Why do I care?.........because Round-Up ready means they use MORE herbicide. Sure they don't plow and till as much but all that herbicide use offsets that.

I don't want your fertilizer run-off in my water. I don't want your herbicide in my water. And I don't want your insecticide in my water. I don't want them in the lakes or creeks or the ocean.

"because Round-Up ready means they use MORE herbicide"

Not necessarily true. Without RoundUp, it is common to tank mix several different herbicides to get the required weed control. RoundUp allows for a one pass, complete weed control, ergo, less herbicide is used overall.

As for other points raised, there are lots of weeds that have adapted to herbicides other than RoundUp. Some wild oats are now resistant to some sprays and for this reason it is often recommended to switch types of spray so that the plants have more difficulty becoming resistant to any single one.

Because the field of GMO crops is so new, we still have much to learn and I fear we have no idea as to the longterm ramifications of this program. But with the population continuing to grow, coupled with the finite land available, yields of crops must also increase without an associated rise in costs to feed the population. 'New' crops has so far been the easiest/cheapest way.

Lloyd

The GMO plant is resistant to the herbicide Round-Up. The farmer can spray the weeds without harming the GMO plant. When the weeds become mutated to resist the Round-Up, what do you use? A stronger herbicide?

The insertion of the resistance gene messes with the natural DNA. There is no telling what else is changed in the DNA when the entire DNA code has the one gene interruption; will there be a new protein or one protein not created?

The current GMOs are a problem for animals receiving them as feed. There are organ damages, reduced fertility, smaller and weaker offspring, and when given a choice will refuse the GMO. Most of the evidence has appeared in the 3rd and 4th generation. Livestock in India fed GMO cotton plant refuge actually died. Since animals have shorter maturity cycles, when will we see the similar problems in humans? The real question is will the corporations or approving governments accept responsibility?

The current GMOs are all designed to rely on the chemicals sold by the the same company. There is no increased yield or nutrition. The only benefit is the corporation whose only desire is control of food production. GMOs will cross-pollinate with other varieties; you have then infringed on the patent so must pay.

It is no surprise that the corporations produce GMO corn, cotton, soy bean and rice; staples in our diet. You will find over 80% of our food contains GMO ingredients.

I wonder if they will tell us, if they even test, when GMO is found to cause death in humans??

"When the weeds become mutated to resist the Round-Up, what do you use?"

A different herbicide. As an example, I can use RoundUp to kill wild oats. I can also use a herbicide specifically designed to kill just wild oats. They do not kill the wild oats the same way. As well, you can't honestly believe that a new herbicide can't be formulated. New herbicides come out every year. Anyone in the agricultural field gets dozens of "new" herbicide advertisements every year.

"There is no increased yield"

Decreasing competition from weeds (nutrients, moisture or sunlight) increases crop yields everything else being equal. RR plants allow a producer to control a broad spectrum of weeds with a single pass thus decreasing input costs, increasing profits and making the farm more efficient. This is basic agriculture 101 that a twelve year old farm kid learns.

In the long run? Who knows.

Lloyd

Because that Genetic Modification is in our foods and no one knows what they will do to our genes, for one. Because that Genetic Modification is being passed on to other plants and many "weeds" are now genetically modified to be more resistant to the glyphosate products, for another. Because more of those poisons are now needed to achieve the same control today as when they first appeared on the matket, instead of one application to control many "weeds" the farmers now need to spray 4 times.

Lloyd ... your say that a 12-yr-old can understand the basics of the new agri-sci-tech and then close with "In the long run, who knows?"

Today's kids will eventually "know" from experience, that's "who".

IMO, at the base of the mistrust many people feel toward the agri-sci-tech is the way it is promoted.[anyone who suggests caution or more testing is demonized as reactionary, etc.] It sets my teeth on edge, when those who are setting/influencing policies re: the use of a cutting-edge/elemental change are becoming enriched by the the new tech. But, I'm a cynical old lady, jaded by a career spent in the belly of a corporate giant. I learned from my scientist father to take all new 'discoveries' with a grain of salt.

Sorry BB, I guess I didn't come through crystal clear in what a 12 y/o knows. That was in reference to the "no increased yield" comment and weed competition. IE. even a 12 y/o farm kid knows that less weeds means less competition means increased yield.

I understand mistrust (I worked for the government for 16 years lol). Reading some of the posts I can tell some don't really know much about RR, other GMOs, pesticides or large scale agriculture in general just by their comments or questions. IMO they don't want to listen to anything that goes against their already made up minds but others who read this forum just might be interested in reality.

