The end of glyphosate

Commodity Marketing

Tools

The end of glyphosate

Apr 7, 2019 | 00:48 31
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
I can understand you're puzzled. You are learning albeit slowly. Its good though that you ask how preseeding chemical applications can contribute to poisoning the food chain. Look up the half life in the soil of these pesticides. Especially when guys like bucket preseed spray resistant kochia 4 times based on his "industry trained" agronomists' recommendations. In some cases there is significant residue carried over even beyond the additional burden of yet another gly/heat preharvest spray. Much more evident here in west Australia due to depleted organic matter levels not to mention the nearly non existent soil biological life responsible for breaking down all these chemicals. That's how preseeding sprays in part poison the food chain.
I trust that you have a peer reviewed study showing detectable levels of glyphosate in crops sprayed only pre-seed to back up that assertion? Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Apr 7, 2019 | 02:15 32
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
I trust that you have a peer reviewed study showing detectable levels of glyphosate in crops sprayed only pre-seed to back up that assertion?
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302

Go to the site download the link and go to page 13 for a start
Also study the glyphosate metabolite AMPA
And also study the effects of high phosphorus fertilizer rates with respect to gly soil residue release Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Apr 7, 2019 | 08:39 33 Austrand all you prove is that someone with a plan will try anything to get their voice heard. You spout about glyphs all the time. Sad if you want us to all go back to 1962 farming. Why not and watch you will be the first to complain about how expensive everything is.

Sick people like this is the reason why we have anti-vaccination and organic bullshit and veggie burgers. The world is full of idiots.

Sort of like BC they can't figure out why Gas is so expensive and now the Gov wants to help lower the price.

Special idiots. Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2019 | 15:11 34
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302

Go to the site download the link and go to page 13 for a start
Also study the glyphosate metabolite AMPA
And also study the effects of high phosphorus fertilizer rates with respect to gly soil residue release
What I have read so far seems to directly contradict your claims. Not even sure why hydroponics would be a relevant method to assess residue, considering that there would be zero need to ever use glyphosate in a hydroponic situation.

Following soil application, the uptake of glyphosate was
very low and amounted to mostly less than 1% of the applied radioactivity (AR) in plant matrices.
Limited translocation was also observed after local foliar application, most of the applied radioactivity
(80%) remaining in the treated parts of the plants. Hydroponic studies were therefore the key studies
to identify the metabolic pattern of glyphosate in conventional plants. Globally without soil present as
substrate, less than 5% AR was recovered in the aerial parts, up to 20% AR in the roots.
Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Apr 7, 2019 | 18:18 35
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
What I have read so far seems to directly contradict your claims. Not even sure why hydroponics would be a relevant method to assess residue, considering that there would be zero need to ever use glyphosate in a hydroponic situation.

Following soil application, the uptake of glyphosate was
very low and amounted to mostly less than 1% of the applied radioactivity (AR) in plant matrices.
Limited translocation was also observed after local foliar application, most of the applied radioactivity
(80%) remaining in the treated parts of the plants. Hydroponic studies were therefore the key studies
to identify the metabolic pattern of glyphosate in conventional plants. Globally without soil present as
substrate, less than 5% AR was recovered in the aerial parts, up to 20% AR in the roots.
Funny, you ask for peer review and it goes right over your head. They're not my claims just peer reviewed conclusions as requested. That's why you're not a peer reviewer. Contact them and argue with them and get back to us, fact remains that plants can and do take up Chem from the soil, my initial point which you deny even with the requested proof in front of your nose. Is your sprayer ready to go and your chemical all lined up? Fun isn't it. Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2019 | 19:11 36
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
Funny, you ask for peer review and it goes right over your head. They're not my claims just peer reviewed conclusions as requested. That's why you're not a peer reviewer. Contact them and argue with them and get back to us, fact remains that plants can and do take up Chem from the soil, my initial point which you deny even with the requested proof in front of your nose. Is your sprayer ready to go and your chemical all lined up? Fun isn't it.
Thanks for posting, I've got a lot more reading to do before I get through it, just so far, I'm not seeing the same smoking gun that you are. Perhaps you are confused about whose head it has gone over. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Austranada's Avatar Apr 7, 2019 | 20:40 37
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Thanks for posting, I've got a lot more reading to do before I get through it, just so far, I'm not seeing the same smoking gun that you are. Perhaps you are confused about whose head it has gone over.
    That's the problem, your looking for a smoking gun as in circumstantial evidence. As I've stated one must study this from an objective point of view and not so much skeptical and defensive.
    Direct evidence has been presented in terms of uptake from the soil and we haven't even mentioned contamination from drift and run off, dust storms carrying pesticide laden topsoil into major urban centres, most recently Adelaide and Sydney. Atrazine, trifluralin, glyphosate,that's what is going over their heads. At some point AF5 you have to move from semantics to action Reply With Quote
    Apr 7, 2019 | 20:56 38 Is there a correlation?

