If you put the new roses in the same soil that the dead ones were in, you may see evidence of Round-Up (glyphosate) damage on the new ones. Glyphosate is the active ingredient of "Round-Up" type non selective plant killers. This type of product can be a problem for rose growers because of the following characteristics:

1) Overspray (drift) can damage roses.

2) Its effect on a plant is concentration dependent. (For example, at very low dosages glyphosate simply acts as a growth hormone (hormesis). ) Thus someone may say "it is not Round-Up damage, I have seen Round-Up damage and it is different." The following pictures should give the reader an idea of how variable Round-Up damage can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyuM5gjdx7g

AND

http://buggyrose.tripod.com/iabioticdisorders.htm

AND

http://plantpathology.uark.edu/Number5-2009.pdf

A description of possible Round-Up damage symptoms on roses is given by an article in the Marin Rose Society newsletter. I would particularly like to point out one of the possible symptoms:

"Strange looking, thickened growth, often dark red or purple in color" as at least one Extension Plant Pathologist has stated (slide 28): that Glyphosate damage does not cause reddened new growth. Please note that the Marin Rose Society web page does NOT agree with that statement.

3) Overspray is not the only way glyphosate can reach your roses. The Round-Up can leave the roots of a treated weed, pass through the soil, and be picked up by the roots of nearby rose bushes.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-007-9387-1# AND http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S116103010900063X

4) The glyphosate could remain bound in the soil for long time periods.

"Glyphosate [(N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine)] is a widely used herbicide and it is known to compete for the same sorption sites in soil as phosphorus. Persistence and losses of glyphosate were monitored in a field with low phosphorus status and possible correlation between glyphosate and phosphorus leaching losses was studied. Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA (aminomethyl phosphoric acid) residues in soil samples were analyzed after a single application in autumn. Twenty months after the application the residues of glyphosate and AMPA in the topsoil (0�25 cm) corresponded to 19% and 48%, respectively, of the applied amount of glyphosate, and traces of glyphosate and AMPA residues were detected in deeper soil layers (below 35 cm). These results indicate rather long persistence for glyphosate in boreal soils."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1461w60366lk018/

Then, when you add fertilizer with P; the glyphosate could be released.

"The results suggest that re-mobilization of glyphosate may represent an additional transfer pathway for glyphosate to non-target plants which is strongly influenced by soil characteristics such as P fixation potential, content of plant-available iron, pH, cation exchange capacity, sand content and soil organic matter."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7h6601566432076/

5) Round-Up can cause problems even if sprayed last summer or fall. A quote from Roses: Cultural Practices and Weed Control: "Roses are also very sensitive to glyphosate (Roundup and many other trade names), which can be absorbed through the green stems in addition to the leaves. Glyphosate damage may appear at bud break the following spring after a summer or fall application that contacts leaves or stems; symptoms include a proliferation of small, narrow shoots and leaves."

So, Henry, in the light of all this, what advice do you have for Sara?

There's hope ... I had roundup damage in April of this year ... just flush it with deep waterings and wait for 4-6 weeks or so for the new growth. Then maybe wait another flush to see if it gets normal again. I left them in full sun, there was overnight rain, but they ended up fine after two months.

I keep all my roses in pots so I suggest you monitor the plants in pots and make sure they are normal before putting them near other plants.

I had five of my roses have growth like witches broom ... The first flush had really distorted blooms but they all pulled through. I actually did NOT cut off the damaged ends but in hindsight I should have so I wouldn't be reminded of the damage.

If you can, I would also prune out any brown stems you can just concentrate on getting new and healthy growth.

This forum is very good in giving you encouragement and tips. Good luck!

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/discussions/3052994/roundup-damage?n=13

Recent pic of recovered Summer Love

Recent pic of recovered and thriving About Face

I would flush the soil out and add amendments while planting the new roses. They should be fine. There was only one instance of spray and I doubt there is any buildup in the soil.

This may also be a good time to buy a second sprayer so you have one for RU or other herbicides and one for fungicide. Even a trace amount in a sprayer can cause damage.

I would go ahead and plant the new roses. The old ones may recover but they will look crummy all season and hubby will feel guilty each time he sees them. Accidents happen and its okay to euthanize a sick rose.

Sara I am sorry this happened to you, many of us, myself included can tell a story about our husband and roundup. To me it sounds like if there was just a small amount in the sprayer it's likely the majority of the spray went straight to the rose plant and hopefully alot less on the ground. I wouldn't hesitate to plant again. You may want to amend the soil a bit just because you already had a bush in its place. I would leave the damaged roses in pots so you can baby them and watch over them to see if they recover completely. I second Bufords suggestion on getting a second sprayer. I got myself a small one gallon sprayer. Its light and easy for me to use and I only sue it for fungicide. (And the husband isn't allowed near it!)