I also understand "organics" means growing without those herbicides (ergo I don't belong in this forum) but continually lambasting a procedure based on a lack of knowledge smacks of fanaticism. Not that fanatics shouldn't have opinions but it's sometimes difficult to have a reasonable conversation with a fanatic.

As far as the long run, what I meant was that I don't know and won't say if GMO is safe, only time will tell. But the reality is is that that genie is out of the bottle.

Lloyd

P.S. One of the first things I taught DD when she was a toddler was to "Question Authority". If Authority is wrong they will likely obfuscate, if they are correct they will explain. I think I would have liked your father.

The resistance story will play itself out thus: 1. Monsanto is now selling double-strength Roundup to cater for resistant weeds, 2. this will foster greater resistance, which farmers will address by spraying the more toxic herbicides, 3. Monsanto will eventually be able to "stack" two herbicide-resistant genes into herbicide-resistant crop plants so that farmers can spray two herbicides at the same time without harming the crop, 4. in the long term, weeds will develop double-resistance (this goes for pest insects resistant to BT crops also). The end result will be an even ghastlier toxic stew on our cropland. By the way, one advantage of Roundup-ready crops was supposed to be less herbicide use. Regards, Peter.

All I can say is: BRING BACK THE FAMILY FARM!

Greg
Southern Nevada

It is also a matter of the general business practices of Monsanto regarding these seeds. Unlike many other seeds that are hybrids that don't breed true, the GMO seeds do breed true, but it is illegal for farmers to save their own seed for replanting, because it is a violation of Monsanto's patent. I saw a case where one Mid-Western farmer who did not raise Monsanto brand soybeans or corn was taken to court by Monsanto and had to pay a huge fees to defend against a lawsuit for violation of Monsanto's patent. The farmer raised non-patented varieties so that he could legally save part of his harvest each year to reduce his spring planting costs. His fields were bordered by other farms that used Monsanto GMO seed. His soybean and corn crops got cross pollinated after a few seasons by the pollen from neighboring fields. Monsanto got samples of his plants and had them DNA tested to show they contained Monsanto's patented DNA. The fact that this farmer did not want to be growing crops with Monsanto's patented DNA did not matter. He won the case, but because his corn did contain Monsanto's patented DNA, the judge refused to make Monsanto pay the farmer's legal expenses because the judge said the case was not frivolous. Because they can basically file the same suit repeatedly against farmers without it costing them much, Monsanto files these lawsuits indiscriminately to make sure that anyone growing crops from their seeds will not dare save their seeds.

Similarly, some farmers are now planting GMO Bt-corn that is poisonous to bugs. It kills beneficial insects and butterflies in addition to pests. Because corn produces copious amounts of pollen and is air pollinated, corn growers have no concerns about killing pollinating insects. The pollen from these fields contaminates the DNA of other farmers' fields that do not want to raise bt-corn, so that they can no longer save their own seed. Buying seed may not seem like a big expense to home gardeners, but when you are planting a farm, the cost of seed is significant.

The fact that we don't know the long term effects of these plants on consumers or the environment is scary. We as consumers do not get to know if our corn flakes are made from bt-corn or not.

Some people argue that those of us that oppose the use of most synthetics do so because of "lack of knowledge" and "fanaticism", both of which are untrue. Many of us have looked at these products and what they do to our environment and we do not like what happens when they are loosed. The terms "lack of knowledge" and "fanatics" are often used to diguise the fact that those that support the use of these poions do not have the facts to support their position.
There are people that do come here that are not organic but are intent on showing those of us that are the error of our ways.

GMOs are sold by contract. The contract stipulates that you cannot save seed and MUST use the company's herbicide.

The farmer is caught in the loop of buying the GMO seed and pesticides. The weeds are also gaining resistance.

The non-GMO neighbor's crop gets cross-pollinated and ends up being sued for patent violation.

The same government that approved the GMOs provides subsidies galore.

There is no separation of conventional and GMO harvest. The corn fed to livestock and that bought by the maker of cornflakes will be a mix; predominantly GMO due to planting scale.

GMO is the proverbial 'road of no return.' It is all about profit and market control.

The are countries which ban the GMOs. What do they know that is not being told in the U.S.?

