Deadly herbicides???

Again, not very familiar with corn, but with canola, Before gm technology, farmers had to till their soil to bury the residue, and then apply soil sterilant type herbicides at fairly high rates. These herbicides then, meant to be applied directly to the bare soil, had to be incorporated twice, so two more tillage operations. The bare soil often eroded badly, and of course the herbicide went with it.

Now, with rr canola, the soil is not tilled, is not poisoned with soil sterilant type herbicides. So the soil stays put. The rate of glyphosate is much lower than some of the prior herbicides that were necessary. I know my dad used to use a herbicide that was indeed weighed in at a rate of not pounds, but KILOGRAMS per acre.

The new system, though not ideal as no herbicide use would be ideal, is a much cleaner, safer, and is highly protective of our soil and water, and air...

The best thing would be to of course have no weeds to deal with. Unfortunately there will always be weeds, though they do get fewer all the time. With smart management, in theory, they would be almost completely eliminated. In fact, In the past few years, after dilligent use of herbicides, I have actually skipped some herbicide applications. Something I never dreamed of doing several years ago. So unlike what many say, over time, my personal herbicide usage has certainly dropped. Whenever one can skip an application, it is money in the farmers pocket. One does have to be very careful though. If you skip an application, and then have a bunch of weeds reseeding themselves, you can get back to square one real fast.

That is the safe rate for rr canola. A second application may be needed to control perennial weeds, but for annual weeds, it is certainly sufficient.

Glyphosate is produced in many concentrations, in terms of active ingredient per litre, or quart. That is why I went with active ingredient for that herbicide. To level the playing field because of the various concentrations. Basoically what I spray, is a third of a litre of 540 AI, or a half litre of 360 AI.

The rates for glyphosate are active ingredient, the rates for the other couple are simple actual measured rates. I never really thought about that, but herbicides come with carriers to keep them from separating, and so the actual measured rate, vs. the actual chemical concentration would hence be even lower. Good point.

You are correct, atrazine and simazine will both act as a pre emergent.

__________________

Dale, Is it possible to use corn gluten as a "pre" with corn crops or would it be cost prohibitive? I'm pretty certain it would be more expensive per acre than roundup but it might be possible for a small time Gardner to use.

__________________

It's technically possible. The rates I've seen suggested would say you would need 800-1000 lbs of corn gluten meal per acre, which would be $250-300 worth of product compared to under $10 for glyphosate. Plus all the added cost of handling so much more volume. You also get some N out of the corn gluten but still, with average yields and current prices that would mean almost half of the potential value of the crop going out for the corn gluten meal, plus all the other costs of growing the crop.

__________________
The internet - fueling paranoia and misinformation since 1873.

Few farmers own a cultivator any more, in the 'conventional' column I would eliminate the 2 culivation passes, and add a second trip with the sprayer with a broadleaf killer - 2,4-D or dicomba maybe.

You probably need to also spray 2x in the Roundup deal.

Anyhow 'here' in the high organic soils, high ph soils we have, it is very difficult to control weeds with just one pass of the sprayer.

But that's basically right.

--->Paul

This is about crabgrass in turf, but -
http://ccesuffolk.org/assets/Horticu...ss-Control.pdf

RR seed costs more, but it costs much less to control weeds and/or insects in the crop.

It also allows some areas of the country to do far less tillage, and tillage (plowing, disking, etc) is very expensive in iron and fuel and time costs.

Without RR crops, we would have to use several 'not as good' weed killer sprays to kill the weeds.

Or, we would need to cultivate the crops, which takes much more time, money, and fertility losses (erosion) and still doesn't get rid of the weeds as well.

So despite the seed costing more:

It is cheaper to grow a RR crop - Roundup is cheaper than a cultivator or other sprays.
The fields are much less weedy means easier harvest and better yield.
A less hazardous chemical is being used.
Less tillage is causing less erosion - less nutrients and soil lost.


Now, there are many many variations, and some folk in some locations are making conventional crops work out just as cheap or just as much yield. That _can_ happen. We are using different sprays in combination with Roundup these days, often using a little of many things mixed together. There is no one reciepe that works everywhere for years and years and years... We are always changing. My comments are a general picture of the difference between Roundup crops and regular crops.

