dangould....The bottle is a solvent applicator used by the plastic industry to apply water thin solvents to bond plastic together. Plastic distributors would sell them. A regular hypo needle would do the same thing and is probably available at a drug store. ( pure guess) This method has almost wiped out my dreaded collection of wild violets. :) I have also tried the stir drink straws....very small opening..not quit as much control there...you need to be close to your work....dip the straw and fill it..cover the top end with your finger..put in place and release... Being a plastic guy I have used clear sheets of plastic to cook areas. Works well when it is nice and hot. A piece of sheet metal will also work. Great thought Albert. Good call Annie..I have some old cheap black plastic pots. I could cut out the bottom and make a shield from that so I could use my sprayer in larger areas. Yeah Gardenlen....another good way to safely apply this stuff. CrAzY LaRrY

Hi tomacco, Many of the people that object to its use provided references . I posted one that shows actual results that are counter to conventional wisdom. Wrong once means one can be wrong twice. I also doubt most of the people that use pesticides or herbicides even know what it is. Its easy to wipe out weeds. Just weed cloth it for a while. I even look forward to finding some weeds since they are great green manure and ferilizers. http://purecajunsunshine.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-to-make-free-fertilizer-from-weeds.html Everything is a chemical thus its absurd to lump together all chemicals as bad. Plants produce chemical defenses like alkaloids. What is stupid is mono culture and cultural practices that rely on a single measure and the quick kill. Even if round up were non-toxic it would simply breed weeds that will develop immunity to it and simply waste the resource. The best chemicals are the ones produced by plants that always gravitate toward suppression. I don't mind using pyrethins judiciously because it is something that follows this pattern where it knocks down and suppresses without killing and altering the attacking species. It is also a naturally occurring chemical that does break down in sunlight. Quick break down is essential to prevent dilution and attenuated exposure to build resistance.Thats probably why nature made it that way. We have one person with a spray bottle so we can have buildings full of lawyers and accountants doing nothing. They were spraying DDT around as if there was no consequence, same with agent orange. We have seen this attitude before of spray and pray and it nearly killed off the national symbol. Newer research does not look so good to me. . http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DMPGR.php http://www.sott.net/articles/show/180255-Death-by-Multiple-Poisoning-Glyphosate-and-Roundup

Since the World Health Organization has listed glyphosate as a possible carcinogen for humans common sense says the presence of it in the food we eat needs to be looked at. Denial does not cut it. You'll recall from this discussion what "possible" and "probably" mean in the context of the WHO report. Rather than getting all excited and allowing yourself to be distracted by the buzz words, try looking at the entire report. Cherry-picking does not cut it. People who understand that just because a product or material is synthetic does not automatically mean that its "bad", or that naturally-occurring substances are automatically "good", don't have blinders on. Rather, it seems quite the opposite. By taking the blinders off, we can see that where something is produced has nothing to do with toxicity. Interesting how people dismiss a known carcinogen in beer, ethyl alcohol, and focus instead on something that they want so badly to be one. To put the quantities in perspective, beer can range from 4 to 8% alcohol. (Sure, some have a bit less and some have a bit more, but I think most would agree this is a fair range.) This article, the first from the link provided above, states that a study has found 0.46 and 29.74 micrograms glyphosate per liter of beer. That's equal to 0.000046% and 0.002974%.

i would have soaped it up within minutes ... with what i dont know.. and washed it rather roughly ... and then hoped for the best ... i dont know what to tell you now.. other than.. to kill a tree.. i would guess you would need over 50 to 75% coverage.. to dose it well enough for the kill ... [presuming you were using proper dilution rates] hopefully.. you will only have some branch death.. and recovery .. but only time will tell ... by fall you will probably know.. might even take thru next winter ... the only issue.. is whether you can find a replacement cheaply.. and just divest.. and replant.. so as to not guilt your son forever .. lol ... on my 5 acres.. i could ignore this for 3 years.. and 'see what happens' .. but if it is in a prime focal point in a small yard .. and this waiting will drive you insane.. just divest ... the other side of that coin.. is whether you are the science type.. and would love to 'see what happens' .... personality A or B ... its up to you ... i use plenty of RU around here.. when the kids were younger.. it was always an issue.. whether they would walk up.. and try to emulate daddy spraying ... lol ... but the worst was.. the unexpected sneeze.. wherein who knows where that wand might end up when you convulse erratically ... lol i wish you luck ken ps: BTW.. you dont happen to know.. if your RU had a spreader/sticker in it?? it would be on the label ... it might help to call the 800 number on the label.. and ask mosanto what they suggest.. i would be curious ....