Wow, thanks to all! It seems the consensus is that the damaged roses may (perhaps even likely will) recover with time, but that I should still plant the new ones in their places. And from the link to the other thread from msdorkgirl, it seems the new growth I am seeing is typical for roses with roundup damage. I had no idea so many people had experience with this topic. And until I saw that strange growth yesterday, I didn't think there was any hope for them at all. The other two that died, the canes turned black and had a yucky feeling texture. I just figured that since these were a little bigger and more mature, they were dying a slower death.

I hadn't considered planting the new ones and potting up the damaged ones, but I think that is a good idea. Anything special I should consider when I do that?

The damaged roses are in a bed that has a small slope and the water runs down it well, and we've had lots of rain the last few weeks. So that should help with whatever may have been in the soil.

...and LABEL THE SPRAYER anyway! *NO HERBICIDE/WEEDKILLER IN THIS SPRAYER*

Not kidding at all.

I had a RU sprayer that said Round Up on it (they sell their own sprayer). Plus I made a big red label that said HERBICIDES ONLY and had it on the sprayer. I use a backpack sprayer for fungicide and now I have a little hand sprayer for the rare times I use insecticide.

Also bad for humans!

The EU is in process of banning Roundup. Some nations, France, the Netherlands, have already done so. And this from the recent issue of Chemistry World:

California’s Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) intends to list the herbicide glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp – as a carcinogenic chemical under the Proposition 65, which requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Theannouncement came on 4 September, following a conclusion by the World Health Organisation’sInternational Agency for Research on Cancer in March that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

Sales of the product are not restricted by the Cal/EPA listing, but adding glysophate to the Prop 65 list would mean that businesses will be required to provide a ‘clear and reasonable’ health warning on Roundup and other glyphosate products. World usage of glyphosate is at an all-time high, with its use increasing more than 20-fold since 1990, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). The conservation advocacy group says this upsurge is largely due to the widespread adoption of crops, particularly corn and soy, which are genetically engineered to withstand what would otherwise be fatal doses of glyphosate.Recent research also indicates that chronic, low-dose exposure to glyphosate can cause liver and kidney damage, and studies have pointed to glyphosate as a leading cause of the decline in monarch butterflies.

Perhaps I'm a simple person but how can the EPA allow this to be sprayed on our crops. The spray emitters on the sprayers are a good six feet or better off the ground. On a windy day the spray is carried blocks away from the fields. The day I had to pass a sprayer I needed to pull over to get my windows up. Else the van would have covered inside with round up.

What about the country schools and all those kids breathing it in. Their windows open at home on a nice spring day. When the first spraying takes place. How can people stop the Dept. of Agriculture. They know what they are doing the people don't.

Why do farmers spray RU on crops? It would kill all the plants. Not a country girl, I know fruit farmers have to spray some kinds of chemicals. I have to spray chemicals on my grapes next spring, got black rot, no grapes this year.

Glyphosate is used on crops. I get that, and I understand that they are growing crops that are resistant to it, but why ban Round Up for gardeners who do not grow crops, and only use it on garden paths?

summersrhythm, the plants that are sprayed are the GMO crops that are 'Round Up Ready'. The same company that makes roundup also created these crops that can be sprayed with RU without dying. The problem is that farmers are using more and more RU because they can spray the crops and also the weeds are becoming resistant to the RU. They are now working on a 2,4-D ready crops. Do we really want to eat food that has 2,4-D on it? It's pretty much agent orange minus one ingredient. This is why I don't eat any corn or soybeans anymore (among other reasons), they are 98% GMO. Also, farmers use RU on wheat crops to dry out the plants before they harvest the wheat. Some people think this is what is causing the problems people are having with wheat and gluten sensitivity.

I agree with Sammy, the problem is not home gardeners, but farmers. I still use RU if I have a bad weed problem. I had to use it on poison ivy that cropped up in my yard. But the amount was very small.

Thanks Budford. I love sweet corn and sweet soybean milk............

If you just do a little search on the current state of the science, you'll find that the link between Roundup and some cancers, especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma, can't be dismissed and ignored. Why take the risk, why bother? It's not difficult to do without the product. Like cigarettes, you are better off not bothering with it at all.

