Poison On Our Land

[Gifted Intuitive]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...yphosate-trial

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Nyksta

So what if someone already didnt drink alcohol, and also wanted to avoid eating roundup soaked food as well?

Haha worried about roundup soaked food, BS, when you hunt and gather at wallyworld and choke back two packs of stories a day

[KBF]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Maybe they should set a example and clean up their yards first.

Thats somebody elses fault. Not theirs.

[Gifted Intuitive]

University Researchers see health effects across generations from popular weed killer

'Dramatic increases' in several diseases
April 23, 2019
Washington State University

Researchers have found a variety of diseases and other health problems in
the second- and third-generation offspring of rats exposed to
glyphosate,(Roundup) the world's most popular weed killer. In the first
study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats
developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth
abnormalities.


FULL STORY

Washington State University researchers have found a variety of diseases and
other health problems in the second- and third-generation offspring of rats
exposed to glyphosate, the world's most popular weed killer. In the first
study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats
developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth
abnormalities.

Michael Skinner, a WSU professor of biological sciences, and his colleagues
exposed pregnant rats to the herbicide between their eighth and 14th days of
gestation. The dose -- half the amount expected to show no adverse effect --
produced no apparent ill effects on either the parents or the first
generation of offspring.

But writing in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers say they saw
"dramatic increases" in several pathologies affecting the second and third
generations. The second generation had "significant increases" in testis,
ovary and mammary gland diseases, as well as obesity. In third-generation
males, the researchers saw a 30 percent incidence of prostate disease --
three times the rate of a control population. The third generation of
females had a 40 percent incidence of kidney disease, or four times the rate
of the controls.

More than one-third of the second-generation mothers had unsuccessful
pregnancies, with most of those affected dying. Two out of five males and
females in the third generation were obese.

Skinner and his colleagues call this phenomenon "generational toxicology"
and they've seen it over the years in fungicides, pesticides, jet fuel, the
plastics compound bisphenol A, the insect repellant DEET and the herbicide
atrazine. At work are epigenetic changes that turn genes on and off, often
because of environmental influences.

Skinner said he decided to study glyphosate "due to it being one of the most
commonly used compounds worldwide."

The chemical has been the subject of numerous studies about its health
effects. The Skinner study is the third in the past few months out of
Washington alone. A University of Washington study published in February
found the chemical increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as
41 percent. A Washington State University study published in December found
state residents living close to areas subject to treatments with the
herbicide are one-third more likely to die an early death from Parkinson's
disease.

The chemical's generational toxicology represents a new downside that
Skinner and his colleagues said should be incorporated into estimates of its
risk.

"The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxicants to impact our
future generations needs to be considered," they write, "and is potentially
as important as the direct exposure toxicology done today for risk
assessment."

The research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.
The paper's co-authors are Undergraduate Researcher Deepika Kubsad, Research
Assistant Professor Eric Nilsson, Research Assistant Stephanie King, Senior
Research Associate Ingrid Sadler-Riggleman and Research Associate Daniel
Beck.
_____

Story Source:

<https://news.wsu.edu/2019/04/23/wsu-...fects-across-g
enerations-popular-weed-killer/> Materials provided by <https://wsu.edu/>
Washington State University. Original written by Eric Sorensen. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Deepika Kubsad, Eric E. Nilsson, Stephanie E. King, Ingrid
Sadler-Riggleman, Daniel Beck, Michael K. Skinner. Assessment of Glyphosate
Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm
Epimutations: Generational Toxicology. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42860-0> 10.1038/s41598-019-42860-0

Cite This Page:

<https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...m#citation_mla
MLA

Washington State University. "Researchers see health effects across
generations from popular weed killer: 'Dramatic increases' in several
diseases." 23 April 2019.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Gifted Intuitive

University Researchers see health effects across generations from popular weed killer

'Dramatic increases' in several diseases
April 23, 2019
Washington State University

Researchers have found a variety of diseases and other health problems in
the second- and third-generation offspring of rats exposed to
glyphosate,(Roundup) the world's most popular weed killer. In the first
study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats
developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth
abnormalities.


