Please stop using weed killer.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

I tend to hand-pull, use a strimmer... Or fill every available space with a plant I want to actually grow. I propogate a lot from seed or cuttings, and jam as many plants in as I can. Seeing swathes of unplanted soil or bark mulch looks very alien to me.

As my granny used to tell me, if there is space for a weed, there is space for a plant.

I do use roundup on bindweed, but I don't spray randomly, just on the bindweed. My main reason for that is selfish though. I plant veg mixed with my ornamentals... The back of my border is chard and fennel, lettuces as edging. I don't want to EAT roundup, or feed it to my kids.

And I love clover, daisies and buttercup in my grass.

I grew lots of red and purple clover in containers this year, I love them. They look great when massed together, make a great tea as well, very relaxing.

vistafinder

Okay, firstly I'd like to say that I don't use any weedkiller. If I have weeds, I pull them by hand. I actually have been known to plant weeds from the garden in pots in the cold frame to see what they turn out to be. A weed is just a plant in the wrong place, and I have a small enough garden to be able to pull anything that's unwanted. I don't think there's any reason to go all spray-happy.

BUT

vistafinder wrote: »

Im not an expert or a doctor but I have experince of my health getting f-cked up from cleaning chemicals in my work place and belive me ye dont want to go down that road and there is a big difference between cleaning chemicals and this stuff. What I am getting at is all this stuff is going somewhere and its building up and mixing.

Who else is going to be afected by birth defects only children not to mind all the other stuff they are starting to think it causes.

Where is your proof? In fact, I'm not even sure what your precise point is. You say your health was damaged by cleaning chemicals in the workplace, and then go on to say that there's a big difference between cleaning chemicals and Roundup. So how is it relevant? As for it going somewhere and building up and mixing, I'm no expert myself but from what I've seen with a quick internet search, it isn't building up anywhere. It either binds to soil and becomes inactive, or in an unbound state gets degraded by soil micro-organisms.

Now, I'm sure there are certain effects (as with all things) that are unwanted. It could even be that much of what I've read about it is influenced by biased scientific research funded by Roundup-affiliated parties. So I'm not saying I'm sure it's safe. But you seem to have a lot to say about it without giving any explanation or proof. Birth defects, for example, where's that coming from?

ShaunC

I try to keep away from using pesticides and herbicides as much as possible, I tend to use a little green diesel with a sup of quix. Mighty stuff altogether;)

wildefalcon

ShaunC wrote: »

I try to keep away from using pesticides and herbicides as much as possible, I tend to use a little green diesel with a sup of quix. Mighty stuff altogether;)

I wonder how long it takes for diesel to degrade, compared to round-up?

pawrick

Seems to me for the ordinary gardener the key is being responsible and only using when and where absolutely required. I've lots of critters in my garden so I wouldnt like to use anything which would disturb them but I wouldn't be against use completely if necessary e.g. on my driveway where weeds get in to cracks and are hard to remove but I'd research before doing anything.

vistafinder

true-or-false wrote: »

Okay, firstly I'd like to say that I don't use any weedkiller. If I have weeds, I pull them by hand. I actually have been known to plant weeds from the garden in pots in the cold frame to see what they turn out to be. A weed is just a plant in the wrong place, and I have a small enough garden to be able to pull anything that's unwanted. I don't think there's any reason to go all spray-happy.

BUT


Where is your proof? In fact, I'm not even sure what your precise point is. You say your health was damaged by cleaning chemicals in the workplace, and then go on to say that there's a big difference between cleaning chemicals and Roundup. So how is it relevant? As for it going somewhere and building up and mixing, I'm no expert myself but from what I've seen with a quick internet search, it isn't building up anywhere. It either binds to soil and becomes inactive, or in an unbound state gets degraded by soil micro-organisms.

Now, I'm sure there are certain effects (as with all things) that are unwanted. It could even be that much of what I've read about it is influenced by biased scientific research funded by Roundup-affiliated parties. So I'm not saying I'm sure it's safe. But you seem to have a lot to say about it without giving any explanation or proof. Birth defects, for example, where's that coming from?