I do grow organic. My soil is alive. My crops are doing wonderfully. I grow only the heirloom varieties. I employ cover crops, manure,rotation,companion planting, row covers (on brassicas and vines) and drip irrigation. I have few weeds and very few pests and disease. My soil is a store of nutrients, organic matter and minimal erosion. I work on soil improvement and allow the crops to grow.

Why would anyone grow a crop that needs chemicals or pollutes the environment?

kimmsr, how many acres of any GMO product have you grown and for how many years?

Organicdan, how many tonnes of edible food do you produce for sale and on how many acres?

Lloyd

Why would anyone grow a crop that needs chemicals or pollutes the environment?

Because in our society and with our population, it is easier.

Gain, back OT, the answer for the OP is 'genetic drift' and an almost complete lack of knowledge of what this genetic drift will do in the environment.

Dan

I read the following on the Organic Consumers web site. It's from a representative of Kellogg Food:

In Kellogg's most recent letter to consumers, "Consumer Specialist" Christina Calleros writes:

"Biotech ingredients are safe and have become common in the open market. Sixty to seventy percent of packaged foods in the U.S. include biotechnology crops. Even organic ingredients can contain biotech ingredients due to cross-pollination."

Isn't that refreshing - I feel better already...

Greg
Southern Nevada

Let us remember not too long ago Chapela was viciously attacked for finding that Mexican maize was polluted with GM genes. Andura Smetacek, anyone? When a corporation is lying about the situation on the ground, you know something is wrong.

Dan

DDT, Toxaphene, Clordane, and Benlate, just to name a few agriculture chemicals used when I was a kid in South Georgia working on farms. These are just a few off the top of my head that were all sold to the American public as completely safe. All were later found to be horribly toxic. We've seen over and over how government agencies that are supposed to protect the public simply become paid sycophants of the industries they are supposed to supervise. Take your pick in the US, the USDA, SEC, MMS, FDA, FAA, etc.; they are all on the game. Pick any 3 letters and you'll likely have a government agency that is being paid to look the other way in some country.

GMO foods are just the latest chapter in these sick story.

GMOs take away the freedom of choice. The EU and few other require labeling of GMO content.

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements is an NGO with major recognition amongst United Nations agencies. As an umbrella group they work towards unified standards. The IFOAM standard sets a high bar for accreditation of global standards.

Lloyd, I grow organically on about three acres, private and accessed property deemed suitable. My crops are not for sale but is shared with 28 families, friends and neighbors. If I had the land and financial means I would have a farm of about 40 working acres. I am also a seed saver who trades and shares seed. I have been into gardening for 40+ years; strictly organic for 35 years. I have my certificate of organic agriculture from the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. They did not offer the soil degree I wanted so took the five organic courses and three other as supplement.

Here is a link that might be useful: IFOAM and GMOs

Sounds like a real nice garden and that clears things up for me. I understand now.

Lloyd

I have never grown anything that has been genetically modified as that term is understood by most people although I have grown hybrids. Since that great consumer protection agency the Food and Drug Administration, staffed by people from the major chemical companies in policy making positions, has determined that the GMOs are essentially the same as hybrids there has never been any testing to see if these foods are safe. Given the large meat recalls of the last few years due to contamination by E-Coli, Listeria, Solmonella, etc. and the recent large recall of eggs from factory farms for the same reason is there any good reason to trust these large corporations and believe what they are telling us?
Genetically Modified Organisms, those things that would not happen normally (RoundUp Ready plants for example) appear to change our environment in ways that are not good. The sythetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides are known to adversly affect the environment we live in, modifying it in ways that create changes in lower order life forms. What does tht mean for us? What does adding these synthetic chemicals to our water mean for our children?

Since we do not know the answers to these questions should we continue to add this stuff to our environment? Should we accept the assurances of the companies that manufacture these products that they are safe? I can remember back in the 1970's when several chemical companies moved here and assured everyone they were environmentally sound practitioners and knew what they were doing only to have everyone of those plant sites placed on the USEPAs superfund reclamation list because of really bad groundwater pollution due to those companies inappropriately disposing of the waste they generated. There are more of these sites all over the USA and Canada and one major problem is too many people today are either totally unaware, or simply do not care, that these sites do still exist.

The comment was made:

"Decreasing competition from weeds (nutrients, moisture or sunlight) increases crop yields everything else being equal. RR plants allow a producer to control a broad spectrum of weeds with a single pass thus decreasing input costs, increasing profits and making the farm more efficient. This is basic agriculture 101 that a twelve year old farm kid learns."