I have done gardening for many years sans pesticides, herbicides. It's only self-delusion to believe those poisons don't have effects in your own body. Of course, big money is to be made there as is the case with cigarette use. Do you really think the Monsanto executives and their shills give a crap about you?

Interesting line of reasoning, Budford, so am I assuming correctly that you feel that you should be able to use every banned substance since your individual use is so much smaller than other groups of users?

A ban affects more than one end user, some were exposed to the chemical when it was manufactured, possibly when it was shipped and sold, the neighbors of the end users, when the material left over in the containers after the end users "small" use had to be disposed of, etc.

This 30000-doctors-and-health-professionals report may be of interest:

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/04/19/argentina-30000-doctors-and-health-professionals-demand-ban-on-glyphosate/#.VfXXeTqFM2w

Yes Henry, I feel entitled to be able to eradicate stuff like poison ivy from my yard. Since no one eats it, it won't harm them. As I said the amount used by homeowners is dwarfted by what is used in agriculture. Does that mean that I think people should use it willy nilly? No. It has a purpose, like all chemicals. It should NEVER EVER be sprayed on food.

Henry, Budford is not the only one here uses it, me too. I am not eating the weeds, I spray it twice a year to keep one stoned area clean of weeds/grass. It won't hurt anyone for just spray 1 gal once in a while. RU won't hurt the rabbits, I know that for sure, they're still hopping, and eating my roses. How did they get that report? Did they feed lab rats RU in their drinks, food? I am just wondering how they got the results.

The concept that homeowner use of pesticides is insignificant relative to farmer use has been mentioned in earlier threads. Of course any raw numbers do not take into consideration the specifics of what safety precautions are (NOT) utilized by the unlicensed homeowner possibly spraying in shorts, short sleeve shirt, no face protection, whether there is a wind, pregnancy, young children around, etc. To someone who meets the above "possibility" description(s) (or happens to live where someone else's use reaches them due to DRIFT, they will probably not be grateful if they are later told by their doctor that their life will be cut short because a dangerous chemical has not been banned from homeowner use.

http://www.gardenguides.com/101405-roundup-weed-control-precautions.html

I.E. a ban removes the possibility of misuse.

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

One set of numbers:

" Ratio of pesticide use per acre by the average homeowner versus the average
farmer: 10 to 1."

Please notice that the following link is documented.

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/lawns_stats/

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

Also, please read the following:

https://www.leg.bc.ca/pesticidescommittee/presentations/CAPE_Presentation.pdf

Your link on the ration of usage is from 2008 Henry. I think the rise of GMOs has increased the use by farmers of more and more pesticides.

As Buford has mentioned the seeds are genetically modified by Monsanto. So that they are resistant to round up (GMO). These seed are also sterile so farmers are unable to save and reuse their best seed. It must be repurchased each year from Monsanto. We won't need to worry for to long about using round up in our garden. Farmers have not been rotating herbicides and as Buford said resistance to ru has already happened. Wait till we see the new super weeds.

Not only are we consuming foods with so called allowable levels of glyphosate. It's also in the drinking water. Not to mention if you happen to live where it is spray. Round up is also used on alfalfa. Several crops of alfalfa have been recalled by the Dept. of Animal and Plants. We're walking on a tight rope here. All we can do for now is refuse to consume foods from GMO sources. Unfortunately not all can afford to do so especially in 3rd world countries.

We live using products in moderation. Alcohol and sugar readily come to mind. There is a huge difference between spraying Round Up on my garden paths, and spraying Round Up from a plane on acres of crops. We also ban according to modifications.

We should ban much more in the food industry. We need many modifications. (Thinking of the poultry and beef farms and stock yards.)

Sammy

When I was a little tyke, I noticed the kids who smoked were also keen to lie to themselves about what they were doing, and vulnerable or stupid enough to believe their own lies. A motto came to mind, which over all the years I have still found beneficial to keep in mind:

The easiest person to lie to and deceive is usually your own self.

The following was stated: "We live using products in moderation.

H.Kuska comment. This appears to come from the concept that the dose makes the poison.

