Glyphosate Bans

Jzack605

Well-Known Member
Location
Long island
I’m curious to see what others feel here, particularly those who use herbicides for vegetation management.

for the record, I am not “pro chemical”. For a big part of the year I do PHC, so a big part of my job is chemical applications. But I see these chemicals as tools for tree preservation or revitalization that should be used as little as possible to minimize off target exposures and detriments. I don’t kid myself about the effect they can have, which keeps me humble and conservative with my applications.

glyphosphate has always left a bad taste in my mouth, probably largely because of how it is perceived by many but also because I generally hate vegetation management. But again, it’s a tool. I see no other way to manage invasive plants like ailanthus, bittersweet, honeysuckle, and the like. We know that these various invasive plants are detrimental in their own way to our environments. So the rational for herbicide application is there.

we now are starting to see bans on the ai glyphosphate. We got hit with a double wammy last year of a company policy banning it (this was particularly frustrating) and our main city contract banning its usage where 99% of our vegetation management is. So alternatives are found and we find a different product to use.

weirdly enough a few times, and I experienced it, applicators reported dry and sore throats after using the new chemical regiment during cut stump applications. Something we didn’t experience with glyphosphate products. Could have been coincidental, or not. The smell of the new regiment was much stronger.

so is a ban on glyphosphate arbitrary if it is just substituted?

is anyone else seeing bans on it?

personal feelings on it?

how long can we really adapt if bans were to continue down the line of a limited list of products while still being asked to do veg mgmt?

what does the science say, not a jury decided court case?

it is in fact at times done as a lawsuit avoidance, I know this for a fact. But I feel that that the better option is taking these products off of consumer shelves and only allowing it for licensed practitioners. And standing behind the science of proper application and professionalism (idealistic I know).
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
there is little or no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. The EPA has evaluated it several times under multiple administrations (both parties), so I don't see that determination as a political thing. They have a very open review process and list the (peer reviewed/published) studies used to make their determination. The WHO calls glyphosate "probably carcinogenic" but hasn't published what criteria or studies they used.

The lawsuits in CA are over it not being labeled under Proposition 65 rules...the problem is, because the EPA says it is not carcinogenic, it would be illegal to put a Prop 65 warning on the label.

If you "pull on the string" a little to see why people have a problem with glyphosate, here is where I think it leads (2 paths):
*Some people are going to fight any pesticide use. glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, so it has a giant target on its back. Remember Dursban? That used to be the most widely used insecticide. Imidacloprid, beware!
*Some people despise the idea of GMOs. Because Monsanto developed genetically modified crops to be glyphosate resistant, the are evil incarnate. I know a few otherwise reasonable people who just about start foaming at the mouth at the mention of Monsanto. They seem to have very little understanding of the science behind it all, but somewhere they were taught to despise all things Monsanto - especially RoundUp. (I know, it is Bayer now...).

Homeowner use accounts for a VERY small percentage to its use. 90-some percent of both corn and beans planted throughout the US (at least the midwest, I know for sure) are RoundUp ready. That is going to put you in the neighborhood of 150 million acres sprayed every year.

Are some products over-used? Yes. Is glyphosate one of those...yeah, I kinda think so. But who should be told to stop using it? It most certainly keeps food more affordable? Banning it would make it more expensive for all of us - how does that play out for those who are already food-insecure?

Do I use it: absolutely! I wear long sleeves, long pants, shoes, nitrile gloves, etc... (at least when on the job...I may spray a stray weed or two at home with less caution). Wash my hands after, etc...

What are the alternatives? Look at the SDS. Most are more dangerous to human health and more impactful on the environment. The alternative that makes me laugh the most: vinegar. Unless it is labeled for herbicide use, it is illegal to use commercially. So the stuff from the grocery store is not OK. Horticultural vinegar has a much higher concentration of acetic acid. It will burn your skin and cause permanent eye damage if you are improperly exposed to it. It also as a lower LD50 (more toxic) than glyphosate. When people complain about glyphosate, I ask what the safer alternative is...when they say vinegar, I at least have some idea where they are coming from (fear/perception/media hype less than good science). I'm not saying don't use vinegar...but if I did use it, I'd wear long sleeves, long pants, shoes, nitrile gloves, etc... (sound familiar?).
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
A shovel has not been linked to any health related issues other than exhaustion.
But it can cause significant soil disturbance (leading to erosion and changes in the soil microbiology) - especially if used in sensitive areas, wooded areas, on a large scale, etc... No till farming is very beneficial to water quality throughout heavily agricultural areas.
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
Most of those chemicals end up in the water when bonded to soil particles carried there by erosion. Sedimentation is far more detrimental to healthy aquatic systems than glyphosate.