---------------------------------------------------

Sorry, a good 101 course would emphasize that nature is complex and that the assumption "everything else being equal" rarely applies to farming situations.

See the following link for some examples that apply to Round-Up utilization.

Here is a link that might be useful: literature search

Yup, in 35+ years of being involved in agriculture I would say nothing is ever equal. The point I was trying to make is that when weed competion is removed, the crops will do better. I thought everyone knew this. The "everything else being equal" was thrown in to quantify that there has to be moisture and nutrients available in the first place. If there was absolutley no moisture and the weeds were removed, then yield of the crop would not increase because there was no moisture to begin with to compete for.

Lloyd

Another part of the complexity. The first article is a general summary:

http://www.sesl.com.au/fertileminds/201006/Glyphosate.pdf

It is partially based on the following 2009 research paper which was published in a reviewed, edited scientific journal (see link below).

That journal article has been cited by 6 more recent papers according to Google Scholar. I could post the long link here but experience has shown that long links throw off the formatting in this forum. If one is interested in reading further put the title and authors into a Google Scholar search and the 6 citations link should appear.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for 2009 published research paper

I thought everyone knew this.

Yes, we all do. Some must obfuscate to make some point. Please carry on with your excellent comments and ignore the obfuscators.

Dan

organicdan made some very important statements about GMO products. However, he did not document his statements.

There was a challenge to the yield part of his statement that "There is no increased yield or nutrition."

I have provided scientific literature and "real world" observations that yields have actually decreased in some important crops.

Now, what about his "nutrition" statement? The link below is to a 2010 scientific journal article published in a reviewed/edited Americal Chemical Society Journal. Also, 2 of the authors are in U.S. Government Scientific Laboratories (Agricultural Research Service, Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Columbia, Missouri 65211
Agricultural Research Service, Crop Genetics and Production Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Stoneville, Mississippi 38776).

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf904342t

The introductory statement is: "However, not much has been done to understand eventual effects of glyphosate application on GR soybean physiology, especially those related to seed composition with potential effects on human health."

The summary statement is: "The combined observations of decreased photosynthetic parameters and low nutrient availability in glyphosate-treated plants may explain potential adverse effects of glyphosate in GR soybeans."

A summary of the observed changes is also given: "Glyphosate resulted in significant decreases in polyunsaturated linoleic acid (18:2n-6) (2.3% decrease) and linolenic acid (18:3n-3) (9.6% decrease) and a significant increase in monounsaturated fatty acids 17:1n-7 (30.3% increase) and 18:1n-7 (25% increase)."

--------------------------------------

If the reader is interested in looking at earlier published scientific articles on the GMO soybean issue, I have included the link below as a starting point.

Here is a link that might be useful: Google Scholar search

The house of cards that is conventional ag will not stand many more years. It is collapsing now in some of the marginal areas of the world, particularly those in very arid and hydraulically engineered regions.

Hydraulic projects and the green revolution were reinforcing; there is no similar opportunity to be exploited now. GMO's are an effort to pull a similar rabbit from the hat, but the hat is empty or the bunny is a diseased runt.

Plant thy gardens, and nevermind those who insist that food can only be produced hectares at a pass.

Another example that other things are not equal when Round-Up is used to kill weeds.

"Effects of Glyphosate and 2,4-D on Earthworms (Eisenia foetida) in Laboratory Tests"

The following quote is from the abstract linked to below.

"No cocoons or juveniles were found in soil treated with either herbicide. Glyphosate and 2,4-D demonstrated severe effects on the development and reproduction of Eisenia foetida in laboratory tests in the range of test concentrations."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Interesting.

I do notice in the abstract that the soil was treated with the pesticides yet your preamble states "is used to kill weeds", perhaps a small amount of obfuscation or misdirection?.

In all my applications, or that of any farmer in my area, of glyphsoate or 2,4-D, I have never treated the soil with these pesticides.

I've used glyphosate and 2,4-D in some fields yet I have plenty of earthworms in those fields. TG earthworms up here can't read. ;-)

I also wonder what the mortality rate of earthworms are in soil treated with high doses of DHMO?

Lloyd

The following paper is a little older (2007) but consistent (I feel) with the findings of the 2010 paper.

