Allotment Gardening Advice Help Chat
Growing => Grow Your Own => Topic started by: gobs on November 25, 2007, 08:32
-
and containing products.
Rob's post sent me thinking and reading. I do not use them, so was not concerned. However, I was inclined to believe claims of its bio-degrading qualities.
Surprising then it comes, that it can remain in the soil for years. Even if it has low toxicity to humans, it is the second most offensive garden chemical in respect of reported accidents, ill health effects, on the other hand it is more harmful to fish and other water vertebrates and kills a lot of micro organisms and fungi in the soil.
Products, containing it, except for one are banned in Australia. The US has measures concerning treated areas. Info from pesticide network.
Might make some people think twice about using on an over grown plot. :(
-
and containing products. Surprising then it comes, that it can remain in the soil for years.
Have you got a cite to this? I've read that once it is in contact with the soil, it is adsorbed onto the surface of soil particles, where it is broken down eventually by bacteria. Glyphosate can only function if the molecule is free. if it is bound electrostatically to soil, it is, to all intents and purposes, inert.
The articles I have read where there has been a problem with it, indicate the solvent (what the glyp is dissolved in) being the poisinous/dangerous factor...
-
Here's some articles:
Article by the makers (http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/products/roundup_gly_efate_bkg.pdf)
an independent review (http://www.speclab.com/compound/c1071836.htm)
govt fact sheet and advisory (http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/herbicide-facts.shtml)
seems to have a half-life in the soil of 61 days. After a year it would be virtually undetectable.
-
Doesn't werk fer me !
Well glyphosate has only been available as a herbicide for maybe 35 years and that is a very short time indeed with regards to possible side-effects on an ecosystem. It took longer than that to learn that DDT decreased raptor populations by making their egg shells too thin to support weight of the parent bird.
RoundUp made many many millions of dollars for Monsanto as a herbicide and genetically modified maize and soya beans (resistant to glyphosate) will make them $billions$ more. Plenty of profit to fund advertising (and research) supporting the idea that it is "neutralised on contact with soil". Mmmmmm.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate which includes "Health concerns : There are concerns about the effects of glyphosate (and Roundup) on non-plant species even including on possible human reproductive dysfunction. ... An in-vitro study has suggested glyphosate may have an effect on progesterone production in mammalian cells and affect mortality of placental cells in-vitro. Whether these studies classify glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor is a matter of debate."
seems to have a half-life in the soil of 61 days. After a year it would be virtually undetectable
A half-life of 61 days means that 1/64th remains after 1 year. Apparently, it has been detected in silts from ponds more than a year after application.
Glyphosate can only function if the molecule is free
Function as an herbicide perhaps but what else does it do?
All I am really saying is that I simply don't know for sure and nor does anyone else, the jury is still out. I won't be using any.
-
You are right about solvents, Mushy, but there are a lot of other problems as well. According to a Hungarian Uni's site Denmark is also banning it or similar, as the rising levels of contamination in surface waters are raising more concern about health issues.
I'm going to borrow one of Uncle Rob's links here, I hope he won't mind.
LINK (http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf)
-
Doesn't werk fer me !
Well glyphosate has only been available as a herbicide for maybe 35 years and that is a very short time indeed with regards to possible side-effects on an ecosystem. It took longer than that to learn that DDT decreased raptor populations by making their egg shells too thin to support weight of the parent bird.
The speed and sophistication of research these days is by far and away superior to what it was when environmental impact of DDT was being researched. Years ago, environmental impact was not looked at anywhere near as closely as it has in the last, say, 10 years. I'd say 35 years or so is quite a reasonable time to look for side-effects considering a large percentage of the biosphere has a life cycle well inside that period, and also considering that at the time of DDT, they weren't looking for side effects with the same rigour as nowadays.
RoundUp made many many millions of dollars for Monsanto as a herbicide and genetically modified maize and soya beans (resistant to glyphosate) will make them $billions$ more. Plenty of profit to fund advertising (and research) supporting the idea that it is "neutralised on contact with soil". Mmmmmm.