FULL STORY

Washington State University researchers have found a variety of diseases and
other health problems in the second- and third-generation offspring of rats
exposed to glyphosate, the world's most popular weed killer. In the first
study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats
developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth
abnormalities.

Michael Skinner, a WSU professor of biological sciences, and his colleagues
exposed pregnant rats to the herbicide between their eighth and 14th days of
gestation. The dose -- half the amount expected to show no adverse effect --
produced no apparent ill effects on either the parents or the first
generation of offspring.

But writing in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers say they saw
"dramatic increases" in several pathologies affecting the second and third
generations. The second generation had "significant increases" in testis,
ovary and mammary gland diseases, as well as obesity. In third-generation
males, the researchers saw a 30 percent incidence of prostate disease --
three times the rate of a control population. The third generation of
females had a 40 percent incidence of kidney disease, or four times the rate
of the controls.

More than one-third of the second-generation mothers had unsuccessful
pregnancies, with most of those affected dying. Two out of five males and
females in the third generation were obese.

Skinner and his colleagues call this phenomenon "generational toxicology"
and they've seen it over the years in fungicides, pesticides, jet fuel, the
plastics compound bisphenol A, the insect repellant DEET and the herbicide
atrazine. At work are epigenetic changes that turn genes on and off, often
because of environmental influences.

Skinner said he decided to study glyphosate "due to it being one of the most
commonly used compounds worldwide."

The chemical has been the subject of numerous studies about its health
effects. The Skinner study is the third in the past few months out of
Washington alone. A University of Washington study published in February
found the chemical increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as
41 percent. A Washington State University study published in December found
state residents living close to areas subject to treatments with the
herbicide are one-third more likely to die an early death from Parkinson's
disease.

The chemical's generational toxicology represents a new downside that
Skinner and his colleagues said should be incorporated into estimates of its
risk.

"The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxicants to impact our
future generations needs to be considered," they write, "and is potentially
as important as the direct exposure toxicology done today for risk
assessment."

The research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.
The paper's co-authors are Undergraduate Researcher Deepika Kubsad, Research
Assistant Professor Eric Nilsson, Research Assistant Stephanie King, Senior
Research Associate Ingrid Sadler-Riggleman and Research Associate Daniel
Beck.
_____

Story Source:

<https://news.wsu.edu/2019/04/23/wsu-...fects-across-g
enerations-popular-weed-killer/> Materials provided by <https://wsu.edu/>
Washington State University. Original written by Eric Sorensen. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Deepika Kubsad, Eric E. Nilsson, Stephanie E. King, Ingrid
Sadler-Riggleman, Daniel Beck, Michael K. Skinner. Assessment of Glyphosate
Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm
Epimutations: Generational Toxicology. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42860-0> 10.1038/s41598-019-42860-0

Cite This Page:

<https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...m#citation_mla
MLA

Washington State University. "Researchers see health effects across
generations from popular weed killer: 'Dramatic increases' in several
diseases." 23 April 2019.

I don't have a clue as to what they use now but in the early seventies we used a chemical called 245 T to aerial spray brush on PFRA (Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act) pasture land in Alberta and Sask. Later, I learned that 245 T won fame in Viet Nam where it was known as Agent Orange. You just never know what an "approved" chemical can do. So far so Good for me.

[Gifted Intuitive]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...cid=spartandhp

Good thing they haven't found a winter use that would have wildlife coated year-around !

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by ReconWilly

Time to end the United Nations.

'Nuff said....

[urban rednek]

Health Canada in bed with Bayer and about to approve even higher concentrations of residual Glyphosate in food products.
aka How to justify higher than expected residual chemical test results due to improper application by your agricultural producers.
It amounts to "Move along people! Nothing to see here!"

Besides the potential damage to our health, concentrations that exceed international standards will limit the customers/markets willing to purchase our product.
Deja Vu- this is looking more like the US FDA protecting their benefactors in the sugar lobby with falsified reports, outright lies and misdirection over the course of decades.


https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/higher-c...-why-1.5515198

Higher concentrations of controversial herbicide glyphosate may soon be on your plate: here's why

Lillian Roy CTV News Montreal intern
Published Monday, July 19, 2021 5:52PM EDT Last Updated Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:52AM EDT

MONTREAL -- Canadians have until Tuesday to comment on the federal government’s proposal to increase the amount of glyphosate herbicide residue allowed on certain grains and legumes, according to Health Canada’s website.

