That is why some research projects are done at secret locations causing the neighbors/people to feel threatened because they feel the chem companies are HIDING something. Indeed they are. They are just attempting to do research without it being destroyed.

Now as to Greenpeace's statement on Roundup--almost sounds like a commercial to me. I think that I will actually be more comfortable using it in the future.

When spraying pesticides (pesticides includes herbicides and insecticides) I used to use a commercial surfactant or a little dish soap. Usually a surfactant has a foam buster where soap doesn't, causing foam from the return/bypass of the sprayer.

Modern sprayers, correctly used, should use lower pressure and larger droplet patterns creating little or no spray drift. Spraying should be done on days with little wind in accordance to government regulations. If someone has spray drifting onto your trees or you, they haven't a clue as to how to spray correctly and should be reported to the proper authorities in my opinion.

Erica and Paul, thank you both for the posts. This has been a pretty calm and interesting discussion.

-- Notforprint (Not@thekeyboard.com), April 26, 2002.

Organic Gardening's Watchdog Report which states "sperm production in rabbits was diminished by 50 percent when they were exposed to glyphosate". At the bottom of this page is a great link to Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. This site has dozens of alternative factsheets on many topics including different pesticides and specific problem insects along with Special Reports.

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 26, 2002.

OH! A social faux paus! I apologize. No disrespect or disparaging was meant! I guess it was a Freudian slip! (or camisole or garter belt with fishnet stockings... Imagine Freud in THEM for once...)

I guess we could keep the rabbit population down then, huh?!

-- Gailann Schrader (gtschrader@aol.com), April 26, 2002.

Thanks for the visual, Gailann, ...NOT!! I WAS going to fix lunch after checking this thread...heeheehee

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 26, 2002.

JUDY, poor you, lots of "info" huh?

PAUL, thanks for the whap up-side the head. Good answer. Ya'all keepin' me thinkin'. You remind me that arsenic (or was it something even harsher?) is in apple seeds. But no, I am not going to use even worse "organics" on the land. Urine (from my poisonous blood stream) is "good" ---- fertilizes the soil. Go figure. I'll bet it will kill a weed on contact too! he he

EVERYONE, Marrying Monsanto and Greenpeace in the same sentence...laughing hard. Thanks and keep up the discussion. One can never learn too much.

-- Susan in Michigan (cobwoman@yahoo.com), April 27, 2002.

um , ah, mr.paul, "There is a very big difference between killing weeds & killing bacteria, so that comparision is for show, not to actually prove anything. Weeds do not become increasing[ly] resistant to all things in the same fashion as bacteria. "

yes they do. it's called natural selection, survival of the fittest, might makes right, or dumb luck...

the hardiest weeds are the ones to survive long enough to produce pollen/offspring. those offspring will have their parents traits,[low water req., speedy pollen prodution, round-up resistance...etc.] in their genetic make up.

so yes ,incouraging farmers to be 'one-trick-ponies' by using only round-up will increase the production of round-up resistant weeds.

and this will happen just like the bacteria resistant to antibiotics, by the farmer not eliminating every weed just the percentage needed to not interfere with their crops growth.

on round-up being considered for organic certification, they also considered allowing municipal sludge & genetically modified seeds into the new federal regulations for organic production!

-- bj pepper ,in central MS. (pepper.pepper@excite.com), April 27, 2002.

I just wanted to say that I kind of felt what Paul was saying about RoundUp not being as bad as I originally thought. Then I re-read the part about the ag workers - though maybe the newer formulations are better. It was also the drift part, & the work with genetically modified veggies. It's also the fact that just because we judge it to be safer than a lot of things now, it doesn't mean that it's good, or that 50 years from now we won't see the ill effects. Mostly, I won't use it because I am against Monsanto. As for Greenpeace, again, I know very little about them. I would have to read more to know about the violent or damaging acts Notforprint says they use. However, I do not condone such acts. What's the point of doing more destruction to make a point on saving the Earth?

This has been an interesting thread. I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about RoundUp, etc. It's great how informative we can be when we choose to:-) Now I need to check out those Organic Gardening links!

-- Erica (natureselegance@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.