I think 'neutralised on contact with soil' is there because the average user isn't going to be able to get his head around "adsorbed onto soil particles and so deactivated". It's not like we have to believe Mosanto - the half life of a soil contaminant could be determined by any competent analytical lab.
And 'half life' does not mean 'active life' regarding glyp. It means 'that which can be detected'
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate which includes "Health concerns : There are concerns about the effects of glyphosate (and Roundup) on non-plant species even including on possible human reproductive dysfunction. ... An in-vitro study has suggested glyphosate may have an effect on progesterone production in mammalian cells and affect mortality of placental cells in-vitro. Whether these studies classify glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor is a matter of debate."
For stuff like this, I tend to use wikkipedia as a last resort - "may have an effect in-vitro" can be said about anything. In the last link I posted, there is a table giving comparitive values against other substances, salt being one of them.
A half-life of 61 days means that 1/64th remains after 1 year. Apparently, it has been detected in silts from ponds more than a year after application.
But 'detection' does not mean 'active', as described previously.
Glyphosate can only function if the molecule is free
Function as an herbicide perhaps but what else does it do?
What can it do, as it is bound?
I think it is unfair to compare DDT with glyp, because glyp is targeted, whereas DDT is broadly toxic. Glyp acts on the shikimic acid metabolic pathway which is found only in higher plants.
There are dangers with inappropiate use, and there are issues with the use of surfacants in conjunction with glyp - these can be highly irritating. But the idea that residues of glyp itself causing problems is not borne out by evidence. (http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/glyphosa.htm)
All I am really saying is that I simply don't know for sure and nor does anyone else
There is no such thing as "for sure", there is only theory, probability and evidence :wink:
I won't be using any.
I can see why you'd not want to use glyp or anything like it, given that according to your website, your site has always been organic in the past. I mean nowadays, "organic" is very marketable and desirable. But that's a different arguement! :D
-
You are right about solvents, Mushy, but there are a lot of other problems as well. According to a Hungarian Uni's site Denmark is also banning it or similar, as the rising levels of contamination in surface waters are raising more concern about health issues.
I'm going to borrow one of Uncle Rob's links here, I hope he won't mind.
LINK (http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf)
That site appears to be a political site against pesticides/herbicides in general, making me disinclined to beleive what they have to say. I'll put more faith in scientific papers, paying particular attention to what journal they're published in, and who is sponsoring them. :wink:
-
Mushy, suggesting that other than the manufacturer's view is political dogma is a bit silly. :roll:
This is a toxins awareness organization in the US, the equivalent of whom you are linking to in the UK. The article of the later(if you read it in full) we understand quite differently.
But if you want scientific research, here you are, just one of the many.
LINK (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html)
-
Mushy, suggesting that other than the manufacturer's view is political dogma is a bit silly. :roll:
That's not what I said. What I actually said was this:
I'll put more faith in scientific papers, paying particular attention to what journal they're published in, and who is sponsoring them.
This implies that I'll credit independent research more than one published by the manufacturer or a political organisation.
But if you want scientific research, here you are, just one of the many.
LINK (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html)
looking at this now
-
And here is about how fast they biodegrade.
Denmark (http://organic.com.au/news/2003.09.15/)
fish (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7H-41MJ1C2-3D&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=636b122f661e6758264fa0a34b522d99)
-
And here is about how fast they biodegrade.
Denmark (http://organic.com.au/news/2003.09.15/)
Would you call 1m deep water "groundwater"? I think of groundwater as water that you have to sink a borehole into then pump out, to get it. This implies depths significantly greater than 1 metre. I'd say 1 metre is still the topsoil in a farm setting, where the soil is ploughed by tractor, and where glyp will be used the most. Also a political site.
fish (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7H-41MJ1C2-3D&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=636b122f661e6758264fa0a34b522d99)
This is more worrying. But again - roundup, which is glyp+surfecant+other stuff, not glyp. The issue with the surfacants is already known. If they need a surfacant, then why not use soap?
-
But if you want scientific research, here you are, just one of the many.
LINK (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html)
1. in vitro - this is important.