Organic crops would not use any chemicals, using manure for fertilizer and lots of tillage and time and fuel for weed control. Buying manure or other organic fertilizers are very spendy. Controlling weeds without spray takes a great deal of time and allows more erosion. All of this costs money somewhere somehow, and leads to organic crops being more expensive. It is a 3rd option which few have used since the 1960's, but it does work for some. And as a home garden, the extra costs or time are probably not important, so makes sense in that case.

--->Paul

I know it's used in turf, didn't know if was also used in farming...seems to be cost prohibitive per acre according to dale...maybe in a small scale it would be ok.

__________________

It also acts the total opposite of Roundup.


The corn meal sppresses some seeds from sprouting. Ut will not harm a growing weed at all.

Roundup will not do anything to seed seeds. It will kill off most green growing plants it hits.

It would be difficult to get the right condtions to use the corn meal to do weed control in large scale on a rowcrop.

As you say, can easily be used on a small scale where costs and a bit of hand weed pulling isn't much of a deal.

--->Paul

Did you miss the insecticide spray for corn borer? BT corn won't need it, but before RR, you did. I think fungicides for smut were used, too. Don't think modern corn varieties are troubled with this?

Plus there is more than just plowing with conventional methods. You'll have a couple passes with the disc harrow and maybe a spring tooth harrow to get a seed bed. Another advantage of no-till.

Technically, you asked about Roundup-Ready, so the bt insecticide stuff wouldnT be part of that? Certainly available and have a good point about it, but not part of your question, since you mentioned your subject as rr corn.....

Smut and fungicides with corn are a function of conventional breeding at this point, and fungicides are being worked with ever more in the past 5 years. Still in the class of "foo foo juice" by many, others are looking at it seriously.

Paul

I know how CG and Gly work...( I'm in the business), my crop is turf grass.

Too bad prodiamine couldn't be used in corn production. It's cost per acre is very affordable. The trouble with prodiamine is that it would prevent other crops seeds from growing (second crop).

__________________

You are correct, Paul. I should have put GM instead of RR. Just trying to avoid that hot button I guess. The post I was refering to was the contrast between conventional and modern RR/no till crops. I added Bt because in modern agriculture, it is generally included.

Evidently we need a conventional farming forum...

Go right ahead, I'd love to talk about the virtues of soil erosion.

Please explain.
By conventional, do you mean how it was done for a hundred years as opposed to modern no-till methods? Conventional tilling methods are generally thought of as moldboard plow, disking and frequent cultivation that has led to billions of tons of lost topsoil due to inevitable erosion inherent in those methods.
By conventional, do you mean how it is currently done on most crop land as opposed to the organic goals of some (many) farmers?
I don’t give two rips about Home Schooling, so I avoid that topic. It matters not to me where is so and so has gone, so I don’t open that thread. So, I am curious when someone asks for a topic to be set aside from the current categories. It is because this is such an interesting topic and there is so much to learn they want a special place to go and absorb that knowledge? Could it be that they are closed minded and want to extinguish the light of truth and protect their ill-conceived prejudices? I hope not.

Good try, not falling for it.

Sparkle, I'm thinking this is one of the better threads coming out of this whole organic/ gmo/ bash Monsanto brewhaha we've been having of late.

It has seemed to me there are a lot of homesteaders moving back to the land, rather than growing up with a rural, farming background.

That leads to a lot of ideas on how things used to be and how they are now, with no hands on experience, and general idea you throw seeds in the ground in spring, and harvest a crop in the fall.

Never quite works out that way, and lot of folks do realize that.

But this thread seems like a nice small bridge between big and small, old and new, with a lot of good discussion.

I'd hate to see that thrown off to the side, which is how I read your message.

Even if you are opposed to everything associated with current farming practices, I think it's better to actually understand what, why, and how things are currently being done. Does not mean your opinion will change, but if you dislike something, isn't it better to understand what you dislike?

I'm cool with people preferring organic, or non-gmo, disliking big ag, and so forth. Those diverse opinions make this country stronger, and keep a healthy balance.

What interests me, And I think several other farmer-types here, is to get an honest story out there, how things really are. If you want organic, I don't want to change your mind on that! My goal is only to have folks understand current practices, so they can make honest choices.

If I owned 5 acres and had a small garden, I'd be real close to organic too!

I really like this thread, intelligent questions in it, and good interaction, in my opinion?

I've been watching a couple similar type questions on a 'big ag' forum, and it is interesting how similar the replies are. A lot of 'big ag' farmers are on your side of all this, and want good relationships with their neighbors, and good understandings with each other, big or small, organic or not.

Paul