Ok my point is we are all useing chemicals every day without any regard for the future. The people that are making and selling this stuff are telling us its safe and we belive it.

I think its relevant because I was working there for a good few years its a food factory. Stuff we all eat I knew for a long time it made me feel crap when it was in the air. Now its not getting directly into the food but there are traces of it getting in there. My point is it was the long term exposure that done the damage. So this is hapening all the way from the field to the table and we are eating it. Our environment cant handle all this much longer. Same with our health. I did see a couple of times chemicals going on a different product. Food.

What I meant by there is a big difference between cleaning chemicals and this is they are starting to belive this can do horrible things to our bodies. It is worth a look what Monsanto are up to. They have kept the real information from us for a long time.

The birth defects thing is coming from the US and Argentina where overuse is the problem. Its not going to make a difference me putting up links all day. We all need to just think a little bit more thats all.

As for your last sentence there I have burried my head in the sand all my life about things, I avoid any sort of conflict. Its way easier for me to just wait and see what happens and do or say nothing. Infact I rarely have anything to say I just keep my mouth shut. I think this is worth making a bit of noise about.

lazybones32

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I looked at this area a lot during my Horticulture degree and tbh, its very very difficult to say that large populations would starve.

Aren't many already malnourished and starving already?

It wouldn't even take a crop failure for a large proportion of people to begin starving. After the storm in Feb. the power was out here and I saw people in near panic trying to buy food that could be eaten that night and didn't need preparation. People in cities are dependent on electricity for the essentials of life and what happens if there is no power for 2 days?
Seeing as more and more good land is being devoted to bio-energy and the number of cultivars of staple foods being grown is diminishing, I think we are much closer to the edge than we realise.

I recommend Colin Tudge's "So shall we reap" as an interesting read: he claims to know how we could feed billions more by changing a few aspects of what we do now. http://www.amazon.co.uk/So-Shall-We-Reap-Worlds/dp/0141009500

lazybones32

vistafinder wrote: »

Ok my point is we are all useing chemicals every day without any regard for the future.

It is worth a look what Monsanto are up to.

I read the ingredients of shampoo and toothpaste and stopped using them daily.

The OP linked the article and I raised this with my dealer (herbicide dealer). He informs me that there is similar talk happening in Ireland but it is nowhere near ready for Legislation. The gist, so far, is that herbicides won't be available to those who haven't a spraying license and the onus could be on the retailer to check for this. He also told me that Monsanto could be bringing out a range of chemicals for non-commercial use: it will be Round-Up with a "for non-commercial use only" label on it and may cost a few euro more.

Whether he's right or not, we'll have to wait and see.

vistafinder

Looks like a good read there lazybones.

magicbastarder

wildefalcon wrote: »

First two are nearly banned already.

"first they came for ......"

i know several people who still shoot legally. what are you referring to there?

and i think you have performed serious abuse to the 'first they came for' sentiment, considering that was in reference to the nazi rise to power and people being sent to concentration camps.

gk5000

I minimise and would prefer not to use chemicals etc. but on my allotment
- use Gromore fertiliser,
- dithane for blight
- blue pellets for slugs/snails, and
- shall blast a little weedkiller on some stubborn weeds on cobblelock paving.

I dont know of a suitable alternative for them for me, and do not want to turn back the clock pre agricultural/industrial revolution.

gctest50

magicbastarder wrote: »

and i think you have performed serious abuse to the 'first they came for' sentiment, considering that was in reference to the nazi rise to power and people being sent to concentration camps.

"first they came for " - originally said by yer man Niemoller who was a captain of a U-boat and so ........ helped them to power

then got all religious and told Hitler "God is my furher"
n Hitler went " nope "

In Berlin, jittery with continued crisis, opened last week the sedition trial of Rev. Martin Niembller, who during the War served Kaiser Wilhelm II as one of the most indomitable, hellraising U-boat commanders ever to spread high-powered "frightfulness" for the Fatherland.

