Deadly herbicides???

A study in Spain recently showed that glyphopsate IS being found in groundwater http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22101424

Care to comment?

geo

I don't personally have a grudge with farmers who use chemicals, except as they make me appear liberal. I can't dismiss what I observe, however. I see herbicides and fertilizers at the heart of the chemical waste, yet, I hear people claim they are safe. Now I admit that if a chemical waste incident were a lubricant that the nature of this wouldn't stick in my mind as it does when it's a product that we eat, such as those used to grow food. I don't like these chemicals, yet like I said, I don't have hostilities toward those who use them. I think of their use much like steroids for farm land. If it weren't for the immediate competetive edge a farmer might get from their use, we would all be in agreement, in my opinion.

There have been a lot of laws, restrictions, and refining of farm chemicals, their use, and application in the past 50 years.

We are restricted on the longer-lasting chemicals, and encouraged to use the types that break down more rapidly so they do not have as much risk to the environment.

Formulations use more combinations of products that are in much lower doses, so we put less active chemicals per acre.

And so on.

I do understand where you are coming from, Bob. Hoeing the garden is good exercise too, works up an appetite for the goods you get from it.

Back 50 years ago, lot of farmers would jump old jugs and bits of leftovers in the pit, because the problems just weren't understood back then. Made little tiny toxic dumps all over. Not just farmers, everyone handled their wastes poorly...

Big giant corporation, or homeowner in the city, we all kinda took the easy way out.

Bet we humans are still that way, and there is still a tendency for that.

We have gotten better at it.

Like most anything else, farm pesticides are a risk. There is nothing in this world that is 'safe'. Period.

So of you say they have some danger that you see in them - you are right.

But there are dangers in not using them, too. More risks to our crop yields being good enough, more risks of food costing more and upsetting our already miserable economy, and so on.

Clearly you and other homesteaders can raise some of your own food and sidestep some of this risk. If your garden fails, you can still go to the store and get food.

I worry about wholesale, sudden changes such as the anti-pesticide resolutions that come up in California from time to time, for example. I see such a ban being more dangerous to us that the risks of pesticides.

It's all about weighing our risks. I do understand the risks you mention (I think they are less than they used to be, but still and all I understand there are risks) and you are able to fairly easily sidestep those pesticide risks and probably enjoy the growing the garden anyhow.

For the rest of the nation, for a majority of the population, what are their risks tho? They don't have a back yard, or the ability, to grow their own.

We need to keep in mind their risks, and their needs too.

Co existing with something you don't really care for is difficult, but if you look at it deeper perhaps its easier to do.

It used to be fun for farmers to make fun of the city folk that move out into the country.

And as I've seen here, it was fun for many homesteaders to demonized the farmers around them.

If we look at each other a little closer, maybe we see where the other side is coming from, and we can still hold our values, but understand what and why of each other better.

We are are both closer to the same than different, just got on slightly different paths.

Your comments are very valid for what happened 50 years ago, and a reminder of why we need to keep progressing to better goals, less risks. I believe we have come a long ways.

And I enjoy your conservative/ liberal comments, I too have a liberal friend, been in the same discussions as you describe, can be quite fun.

Paul

Thanks for the link, geo.

That's about a milligram (.001 gram)/ TON.

The Eric Clapton song, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself", has come to my mind while reading this thread. It is so easy for us non commercial farmers to point the finger at the average farmer and lay the whole pesticide blame on them and smugly wash our hands of it like we have not contributed to the problem. Regular folks use 10 times more chemicals than farmers. The Chesapeake Bay is polluted from nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from waste treatment plants to power plants and cars releasing nitrogen oxides in the air to people burning wood for fuel. And yes, some from agriculture, but that also includes feed lots and manure. Our own Pigeon River has been posted for dangerous bacteria levels between Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge because of the waste treatment plant and because of shoddy septic systems of country folk. And that was from manure which is an organic material. I believe, and Dale and the others will correct me if I'm wrong, but society and even green tree huggers like me, have always tended to put the blame on the average farmer. When in reality, he is probably being the most responsible with the chemicals he is using. I think that is the point the gentlemen are trying to get across. After reading this thread I personally have come to one conclusion. They should ban all use of pesticides except for the people who truly understand the consequences of using them. The farmers.

__________________
"Being normal is not necessarily a virtue...rather, it denotes a lack of courage".

" The important thing about Roundup is that it has a low toxicity to animals, including humans and it breaks down fast. It can’t get in your water table, it can’t remain in the soil."


geo

I think many of the farmers who came to truly understand the consequences may no longer be around.

