Glyphosate and trees

[SMc]

To put it into context, which do you think is more toxic: glyphosate or salt?

 

I have heard this comment before with the inference that it is some sort of justification for use of chemical pesticides. We will actually use salt as a sterilant in certain isolated circumstances, again with caution. I am not suggesting that glyphosate is the worst chemical out there, that list is extremely long. It should, however, IMHO, not be used with the apparent lack of concern as you would use when taking an aspirin.

 

So as to which do I think is more toxic: glyphosate or salt? I certainly know what I will use while cooking. But I would not apply it to my garden. Know the consequences of that which you use.

 

Sylvia

[ScottF]

 

So as to which do I think is more toxic: glyphosate or salt? I certainly know what I will use while cooking. But I would not apply it to my garden. Know the consequences of that which you use.

 

Sylvia

 

Jolly well put.

[Quickthorn]

The simplistic answer might be that salt is more toxic: a standard test for toxicity is to measure the dose per kg body weight needed to kill 50% of a sample of rats - the LD50 test. published figures seem to say that LD50 for glyphosate is around 5 g / kg body weight, whereas LD50 salt is 3 g / kg (Since aspirin was mentioned, LD50 for that is around 0.2 g / kg..that seems to be an order of magnitude more toxic than salt or glyphosate!). That doesn't really say that one substance is in general more toxic than another, it only tells us about relative toxicity under certain conditions. To say that salt is more toxic than glyphosate is as misleading as saying glyphosate is "Toxic to soil microbes including nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrhizae, actinomycete, and yeast isolates": whilst true under certain conditions, it doesn't help us if we don't know those conditions, and I start to wonder about the motives of people or organisations who would publish such "facts" in such a loose way.

 

It's very easy to selectively pluck key phrases out of their context to support a pre-formed opinion or agenda, and it seems that agri-businesses and their detractors are both capable of doing it, but it doesn't help people who want to come to the right decision based only on the truth. The moral is we should go back to the original research where possible and find out for ourselves, rather than rely on persons relatively-unknown to interpret it for us.

 

The original post was:

 

Hi,

anybody has got any information on the effect of using glyphosate in the root zone of trees? In contradiction to common beliefs, glyphosate apparently does accumulate in the soil and in the tree, but I do not find much (scientific) information on this topic.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

 

Tom,

 

I haven't been able to access too much original research showing that glyphosate accumulates in the root zone of trees. It's not hard to find pages saying that this is the case, but I would want to check the original research myself, as published in a credible scientific journal - just to make sure it was being interpreted correctly. I get the feeling that a lot of these studies-including those about Fusarium colonisation - are in the context of agricultural "roundup ready" monocrops using min-till methods of cultivation, rather than trees or forestry crops; some of them cannot show whether the pesticide causes the effect, or whether there's an interaction between pesticide and cultivation regime. More research is needed.

 

I have to admit that, when I'm considering whether to use a pesticide or not, I'm one of these ignorant people who fall back on guidance: in the UK, the ACOP "Pesticides" advises that the first question we should be asking is whether we need to use a pesticide at all. If no, then great! If yes, then it is worthwhile to think about how much might be applied over the course of the treatment. I don't know what situation you are thinking of, and it would be down to you to work out the details, but if you know what dose and frequency you will be applying it is possible to work out an upper limit of how much might accumulate..that Carlisle & Trevors paper helps you work out how an application might increase the concentration of glyphosate in the soil. I know from the product I use, applying it typically at 4 l/ha, it seems to show that every application would add 0.648 parts per million to the top 13 cm of a field. So, a 3 year weed control programme (1 app per year) might result in nearly 2 ppm in the top 13 cm, assuming 100% persisted, and my maths is correct...but don't take my word for it! That paper does also list studies showing the effects of various concentrations of glyphosate on various organisms, which may help you judge risks involved in using the stuff.

 

If anyone does have evidence that glyphosate, or any other pesticide, is causing harm, it needs to be reported ASAP

[David oakman]

I usually spray at 2L/ha which kills all grasses nettles ect but will not touch bindweed horsestail thistles but i don't think you can kill everything just think the finches like the thistles mind you they are a begger for seeds LOL.

[Albedo]

Quickthorn, youv'e been busy checking out the references on the link articles. I intended to do the same but didn't have time as I've been back at work loppin and toppin and am too cold and knackered.

 

Your'e now more informed than me on the matter as I haven't done the homework.

 

My take is that anyone who's made that kind of effort to look at the available information on the matter is entitled to their opinion. Doesn't matter if your'e for, against or undecided. Youv'e earned the right to say your piece.

 

Science ain't perfect. Theres questions as to who pays for the research (vested interests), interpretation etc as Quickthorn says.

 

I never said anyone was 'ignorant' by the way. Its a fundamental core belief of mine that everyone out there in tree work is capable of an effort to be as informed as everyone else. I said 'infantile' for believing stuff without reading up on it. Half the effort Mr quckthorn has put in would do the trick.

[Quickthorn]

I usually spray at 2L/ha which kills all grasses nettles ect but will not touch bindweed horsestail thistles but i don't think you can kill everything just think the finches like the thistles mind you they are a begger for seeds LOL.

