I have a large area of turf in a rural area that alwys will get some weed infestation. Usually I spot treated with 2,4 or a similar product. But this Spring did tried a new product6 and it was fantastic! It is SpeedZone. It works very well in cold weather. I used just less than 1 oz. per gallon in a hose-end sprayer over the entire turf area. It is rain-fast in 3 hours. After 1 week the chickweed, henbit, etc., that was starting to take over was completely destroyed. I then fertilized in mid-March and with the warm April weather the density of the new turf and lack of competition has filled in completely. After the first application, there was some yellowing of the ends of the blades of the fine fescue in the lawn. But after 1 mowing it was back to normal. Also I advise not use use a surfactant or adjuvant with this product which may reduce it selectivity on broadleaf weeds only. Also, I would not get it near shrubs as the product can be absorbed from the roots and damage the plant. In mid-April I inspected the lawn again and spot treated with the same product for late germinating weeds. I used less than half of the amount of liquid I would normally use to spot treat at this time of year. With spot treatment I noticed no yellowing of the grass blades.

Yowza!!! The only statement that approaches any degree of accuracy in the above post is the one that suggests you do the research. Which the above poster has obviously not done. "Ask yourself basic logical questions like, how in the world can a toxic chemical intuitively know not to poison your tomato or your dog, but to target that bad dandelion only (for example)." The answer to that is simple and is the same principle behind the development of beneficial pharmaceuticals that target disease organisms. It's called 'mode of action' - glyphosate's mode of action is to disrupt a metabolic pathway that allows for the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. This metabolic pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is specific to plants and some microorganisms. The absence of this pathway in mammals explains the low toxicity of glyphosate to non-target organisms. "It is extremely hazardous, and it is toxic to all life" Again, a completely erroneous statement. After some 40 years of the most extensive scientific testing any pesticide has ever undergone, glyphosate is considered to be of very low toxicity and therefore is NOT considered to be "extremely hazardous". And it is obviously not "toxic to all life" - it just simply does not work that way (see above re: mode of action) and if it did, it would not be on the market. And the declaration that it is a causation for cancer is still under debate by world health authorities. First, it has never been documented that gylphosate is carcinogenic with humans - that's probably the major bone of contention with this assessment. The association was made based on very limited epidemiological studies which have been disputed by non-consistent patterns of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. The bulk of the determination was based on studies based on animal experiments submitted by the producers of glyphosate as evidence for the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. And these findings were considered by various other agencies involved in this assessment (IMPR, FAO/WHO) who concluded that “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting (IMPR) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (does glyphosate cause cancer?) Finally, had the above poster done her research, she would be aware that glyphosate is a non-specific herbicide. It does not just target weeds nor was it intended to just target weeds. This is a basic premise of any understanding of herbicides and to bother to post without knowing this elementary fact gives no credence to the rest of her rant. Junk science will always be junk science and simply spewing back sensationalized conclusions plucked from the online press without knowledge or understanding is merely ignorant fear mongering.

The two organic fire ant killers that I use probably are labeled for use around dogs, but you'll have to Google and read their labels and see. I don't use them in the dog yard because we don't have ants in the dog yard. I use them in the veggie garden. The organic fire ant killers are derived from natural organisms that target ants, and I do know people who've used them in yards where both dogs and children play. Conserve and Come And Get It both have Spinosad as their active ingredient. Spinosad also is used in some pet products, like heartworm pills, for example. Most dog breeds can take those heartworm pills, but in the back of my mind I am thinking there are some breeds that can't. Regardless, property used Spinosad products would be broadcast over a wide area and watered in so they wouldn't be lying around on the ground for a pet to lick up anyhow. I use another ant bait sometimes whose active ingredient is Avermectin. Here is some info on Conserve: Conserve Fire Ant Baits Here is some info on Avermectin, which is the active ingredient in Advance ant killer. In the Q&A section, they answer a question about using it around pets. Advance Ant Bait with Avermectin Both of the above ant baits are biocontrols derived from natural sources and biologically they target ants, not pets, but research carefully to your own satisfaction. I use them in gardens, not in dog yards, so I've never researched them for pet use. When used in my garden, which my dogs and cats both are allowed to enter and roam around in, neither the dogs nor cats ever have shown any interest in the ant baits used in the beds.

"Herbicides That Damage Roses Herbicides containing glyphosate are extremely dangerous for roses. Glyphosate can be absorbed by rose leaves and stems. Post-emergent herbicides used to kill broad-leaf weeds are also very dangerous for roses. Such herbicides commonly contain 2,4-D, triclopyr or dicamba." "Care After Damage Herbicide exposure is not necessarily a death sentence for roses. They commonly survive and eventually grow normally. Excellent care can help them recover. Water the affected roses once or twice per week during dry periods, but do not overwater them. Excessive water can be just as damaging as insufficient water." See: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/grass-weed-killer-kill-roses-accidentally-sprayed-them-87628.html