Glyphosate, commonly sold under the brand name Roundup, is sometimes sprayed on grain crops in order to accelerate their harvest; by killing the crop, glysophate causes the grains to dry out more quickly. The practice is increasingly common in provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Glyphosate is also used to kill weeds in crops containing corn and soy, which are bred for resistance to the substance, meaning they stay alive while surrounding plant matter perishes.
Related Stories

California court upholds verdict in Monsanto cancer case
'It's a dead forest': northern bush pilot, First Nations decry herbicide spraying
Laval becomes first Quebec municipality to ban Roundup weed killer

But the herbicide may be linked to cancer and environmental harm — although the extent of these risks is inconclusive.

Under the proposed change in regulations, traces of glyphosate residue on food may be up to three times higher than the current maximum allows, depending on the food.

Wheat will go up from a tolerance of five parts per million to 15; oats will go from a tolerance of 15 to 35; barley will go from ten to 15; beans from four to 16; and lentils from four to ten.
COSTS VS. BENEFITS

If Health Canada’s proposal goes through, Canada will allow higher concentrations of glyphosate residue in food in comparison to the U.S., as well as in comparison to the international standard. The international standard, outlined by the United Nations, was developed to facilitate the import and export of food between countries.

“It’s slightly shocking to see that Canada, in many product categories, actually wants to exceed what our trading partners are doing for maximum residue levels,” says Tia Loftsgard, executive director of the Canada Organic Trade Association.

The more that herbicide is sprayed, the more residue that may drift over to neighbouring crops — including organic ones, where foods are intentionally grown without the use of herbicides. Canadian organic foods may have trouble selling overseas as a result, says Loftsgard.

“That’s just not what the organic sector wants,” she says.

But according to some, use of pesticides and herbicides is often crucial in order for Canadian farms to manage risks and stay competitive.

“I think it’s important for Canadians to fully appreciate the realities [for] farmers out there, the risks that they have to manage every single day,” says Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. “You’re always a day or two from seeing a disaster, out in the fields — you’re dealing with droughts, you’re dealing with floods, you’re dealing with pests.”

Dr. Charlebois says that herbicides can be an excellent tool in the farmer’s tool belt to help them manage these risks — but only if used responsibly and according to regulations.

“The challenge, of course, with farms, is that often they overdo it,” he says. “And that really creates some issues related to health and the health of fields.”
MUDDY REGULATORY SCIENCE

The health risks of glyphosate have long been up for debate.

In 2015, an assessment from the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but this conclusion was swiftly contradicted by later studies.

But some of said studies were called into question after it was revealed that Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, reviewed some of the findings before publication, even editing some of the passages. Monsanto has also been accused of ghostwriting the studies, although it denies these allegations.

Some of these studies were used in the Canadian government’s 2017 re-evaluation of glyphosate use in the country, in which Health Canada concluded that the herbicide is safe for use. In light of recent revelations about Monsanto, however, the decision was met by controversy.

“There have […] been concerns raised publicly about the validity of some of the science around glyphosate in what is being referred to as the Monsanto Papers,” reads a 2019 statement on the Health Canada website.

In response to this pushback, Health Canada re-examined the validity of their data, stating, “after a thorough scientific review, we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data. The objections raised did not create doubt or concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-evaluation decision for glyphosate. Therefore, the Department’s final decision will stand.”
GREENER SOLUTION?

While herbicides such as glyphosate may or may not come with health risks, they do have some ecological advantages.

Herbicides are frequently considered less-destructive alternatives to tilling, or “turning the earth,” which breaks up compacted soil and pulls weeds in preparation for new growth. This can cause soil degradation as a result, destroying the microbiome and consequently impairing the earth’s ability to fertilize itself.

