Roundup mix quantity

[Kristen]

This lead me to be a little curious about attitudes to this subject on other forums,whilst mooching about I stumbled on a thread that did worry me more than the chemical itself,seems some people changed the chemical formula ...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44087[/ATTACH]


Wonder if these people are actually qualified chemists or enthusiastic amateurs

The bit about adding surfactants to improve the coverage?

I did that, back then. Roundup was expensive back then - Monsanto's Patent hadn't expired, so no generics, no competition

Monsanto was a client of mine and I asked my contact (and he asked their boffins) about the additive I was using and they thought it was a good idea. Nothing scientific about that, of course, and it translated mostly as "Not good for Monsanto business, but sensible for the user".

I think that the surfactants and other adjuvants [in the product itself] are now very finely tuned; now that the Roundup patent has expired there are loads of Generics, and how well the product works is the only thing that differentiates the various brands (other than price ). I think it is likely that Monsanto's chemists have the upper hand ... but it wouldn't be the first time that someone else has come along and upset the apple cart with a crafty idea / improvement.

for example: Xerox copiers were dire, as I recollect it, up until their patent expired and then "overnight" all the Other Brands moved the game on to a whole new, and better, level.

PS, just read part of this thread lower down the weed main page. may be worth a read

http://www.growfruitandveg.co.uk/gra...ate_75793.html

Are your referring to the link to MotherEarth from that thread?

i.e. this one:

The Dangers of Glyphosate Herbicide - Nature and Environment - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

I really struggle with that site. They post links to their own articles (that's fair enough) but I can't seem to find any links to any other organisation that has concrete, peer reviewed, science. If anyone can post something that I have overlooked I'd appreciate it.

Its very easy to make a Rant website and post to lots of other sites, that you also wrote!, but that doesn't make their message credible to my eyes.

For example their first link "EPA Raised Residue Limits of Monsanto’s Toxic Chemical Glyphosate Herbicide" links to an Article on their website (fair enough). That article talks about issues which appear perfectly sensible and valid (and worrying), and refers to "studies" and "reports" and things, but I can't seem to find any links to those Studies / Reports. To take the article seriously I expect it to have a link to an article in Scientific American, or similar, where the report was published, or something like a Journal of Agricultural Chemists or somesuch ... otherwise how do I know it isn't just a Rant site?

(I can't now get that linked-article up at all now, I saw it earlier but haven't been able to double-check that there are no links that I missed etc. Happy to be corrected if I have overlooked something)

[The poly tunnel poet]

The link was in case you had not seen the thread, and passed on in the hope it may help you with your original question.

There is a chap in that thread called Andy (a head gardener)(I read it in the thread), he has used the product for 20 years, and if you are going to apply the product, he would at least be able to guide you, with an answer to your question.

The problem with corporates and their arguments with the other end of the spectrum, "do nowt and live like Womble's", is while they thrash out the creases, us poor folk have to try grow dinner....

I hope you appreciate an interesting thread gave food for thought to a knowledge hungry man, and I appreciate this threads existence.

Tptp

[Kristen]

Ah, OK, thanks. I mistakenly thought you had perhaps meant the embedded link in that thread.

I did read the thread through (earlier), and thought all parties made useful and interesting contributions; thanks for the link.

Always at the back of my mind is that the Tobacco industry hid the fact that their product was dangerous to health - and they hid it for decades. Could that happen again, today? Could Watergate happen today? Bhopal? Thalidomide? Dunno. But "maybe" sticks in my mind.

But there again there are plenty of conspiracy theorists around. They don't seem to want to believe anything - from whether Man landed on the Moon to the dreadful winter they have just had in America being engineered by the US Government to rig the votes in an election ... and there are lots who think that Monsanto is bad, Big Corp is bad, and the reasons they give me don't seem (to me) to stack up. Mind you, we don't bank with Sharkleys any more, on point of principle, because any company that can be fined billions, AND be allowed stay in business (how come?? if it was a small crime how come the big fine??) certainly doesn't deserve my custom, and I don't want to have my money in their bank the next time because sooner or later there will be a Run on their bank.