Having said that...glyphosate does breakdown into phosphorus, which is not good in water. So that is a problem. But, again, having said that, phosphorous doesn't leach. Instead it binds to soil particles...so it is only an aquatic problem when associated with erosion. All a big circle!

I'm not saying I think you are "wrong" @flushcut - just that it isn't so simple...on either side of the argument. Point/counterpoint kinda thing.
 

flushcut

Well-Known Member
Location
Delavan, WI
All I am saying dirt without chemicals is better than dirt with chemicals.
Don't get me wrong I have sprayed my share of chemicals and Round Up. And probably will continue but I don't go crazy with the stuff.
It's never a simple answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

Jzack605

Well-Known Member
Location
Long island
Awesome discussion so far. I really didn’t know that about horticultural vinegar.

I think, personally, if weighing between chemicals and erosion I’d go with chem applications. To me erosion has arguably more damage possibilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

evo

Well-Known Member
Location
My Island, WA
Personally I avoid the use of chemicals at all costs. I have a jug of glyphosate waiting on some poplar stumps. I strongly dislike the idea of using it which is why I haven’t as of yet. I wanted to get an idea of they would actually resprout. Targeted application )stump) is more better than broadcast.
I wish there was a solution outside of chemical, even if the stumps were ground the roots likely will send up suckers, my logic is it’s best to leave the root system intact.

We are a few hundred feet uphill from a wetland, but not far down slope 150’ we have a high water table/seep which feeds the wetland.
Is there anything better than glyphosate?
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
Better as in more effective or less toxic? Garlon 3A Will be more effective and is labeled for wetland use. But without digging up the SDS I'm betting it is more toxic to humans. I know it can cause eye damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evo

evo

Well-Known Member
Location
My Island, WA
Better as in more effective or less toxic? Garlon 3A Will be more effective and is labeled for wetland use. But without digging up the SDS I'm betting it is more toxic to humans. I know it can cause eye damage.
Well I’d assume any ‘cide’ has a direct relationship with efficiency and toxicity. My understanding glyphosate may take repeated applications, is the most targeted, and becomes benign the quickest.
I’m all ears, and really have little to no interest in herbicide. This is the second time in over a decade I’ve personally considered it. On a professional level it’s easy enough to inform the client of a potential application, and let them make the choice and make referrals as needed
 

Reach

Well-Known Member
Location
Atglen, PA
Personally I avoid the use of chemicals at all costs. I have a jug of glyphosate waiting on some poplar stumps. I strongly dislike the idea of using it which is why I haven’t as of yet. I wanted to get an idea of they would actually resprout. Targeted application )stump) is more better than broadcast.
I wish there was a solution outside of chemical, even if the stumps were ground the roots likely will send up suckers, my logic is it’s best to leave the root system intact.

We are a few hundred feet uphill from a wetland, but not far down slope 150’ we have a high water table/seep which feeds the wetland.
Is there anything better than glyphosate?
Tordon is probably the most effective for cut stump applications, but be careful with it as it has high soil motility if applied to the soil. Another good option would be Crossbow, which I believe is labeled for cut stump applications. It will definitely be more effective than glyphosate, too.
 

ConeCollector

Active Member
I would second @Reach on the cross bow it’s a formulation of 2-4-D and Triclopyr. It’s commonly used in commercial Forestery I have used it extensively for stump sprouting spp. it takes a very small amount applied to a fresh cut stump. For best results mix with red diesel to act as a surfactant.
 

Reach

Well-Known Member
Location
Atglen, PA
I would second @Reach on the cross bow it’s a formulation of 2-4-D and Triclopyr. It’s commonly used in commercial Forestery I have used it extensively for stump sprouting spp. it takes a very small amount applied to a fresh cut stump. For best results mix with red diesel to act as a surfactant.
Thank you. I could not remember the actives, its been a while since I’ve done any real spraying.
 

Chaplain242

Well-Known Member
Some articles on health aspects o glyphosate:












 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Kask Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger Tracked Lifts
Top Bottom