2. from the full paper: (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7728/7728.html)
"Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient."
still, it's worrying :(
-
Well done folks, and who said debates couldn't be conducted politely. :D
Now, would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why sperm count in men today is less than half of what it was post-WWII? Strikes me that we are part of the ecosystem too ...
-
Well done folks, and who said debates couldn't be conducted politely. :D
Now, would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why sperm count in men today is less than half of what it was post-WWII? Strikes me that we are part of the ecosystem too ...
That's easy - too tight trousers and underpants.. Goolies need freedom :!:
and too many protracted hot baths - showers are better
and everyone seems to live in a furnace these days - turn the thermostat down!
-
then there are plasticisers that act as pseudo-oestrogens environmentally.
Too much sitting down.
Hormonal residues in meat (but this is only heresay - I haven't read it up)
-
a collection of scientific papers about this very subject:
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/reproduction/sperm/humansperm.htm
Soya also has a part to play - contains phytoestrogens.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12792&feedId=online-news_rss20
I know that people with an underperforming thyroid are advised to steer clear of soya
-
Back to topic though, if you are interested in individual research papers on that site I sent a link of you can search for them, it throws up more than 500, unfortunately not all say, who commissioned the research and a lot would be by Santo Mate, I'd guess.
There are indeed a few concerns with this magic product's use.
- adsorption is different on diff soil types, temperatures, fertility, ground water, etc
- leaching into surface, ground waters, sewage systems
- altering microbial life of soil
- driving away earthworms and other effects on them
- resistance in some plants due to overuse
- residues due to poor adsorption, leaching, spray drift have an adverse effect on cultivated and non-target fauna and wild life, indeed so now it seems, it has ill effects on a lot of living organisms reproduction
Unfortunately, due to GM crops, developed with resistance to it, overwhelming majority of new research goes into detection of it in food and other implications of its direct use on such food crops.
New research shows that some of these GM crops also have got reproduction problems.
-
I decided it was time to kill the weeds so i trotted off to B&Q to grt some round up then got talking to a chap who said round up was good but only if i didnt want to grow anything next year as it could still be present in the soil for that lenth of time so went out empty handed :D :D went down my lotty and started digging and now pleased that i did it must be better for the soil and produce just thought i would let you know
-
Looks like my work is cut out for me tonight, lots of reading to do, i'll do this a bit later this evening... seperating the wheat from the chaff. It's difficult to get a properly rounded picture. So far, I've found the papers either relate to glyp surfecant mixture exposure on applicationor exposure in vitro, the second example is hardly a realistic situation.
Nothing so far of it appearing in food... but then again, much reading to be done.
-
Looks like my work is cut out for me tonight, lots of reading to do, i'll do this a bit later this evening... seperating the wheat from the chaff. It's difficult to get a properly rounded picture. So far, I've found the papers either relate to glyp surfecant mixture exposure on applicationor exposure in vitro, the second example is hardly a realistic situation.
Nothing so far of it appearing in food... but then again, much reading to be done.
Happy reading let us know what you come up with!! im now very weary as to what i put on my soil i suppose you cant beat digging hard work but better in the long run
-
Good on you Tohellwithweeds! :D
-
Well, I've changed my mind about glyp. Cheers for the heads-up, Gobs.
This is what changed it:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/impacts_glyphosate.pdf
-
Well, I've changed my mind about glyp. Cheers for the heads-up, Gobs.
This is what changed it:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/impacts_glyphosate.pdf
just read it oh my god thank god i didnt use it and now i never ever will so thank you :D you deserve a big gold star
-
Thanks for that Mushy, that's a good paper.
But I was going to post this without you posting that. I just wanted to clarify that I was not on a mission and do not want to convert you or any other non-organic gardener, I just wanted to post this new found information to share with all those concerned in whatever way.
I know it's not the most dangerous chemical we use, the importance of this post is about what it claims to be, which it probably isn't.
You or anybody else, garden in a way you like, if you want to use it, it's legal, so you can use it. None of my business.
Or is it? As one writer put it, your rights go as far, as you do not hurt someone else's rights, and if someone else the next plot to me is spraying stuff about.... That's another conversation.