Glyphosate appears to be gentler on the soil, eliminating weeds chemically rather than physically. But many argue it isn’t exactly a “green” product, either — traces of the substance have been detectable in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, and may have all kinds of understudied effects on the ecosystem.

"We always want to be looking at the entire biodiversity that is in the ecosystem, not just shortsighted on what you're trying to grow and increase your yield on," says Loftsgard. "To really be truly regenerative, you need to be thinking of soil health, you need to be thinking of carbon sequestration, you need to be thinking of pollinators and all the other beneficial plant life that happens around farming and farmland."

To comment on the federal government’s proposal to increase the amount of glyphosate herbicide residue allowed on foods, Canadians should consult the Health Canada website before Tuesday.

"Health Canada will make the results of this consultation available on its website, as well as the decision on glyphosate as soon as it is finalized," Health Canada told CTV.

Health Canada statement regarding Glyphosate from July 2019:
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...lyphosate.html

January 11, 2019 - Ottawa, ON - Health Canada

OTTAWA – Health Canada’s primary objective in regulating pesticides is to protect Canadians’ health and the environment. That is why the Department regularly reviews all pesticides to make sure that they continue to meet modern health and safety standards.

Following the release of the Department’s final re-evaluation decision on glyphosate in 2017, Health Canada received eight notices of objection. There have also been concerns raised publicly about the validity of some of the science around glyphosate in what is being referred to as the Monsanto Papers.

Health Canada scientists reviewed the information provided in these notices, and assessed the validity of any studies in question, to determine whether any of the issues raised would influence the results of the assessment and the associated regulatory decision.

After a thorough scientific review, we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data. The objections raised did not create doubt or concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-evaluation decision for glyphosate. Therefore, the Department’s final decision will stand.

Health Canada follows a transparent and rigorous science-based regulatory process when making decisions about the safety of pesticides. As part of this process, Health Canada will publish its response to each notice of objection in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s Public Registry on January 14.

Our scientists left no stone unturned in conducting this review. They had access to all relevant data and information from federal and provincial governments, international regulatory agencies, published scientific reports and multiple pesticide manufacturers. This includes the reviews referred to in the Monsanto Papers. Health Canada also had access to numerous individual studies and raw scientific data during its assessment of glyphosate, including additional cancer and genotoxicity studies. To help ensure an unbiased assessment of the information, Health Canada selected a group of 20 of its own scientists who were not involved in the 2017 re-evaluation to evaluate the notices of objection.

No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed. We continue to monitor for new information related to glyphosate, including regulatory actions from other governments, and will take appropriate action if risks of concern to human health or the environment are identified.
Contacts

Media Relations
Health Canada
613-957-2983

The Monsanto Papers
CBC (May 27, 2019) and ABC Australia (October 8, 2018) exposés:

CBC- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lidkYEUqw-Q

ABC- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4

[Battle Rat]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

What is really tragic is that Alberta Forestry has approved the spraying of roundup on cut blocks to kill the deciduous tree saplings.

They then plant spruce and pine on the cut block. Grass that did grow on the open cut blocks is also eliminated.

Deciduous saplings create ground cover for wildlife much quicker than the replanted conifers, and the grass is available browse and creates seeds for the birds and mice.

Instead, you are left with a large open area that is barren and a killing zone for the predators.

Willow and Poplar are browse all year long for deer, elk, and moose. Not Spruce and pine.

The Horticulturalists will explain that using roundup speeds up the growth of the conifers, because they do not have to compete with the faster growing deciduous trees or the grass.

Regardless of whether Roundup is a cumulative toxin or not, in the areas that the forestry companies are operating, they are destroying valuable habitat for wildlife.

Drewski

For what you are saying it would take multiple ongoing applications or the grass and broadleafs will keep returning.
Round up is by no means a sterilent.

[cody j]

People say you can drink Roundup and it won’t hurt you. I haven’t seen anyone drink any

[Big Grey Wolf]

I use lots of herbicides like 24-D etc. However I am totally opposed to using Round-up to spray my wheat I will use for baking my bread in the fall and spraying my moose pasture/cut block meat that I feed my family.
Gifted' what an excellent scientific article on the health risks of Roundup to future generations of our children/grand children.
Glyphosate is a Cancer causing carcinogen, how crazy to spray it on our food!