    Name:  Glyphosate.jpg
Views: 1362
Size:  54.0 KB

    https://enveurope.springeropen.com/a...302-016-0070-0

    http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/

    The untrained eye might conclude that malnutrition may began to rise when Glyphosate use declines.

    1.2 MMT by 2022?
    https://www.strategyr.com/MarketRese...alysts-inc.asp Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Austranada's Avatar Apr 18, 2019 | 19:34 39
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnM View Post
    Have you ever done any consulting work for the EPA? I have.

    They are the most uptight, by the book, no ha-ha guys I have ever met. I think if "big pharma" even tried to buy anyone off in that org there would be a "disappearance"
    https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/04/19/collusion-or-coincidence-records-show-epa-efforts-to-slow-herbicide-review-came-in-coordination-with-monsanto/#.XLkfN7fmg0M

    By the way seeing as no one is trying to help you with soybean marketing I'll offer this tidbit.
    Growing demand at Beechwood Agri over $1000/t for food grade. There's a catch though. Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Apr 19, 2019 | 18:31 40
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    trouble is , bp, you can argue until you are blue in the face , it won't help .
    they are funded and get paid , this is their job . we unfortunately have to work and don't get paid to. argue with them
    until they are cold and hungry , nothing will change , but change it will .
    Change continues to roll across the informed public.

    https://www.ehn.org/monsantos-herbicide-defense-falling-on-deaf-ears-as-nyc-leaders-join-calls-for-ban-2634974362.html Reply With Quote
    Apr 19, 2019 | 20:24 41 I think we could have gotten away with Round-Up but the fall desiccating has probably cooked our goose. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Apr 20, 2019 | 14:05 42 Not going to happen. Just listen to France 2019. They know they can't survive a total ban, so on with the next five year plan, and the next five year plan after that. Rinse, repeat three times, recycle. Reply With Quote
    Apr 20, 2019 | 16:29 43 The trend is your friend.

    Projected global glyphosate use increases through 2024.

    Get use to it as more global acres come into production. Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Apr 22, 2019 | 05:34 44
    Quote Originally Posted by checking View Post
    The trend is your friend.

    Projected global glyphosate use increases through 2024.

    Get use to it as more global acres come into production.

    That prediction was prior to the lost court cases with still over 11000 cases to settle
    This is the new "trend"

    https://inhabitat.com/costco-to-be-the-first-major-retailer-to-cut-roundup-from-the-shelves/ Reply With Quote
    Apr 22, 2019 | 08:52 45
    Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
    That prediction was prior to the lost court cases with still over 11000 cases to settle
    This is the new "trend"

    https://inhabitat.com/costco-to-be-the-first-major-retailer-to-cut-roundup-from-the-shelves/
    Good for them. There is no reason for the average consumer with a postage stamp sized lawn to be abusing and over using the most important crop chemical we have right now. Lets keep it for allowing no till to be viable, and continue to discourage any other uses and abuses. Back to the infamous court case, why does a grounds keeper need to be applying glyphosate at all? Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Austranada's Avatar Apr 23, 2019 | 17:38 46 https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/04/23/glyphosate-causes-serious-multi-generational-damage-to-rats-new-wsu-research/#.XL-efrfmg0M

    Heed the warnings Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Apr 24, 2019 | 08:17 47
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnM View Post
    Have you ever done any consulting work for the EPA? I have.

    They are the most uptight, by the book, no ha-ha guys I have ever met. I think if "big pharma" even tried to buy anyone off in that org there would be a "disappearance"
    EPA simply not credible

    https://nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nypost.com/2019/04/24/epa-head-andrew-wheeler-never-disclosed-chemical-lobbying-job-congressman/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3 A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2019%2F04%2F24%2Fepa-head-andrew-wheeler-never-disclosed-chemical-lobbying-job-congressman%2F Reply With Quote
    Apr 24, 2019 | 10:22 48
    Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
    EPA simply not credible

    https://nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nypost.com/2019/04/24/epa-head-andrew-wheeler-never-disclosed-chemical-lobbying-job-congressman/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3 A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2019%2F04%2F24%2Fepa-head-andrew-wheeler-never-disclosed-chemical-lobbying-job-congressman%2F
    I'll trust the EPA long before something called inhabitat.com or some shitpuppet organization called sustainable pulse. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Austranada's Avatar Apr 26, 2019 | 03:29 49
    Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart View Post
    I'll trust the EPA long before something called inhabitat.com or some shitpuppet organization called sustainable pulse.
    https://www.ecowatch.com/ethics-investigations-epa-2635534651.html Reply With Quote
    Apr 26, 2019 | 07:15 50
    Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart View Post
    I'll trust the EPA long before something called inhabitat.com or some shitpuppet organization called sustainable pulse.
    You can also add "Ecowatch" to the shitpuppet list. Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Apr 26, 2019 | 07:55 51
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay-mo View Post
    You can also add "Ecowatch" to the shitpuppet list.
    Just reporting what's happening. What's your comeback from this source
    https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics/house-oversight-investigation-epa/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Apr 26, 2019 | 18:48 52 https://news.yahoo.com/bayer-shareholders-vote-against-board-over-monsanto-merger-221246730.html Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Apr 30, 2019 | 01:05 53 Looks promising

    https://navva.org/france/france/will-glyphosate-end-soon-scientists-discover-natural-herbicide/ Reply With Quote
    May 1, 2019 | 07:39 54 Not quite so fast ...you troll.