But I'm pleased you took the trouble of thinking about it, very intelligent, I would say.
-
Well done folks, and who said debates couldn't be conducted politely. :D
Now, would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why sperm count in men today is less than half of what it was post-WWII? Strikes me that we are part of the ecosystem too ...
Two suggestions from me, either the poison we are putting into our world on a daily basis is slowly having its effect or......nature though the levels of male sperm is trying to keep a population balance given that the earth is now 4 billion people over its sustainable population.
-
Well, I've changed my mind about glyp.
... and man enough to admit it.
Now ... reading the FOE link might mean my question on sperm count was more "on topic" than you imagined ... "reduced sperm count in rabbits" it said. Thanks for the link, mushroom.
-
Well, I've changed my mind about glyp.
... and man enough to admit it.
Now ... reading the FOE link might mean my question on sperm count was more "on topic" than you imagined ... "sperm count in rabbits" it said. Thanks for the link, mushroom.
I hope you don't wanna breed like rabbits, even though well lovely for multiplication you are.
Yes, a lot of these chemicals will work on this basis. Also, as mushy said hot baths, etc are out of question. That's why they are naturally hanging to keep them cool. :wink: :lol:
-
I'm afraid the FOE report didn't impress me greatly, seems to me that it's reaching to justify a position.
Forget Monsanto's GM aims and concentrating on the risks of glyphosate - it's a low risk herbicide (although FOE seem to think it's a pesticide) - with low persistence and highly effective.
I'm sorry - I just think FOE are so biased that their report isn't fully credible, which is a shame.
The risk evaluation for an agricultural worker using large amounts of it would be different to that of a gardener using it rarely and selectively. There is, I believe, evidence it caused harm to agricultural workers.
I use glyphosate annually for the paths and sometimes carefully on weeds like couch or bindweed where getting every little bit of root out is well nigh impossible.
Although I haven't used it to clear a plot, I wouldn't rule it out. I'd much rather see a plot get a spray than another newbie give up and go home a failure.
-
I'm afraid the FOE report didn't impress me greatly, seems to me that it's reaching to justify a position.
what does that mean?
Forget Monsanto's GM aims and concentrating on the risks of glyphosate - it's a low risk herbicide (although FOE seem to think it's a pesticide) - with low persistence and highly effective.
Without a doubt it is highly effective. I was saddened to read that its residues were found in lettuce a year after it was applied to the ground. The given half life is 61 days, and even that is meant to be so tightly bound to soil that it's not even available to higher plants. If it's low persistence, then how is it detectable in lettuce a year after it was applied to the ground in question?
The paper doesn't indicate if the residues detected are intact glyp or its metabolite, or if its metabolite is any more or less toxic. Probably outside the scope of the paper.
I'm sorry - I just think FOE are so biased that their report isn't fully credible, which is a shame.
Do you think the report is biased?
I saw 117 references in the report, from all over the place, from various respected organisations.. I know FoE have an agenda, but they are themselves a highly respected organisation. And they aren't blemishing themselves with paying for the science.
I use glyphosate annually for the paths and sometimes carefully on weeds like couch or bindweed where getting every little bit of root out is well nigh impossible.
This kind of usage I'd agree with completely.
Although I haven't used it to clear a plot, I wouldn't rule it out. I'd much rather see a plot get a spray than another newbie give up and go home a failure.
I used it to clear about half of the plot of overgrown grass - i really wanted to kill the roots. The grass is mostly twitch. I wish i hadn't now - 5 or 6 rotovations over that area would have killed it off. I didn't realise glyp acted on the soil fungi and (some) of the bacteria that keep the soil alive.
The fact that a newbie might give up is, to my mind, nebulous. If you want to do it, you're going to.