"Ecotoxicological Assessment of the Effects of Glyphosate and Chlorpyrifos in an Argentine Soya Field"

"Recommendations and Perspectives. This study showed deleterious effects of GLY and CPF formulations when applied at the nominal concentrations recommended for soya crops. Further validation is needed before these endpoints could be used as field monitoring tools in Argentine soya soils (ecotoxicological risk assessment  ERA tools)."

------------------------------------------------
Another scientific paper (published in 2000) that I am linking to states: "These results suggest that glyphosate, even at the recommended field dose, could cause cell death and interfere with non-specific esterases activity of the epithelial lining of the intestine of P. elongata causing at least 50 percent mortality in the population of the worms."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1802353u8vxv2np/

Here is a link that might be useful: link to 2007 research paper

I have NO links but I do read extensively! I believe that Roundup & like products have been banned in Canada...at least as far as home use is concerned.
Some research is leaning towards the GMO & herbicides/pesticides as being a larg contributing factor in autisum.
Super weeds are a fact already...they have adapted in some areas and can no longer be controlled by chemicals (pig weed specifically).
No one knows what foods with these crops will do to the human body over time.
No one knows what these crops will do to our other fauna over time.
No one knows what will happen over time with the livestock that is consuming feeds with these products....meat/eggs/milk, etc.

So in order for the population to take back control of our enviornment....what has to be done??? Think about it!

And I almost forgot...there have been several articles in my local paper recently that have come right out & said that the farmers around here wouldn't have any crop at all without chemicals. There is nothing worthwhile left in the soil!!!

The following was stated: on Wed, Sep 1, 10 at 23:19

"Interesting.
I do notice in the abstract that the soil was treated with the pesticides yet your preamble states "is used to kill weeds", perhaps a small amount of obfuscation or misdirection?.

In all my applications, or that of any farmer in my area, of glyphsoate or 2,4-D, I have never treated the soil with these pesticides. "
--------------------------------
H. Kuska comment. Will anyone explain the technique that, apparently, some Southern Manitoba farmers use to spray Round-Up on weeds without having spray also reach the ground.

The following quote is the general technique that I am familar with.

"Roundup -- which was created by Monsanto but is now sold generically under the common name glyphosate -- has been a boon for agriculture over the last 20 years. Genetically modified crops are immune to its poison, meaning farmers can spray down their entire fields with the stuff, killing off invasive weeds while leaving their harvests in perfect order. It degrades quickly, and cuts down on erosion, agricultural fuel cost, and carbon emissions because farmers don't have to plow their fields under each season."

Please notice: "farmers can spray down their entire fields with the stuff,". Does this sound consistent with a concept that no spray reaches the soil?

Here is a link that might be useful: an article that was posted 05.04.2010

"H. Kuska comment. Will anyone explain the technique that, apparently, some Southern Manitoba farmers use to spray Round-Up on weeds without having spray also reach the ground. "

As I believe you are directing the question at me in an ignorant kind of way, I'll answer in kind.

Real easy henry. Put the herbicide in a big tank of water, (we call it a 'sprayer' up here). Hook it up to a tractor and pull it across a field of weeds. The 'sprayer' will put out a fine mist through each of it's nozzles coating the leaves of the plants. There are some very specialized pieces of equipment designed to do this so a guy doesn't actually need a tractor. (Note the sprayer in the picture is not really spraying the soil).

It is a complete waste of money and time to spray the soil, so we usually wait for enough plants to emerge before spraying roundup on anything.

Now there are some herbicides (Casaron comes to mind) where we actually want the herbicide to be on bare ground but that is used as a barrier type herbicide.

And BTW quite often the soil also has a layer of materials from last years crop still on it further shielding "the soil".

That help?

Lloyd

Wait a minute - are you (pt03) saying that the glyphosate never gets into the soil? How is that possible?

Carol - First question - no. Second question - moot.

I'll try and put it in terms of something a homeowner might understand.

Go out on your lawn, look straight down, how much 'soil' do you see?

Lloyd

Or to put it another way:
Imagine standing in a field during a hard rain. Is the dirt going to get wet? You betcha.

Now imagine standing in a field that is densely covered with overlapping broad leaf plants during a light misty drizzle. Is the soil going to get wet? No, not really. Maybe a little water will make it to the ground but not too much.

Nobody said that "no" herbicide will make it to the soil but Lloyd is talking about the light misty drizzle in a densely populated field. I'm afraid you may be thinking about the downpour in a dirt patch.