    Of course you threw your Bayer letter away from Bayer that came yesterday or so. You could also get the same information from Canadian Government agency web sites. I do believe Both Bayer and the Canadian agency responsible very carefully explained the completed Canadian review on glyphosate's present status in the country. And indeed there were labelling changes required to be made by all Canadian glyphosate manufacturers.

    You will however be sadly disappointed that glyphosate is not banned or restricted any further beyond those labelling changes (and obviously the stewardship that stems from those conditions that any responsible user could easily live with).

    Please avail yourself and your followers about what your Canadian government and its responsible agencies have decided.


    If you can't concede that starting point in your new knowledge....then you have cemented your position as a dedicated troll...and nothing more. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 1, 2019 | 07:52 55 Its time to ban the off label use of glyphosate for a pre-harvest burndown. It is not a desicant. Weed control prior to harvest is a lame excuse for this practice. Post harvest is a better time for weed control with glyphosate in most crops.

    Consumers and grain buyers don't want glyphosate sprayed just before harvest. All farmers are losing markets for grains because of this practice that has little benefit and lots of market downside. Reply With Quote

  • May 1, 2019 | 19:31 56 It's also way, way past the time to stop repeating that glyphosate poses dangers to human health that have never been found to exist. Any uninformed and misguided self appointed crusaders who refuse to quit repeating and spreading falsehoods are not open to the truth .

    Unless and until a Canadian government agency having regulatory jurisdiction over glyphosate determines those hazards indeed exist; then all the wannabe crusaders should be given little credence for their firmly held convictions.

    No such directive exists. I again implore such persons to inform themselves about the recent Government of Canada determinations concerning a review of matters associated with recommended glyphosate use. Reply With Quote
    May 1, 2019 | 20:01 57 Now what do we know.

    Firstly Astrodomass has been following this thread and posted a "Like" to the post just above.

    Also; not surprisingly; Astro ignored saying a single word about the immediately preceding post which was worded to invite that troll to refute what the Government of Canad agency concluded about the latest study concerning glyphosate use.

    Apparently not one mind was influenced. And to continue this discussion with a troll is beyond futile. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 2, 2019 | 07:39 58 Some may be prone to overstating the health risk of glyphosate.

    The problem is courts in the US and the International Agency for Cancer Research (IACR) have both determined that there is evidence to conclude glyphosate is probably a carcinogen or is a carcinogen.

    https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/

    The IARC also concluded there is strong evidence for genotoxicity. There is disagreement on these findings. Which leads to the question who and what to believe?

    Unless there is clarification on this question, consumers and farmers have every right to be concerned.

    Farmers should also be concerned that overuse will lead to more resistant weeds which will make glyphosate ineffective.

    Resistant weeds and volunteer glyphosate tolerant crops have led to the addition of dicamba glyphosate mixtures which is a signal that glyphosate should not be used as much as it is.

    Glyphosate has benefits in direct seeding systems, but overuse will lead to the loss of use and loss of benefits. The use of glyphosate at preharvest is not an essential use in many cases.

    Farmers should act on their own to reduce usage or consumers, buyers and governments will impose restrictions on the use of glyphosate.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; May 2, 2019 at 07:48.
    Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar May 2, 2019 | 08:48 59
    Quote Originally Posted by oneoff View Post
    Now what do we know.

    Firstly Astrodomass has been following this thread and posted a "Like" to the post just above.

    Also; not surprisingly; Astro ignored saying a single word about the immediately preceding post which was worded to invite that troll to refute what the Government of Canad agency concluded about the latest study concerning glyphosate use.

    Apparently not one mind was influenced. And to continue this discussion with a troll is beyond futile.
    Following the thread???? I started it. Thanks for the laugh. Go buy a swather and spend a little less time in the coffee shop Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar May 2, 2019 | 09:22 60 I said years ago they would ban preharvest. I was asked all the time why a 'sprayer' has to be out just before harvest. " What are you putting on our food" was a question.
    However, in my region of the Parkland cropping region I would not choose to swath a cereal ever.
    Time to go underground like the Chinese. No profit in responding to guys like Astrochuck. Reply With Quote