-
excuse me not quoting but I do think FOE started from a premise that Monsanto are evil and all their works are. I'd agree with the first part of that, btw, from what I've seen and read Monsanto have appear to have no morals beyond their profit margin. I'm no friend to them (although I worded that carefully to avoid liability)
Given sensitive enough equipment, I'm sure they can find residues in things. but is it significant? Was the application originally normal? You can bend things so easily -
I'm not qualified to judge the validity of the research but I know spin and agenda when I see it. Comes from having done it for a living :oops: I've no interest in promoting glyphosate, btw. I'm sure they can cite reports but it is easy to take things out of context and exagerate the importance etc.
As for newbies giving up being nebulous, I've not undertaken a statistically significant survey but I've seen it happen.
Like yourself, I suspect, I trust peer-reviewed independent reports far more than reports from those with an agenda to promote or profits to make.
-
I started a debate about this in another forum, and it's raging even as I write this.
I'm pretty sure that the average gardener doesn't use enough glyphosate to pose themselves a health risk, although this in itself should not be ignored. The main danger seems to be from the introduction of GM crops which exhibit glyphosate resistance. This permits wholesale spraying to control weeds, with a corresponding rise in glyphosate use.
The following is a link to an article compiled by Andre Leu, who chairs the Organic federation of Australia. It makes compelling reading.
http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1647
Rob.
-
excuse me not quoting but I do think FOE started from a premise that Monsanto are evil and all their works are.
Other than being an organisation with an agenda, can you justify your reasoning from any parts of the article?
You're right in that I give much greater credence to independent peer-reviewed work published in a reputable journal. The FOE document quotes many peer-reviewed works, and as you've seen, at the start of the document it takes assertions made by the manufacturers and challenges them using cited research. I was impressed by the number of citations, and from where they were cited. This made me give the article greater credence than otherwise given its origin.
Given sensitive enough equipment, I'm sure they can find residues in things. but is it significant?
Hmmm. That's a philosophical question. If I offer you one lettuce without residues, and another with, which one are you going to eat?
Was the application originally normal? You can bend things so easily -
The only way to really establish that is to read the original papers...
The most frustrating thing I find about the FOE document is that it doesn't seem to specify what it considers to be "residue" - is this free glyp, adsorbed glyp, or metabolized glyp? Each has different meanings in different contexts.. and again, the only way to get to the bottom of what they mean is to read the originals :x
-
In response to Rob the rake
But we don't rage on here or Aunt Sally sends us to the naughty step!
Pesticide residues are really a different subject and there is the cocktail effect of combinations of residues that is worrying. Testing for 'safe' levels of one pesticide is relatively easy but when we get to a bit of X, bit of Y, bit of Z then testing pretty soon becomes impossible.
I'm sure someone more mathematically able than I could explain it - long time since I needed to play with factors.
Luckily we now have biological controls available for many pests and some simple pesticides like Derris that are (fingers crossed) 'safe'
Although I use glyphosate for some things I much prefer - except for the cost - to use ammonium sulphamate. This is a simple chemical herbicide, understood and it turns to sulphate of ammonia after some 6-8 weeks of exposure to the air.
The main drawback, apart from cost, is that you can't plant for 8 weeks after application but you really need to give glyphosate 4 weeks to work properly anyway.
-
Mushroom
Other than being an organisation with an agenda, can you justify your reasoning from any parts of the article?
Nope, but I recognise the style. Walks and quacks, probably is a duck
Hmmm. That's a philosophical question. If I offer you one lettuce without residues, and another with, which one are you going to eat?
No it's not - since there are traces of lead around most everywhere from the bad old leaded petrol days, there are traces of lead in that lettuce - enough to matter?
As for reading the original papers or your frustration with the FOE report - little point in me reading them since I don't even understand your adsorbed / metabolized thing. To some degree the layman has to rely on people who understand this, without any axe to grind.
I've been a member of the HDRA since 1976 when I met L D Hills at Bocking. I've seen the organic movement become more and more strident and less practical over the years.
Growing is all about manipulating and controlling nature - it's obviously better to go with natural methods rather than against them but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If someone is happy to spend weeks to clear a plot, fine (took me months) but otherwise a chemical route can make sense.