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

I use lots of herbicides like 24-D etc. However I am totally opposed to using Round-up to spray my wheat I will use for baking my bread in the fall and spraying my moose pasture/cut block meat that I feed my family.
Gifted' what an excellent scientific article on the health risks of Roundup to future generations of our children/grand children.
Glyphosate is a Cancer causing carcinogen, how crazy to spray it on our food!

I would far rather spray glyphosate than 2-4,D any day. Roundup is one of the more user friendly sprays around.
That being said, I don't agree with it being used as a desicant. I could see (and have heard) those days being numbered

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

For what you are saying it would take multiple ongoing applications or the grass and broadleafs will keep returning.
Round up is by no means a sterilent.

100% correct. Actually 200% correct.
I spray roundup a few times in the same spots every year.

The country west of me is heavily logged. Certainly no cutblocks devoid of grass
Why on earth would that be their goal? Can you imagine the erosion?
Cutblocks in this country, from the flatter lands of burnstick to further west in the big hills are a haven for wildlife

[IL Bar]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

I would far rather spray glyphosate than 2-4,D any day. Roundup is one of the more user friendly sprays around.
That being said, I don't agree with it being used as a desicant. I could see (and have heard) those days being numbered

Roundup is registered as preharvest weed control. It is not registered as a desiccant. Not to be used to kill crops for harvest. Used at the proper time there should be little issue with residual.

Lots of misleading info in these articles. Crops soaked in it. .67 litre over an acre is far from soaked in it. Guys like me have handled tens of thousands of litres of it over the years. Even with protective equipment our exposure is way higher than 99% will ever see. We should be dropping like flies.

I agree I’d be more afraid of chemicals applied on lawns and used on insects

[7magtime]

From the 2019 article.

"No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed. We continue to monitor for new information related to glyphosate, including regulatory actions from other governments, and will take appropriate action if risks of concern to human health or the environment are identified."


And in the latest 2021 article with the large increases in allowable amounts in food.

"Under the proposed change in regulations, traces of glyphosate residue on food may be up to three times higher than the current maximum allows, depending on the food."

"Wheat will go up from a tolerance of five parts per million to 15; oats will go from a tolerance of 15 to 35; barley will go from ten to 15; beans from four to 16; and lentils from four to ten."


I use Roundup occasionally for controlling grass/weeds around my place but I've never been a fan of it being used on crops that will be consumed by people. With these huge increases in allowable amounts found in our food, it's definitely concerning and warrants more research that should be shared with the public asap IMO....

[Pioneer2]

Wildlife that glows in the dark try anything from Swan Hills.

[starvin]

I hunt an area where small blocks were sprayed out of large clear cuts. As far as I know they were sprayed once early and now have 10’ spruce with a bit of an understory of grass, willow etc. Nature abhors a vacuum and will always fill in bare ground. This is pretty good dirt and the unsprayed stuff is too thick for a rabbit let alone a moose, got to look hard for a spruce but they’ll come in 50 years or so. With big game being “edge” animals I think this patchwork approach is good. Moderation in all things.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by IL Bar

Roundup is registered as preharvest weed control. It is not registered as a desiccant. Not to be used to kill crops for harvest. Used at the proper time there should be little issue with residual.

Lots of misleading info in these articles. Crops soaked in it. .67 litre over an acre is far from soaked in it. Guys like me have handled tens of thousands of litres of it over the years. Even with protective equipment our exposure is way higher than 99% will ever see. We should be dropping like flies.

I agree I’d be more afraid of chemicals applied on lawns and used on insects

Don't really care to go back and look, but pretty sure it was in this thread quite some time ago that it was mentioned how wildlife was getting soaked in roundup from aerial spraying with a helicopter. Still makes me LOL

[Red Bullets]

Sadly, anyone or creature born after the 1940's was born into the chemical age and all people will have had some kind of exposure to chemicals. By 1952 there were over 10,000 pesticides registered in North America. Mostly used by agriculture and industry.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

You lost me at APTN. Propaganda filled for your viewing pleasure. Not sure which is worse, APTN, CBC, or CNN.