Annie, I am no tree hugging hippy liberal enviormentalist! I can't ignore the reality that herbicides have inherent problems. Perhaps after weighing the pros and cons many farmers feel they must still use them, and I do not lay all blame for all chemical contamination at the feet of farmers. I will remind you that back in the day the same mindset encouraged lining school houses with asbestos, and those who pointed to what appeared to be possible problems were also dismissed by those who wanted to use it anyway. I have little doubt that in the 1930's obscure studies could be shown to hail how safe schools were now that they had asbestos protecting them from fire. Those who are going to continue using herbicides, pesticides and certain fertilizers are going to use them even if God Himself decended and told them personally that they are merely pumping poison on their vegetables and cotton. I can no more lay the blame on these than I could blame those who applied all the asbestos when people believed the studies showing how great it was for the Mesothelioma that it caused. I really don't blame the farmer. I understand that they are under the very high pressure to produce more yeilds, the way baseball players are under pressure to become increasingly larger, faster and stronger. It is legal to use these chemicals, and I would not work to outlaw them, yet, I feel no compulsion to endorse them, either. I truely see them as steroids for the ground. They may give a great immediate result, yet, overtime they do damage. I am fully prepared to agree to disagree, yet, that is may opinion of the chemicals used commonly in commercial farming and why I hold these opinions. We could debate why some feel I should change my opinion, but, I can't imagine a more forthright admission that I am not open minded.

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...osate-ext.html

Glyphosate is highly adsorbed on most soils especially those with high organic content. The compound is so strongly attracted to the soil that little is expected to leach from the applied area. Microbes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of the product. The time it takes for half of the product to break down ranges from 1 to 174 days. Because glyphosate is so tightly bound to the soil, little is transferred by rain or irrigation water. One estimate showed less than two percent of the applied chemical lost to runoff (4). The herbicide could move when attached to soil particles in erosion run-off. Photodecomposition plays only a minor role in environmental breakdown.
In water, glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended organic and mineral matter and is broken down primarily by microorganisms also. Its half-life in pond water ranges from 12 days to 10 weeks.

Deleted.

Never mind.

"Bob, do you agree that the exact same thing can be said for mechanical weed control?"

Please elaborate? Are you refering to a tractor driven cultivators or hoeing? I admit that a risk exist that one could mistakenly uproot the intended plant, yet, I doubt that is what you are asking. That isn't the exact same thing, either. Overall I feel that the highest benefit to damage can be achieved with mechanical weed control, and I don't personally believe it is close. This is not the cause I get up in the morning to combat. I just feel that chemical herbicides and pesticides do more harm than good over time.

As a kid as I helped dad farm, we planted the corn and soybeans, harrowed them the day before they spouted, and cultivated the rows 3 times.

That was a lot of fuel and iron burned up.

The worse problem was losing topsoil.

4 times over, we worked up 30 inch wide slivers of black topsoil 2-3 inches deep. During the _rainiest_ period of our year.

I have rolling hills here. Oh, how that top inch or three would wash down the hills. The next time through with the cultivator, places would have hard dirt - the top loose rich soil would wash down, and you cultivate through and create another 1-3 inches of loose dirt.......

The damage that did to the fields......

I don't cultivate much any more. I still plow in fall, and work it in the spring. But the plow leaves very rough ground, sealed under snow most of the winter, so losses are low. Not like that row crop cultivator did 3 times every summer!

Yea, I wasn't always the best driver, you'd loose a few plants now and then, but that wasn't too big a deal. But the soil movement was. You create this fine, smooth, loose ribbon of dirt, just when the most rains come....

As well, all this harrowing and field cultivating was extremely time sensitive. If you got 2-3 days behind, the weeds would get strong enough roots to not die from the cultivator or harrow or rotary hoe. And with unpredictable rains, oh boy, you could really get behind, the weeds took over, and you had nothing to fall back on, you'd lose 10-15% of your yield to weed competition.

I understand you see risk and damage with pesticides. And not looking to change that.

I also see risk and damage with cultivating. To me it was far worse than the herbicide risks, as far as I understand things these days. Our ground got worse and worse, we have very forgiving soil, 130 feet of clay so it comes back, but it was not good soil stewardship at all. It also was at more risk of losing a portion of the crop.

I will agree there is risk either way, I hope you can see your way carries risk as well.

Paul

Bob, I am a tree hugging, liberal, environmentalist! So watch it! And, I agree with what you are saying that we have been learning as we go and we still have a lot to learn about how we take care of this earth, but you have to admit we have made some progress. But that's a whole other thread.

Anyhow, what I have been trying to do is speak "thread specific" and keep it to what Dale's original point was about. These farmers are being portrayed as these pesticide toting villains with a 6 shooter of roundup on their hip, that go around spraying anything in their path, not caring what they kill. So they come here trying to educate us in the way they actually farm. Anyone listening to them? I've been surprised reading how different the reality was from what I had pictured. Give them a little credit for at least trying to do an extremely hard job and still care about their land. Walk in their shoes for a day, see how they actually farm and I bet opinions would be different.

All I'm saying is that the farmer is probably the least of the polluters, is being used as a scapegoat and that we need to stand back and look at the whole picture and look at where we all are involved in this. The whole picture. Have anything plastic in your house? Use gasoline? Water from the tap? Electricity? The list goes on and on. It all doesn't come from thin air. Most of us leave a heavy footprint on the earth. I guess I just get what Dale and the other guys are saying and where they're coming from.

__________________
"Being normal is not necessarily a virtue...rather, it denotes a lack of courage".

I will attend the Fort Wayne Farm Show today and one of the items I want to discuss with vendors is low-drift spray nozzles. We already use them, but want to determine if there is anything better.

We will also be talking with vendors about better methods to control weeds, both chemical and natural.