-
im still new and i would never give up im hooked and i dare say all the others are after all you just dont get given an allotment and after all the waiting what would be the point in giving up hope every one eles feels the same
-
I personally, cannot see much justifiable reason for any herbicide use in a small scale kitchen garden environment. There is no need and there is need for that bit of exercise that weeding and hoeing gives you.
-
I personally, cannot see much justifiable reason for any herbicide use in a small scale kitchen garden environment. There is no need and there is need for that bit of exercise that weeding and hoeing gives you.
I suppose that depends on if you consider 250 square metres small or not and what time and energy you have available.
I don't push people to use weedkillers or not, but I do push awareness of the options.
-
In an allotment setting, I'm of the opinion that wholesale application of any weedkiller is inappropiate, apart from in emergency situations, like if the plot was infested with japanese knotweed. but then, this is a notifiable plant, and it wouldn't be down to you to move it.
I'm all for glyp application for isolated weeds - risks in this type of situation are very small indeed.
I know that of the traditional herbicides, glyp is probably the best of a bad lot. But I was led to believe from various sources that it was tightly bound to soil to the extent it would not appear in food or water days or months later. This does not appear to be the case, as a large body of reference material suggests. I'm annoyed about this. I'm also irritated that I can't find much information about environmental effects of its metabolite.
In defence of glyp, the acute exposure problem you referred to initially, the effects were put down to the "inert ingredients" which are irritating - since then, different inert ingredients have been used in the formulation, and this formulation is allowed in countries that have banned other formulations, for example Australia. The inert ingredients have their own toxicity and environmental half lives. They can act synergistically with the "active ingredient".
Mushroom
Other than being an organisation with an agenda, can you justify your reasoning from any parts of the article?
Nope, but I recognise the style. Walks and quacks, probably is a duck
Hmm, so you pay more attention to form than content. Oh well :( .. I was hoping for an analytical rather than visceral response.
Hmmm. That's a philosophical question. If I offer you one lettuce without residues, and another with, which one are you going to eat?
No it's not - since there are traces of lead around most everywhere from the bad old leaded petrol days, there are traces of lead in that lettuce - enough to matter?
So, since there are traces of lead in most things, it's acceptable that there are traces of everything else? Logical fallacy. Some toxins are synergistic. And it depends what you mean by "matter". And we know about lead residues and their effects and modes of metabolism and excretion. I haven't found a lot out about glyp regarding metabolism and excretion! And I'm sure that you'd have a hankering for my residue-free lettuce, given the choice :)
I've been a member of the HDRA since 1976 when I met L D Hills at Bocking. I've seen the organic movement become more and more strident and less practical over the years.
Well, I've only been allotment gardening since the middle of this year. I read a lot up about "organic" this and that. My overall impression is that "organic" is a "religon" ... the heretics amongst us prefer logical arguement :)
-
Organic gardening is getting fundamentalist - that's why I refer to the "organic taliban" at times. I'm sorry you find my response visceral. I would say I'm judging the value of the content to some degree by the presentational style. I'm actually quite analytical about messages and sub-textual content.
That doesn't mean I think someone is lying, just that they are being economical with the truth. For example: Eating sugar is dangerous. That is true but only in part.
Yes, I'd prefer your lettuce with no additives if given the choice. Does that make it a wholly rational choice?
We've seen many chemical controls taken off the market for individuals in recent years - yet many of those chemicals are still available to farmers and licensed people. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or bad. Certainly lulls into a false sense of security.
Judging by your posts, you can read and understand the source documents so what do they say in terms laypeople can understand?
-
I personally, cannot see much justifiable reason for any herbicide use in a small scale kitchen garden environment. There is no need and there is need for that bit of exercise that weeding and hoeing gives you.
I suppose that depends on if you consider 250 square metres small or not and what time and energy you have available.
I don't push people to use weedkillers or not, but I do push awareness of the options.
Yes, John, as you probably guessed, I consider that a small garden to grow for your family.
And yes, that's what it comes down to in our rushing world, time and also a bit lazy and also a bit of habit. A lot of us are quite unused to hard physical work and have to find the time for so many things. A lot of people also cultivate by rotavators.