I don't have time to hunt down the study discussed above but the abstract doesn't mention how much glyphosate was applied or whether it has any real world connection to the amount you might find in the soil after a typical field application. Anything will kill stuff if you apply enough, even water. Another thing to consider is, does the study take into account how the herbicide does or doesn't move through the soil in relationship to where the worms are? That is; does the concentration of glyphosate in the lab represent how much of the herbicide will reach the worms? Without more information, we're just guessing. We might feel that our guesses are good ones but if everyone's guesses were right, the word "mistake" wouldn't exist.

I'm not saying that glyphosate is like V-8 juice for worms. All I'm saying is if you are truly interested in understanding the situation, don't jump to conclusions, avoid extremes whenever possible and don't fill in the gaps with guesses.

The cited study might be saying something really important or it might be hogwash. Just because a scientist says something doesn't make it true. It's best to think critically and reserve judgment until you have the facts.

gargwarb, first, I doubt that most farmers have weed chocked fields to the degree that a protective blanket is formed; and even for those that do, there is scientific evidence that there is glyphosate passage through the plant and release into the soil by the roots. Also the dead/decaying weeds release their glyphosate into the soil.

I followed up with a second paper, the following quote should indicate that they utilized "real world" conditions. "In order to improve this situation, we performed an integrated field-laboratory study on a soya field of a traditional agricultural area of Argentina, sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate and the organophosphorus insecticide chlorpyrifos at the recommended doses."

-------------------------------------------
The link below to the complete October 2009 review by USDA scientists may be sufficient to convince the reader that real world glyphosate use does result in glyphosate reaching/entering the soil, and that it does so in sufficient concentrations to have negative effects on soil properties.

Here is a link that might be useful: October 2009 USDA scientific review

Sorry, I checked, the link no longer gives access to the full paper. This sometimes happens to me. Often I check through my wife's computer, but I did not this time because this was a USDA paper which I thought meant free public access. If you are interested in the details, please e-mail me as I can provide a limited number of copies for educational purposes.

Perhaps this summary of recent research will be easier for the non scientist to read. "Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil"

Here is a link that might be useful: Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil

"Summary
There is a common understanding that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is easily degraded and adsorbed in soils and thus, harmless for use in agriculture. We can demonstrate, however, that this conclusion is wrong and dangerous for farmers because in former risk assessments the behaviour of glyphosate in the rhizosphere was not properly considered.
In nutrient solution, rhizobox and pot experiments we can show that foliar applied glyphosate to target plants is released into the rhizosphere after a fast translocation from shoots to roots. In the rhizosphere glyphosate can obviously be stabilized long enough to achieve negative effects on non-target plants. Such a negative side effect is for example inhibited acquisition of micronutrients such as Mn, but also Zn, Fe and B, which are involved in plant own disease resistance mechanisms.
From this glyphosate transfer from target to non-target plants (e.g. from weed to trees in orchards) we predict an increase in disease problems, particularly on soils with low micronutrient availability as already reported in the USA. In view of plant and soil health, we urgently call for a re-assessment of glyphosate as herbicide."

The above quote is from the reviewed published scientific paper linked to below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Relevance of glyphosate transfer to non-target plants via the rhizosphere

Real world April 2009 evidence of glyphosate leaving the roots and having a negative effect on the plants:

"according to work done at Purdue University, Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska, some of the glyphosate sprayed onto the corn plants eventually is exuded from the roots and is detrimental to microbial activity." "Once in a while growers comment that where there
was a spray miss in glyphosate-tolerant corn culture
("Roundup-Ready"), the corn actually looks bigger and
greener. The first thought to mind is that the glyphosate
is actually having a negative effect on the so-called
glyphosate-tolerant corn. Here is the physiological
reason for this observation: according to work done
at Purdue University, Kansas State University and the
University of Nebraska, some of the glyphosate sprayed
onto the corn plants eventually is exuded from the roots
and is detrimental to microbial activity."

Quote from the link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Purdue University, Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska

Thanks to Mr. Kuska, et al. for doing the hard work.

The replies from gargwarb & pt03 above still make no sense to me - so glyphosate can NEVER wash - or drip - off the foliage when there's rain - or irrigation? Huh?

& I understand many plants' leaves are formed to help direct water @ their roots.

& the idea that there would be ZERO soil exposed in any field or lawn is nonsensical as well.

Thanks for all the links Henry. Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately) I don't have to time to go through stuff with a fine toothed comb like I did last week. Work really picked up this week.

As I said in my comment, it might be good stuff and it might not but I just can't devote the time this week to really have an informed opinion.