Croplands are sprayed with roundup once a year. Many sprayed twice if desiccating. I would be more concerned over that than a one time application on a very small portion of logged out areas (before replanting).

Soaking wildlife in deadly chemicals? Haha, give me a break. Sounds like a quote from the script of the APTN "special"

I shake my head at the gullibility of the masses nowadays. Must be the roundup

It’s not the fact that it’s found up. It’s that natural regeneration isn’t allowed to take place. That logging would create great game habitat, instead it will be turned into a sterile plantation of conifers with little else growing there.

Think what our game populations would be like without this spraying?

[Battle Rat]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

It’s not the fact that it’s found up. It’s that natural regeneration isn’t allowed to take place. That logging would create great game habitat, instead it will be turned into a sterile plantation of conifers with little else growing there.

Think what our game populations would be like without this spraying?

All the natural plant life does come back. It is just slowed down briefly for replanted trees to catch.
Any second growth that I have seen has lots of grass and broadleaf growth.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Oh please, try to get grip. Cut blocks and fires create tons of feed, unfortunately once they green up spraying them with round up kills off all that feed.

Yup. That’s the argument, it’s shouldn’t be about the health effects of roundup because it’s quite safe. The argument is killing the natural,regrowth and turning the forest into a monoculture.

[Jim Blake]

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

All the natural plant life does come back. It is just slowed down briefly for replanted trees to catch.
Any second growth that I have seen has lots of grass and broadleaf growth.

The blueberry and cranberry patches we use to pick didn't come back and it has been five years since they were sprayed.

I will say we attended West Frasier's open house a couple years ago and they said if we had any future patches that may be sprayed to notify them of the location and they would not nuke that area. We have yet to test that out.

[pikeslayer22]

Shelter belt seeded around the yard has 6 rows. The outside row is severely stunted to almost no growth and the rows get better as you move in. So I call bs on anyone saying it does no long term issues to trees.

[Fisherdan]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

Shelter belt seeded around the yard has 6 rows. The outside row is severely stunted to almost no growth and the rows get better as you move in. So I call bs on anyone saying it does no long term issues to trees.

Just a question.... I’m completely ignorant of this topic, and hear so many conflicting opinions/experiences. When Roundup is applied, does it typically get applied evenly and as per instructions? In your situation, I’m assuming that the weeds at the edge of the shelter bed get sprayed, thus the stunted trees in the adjacent row?

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by Weebo

Strong rate? Does anybody actually know what rate they are putting down?how many L/acre ? My opinion as a farmer who actually used this stuff- lots of studies either way, but bottom line is we follow the label and that's that. With public perception i can see losing this tool as a fall desicant to further remove the possibility of it entering the food chain regardless of the science.If (when) this happens and the growing concern over gmo's and the world pop soaring and temps rising, people are going to starve. Glyphosate is the main tool of farmers in the prairies in my opinion (and many other countries) and if you have to go back to working the land yields will suffer in these hotter days to come.just my morning rambling, time for another cup.(coffee not roundup lol)

Problem is not all farmers follow the label. Quaker Oats had huge law suit to settle when their oat cereal tested positive for Roundup. Someone was not following the label while desiccating.

[MyAlberta]

out of curiosity;
Are any of these applications done electrostatically?
Would a swathed crop be desiccated or is that reserved for combining a standing crop?

[IL Bar]

Originally Posted by MyAlberta

out of curiosity;
Are any of these applications done electrostatically?
Would a swathed crop be desiccated or is that reserved for combining a standing crop?

Sprayers are now being equipped with electrical PWM nozzles that do way more even application than earlier sprayers.

A swathed crop might have had a preharvest roundup application made to it for weed control. The swather does the actual desiccation of the crop. Getting harder to death crops anymore due to damage from waterfowl. These preharvest applications are for control of Canada Thistle and quackgrass.

[esher]

Getting harder to death crops . yanisnyu.

[esher]

Before anyone asks kinda means wtf.