I tend to think we reach for the sprays very readily, as quick fix. I know you don't push the weed killers, but a company with such claims does. I would think, the fact that a lot of people are lead to believe it completely harmless contributes to it being overused.
I'm not organic, BTW, I do not like the label. I think derris is very toxic and non-selective and would not use it.
And, yes, large scale agricultural implementations have a lot more serious impact, of course, but would not like to use that as an excuse.
And you also surely know, that governments, etc are not fast of the mark to take any action where large commercial interests come into question.
And data are mottled with a lot.
Ex: to the best of my knowledge, Defra declared the UK not having any beehive problems, at the same time a large keeper's 20 sg hives were reported gone out of 40.
-
Organic gardening is getting fundamentalist - that's why I refer to the "organic taliban" at times.
We're in complete agreement here.
I'm sorry you find my response visceral. I would say I'm judging the value of the content to some degree by the presentational style.
That's why I think it is visceral. All I'm interested in is the assertions and if they can be qualified and substantiated.
That doesn't mean I think someone is lying, just that they are being economical with the truth. For example: Eating sugar is dangerous. That is true but only in part.
I would say that is an assertion that needs to be qualified by context, because it is meaningless as it stands. The FOE document takes assertions made by the manufacturer and disputes them using cited literature.
Yes, I'd prefer your lettuce with no additives if given the choice. Does that make it a wholly rational choice?
if you prefer non-contaminated to contaminated food, then yes, it's wholly rational. :)
We've seen many chemical controls taken off the market for individuals in recent years - yet many of those chemicals are still available to farmers and licensed people. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or bad.
Well, my opinion now is that broad-spectrum herbicides have only very limited place in the allotment, primarily because gardens and allotments contribute greatly to biodiversity. It's a different situation in regular agriculture. This is apart from the residues issue, or the compounds appearance, or its metabolic products, in drinking water
Judging by your posts, you can read and understand the source documents so what do they say in terms laypeople can understand?
That's a tall order, and represents a lot of work. Bear in mind that some principles cannot be broken down to the extent a layperson could understand. I thought the FOE document valuable because it does try to explain. But you'll still need some science background to understand it.
-
A lot of people also cultivate by rotavators.
Why do you think this is significant?
-
That's a tall order, and represents a lot of work. Bear in mind that some principles cannot be broken down to the extent a layperson could understand. I thought the FOE document valuable because it does try to explain. But you'll still need some science background to understand it.
I understand that totally - it's a bit like statistics, hard information (assuming proper data collection) but interpretation can vary. I'm saying I don't trust Monsanto or FOE to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
As for sugar - that's the point I was making in shorthand I knew you would understnand.
gobs, I don't think people are that lazy. They are time poor. Someone asked me how I spent so much time on the plot and my answer was that I am fortunate enough to work evenings and rainy days.
I've seen people taking on plots and they never win - eventually the go away and someone else tries. The reason for the failure is that TV encourages the belief you throw a seed at the ground and stand back. The boring preparation and constant cultivation is edited out and they don't realise how much time they need to devote to the new hobby.
-
True, a lot of people do not know what they are taking on.
-
A lot of people also cultivate by rotavators.
Why do you think this is significant?
Does save a lot of time. :wink:
-
I used to work in residue analysis at Shell Research, Sittingbourne (now closed :roll: )
With the amounts of chemical you are likely to use on an allotment to control initial and resistant perennial weeds the residues would be minuscule and not worth worrying about :!:
Trust Aunty - she used to be a chemist :lol: :shock:
-
If you are going to use glyphosate, DO PLEASE get the dosage correct or Aunty's residues could go off-scale. We've had posts on this very forum where someone bought enough to treat 3 acres instead of 5 rods!!
-
Seconded there WG :!: :D
-
organic taliban
Merely extending your own metaphor, John - the vast majority of Muslims disown the Taleban ...
According to your Poll on http://www.chat.allotment-garden.org/viewtopic.php?t=868, a sizable minority of our members are completely organic. I don't recall any strident, overbearing posts from any of them.
Equally, I only recall one strident, overbearing individual from the 'other' persuasion and we dumped him PDQ.