Now Carolb:
You asked, "are you (pt03) saying that the glyphosate never gets into the soil?"
To which Lloyd answered, "Carol - First question - no. Second question - moot."
And to which I answered in part, "Nobody said that "no" herbicide will make it to the soil "
Then I tried to present a couple of extreme contrasting situations to illustrate how some can reach the ground but not as much as you might be thinking of and stated clearly that in either case some herbicide indeed would reach the ground.
To which you responded, "The replies from gargwarb & pt03 above still make no sense to me - so glyphosate can NEVER wash - or drip - off the foliage when there's rain - or irrigation?...........& the idea that there would be ZERO soil exposed in any field or lawn is nonsensical as well."
If you truly don't understand the difference between 'none' and 'some', I really don't know what I can do for you.

Carole I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not so I'll just ask outright. Do you honestly think farmers spray herbicides in the rain or during irrigation?

Lloyd

My #1 concern at the moment is gut bacteria as a pathway to incorporate human-modified gene matter into a person, plant or creature. This could allow the gene or its sub-components to eventually become coded into that organism's DNA and replicated to its offspring.

Do you honestly think farmers spray herbicides in the rain or during irrigation?

Failures of rhetoric upthread notwithstanding, it may very well be that some participants in this thread may indeed by mindful and judicious in their application of organophosphates & petrochemicals. They are in the minority, which sadly is the main reason for the skyrocketing water quality problems across the planet.

It is clear that overapplication of petrochemicals is unsustainable for many reasons, but hand-flapping about certain outcomes doesn't help the discussion of what to do and what to replace them with.

Dan

Yes, when it rains the chemicals reach the sewer systems by the drainage, then in the general waters of each city. It's run through an expensive cleaning routine, but it's not completely effective, only by the required percentage of removal, hence percentage of bugs per canned vegetable, so it's definitely a problem.

Everything including the roaches in the sewer pipelines develops an immunity, so we might be creating the plague that kills mankind, if anyone cares enough not to be a part of it.

That's above the thinking of some, they live for today, kill and reap what they can, but the tomorrows where you pay for them, are just conspiracy theories to them. They have no common sense or sense of responsibility for their actions. Government didn't make them do it, it's not their fault.

""Decreasing competition from weeds (nutrients, moisture or sunlight) increases crop yields everything else being equal. RR plants allow a producer to control a broad spectrum of weeds with a single pass thus decreasing input costs, increasing profits and making the farm more efficient. This is basic agriculture 101 that a twelve year old farm kid learns." "

Some weeds like Dandelion, Yellow Dock, ragweed, etc., etc., tap into minerals and water reservoirs to bring nutrients to the top to other vegetables and killing them is dumb anyways. Poison the ground for something you need anyways is what you'll be doing and spending tons to give the plants alternatives to what these companion plants have to give. They did a study where planting corn with one type of weed, can't remember which one maybe ragweed, made the corn grow better without need of as much fertilizers, but of course some of the room to plant will be taken over by the weeds.

You have to give to receive, so in an organic garden, you get a little more of everything, but not great amounts per acre of one thing unless you have stacked raised beds like the pyramid type of beds that go up to 5 levels high making the most out of a small space. It's the only guarantee.

Weeds are not necessarily a good thing, but if they attract beneficial insects, which is the only cure for some types of bug infestations resistant, like the squash vine borer or others like it, you will use more space planting the plant that helps attract the beneficials and get less yields, but better than no yields from the infestation.

New study ties Roundup to birth defects.

Here is a link that might be useful: Glyphosate & Birth Defect Tie

Weeds that have become resistant to GMO's have, to my knowledge, all done so through natural selection, not because the gene that makes plants GMO resistant have been transferred into these weeds.
I'm not suggesting that such transfer is impossible, just that I know of no case in which this has been shown. Weeds are just hardcore, and when they are hit with a single herbicide time and time again, eventually one with the natural ability to resist that herbicide will become predominant.
It's basically forced natural selection, not gene transfer.

Down, I don't think anybody was claiming otherwise. Of course it is aggressive selection. Probably a stretch to call it natural, unless we include everything humans do to be natural. Problem insects have the same response.

And of course the glyphosate is ending up in the ground, somewhere. In whatever its breakdown forms are. I believe there is evidence that those compounds chelate metal nutrients and make them unavailable to some plants. Most likely why the spray-missed corn is more vigorous.