Anyone who believes that this statement covers all types of chemical - living cell interactions may find the following article of interest (sorry Elmer, you have already introduced this article, but I am reintroducing this article since I am not sure if everyone caught the importance of the use of ultra- low amounts):

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/70

" In order to address this issue, a 2-year study was conducted
where rats were administered via drinking water at a concentration of 0.1 ppb
Roundup, thus containing not only glyphosate but also adjuvants [17]. The glyphosate equivalent concentration was 0.05 μg/L and
corresponds to an admissible concentration within the European Union (0.1 μg/L)
and USA (700 μg/L). The results showed that Roundup caused an increased
incidence of anatomical signs of pathologies, as well as changes in urine and
blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional
insufficiency in both sexes. In an effort to confirm these findings through a
more quantitative molecular biological approach and obtain insight into the
alterations in gene expression profiles associated with the observed increased
signs of kidney and liver anatomorphological pathologies, we conducted a full
transcriptomic analysis of these organs from the female cohort of animals. A
large number of transcript clusters (>4000) were found to be altered in their
level of expression in both the liver and kidneys of the Roundup treated group
relative to controls and to a very high statistical significance. The
alterations in gene expression profiles are typical of disturbances measured in
cases of fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondrial membrane
dysfunction and ischemia. Therefore our results confirm the ultra-low dose
Roundup-induced increased incidence of hepatorenal pathologies suggested by
observations at an anatomical, histological and biochemical level."

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

If the above is written in too high a scientific level for some, perhaps a Google search using the title as keywords may produce an article that is more readable:

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&authuser=0&gws_rd=ssl#q=Transcriptome+profile+analysis+reflects+rat+liver+and+kidney+damage+following+chronic+ultra-low+dose+Roundup+exposure&newwindow=1&hl=en&authuser=0&start=10

Please note this search is with straight Google NOT with Google Scholar.

The following was stated: "There is a huge difference between spraying Round Up on my garden paths, and spraying Round Up from a plane on acres of crops."

H.Kuska comment. I have already give the usage data: " Ratio of pesticide use per acre by the average homeowner versus the average farmer: 10 to 1."

There are 2 problems with the above statement.

1) As the above ratio indicates, there are so many "YOU" (i.e. homeowners) that the total contribution is very significant.

2) This second point has to do with what affects the immediate YOU. (Of course the airplane spray is somewhere else - maybe you will drink some of it in your water supply, but for simplicity let us not complicate the comparison.) What do you think happens to the RoundUp that you spray on your garden paths (or driveways, etc)?

Is it possible that you or others, including pets, will bring some of it into your living quarters? Will neighboring children/relatives/ other living creatures (including friendly insects such as butterflies, bees, worms etc. contact it on your paths/driveway?

Are you hoping that it will rain soon after applying? But.... if that is the case, now it is in the water supply.

The earlier posts in this thread should convince you that it is not magically tied up forever as some commercial advertising "suggests".

Of course the small amount that contacts your local environment will not cause immediate large scale death, but how do you know that it did not cause a single gene mutation that will affect you (or those around you) 20 to 40 years down the line?

" All cancers begin when one or more genes in a cell are mutated, or changed."

http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/cancer-basics/genetics/genetics-cancer

Please read the whole article to put the above into context: "Mutations happen often, and the human body is normally able to correct most of them. Depending on where in the gene the change occurs, a mutation may be beneficial, harmful, or make no difference at all. So, one mutation alone is unlikely to lead to cancer. Usually, it takes multiple mutations over a lifetime to cause cancer. This is why cancer occurs more often in older people who have had more opportunities for mutations to build up."

When a chemical is determined to be a probable cancer causing agent, I recommend the use of the Precautionary Principle.

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

What other chemicals are on the: "International Agency for Research on Cancer
Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans" list?

They can be looked at at:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

RoundUp is listed as the active ingredient, glyphosate.

Glyphosate is not alone. Henry, I do not disagree with what you say, but you can say that about so many products.

I am concerned when I use ant poison or baits, but know gardeners who use all kinds of products that hurt the environment. Just look at what is being sold in the stores. Our cities spray for mosquitoes, and many people spray trees. Old paint! I pour it in old pots, let it get hard, then pour some more in. I wonder what most people do with the old paint, oil, gasoline, etc. Our city won't take most of it - even once a year.

Yet we all know that the most toxic chemicals could be what we eat, and we often eat them because they are so openly sold and available. Even when we shop in stores that say produce is from gardens that do not use sprays. Really?? We don't know.

In my garden I am as careful as I can be. I use Round Up in my paths, but do not have any grass to maintain. I do get rid of ants if they start approaching my home, but only recently have use granules, and try to stick to baits.

Henry, you are a huge contributor to this forum, and I know that I am now an elderly gardener. I do not feel comfortable with the thread, and feel that it may be going off topic. I may read it, but do not intend to contribute more. I do not have expertise, but am a little defensive about being told that everything I touch is toxic.

Sammy

Sammy, interesting that you should mention ant killer. This appeared on CNN this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/health/pesticide-exposure-childhood-cancer/index.html

Well said Sammy.