In 1916, young Lieutenant Niemoller set off on the ramshackle U-73 told to do as much damage to Allied shipping as he could with the old hulk. He promptly hoisted the French flag and under these false colors sailed

wildefalcon

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know several people who still shoot legally. what are you referring to there?

and i think you have performed serious abuse to the 'first they came for' sentiment, considering that was in reference to the nazi rise to power and people being sent to concentration camps.

Steady on, there! It wasn't aimed at you! I'm making the point that those who like banning things are picking off hobbies and interests one by one.

Hunting, fishing, shooting, are all in their sights, and if no-one protests, and no one stands up to them we'll all be wrapped in cotton wool, riding bikes with airbags and wearing unbleached cotton smocks wearing sandals!

magicbastarder

who is 'they' though?
i am not unhappy that hunting animals on horseback is banned, nor would i be unhappy if hare coursing was banned.

hunting and fishing *should* be regulated - but in the interests of maintaining a healthy population of the prey animal, rather than from a civil liberties point of view.

but if the government won't prevent turf cutting - even though it is already illegal in certain contexts, i seriously doubt fishermen need worry.

Andy-Pandy

lazybones32 wrote: »

Aren't many already malnourished and starving already?

It wouldn't even take a crop failure for a large proportion of people to begin starving. After the storm in Feb. the power was out here and I saw people in near panic trying to buy food that could be eaten that night and didn't need preparation. People in cities are dependent on electricity for the essentials of life and what happens if there is no power for 2 days?
Seeing as more and more good land is being devoted to bio-energy and the number of cultivars of staple foods being grown is diminishing, I think we are much closer to the edge than we realise.

I recommend Colin Tudge's "So shall we reap" as an interesting read: he claims to know how we could feed billions more by changing a few aspects of what we do now. http://www.amazon.co.uk/So-Shall-We-Reap-Worlds/dp/0141009500

That the point, people are already starving, the problem is not production but distribution. The conclusion that i came to was that its not the production of food that is the problem . We already make enough food to keep everyone fed, and people in areas that are prone to crop failure had agricultural methods and used plant species that were indigenous to the area that they live, these crops could still be grown in areas but they are not. Chemicals are used in large scale agriculture to enable crops to grow that are ill suited to the conditions that they are grown in. If farmers could revert back to smaller scale farming techniques and used crop rotation etc they could yield crops without the over use and total reliance of herbicides we have today. Unfortunately that will never happen, finance is more important in large scale farming than feeding people.

pwurple

lazybones32 wrote: »

I read the ingredients of shampoo and toothpaste and stopped using them daily.

What do you brush your teeth with? Didn't think there was roundup in toothpaste!

Pretzill

I'm all for weeds - I reckon we should be propagating them they grow so well in this country - many of the so called weeds can be and are being used in medicine. At the moment growing happily in the feilds surrounding my home; comfrey, meadowsweet, angelica, nettle, woundwort to name just a few - the creeping buttercup is in bloom and the bramble is everywhere this year.

I pull weeds by hand out of the borders and veg - and in two days they grow again.

I leave grazing animals to enjoy the rougher areas - and hope that the birds and insects enjoy the cover.

I reckon if we grew weeds as herbs or for their medicinal benefits it would be a sure way to eradicate them too. Intensive anything be that farming, spraying, honey production etc is not working.

As for invasive, imported species we should really start regulating our imports - for contamination and not allowing plants that aren't suitable here.

vistafinder

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

That the point, people are already starving, the problem is not production but distribution. The conclusion that i came to was that its not the production of food that is the problem . We already make enough food to keep everyone fed, and people in areas that are prone to crop failure had agricultural methods and used plant species that were indigenous to the area that they live, these crops could still be grown in areas but they are not. Chemicals are used in large scale agriculture to enable crops to grow that are ill suited to the conditions that they are grown in. If farmers could revert back to smaller scale farming techniques and used crop rotation etc they could yield crops without the over use and total reliance of herbicides we have today. Unfortunately that will never happen, finance is more important in large scale farming than feeding people.

Very interesting... It seems to all keep coming back to the same things anyway you look at it.
Greed,
Corruption,
Lack of respect for nature and people.

Unfortunately your health is your wealth isnt relevant until your health is gone.

The weeds are supposed to be becoming resistant now aswell which means stronger and stronger sprays. These companys are making GMO seeds roundup ready to handle all the extra spray. Which might have an impact on an indigenous plants aswell. Its very murky.

I saw in yesterdays paper you can eat Dandelion,chickweed,fat hen and hairy bittercress raw in salads.

Ground elder in soup.

Stir fry Burdock.

A roundup dressing is optional of course...;)

vistafinder

pwurple wrote: »

What do you brush your teeth with? Didn't think there was roundup in toothpaste!

If Monsanto gets its way it will be soon...:D

vistafinder

vistafinder wrote: »

Ok my point is we are all useing chemicals every day without any regard for the future. The people that are making and selling this stuff are telling us its safe and we belive it.

Yeah but your point is still pretty damn murky since chemicals aren't necessarily bad. Water is a chemical. If you want to say that you specifically mean that Roundup isn't safe, then you should be giving a reason for it.

The birth defects thing is coming from the US and Argentina where overuse is the problem. Its not going to make a difference me putting up links all day.

Links would make a difference because then you'd actually be educating people instead of sounding like you've plucked this from random dodgy articles. If not links, then maybe you could explain to me/everyone how Roundup causes birth defects, or where even just the correlation between Roundup use and birth defects comes from. As for overuse, if overuse is the problem then it's a very different story than the Roundup itself being the problem.

I think this is worth making a bit of noise about.

If there is something severely dangerous going on, then it would be great to try to inform people about it. But there's no point in making noise if you're not actually citing any reasons for people to worry. I'm not trying to argue against you; I'd love to know what's going on. Trouble is you haven't really shown us anything yet.

vistafinder

true-or-false wrote: »

Yeah but your point is still pretty damn murky since chemicals aren't necessarily bad. Water is a chemical. If you want to say that you specifically mean that Roundup isn't safe, then you should be giving a reason for it.


Links would make a difference because then you'd actually be educating people instead of sounding like you've plucked this from random dodgy articles. If not links, then maybe you could explain to me/everyone how Roundup causes birth defects, or where even just the correlation between Roundup use and birth defects comes from. As for overuse, if overuse is the problem then it's a very different story than the Roundup itself being the problem.


If there is something severely dangerous going on, then it would be great to try to inform people about it. But there's no point in making noise if you're not actually citing any reasons for people to worry. I'm not trying to argue against you; I'd love to know what's going on. Trouble is you haven't really shown us anything yet.

Did you not see the first link and the pages and the links on it?

So you would drink chemicals out of a bottle like you would water?

I was kind of thinking if people are interested that they may do a bit of looking for themselves and to not be forcing it on them and causing arguments with people who just want to argue. I did say to reconsider?

Here is some of the stuff they have made in the past.
http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/15/monsantos-dirty-dozen-the-12-most-awful-products-made-by-monsanto/#axzz361dhJWZD

Is it just a small bit odd that a company like this is dealing with these companys.
http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/02/boycott-monsanto-a-simple-list-of-companies-to-avoid/#axzz361dhJWZD

There is very little studies after being done and anything that has been done gets mobbed by them. I hope its all wrong but would it not be a good idea to not use it until we find out the truth? Is that true or false?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY16uNIjzKk

gctest50

http://www.grr.org.ar/terceros/Seralini%20Eric%20Glyphosate%20.pdf

Glyphosate damage or kill human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells at concentrations below those recommended for agricultural use, and may interfere with human reproduction and embryonic development

lazybones32

pwurple wrote: »

What do you brush your teeth with?

...my toothbrush.

vistafinder

Not all bad.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/dietandfitness/time-to-eat-your-weeds-273413.html

came across this on my FB gardening club, article regarding Round up and Super weeds

Think some of you will enjoy it.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/06/28/repeat-mistakes-led-superweeds/11652199/

lazybones32

Dandelions are a diuretic (helps you pee) as are milk thistle. Whether this contributed to dandelion's common name "pi$$y bed" I can't say.
Foxgloves can be used to treat a cardiac condition of the same official name - Digitalis. In the wrong dose it can cause cardiac arrest though, so don't go eating them.

j@utis

Are you serious about blaming the farmers for spraying their crops or giving antibiotics to their animals?
I'm afraid it's not them to blame, it's the consumers fault. Look how majority of people shop for their food: they all are following one general rule "to buy as much as possible for as little as possible". You can't put "high quality and cheap" in one sentence, it just doesn't work that way.
To make food cheap you have to cut corners, a lot of them. Farmers have to get maximum yields because they paid too little for their produce, food processing industries have their own methods how to get their profits in the market where competition is fierce and margins are low. Quality food has very low priority on peoples' shopping list. I personally know only 2 persons who care what they put in their mouths. Others are way more happy to spend their money on latest electronics, cars, holidays, bags & shoes etc...
Your health is your own business and if something goes amiss with it there's a huge pharma business "to help you out".

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

That the point, people are already starving, the problem is not production but distribution. <...>

I hope distribution "problem" will never get solved - it would only make starving problem worse!

vistafinder

This happened 5 years ago. How are people not being told this when they are buying it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

the_syco

my3cents wrote: »

If the OP would like to tell me how I can continue to fight the Japanese Knotweed in my area without using "Roundup" I'd be delighted.

From P39 of New Scientist (5th July 2014 edition), they found a "small sap sucking insects called psyllids" to be very effective in the war against Japanese Knotweed. Also interesting is that it (the Knotweed) doesn't make seeds and is only spread of people unintentionally, and was only spread intentionally around 1850 after it was first found. It wasn't until 1898 or so that they found it to be a pest.

vistafinder wrote: »

Hunting and shooting are not my thing I go fishing the very odd time alright. We all need to just think a bit more if we want to keep doing these things? I was lucky enough to see salmon leaping up stream the last couple of years they may not be there soon because of selfish people.

Off topic, but it's the poachers that ruin it for everyone. All fishermen I know put back whatever they catch at the end of the day. Fish stocks are replenished in rivers for the fishermen, so in effect fishermen are helping to keep a lot of the rivers full of fish.

true-or-false wrote: »

It could even be that much of what I've read about it is influenced by biased scientific research funded by Roundup-affiliated parties.

I find unless it's anti-Roundup, the research is usually referred to as Roundup-affiliated parties. And by gawd, the "natural" cure of pretty much anything is a thriving industry in its own right! Here is a list of such products.

gctest50 wrote: »

http://www.grr.org.ar/terceros/Seralini%20Eric%20Glyphosate%20.pdf

Must read that later. And yes, I'm very skeptical about links which say one thing is bad, "but wait, for $9.99 you can buy this super healthy thing"...

j@utis wrote: »

Are you serious about blaming the farmers for spraying their crops or giving antibiotics to their animals?
I'm afraid it's not them to blame, it's the consumers fault.

Agree 100% If every farmer went organic, food prices would go up for one reason; there'll be less of it. Heck, food prices of current organic meat is more expensive! And the worst thing about it? They'll be in competition with the non-EU states who won't be following the same rules.

=-=

Finally, is the GMO blight-free potatoe being planted yet? Read about it a while (year or two) back, but nothing since. Very interested to see how it goes.

evolving_doors

Wow this is all getting very technical...

First off I'm with the OP, not because of any mega research but I think being so obsessed with the botoxed sterile lawn is an anathema to the spirit of gardening.

At the end of the day folks if you are putting chemicals on your grass just because you don;t like the look of nasty dandelions then yissr mad. It's just pure aesthetics and a waste of time.. look over into your neighbour's garden/field and you'll probably see dandelions, it's like pi55ing on a box of matches while the house burns down.

Best you can do is dig em up or pluck the heads so they don;t go to seed.

if you get so obsessed about the 'evil dandelions' the next thing you'll be worrying about is the encroaching moss, then the creeping buttercup. Why does your lawn have to look like a putting green anyway?

Incidentally... pull up any dandelion and you'll probably find a worm or two at its root. Next time you are injecting the poison into the soil to have that 'show lawn' think of the family of worms you are exterminating.

Peace