My bottom line, so to speak, is that if some contrary science comes out, that suggests that something previously thought to be safe is now found harmful, then I expect government to ban / withdraw it. I think they would have a hard time doing nothing, because of the effect if they were then caught / found out - assuming that the "harm" that was found represented a huge risk to public health - what with the speed of communication on the internet these days, compared to yesteryear and all that.

But the Tobacco Company thing, and the "Man landed on the moon" thing, cause me to maintain a "nagging doubt", and thus I like to review any evidence that folk draw my attention to, as I would like to be an early adopter of avoiding such things, before it becomes too late.

I'm sure I have rabbited on for far too long, ... sorry about that

[The poly tunnel poet]

Your point of "maybe" is very much appreciated and echoed by many, myself included.

The major concern was answering or helping you answer the question, if not answering then trying to help you find a source of info, and as I tried help(by searching for info, and learn about herbicides myself for future reference) it became clear and interesting to discover many conflicting views some rather passionate(and alarming hence the research comment earlier).

All that added to, gosh I hope the questioner does not use it and get hurt.... Perhaps if you pm Andy,(I do not know him, only he said he was a head gardener and used it) he will guide you. As for rabbiting, I love a good natter.

I choose at this moment to make no opinion re Monsanto, until I have finished getting my head around the book, "A consumers guide to GM food from green genes to red herrings" by Alan McHughen. Very much a both sides of the coin book.

And to make matters worse I have just noticed you're not Albanach, and I have been chatting as if you were... oh dear! (edit by a muppet)

[bearded bloke]

The bit about adding surfactants to improve the coverage?

Yep,if you extrapolate that then it means that anyone NOT adding their own surfactants was actually applying more active ingredient than was strictly necessary.

[Kristen]

[I][COLOR="#008000"]I tried help(by searching for info, and learn about herbicides myself for future reference) it became clear and interesting to discover many conflicting views some rather passionate(and alarming hence the research comment earlier).

Me too, but all (more or less) the ones I found were what I would describe as Rant sites, so I dismissed them out of hand. None of the claims they made of "valid research" actually amounted to anything - well, not that I could corroborate anyway ...

Reminds me of some similar research I did recently. I was trying to talk someone out of using really old railway sleepers that had been soaked in creosote. I told him that creosote was carcinogenic, and had been banned. He said he'd been exposed to it all his life , and his father before him, and they were both fine ...

I went off to find the relevant "science" to strengthen my argument with him ... only to find (hope I am right on this point!!) that the original research on creosote was done on Rats or Mice and had absolutely no relevance to Man (or the research was done wrongly, and with the same upshot). On the strength of that original research Creosote was banned, an industry based around it presumably went to the dogs ... but subsequently long term research and analysis of people who lived, worked, ate?! on creosote showed that there was absolutely no increased risk of cancer - so there was probably nothing wrong with the stuff in the first place.

[Kristen]

Yep,if you extrapolate that then it means that anyone NOT adding their own surfactants was actually applying more active ingredient than was strictly necessary.

Ah ... I see. Good point

So what happened to the rest then? it didn't run off onto the ground (I wasn't putting that much on).

It might have attached to the leaf, but not transported INTO the leaf because the adjuvants in Roundup didn't do a good enough job (then), but maybe the additive I used facilitated that?

It must have been common practice. I got a huge great 25L drum of the stuff at the time, and for not-a-lot-of-money. I can't believe that farmers weren't doing that, wholesale, as it saved a lot of money (I forget how much, but I can well believe it halved the required application rate of Round-up).

Monsanto were selling more Roundup than they needed to?

or ...

Having got regulatory approval (which took years) folk then found a better way of delivering it, and that took more years to get regulatory approval for the revised formulation of adjuvants (and people like me bypassed the system during that interval).