My only real point is that I know of no other forum where folks are happy to teach their methods and not preach their methods. Long may it continue.
And I haven't used this graphic for a wee while so here goes since it seems appropriate ...
(http://www.4starworld.com/g/TeachLearn.jpg)
-
Interestingly, here in Italy, you are obliged as a landowner to display the brand of weedkiller applied to land (so that for example meandering goatherds don't go inadvertently poisoning their herd.) Within a few km of our house there are two plots (1 of 5ha, and 1 of 1ha) that have been treated with roundup last Autumn. They are both currently under about 6ft of weeds.
From one perspective, this tells me that the dodgy chemicals are indeed inert after a short time. From another, it tells me that the dodgy chemicals are ineffective and require repeated application (rather like dodgy patches to Microshaft software - you gotta keep on payin'.)
Either way, they're not for me (or the land that I manage.) Choices, eh? :roll:
Edit: The irony of using the verb 'to treat' with applying weedkiller to soil has just struck me. PR's a strange thing innit? Maybe if the verb 'to brutalise' or 'to nuke' were used instead people would be more conscious of their actions...?
-
Contadino .... very wise words , we should all act responsibly in our use of the land, we are only borrowing it , after all.
-
I used to work in residue analysis at Shell Research, Sittingbourne (now closed :roll: )
With the amounts of chemical you are likely to use on an allotment to control initial and resistant perennial weeds the residues would be minuscule and not worth worrying about :!:
Trust Aunty - she used to be a chemist :lol: :shock:
My only question is Aunty, if so many billions of people around the world get this advice and act upon it, would there be still no worries about residual effects? :?
-
Following this with great interest as weedkilled a large area of my plot in September using a glyp based product. I am not planting anything on the area until March/April at the earliest and the site has since been harrowed thoroughly and manured.
Ultimately, we have little control of the integrity of the soil on new plots as few know what goes on before. My own plot was grassed for years but people used to turn their cars around when leaving the plot - arguably but unlikely I could be exposed to tiny amounts of diesel, petrol and oil residues? One of the plots up the other end is off limits for however many years because some genius decided to burn electrical goods :shock:
Anyone concerned about organic - tread carefully in the kitchen :wink: Aspartame K is the numero uno evil of the century and by far more prolific than a bit of glyp.
Be safe
x Gina
-
Well, Baby, what additive is in what stuff, is little concern to me, since I've been growing most we eat without glyp or any other stuff. Part of th reason really.
A great concern though for the food sold in our world.
-
Here's the lowdown on Aspartame, for those who are interested.
I'm not claiming that this is the full picture, but it makes hair-raising reading nevertheless.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/04/17/new_study_by_ramazzini_institute_confirms_aspartame_carcinogenic.htm
Rob.
-
organic taliban
Merely extending your own metaphor, John - the vast majority of Muslims disown the Taleban ...
According to your Poll on http://www.chat.allotment-garden.org/viewtopic.php?t=868, a sizable minority of our members are completely organic. I don't recall any strident, overbearing posts from any of them.
Equally, I only recall one strident, overbearing individual from the 'other' persuasion and we dumped him PDQ.
My only real point is that I know of no other forum where folks are happy to teach their methods and not preach their methods. Long may it continue.
Now come on, be fair - twits come from all walks of life.
I wasn't actually thinking of people on here - as I think you know you organic shmanic beardy weirdy you (scottish contingent) :tongue2:
-
Interesting discussion on use of chemicals. I understand concerns about residues but as Aunt Sally says likely to be modest if used sparingly on hard to shift weeds. Also worth remembering that when it comes to feeding ground organically you are merely delivering chemicals into the soil by another name. I would prefer to use horse manure than growmore (& do) as it does more than just raise fertility but as a chemist I recognise that I essentially I am adding chemicals in one form or another.
Cheers HH
-
Even water is a chemical HH :wink:
-
Good point
I hope you only add the purest water to your malt!
Cheers HH
-
Yup and only a wee touch of it at that.
When asked, "Water in your whisky John?", my father would always reply, "Half and half please with plenty of water" :lol: