UKC

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyph...

In reply to LeeWood:

only in Excel.

In reply to LeeWood:

Same company that made Agent Orange IIRC.

In reply to LeeWood:

The US government also sprayed Monsanto's "agent orange" all over Vietnam and is supporting a puppet government in Kiev who changed legislation to allow a land-grab by "big agriculture" - the same mega-corporations who became "mega" by exploiting the efficacy and economic potential of Monsanto's GMO seeds.

Yeah, let's trust them!

EDIT: The problem with GMO seeds is not that they're genetically modified. The problem is that these corporations are working on a different business model to those that they're displacing. They're growing bulk products to export. It's like replacing your local pub, the epitome of old-English ambiance and purveyor of the finest meat Pies, with a MacDonalds that only does deliveries and only delivers to people in another suburb, kilometers away.

In reply to LeeWood:

I confess - would like to have used Roundup on so many occasions, it seems like such a neat solution. 4ha of ground to keep tidy, with invasive weeds such as Japanes Knotweed in part. But it's a short term gain. There'll be no further struggle of conscience.

In reply to LeeWood:


Just be aware, that if you clean up the weeds by hand, then you had better not burn them, as biomass smoke falls in the same IARC class. Also stay clear of fried food etc. Lots of things are carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, or possibly carcinogenic; the magnitude of the effect, and the likely exposure levels are critical in deciding how much you have to worry.

In reply to LeeWood:

Isn't glyphosate in all weed killers?

In reply to Doghouse:

No. Glyphosate is a class of herbicide that affects both monocots and dicots (hence the need for GM plants if you want anything to survive application). There are other classes that specifically target monocots or dicots which allows a (slightly) more selective targeting of weeds.

In reply to LeeWood:

I'm wondering whether Roundup makes it's way out of the Knotweed plant system once injected into the stems?

It's definitely effective at killing Knotweed, I've found it quite satisfying to go back to a site I've treated and see the Knotweed being all grey and crisp and dead.

I dare say that could happen to me though, if I did enough Knotweed injecting to be exposed to dangerous amonts over time.

Could be something worth thinking about...

In reply to MarkJH:

I know of dicot specific herbicides (used to eradicate all the poppies in wheat fields), but was not aware of monocot specific ones. Would be extremely useful for me, as I need to kill grasses in a small patch on my flat roof. Currently I am pulling out the clumps of grass, but this also rips out the other plants that are supposed to grow there,

CB

In reply to Timmd:


Not at appreciable levels. The problem is with indiscriminate spraying, not with treating individual plants or patches of plants,

CB

In reply to cb294:
And we wonder where all the bees and birds have gone !! It must linger about and get into other systems either by air or through the soil.

In reply to joan cooper:

they're in our garden!

In reply to joan cooper:

I'm with you on that, water making it's way through the soil must transport it too.

In reply to cb294:


Hopefully the protective gear helps a fair amount too. If you ever get any Knotweed problems injecting is a good way to kill it, it's kind of satisfying to inject each stem too.

'Die you b*stard...'

In reply to cb294:


ACCase inhibitors are monocot specific (and tend to be most effective against grasses). There are also classes that are even more specific within grasses and can be used on wheat/ barley crops. They are subject to quite strict regulation, so not sure if they are available for domestic use.

In reply to joan cooper:

Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to organic matter and soil particles and then broken down (largely by microbes) within days to weeks. If you inject knotweed (or spray sparingly at indivudual plants) and avoid spraying in the rain (when surface runoff can carry the compound away), most of the stuff will stay local. Of course, this is not true when treating whole fields, in the worst case from a helicopter!

CB

In reply to MarkJH:

Thanks! Normally I would not consider using herbicides, but we are losing our fight against the grass on our roof and are causing more damage by pulling it out by hand.

CB

In reply to cb294:
Yellow Rattle is ment to be a good flowering species to combat grasses with, It's a 'carnivorous' species which targets grasses and is sometimes used to help new wildflower meadows to become established.

In reply to cb294:

Here you go.

http://wildseed.co.uk/page/using-yellow-rattle-to-increase-species-diversit...

In reply to Timmd:

Thanks, I will definitely give this a try!

CB

In reply to cb294:
You're welcome, I only learnt about it last week or the week before on a course.

Time to start to knowledge-up about ecology it feels like...

In reply to LeeWood:

I love the "probably" catch-all. I reckon water probably causes cancer too. After all, you name me one cancer patient that didn't drink water.

Its a conspiracy maaaaaaan!

In reply to MarkJH:


But we've been adapted to dealing with smoke and the more natural carcinogens. Glyphosate (and a host of other chimcals) is very recent.

In reply to LeeWood:

going out, but an interesting discussion here, providing you ignore the "millipede" troll

http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=38951

In reply to LeeWood:

Adapted; what does that mean? By definition, carcinogens give you cancer; if we had adapted to dealing with them, they would not be carcinogenic. Cancer from 'natural' sources is in every respect indistinguishable from that caused by modern chemicals.

In reply to MarkJH:


Yes, firewood smoke is still more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke is, even after the length of time we've been burning wood as a species.

In reply to MarkJH:

So dos this mean we should gladly tolerate new additional sources? A healthy body has the ability to fight free radicals ... but this is not infinite. Why not keep factors which induce ill health to a minimum?

In reply to Timmd:

At what concentration? Who really sucks firewood smoke into their lungs in the way of tobacco smoke ?

In reply to Baron Weasel:


Fritz Haber, Nobel Prize winning Jewish Chemist, developed chemical weapons and Zyklon B - which was manufactured by IG Farben, a merger of companies including Bayer, BASF and Agfa. Toy train manufacturer Tri-ang made STEN guns. Herbicide manufacturer supplying herbicide to the military is hardly a surprise.

In reply to LeeWood:

Here you go, loads of info for you. I've just got a wood burning stove too. Hmmn...

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fire+wood+smoke%2C+more+carcinogenic...

In reply to LeeWood:


Those are exactly the sorts of questions that you need to ask; not just the headline IARC rating. You can ask the same questions about roundup...

In reply to LeeWood:

. Why not keep factors which induce ill health to a minimum?

Because they kill Japanese knotweed??

In reply to MG:


I'm thinking it might be time Roundup wasn't available for people to use in pottering about in their garden or allotment, and was perhaps only available for people who have training in how to use pesticides safely, if it probably is carcinogenic.

It mightn't be a good thing for people to be buying it in the shops quite freely.

In reply to Timmd:

Are you going to ban bonfires for the same reason? And alcohol?

In reply to MG:
Where did I say anything about banning (anything)?

Put your irritation back in it's box.

In reply to Timmd:
I'm not irritated just trying to follow your thinking. "Not available" is different to banned how?

In reply to MG:
Asking somebody if they're thinking of banning alcohol or fires could come across as rather short, you have to admit.

Certain professional products can't be used in gardens and allotments in a non professional setting.

If something isn't available to use in a garden or allotment, it doesn't mean it's been banned, more that it's use is restricted.

Question 8 is the relevant whatsit, if somebody could demonstrate they were going to use Roundup in a way which reduced their exposure to it to a minimum, and the resulting cancer risk, they'd still be able to use it, and it'd be a means of people being less at risk, because they'd have to gen up on how best to use it, to be able to.

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/using-pe...

In reply to Timmd:
Well banned for you and me, whatever.

My question was why latch on to thus possible, mild carcinogen but be happy with other more dangerous ones. Most pesticides that are restricted are that way for environmental reasons.

In reply to MG:

Except it wouldn't be banned if you could demonstrate you could use it safely, ie wearing a cover all and gloves and face visor and wellies etc.


Why not, & who says I'm happy with other more dangerous ones?

That's 2 assumptions as to why I'm not logical, you do seem vaguely irritable, most definitely so I think.

All is explained in my post with the link, have a nice evening...

In reply to Timmd:

Because it seems irrational and inconsistent. Roundup is useful chemical, not obviously more dangerous than many others freely available. Why ban it, specifically?

In reply to MG:

It WOULDN'T BE BANNED!!!

Roundup is thought to be probably carcinogenic, ie it's not definite, but studying it's usage there seems to be a link between it's usage and a certain cancer. As somebody who has used it to treat Knotweed, it strikes me as sensible that anybody else who uses it takes the same precautions as I did, in wearing a coverall and face visor and gloves, and is also well versed in safe usage of the product.

Go and look up the difference between restricted and banned.

Good grief Charlie Brown

In reply to Timmd:

All right why restrict it, specifically?

(Do you think handguns aren't banned because the army have them?)

In reply to Timmd:

Thats illogical to imagine that 'professionals' will use it more responsibly.

What is further incomprehensible about such shortcut solutions is the way in which they are sponsored council and authorities who also confront unemployment rates. Swap out the chemicals for good old fashioned labour and 2 birds are ku-illed with one stone!

In reply to Timmd:


Yellow rattle's a funny one: it's parasitic in some respects, so does best where it can suck the life out of grass. But it has real problems with tough grass like rye or couch, and does better with old-fashioned leys like meadow and fescue. Plus, as a parasite it is, by definition, suited to poorer soils - it wouldn't need to feed off other plants otherwise. Meadow grasses on poor soil are more amenable to colonisation by wildflowers in the first place. Many gardens lawns are rye-heavy, for its resistance to wear, and laid on decent soils, often boosted with 'weed'n'feed' products. So rattle often disappears without trace in domestic settings. It also takes 2-3 years to really exert a big effect - so that roof garden would still need some attention.

Our next door farmer is looking to retire, build a house on the field next to our house (with our full support) and establish a wildflower meadow. Given that I previously tried to buy the field off him at huge cost to turn it into a meadow, I'm pretty happy about this . What 'we're' going to do is plant rattle, leave cows on it over winter to really poach the ground and then see what happens. Apart from summer grazing, it's not been fertilized for a couple of years, so should stand a chance of establishing.

On the other hand, as someone who's participated in arable farming on a large scale - as in thousands of hectares - I'm not sure your faith in industrial use of herbicides is *always* justified. I've also seen a number of dog and cat patients with neuro symptoms consistent with herbicide exposure, although thankfully this has receded greatly in the last 10-20 years.

In reply to MG:

The specific reason is because of the cancer risk to the lymph system.


Erm, demonstrating that you can use a pesticide product safely so you can buy and use it, isn't a ban. That's something which is beyond any doubt.

I don't know a lot about gun laws, so I'm not going to talk about something I don't know enough to comment on.

In reply to Timmd:

Arrrgh! I give up!!

In reply to MG:
It's funny, because I do too.

It's a moment of mutual incomprehension, I think.

I dare say you could learn most that you need to know about safe pesticide usage on the internet, possibly enough to use a restricted product, which is rather different from the gun laws in the UK.

Also, why is it so weird to restrict the use of something if it's been found to have a cancer risk, if that would be of benefit?

Couldn't one ask why it's worth restricting the sale of tobacco when traffic/urban pollution causes cancer as well?

It's because it's something which is easily doable that it would be a good thing to do...surely that's enough, that it's doable and would be of benefit to anybody who would be using it, the knowledge of how to reduce their risk of lymph cancer?

In reply to Martin not maisie:


I only have faith Roundup's ability to kill Knotweed, to be fair, having seen it go grey and crisp and dead.

In reply to Timmd:
Out of interest can you suggest a non-selective herbicide with a better safety profile? Given the alternatives include things like diquat I'd be happy with a small risk of cancer
Last time I played with glyphosate it was the adjuvants you had to worry about as some of them are interesting on skin. The active ingredient is pretty safe. (I used to work in herbicide R&D for one of Monsantos competitors).

In reply to Reach>Talent:


I'm still finding my way, so I'm not really the person to ask.

In reply to Timmd:

If you ban (sorry restrict) everything that might be a carcinogen there would be little left, and no bonfires etc. Its a question if balance, danger and certainly of that danger against risk. Since Roundup is at worst mildy dangerous but highly useful, banning seems overkill to me. All I was asking was why you think it deserves banning but other similarly useful and dangerous things don't. Arrgh!

In reply to Martin not maisie:



That sounds like an interesting thing to do. Would the cows be any use in eating the rye and couch grasses, or am I thinking of the wrong animal?

In reply to Timmd:

Its unlikely that Monsanto will agree to use only on Jap knotweed, and what you and I do in our backyard is inconsequential. The problem is with the 'professionals' (who you refer to) who disperse this stuff onto our foodstuffs, resulting in traces (which have not bio-degraded) ending up in what we eat.

In reply to Timmd:

Rattle needs a bit of a foothold, and some bare soil is ideal. Leaving the cattle on over winter to 'poach' - churn up and destroy - a lot of the grass helps the rattle to establish in the spring. The problem with rattle is that it really needs to be sown in the autumn, as it likes a period of cold and punishment to germinate.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

The problem with deliberate poaching is that you don't need much of a burden of thistle seeds, for example, before you force yourself into a position where you have to top or spray out of consideration for your neighbours. Neither is very good for he species you are trying to encourage, spraying for obvious reasons and topping because it needs to be done before many of the wild flowers have seeded.

An effective method that doesn't involve disturbing the soil is to take a late cut of hay every year. This allows wild flowers to seed before cutting and nutrients are removed with the crop.

In reply to timjones:

One of the problems we get in Cornwall is that the grass doesn't actually stop growing in winter, which changes the dynamics of germination somewhat. But thistles aren't such a problem - where I grew up, spudding was a full time job, but not so much here. In the numbers we'll expect, they'll act as a net benefit in pollinator attraction.

A late mow is obviously going to be the future plan, but the next couple of years will be about rattle establishment.

In reply to Martin not maisie:


My concern would be that if you let thistles flower you need to be right on ball to prevent them seeding. If they seed and you poach the ground you will have a problem very soon.


I've contract baled on late mown hay and it delivers rapid results, really changing the nature of a field in just 6 to 7 years. I'd get started on it now. Why wait?

In reply to Timmd:



I suppose the same would have to apply to saws too, given that wood dust has an even higher IARC rating than roundup. Also frying pans; no proof of cooker hood, no sale.

In reply to MarkJH:

But we're not going to find sawdust in the foodchain - poisoning everybody. The greater concern is not for the health of one man who applies the treatment but of the thousands which live and breathe in the sprayed environment.

In reply to LeeWood:


Yes, I agree. I think that the main point I was making was that concluding that a substance is definitely or probably a carcinogen does not tell you very much at all about how dangerous it is or whether it needs regulating. We are exposed to all sorts of carcinogens on a daily basis, some natural, some artificial. Deciding whether or not they require regulation has to be a risk based exercise. That requires estimates of effects, exposure routes and levels.

Put simply, if you light enough bonfires, you will eventually give a passer-by cancer. That doesn't mean that it is a risk worth acting on.

In reply to LeeWood:

I've read the article and found the IARC brief summary but not the full evaluation, do,you have a link to the full IARC document? While I agree the findings raise concerns, the database is not sufficient for IARC to place glyphosate in category 1, or a definite human carcinogen.

Regulatory authorities will most certainly take. note, but as with other such reviews, will want to evaluate the evidence themselves before taking any action. This has been the practice across the EU and the USA for many years, not to simply accept what they are told. I appreciate this may appear an expensive duplication but it minimises knee-jerk reactions.

Perhaps the most reassuring thing is that glyphosate does not appear to be regarded as a genotoxic substance, and therefore a threshold exists for cancer induction. Provided exposure is maintained below this threshold, there should be no risk to human health.

The epidemiology data may question the current threshold, which is why reading the IARC evaluation and independently assessing the critical dais is important.

In reply to MarkJH:


Of course you don't have to wait for science to prove it's own virtues. Organic standards outlawed Roundup and a lot of other such substances long ago, and have a growing number of followers.

http://www.soilassociation.org/news/newsstory/articleid/7805/organic-market...

In reply to LeeWood:


'Organic standards' still allow the use of copper sulphate as a pesticide! I'm not sure the SA is in any position to lecture on toxic agrochemicals.

In reply to MarkJH:

fungicide actually; they further discourage frequent and over-usage

In reply to LeeWood:

Fungicides are a class of pesticide.. Anyway, whatever the SA say, farmers will not take risks with their crops; once you see symptoms, it is too late. Regardless, it is a prime example of the kind of needless damage that you do when you prioritise ideology over evidence. There are demonstably safer conventional fungicides.

In reply to MG:

Stop using ban in place of restrict, they're quite different things.

Essentially, I don't think society is consistent anyway, in what things are and aren't restricted or controlled, and given the popularity of Roundup, it simply strikes me as a good idea to have demonstrable knowledge of how to minimise the risk to the user as a condition of sale. If there's some kind of correlation linking round up to lymph cancer, I think it may be unwise to wait until there's definite proof.

You might not agree with my logic, but there you go, that's my point of view in a nutshell.

In reply to LeeWood:
Did you know that most british arable farmers who grow wheat, barley and oilseed rape spray the crop with Glyphosate about 2 to 3 weeks before they harvest so they can ensure that the crop has died and will ripen/dry out in time for a predetermined harvest date?

If I remember correctly this technique originated in the US then came to the UK.

There is a farm in yorkshire who bottles their own oilseed rape oil, and they used to chemically kill the crop before harvest however because they now sell the oil locally they mechanically cut the crop prior to harvest (to allow it to desiccate/dry out) so they aren't seen in the fields using chemicals.
Obviously they weren't too worried when selling the oilseed onto a grain trader, but when there was more connection with the local market they didn't want to create any negative feedback regarding their production methods.

If the farm is organic then this practice is prohibited. Make your own choice when looking at products on the shop shelf!

In reply to Iain(2010): Assuming that this is a priority for you (and I'm in no way convinced that glyphosate is a real health issue), this is why buying locally, or direct from the producer is more important than organic certification. There is no testing involved in organic production, merely a mostly self certified chain of custody. Some of the underlying principles are quite flaky as well, and not particularly beneficial to the environment any more than conventional farming.

interesting story today

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/28/organic-and-uht-milk-co...


And don't get me started on biodynamics.

In reply to Iain(2010):



I'm not sure that many farmers would want to kill a crop that is still filling; harvest happens when the crop is ready and when the weather is dry. Pre-harvest treatments (in wheat at least) are aimed at controlling weeds that will be green at harvest time and can affects the speed/ efficiency of the combines. They will not be applied unless grain moisture is less than 30%. In barley there is some evidence that pre-harvest applications reduce grain moisture content. Again, this isn't about controlling harvest times (it gains you about a day), it is more to do with reducing harvest losses.

In reply to MarkJH:

Farmer don't want to kill a crop that is still filling, they want to do this to make sure all the crop is dead at the same time, so will allow all the grain to reach the target of around 15% moisture. It's a question of timing, so kill the crop too early and yes you lose yield, that is why the glyphosate is sprayed within 2 to 3 weeks of harvest.

It obviously depends on the prevailing weather conditions as to whether or not the harvest date is influenced. If the season favours the prolonged survival of the less mature wheat plants then spraying should allow opportunities to harvest earlier, especially in August when the weather can be dry for a couple of days then wet again for a while.

In some US barley markets it is not acceptable for Glyphosate to be used prior to harvest due to the maltsters not wanting herbicide residues.

Go talk to some of the big arable farmers in East Anglia and ask them what 'liquid sunshine' is. It is glyphosate applied pre harvest to achieve even desiccation of the grain.

See link to Monsanto document on Glyphosate:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/glyphosate-background-materials/...

From that document there is a paragraph that states 'Green material in crop is desiccated so crop is evenly ripened allowing an earlier harvest'; section 7, page 22.

Just to add to the debate, in Oilseed Rape there is another herbicide called 'Reglone' which is used in the same way, see link to the manufacturers web data page:

http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/product...

If you look the manufacturer states: "REGLONE helps growers to schedule harvests largely independently of weather conditions".

In reply to Iain(2010):

Well, it is a minor point, but the HGCA funded some trials a few years ago which showed no effect on grain moisture from pre harvest glyphosate on UK wheat compared to barley. There were clear advantages to combining efficiency in plots with weeds and control of perennials. I'm sure that the manufacturers will claim otherwise... As far as I am aware, maltsters here are generally happy for glyphosate to be used so long as residues are within limits.

Whether the discovery of a weak effect on lymphoma following occupational exposure will have any relevance to those limits is another question.

In reply to Iain(2010):

Obviously, there will be safe recommended delay periods between crop treatment and harvest / storage, but what happens when the weather forcast comes up bad before the delay has reached term??

One way or another, glyphosate is getting into our food chain beofre getting a chance to break down.

In reply to toad:

re the iodine: not such a helpful article as it doesn't define *why* these 2classes of milk would have less iodine. Heat treatment alone wouldn't remove an element would it - or does it make it unavailable?

Sounds like a smokscreen to me. But yes, always better to know where products come from - buy local.

In reply to Iain(2010):


Really where do you get the figures to back that up?

I'd suggest that "most" should be replaced with some and even then only in difficult years where crops are ripening unevenly. Sensible businessmen don't splash money about just for the sake of it.

In reply to timjones:

Firstly, I have worked with arable farmers in the south east of England for 11 years, so I am well aware of the agronomic practices used. This is my anecdotal evidence, from first hand experience.

Secondly, have a look at Monsantos own literature in the document:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/glyphosate-background-materials/...

Here you will find in Monsanto's own literature: "Harvest management and desiccation treatments are used increasingly in uneven crops to achieve an earlier more reliable harvest despite the weather by evening up the ripening or advancing the ripening process. In fact HGCA (home grown cereals authority)(2009) estimate glyphosate is used on 78% of UK oilseed rape as a harvest aid." section 7, page 22.

In the same document of Monsanto's own literature: "85% of UK cereal growers and 93% of UK oilseed rape growers surveyed considered harvest management glyphosate very or fairly valuable over the period 2006-2007 to ensure the most efficient, rapid and reliable harvest, and 40% would use it in most combinable crops." Section 7; page 25.

I stand by my use of 'most farmers' for the reasons above.

In reply to LeeWood:

Who knows what a safe delay period is? Sometimes it isn't until years afterwards that problems become apparent and the reasons identified.

Way back when Glyphosate was first being sold to farmers the agrochemical sales reps used to drink a teaspoon of glyphosate to demonstrate how safe it was! This is anecdotal information from farmers I know, no direct evidence available to back this statement up, sorry.

Most farmers I know will spray, wait for the crop to die off then harvest. If the wheat has dried faster than expected they'll just go in and harvest it.

You have to understand that a fair few arable farmers have increased the area that they farm so they can spread as many of their fixed costs thinly; economies of scale. As a result they have larger pieces of machinery to deal with these larger areas to be harvested, and cultivated. When conditions are right, i.e. a crop is ready for harvest those machines will go 24hrs a day if necessary. The farmers main priority is to get the wheat, barley, oilseed into the shed/grainstore ASAP. These guys are business men and they want to protect their crop and get it off the field with minimum of risk. This involves racing against time with weather forecasts, especially in August when the majority of wheat is harvested.

Wheat and oilseed is just a global commodity traded all over the world.

In reply to Iain(2010):

Complete aside but something I have wondered for a while. Do (presumably vastly expensive) combines sit idle for all but a few days a year or are they moved around the world to get better use out of them?

In reply to MG:

They sit it in a shed for roughly 9-10 months of the year, in the UK. Some farmers share them, again this puts pressure on timing their use during a tight window of opportunity/good weather.

I know there are large custom harvesting teams in the US that follow the developing harvest across the grain belt of america, some of the machines are replaced halfway through the season as they have been so heavily used. They are then sold to farmers who don't need them to be 100% reliable under heavy workloads.

In reply to Iain(2010):







Somewhat different from my observations of common practice in the West Midlands. Most farmers might use it at some point but how many would choose to use it as a matter of routine?

Monsantos use of survey figures from '06 to '07 is interesting. What do you remember about summer and harvest '07?

In reply to timjones:

In my experience most choose to use it, as it gives them greater management control over harvest timings and scheduling machinery operations.

Think about it, if you've got 300 ha of second wheats going into oilseed rape that wheat has to be off the field to allow the rape to be established by the 15th August. There is incredible pressure to grab whatever management tools are available. I'm not saying I agree with the practice, but that is what happens in areas where the scale of farming is great.

In North Herefordshire where you farm there is more mixed farming with livestock involved. The production focus is more year round, summer is still busy with making silage etc, so your experience will be different to the big arable operations on the east. I would say that a large majority of the cereals grown are barley probably for home feed. If you are a farmer who just grows 50ha of barley you can afford to wait for the crop to ripen more naturally.

Not saying your experience is wrong.

I'm now up in Yorkshire and there is a greater mix of farm enterprises. the big guys with all combinable crops still go and spray the crops with glyphosate.

Next time any of you reading this are out and about in the countryside in late July/early August look at the tramlines in the fields of wheat, they are the tractors wheelings up and down fields that you can see. If they have been freshly used you can tell as the crop has been pressed down where it had tried to grow over them. If the tramlines have been used it will not have been to apply fertiliser or fungicide sprays it will have been to apply glyphosate or even Reglone in oilseed.

Go see for yourselves if you don't believe me.

Thats me out of the debate, I've told it how it is, make up your own minds.

In reply to Iain(2010):

Thanks for valuable insight into current practice.

Just one point - maybe someine else can help out:

>There is incredible pressure to grab whatever management tools are available.

Why is this so? Is the pressure there to keep up with the Jones and make a stash, or is it there to hold even against rising costs of machinery/equipment/energy?

I'm officially a farmer by status in France, but on a very small scale. It's not profitable at present and we're looking for supplementary activities. machine costs are a significant part of the problem but so is labour input ie. my time. And of course it's impossible to keep up with mainstream agro.

In reply to LeeWood:

Pressure to farm more land was initially when the wheat prices were low, so those farmers that decided to carry on actively farming took on more land, usually on a short term tenancy from those who didn't want to carry on but still wanted to derive income from renting the land out.

Bigger machinery then allowed the same farmer to farm more land with the same number of people. The bigger tractor or combine obviously cost more to buy, but the cost would be less per hectare of land when additional areas were farmed. The big problem was that the time to get certain field operations done didn't expand, this made farmers extremely nervous so they looked to obtain any advantage they could. Unfortunately this leads to running extremely heavy machinery on wet land after high rainfall. The soil becomes damaged by compaction which ultimately leads to future problems establishing crops and yields can be reduced. The Leverhulme foundation has estimated that worldwide soil compaction is responsible for reducing wheat yields by 10% and barley by 20%. It is potentially a big problem where the focus is more short term rather than long term. Soils and sustainability is another subject.


There were farmers who just managed to tread water and didn't expand or contract, they will have probably just about managed to stay in business until the prices improved. Farming profitability has to be judged over a number of years as there are good bad and indifferent years, as long as the average is profitable.

In reply to Iain(2010):




Which I'm sure suits the marketing people, but isn't quite what the HGCA report actually says! Obviously OSR is a very different crop to wheat. I'd still be surprised if it was applied pre-harvest to anywhere near the majority of the wheat crop given the HGCA guidance/ research. Not saying you are wrong of course; just that I'd be surprised.

In reply to MarkJH:

The FERA pesticide survey usage (2010) suggests that 22% of UK wheat was treated with glyphosate, representing about 8% of herbicide use. For total herbicide use, 3% was applied as a desiccant. Even if glyphosate was used exclusively as a dessicant, that will still only get you to 8% of crops having glyphosate applied as a harvest aid (probably less).

For winter and spring barley, the figures are slightly higher (as would be expected), but still far short of a majority.

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/documents/arable2012v2.pd...

In reply to LeeWood:

As an aside I periodically get a longitudinal study questionnaire as I've historically worked with pesticides, so it isn't that people are being complacent about the potential risks of pesticide