At the same time there would have been a cost-benefit-equation in there for Monsanto for sure! Could well have been along the lines of the Ford Pinto (fuel tank defect) one

[bearded bloke]

My main point was that if Monsanto were made aware of a more ecological way of applying the product then it should have been acted on immediately,the lower the dosage of chemicals applied the lower the risk of damaging the ecostructure of the sprayed & surrounding areas

[cptncrackoff]

Not wanting to go into the ins and outs of if it's bad or good..personally I wouldn't use it on my veg areas , just my opinion, it doesn't especially bother me if others use it.(unless it drifts on my plot! grrr)

I would mention that if it's the 'Roundup proBio' formally 'roundup pro biactive' this is 4 times the strength ( 3 plus additives) of 'domestic' roundup so needs extra care.

We sell this at my place of work, all that is needed at the moment for a customer to buy is we have to ask them if they are a professional user? are they competent? have they used it before? if the answers are yes, they can buy it.(same as creosote)

Personally I would like to see the 'ProBio' only available to those who can produce a sprayer training cert.

[Kristen]

My main point was that if Monsanto were made aware of a more ecological way of applying the product then it should have been acted on immediately,the lower the dosage of chemicals applied the lower the risk of damaging the ecostructure of the sprayed & surrounding areas

I don't think they could do that (i.e. "immediately"), could they?

They would have had to change the Adjuvants / Surfactants (I presume??) and I think that would require them to get approval all over again - and probably have to do the tests all over again. (Its the Adjuvants that were toxic/hazardous, back then, and not the Glyphosate)

I would mention that if it's the 'Roundup proBio' formally 'roundup pro biactive' this is 4 times the strength ( 3 plus additives) of 'domestic' roundup so needs extra care.

Although it is stronger the current formulation is no longer hazardous. But it shouldn't be available to "just anyone" I agree.

We sell this at my place of work, all that is needed at the moment for a customer to buy is we have to ask them if they are a professional user? are they competent? have they used it before? if the answers are yes, they can buy it.(same as creosote)

Personally I would like to see the 'ProBio' only available to those who can produce a sprayer training cert.

Your tests are at least somewhat stringent. Buying on eBay the only caveat is that the listing says something like "Only for sale for use by trained professionals".

[Kristen]

My main point was that if Monsanto were made aware of a more ecological way of applying the product then it should have been acted on immediately,the lower the dosage of chemicals applied the lower the risk of damaging the ecostructure of the sprayed & surrounding areas

Sorry, meant to also say that:

The Patent they had, giving them a monopoly, has to be a huge disincentive to improve the product in the way you say - unless required to by Authorities of course. But then there is Lobbying to counter that

So I reckon your line of thinking is right

[cptncrackoff]

Although it is stronger the current formulation is no longer hazardous. But it shouldn't be available to "just anyone" I agree.

Your tests are at least somewhat stringent. Buying on eBay the only caveat is that the listing says something like "Only for sale for use by trained professionals".

we used to sell huge quantities to a landscaper/builder until one day I was speaking to one of the guys that came in (quite a large company) he told me that the put 4 or 5 of the 5ltr concentrates down before laying foundations to stop weeds growing up through them... after a bit of explaining and some showing of the label they no longer buy it in huge quantities.

[The poly tunnel poet]

Forgive me please, I have some questions.....

We all know what a plough pan is, but, what if all those gallons of glyphosate that do not run down into river ways because they are held in the top soil and detritus layers,

are they causing a hygroscopic layer on organic matter, preventing rain entering and being held by organic matter, dying plant tissue, and in insects and in soil biota and,

in fact has created a moisture pan and is an unknown causal factor in the bouts of flooding, and as it dries out and adds to precipitation it is increasing acidic rainfall? Am I nuts?

where would I go to ask such questions and have them answered?

And how do I find out what it does to the plant, how it works in killing the plant?

[Kirk]

So then has anyone answered Albanach's question?
Or is it the old chemical arguement and forget the original post?

From the quick read Albanach reason was forgotten at the end of the first page.
Someone lock this, these arguements go nowhere.

Simple answer to the off topic arguement is:- Use them sensibly, or if preferred don't use them.

[veggiechicken]

I think the answer was in Post 2