 

Thistles are pretty good for bees and butterflies, too.

[David oakman]

Can you imagine the country with all the old flowers coming back i know this will never happen on arable fields but with the 6 metre margins going next to rivers ditches and hedgerows this could come. Some of our 6 metre margins have a wild flower mix added but it would be nice to see the return of the corn cockle or the pheasants eye ADONIS both nearly extinct.

[D Mc]

This has turned into quite a lively discussion and I think that is a good thing. I would like to interject, for those of you doing research, before opinions are formed, do not forget history. We are taught in schools that history is important to prevent us from making the same mistakes over and over again.

 

If you look at the history of pesticide/insecticide use and the subsequent banned substances list, you will see that our historical track record on collecting scientific data as proof regarding environmentally safe application rates of a product, is somewhat flawed. Science is always evolving. Our studies tend to focus on LDs, half lives, toxicity ppm yet fail to recognise many other factors that are involved for the necessity of life.

 

We are short-lived creatures. We like short simple answers. History tells us we are not going to succeed if we keep looking at this the same way. If my wife, SMc, can produce enough dialog to keep this interest going to get even a few of you to question your usage on some of these products, I will be quite pleased. For if we as professionals cannot see the hidden ramifications of our actions, how can we expect the lay person to?

 

There is no "we" or "them" there is just "us".

 

Dave

[Nomad]

This is great, seems like we are having a proper debate. Perhaps the best place to start to look for evidence about Glyphosate and trees would be the vast areas of forest in South America that the CIA regularly sprayed by plane in the seventies and eighties to try and eradicate the coca plantations. This was a handy little trial for Monsanto to test their product because at the same time GM crop trials were also going on in the area and the resilience of these crops could be monitored. As has been said before research is one thing but to actually get funding to carry out the research is something completely different again and I suspect just would not happen in the English speaking world. Let's say funding had been secured and research carried out then who would publish the results? I can't see anyone other than a competitor with a new competitive product having the means to get the data out in the public domain. Like I said before if anybody feels that strongly about this issue then the place to look is Scandanavia where I am sure Glyphosate is banned in the public and amenity sectors. The research would certainly be there if anyone could translate it as I am sure certain countries in South America would also have done extensive research. Let's not forget that it is Monsanto we are talking about and Glyphosate for them is just an unimaginable cash cow. Prices go up and down willy nilly according to the time of year. Farmers are drilling winter wheat or rape after harvest just so come Spring they can go out, spray it off and stick the bill in for another ridiculous subsidy.

BASIS are just a bunch of old boys, sales, contractors, research? and a token Minister. They just had a meeting in Brussels no doubt very expensive, this meeting lasted a maximum of twenty minutes. The newly appointed head of BASIS Lord someone or other introduced himself said thanks for picking him, it seems like an interesting area to be "working" in lets push the industry forward and create new and exciting opportunities for the future, thanks for coming goodbye.

I know we are going off thread with this but it is an important subject and I believe that just because we are brainwashed into believing it's good doesn't mean to say it is. Would we have sprayed our Dogs or Children with DDT in the sixties for fleas? I think the answer is YES we would and we bloody well did! Is Microsoft Windows a good operating system? NO it is not, so how come Bill Gates has taken over the world?

Did Professor Diesel develop his engine to run on a dirty filthy waste product from the petro-chemical industry, NO he did not, it was developed to run on vegetable oil, funny how he just disappeared one day never to be seen again.

We all have our interests to protect and Glyphosate fills the vegetation control niche nicely. It is however hand in hand with GM crops(that's the big picture and who of us would really want to have these monstrous creations in our back yard?). Monsanto will protect their own interests with there own research and blackmail funding to "independent" agencies. We have our own interests to protect and that is why Glyphosate is so widely used, but lets not lose sight of the fact that we have come from the earth and will go back to the earth and we have not inherited it from our ancestors but borrowed it from our children.

Oh my word I'm rambling now, Glyphosate is a salt that is held in liquid suspension. This liquid is as far as I know mostly water, but there are additives such as an adjuvant to help the product stick to its target and other things I can't remember, so although we are talking Glyphosate the actual product the consumer uses is not actually just Glyphosate. I wonder if research reflects this?

 

While I'm at it someone coming on here claiming that in "another life" they worked in development of pesticides in the Agrochemical industry" and if you're not in the BASIS club watch what you say because you could be prosecuted blah, blah, blah....... Well I really don't want to come across as demeaning in any way but was your spelling that bad when you were copying down formulas???? Could you not be bothered to use a spell check????? I personally find that highly insulting. Just about sums up the state of corporate Britain plc.

Anyway people peace on earth and remember 95% of statistics are made up, or was it 75%? or is it 33% of statistics are not made up... can't remember.......

 

A Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year to all..

[Albedo]

Hi Nomad. Glad you're ejoying the glyphosate debate and thanks again for your contributions earlier.

 

Just a quickie in defense of the guy who posted the BASIS stuff. Its on record in this thread that I too was incensed by the content of that post. But I prefaced my angry rant with ' don't want to shoot the messenger' as the tone of that post is actually along the lines of - just trying to be helpful. Although I'd like to make it quite clear once again that I don't agree with a word of the BASIS ... illegal to discuss it content of that post.