Glyphosate - we have 5 years

An Gof

Member
Location
Cornwall
Sorry folks, but I think its high time farmers became more responsible. Glysophate should not be being used for ripening crops, only use it for weed control. Far too much sprays of all sorts being put on for very little benifit. We are our own worst enemies.

On what scientific basis do you say that?
The product has been through a rigorous registration and approval scheme which includes pre-harvest use. Through this rigorous registration process it has been deemed safe for use pre harvest when used as directed.
What factual basis do you have to contest this?
 
On what scientific basis do you say that?
The product has been through a rigorous registration and approval scheme which includes pre-harvest use. Through this rigorous registration process it has been deemed safe for use pre harvest when used as directed.
What factual basis do you have to contest this?
There is no need for it for ripening. Pre harvest application is needed for weed control. Too much residues are being found in waterways. This is because it is grossly overused. If we dont change voluntary then we be forced to change. Ie banned products.
 

charlie86

Member
There is no need for it for ripening. Pre harvest application is needed for weed control. Too much residues are being found in waterways. This is because it is grossly overused. If we dont change voluntary then we be forced to change. Ie banned products.
As previously mentioned in earlier threads, it is many of (not all) our customers who are demanding that our crops are grown Glyphosate free pre harvest.
If we cannot supply what the customer wants, then that customer will source the goods from elsewhere, who will supply what they want!
As farmers, we must learn to supply what the market demands & not what we want them to have.
If the demand is for Glyphosate free, then I'm afraid (whether we like it or not), we must learn to adapt, whatever the regulations & however safe scientists say!!
 

e3120

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Northumberland
There is no need for it for ripening. Pre harvest application is needed for weed control. Too much residues are being found in waterways. This is because it is grossly overused. If we dont change voluntary then we be forced to change. Ie banned products.
You don't have a location on your profile. :mad: Without that, we can't assess if you're qualified to make your first statement.
 

Guy Smith

Member
Location
Essex
There is no need for it for ripening. Pre harvest application is needed for weed control. Too much residues are being found in waterways. This is because it is grossly overused. If we dont change voluntary then we be forced to change. Ie banned products.

Glyphosate should always only be used for good agronomic reasons on the back of professional advice from a qualified agronomist. It should not be used routinely - that's bad practice that could encourage resistance.

But there are good reasons to use it preharvest in crops with uneven ripening such as OSR or where there are perennial weeds such a couch ( I tend to find the under 40s have forgotten couch grass not realising glyphosate is the reason we don't have it anymore - in the 1960s it was the number one arable weed on heavy soils). The are also good GHG saving reasons to use glyphosate pre harvest thereby reducing carbon footprint.

I'd be wary of the argument along the lines 'let's forgo pre harvest use so we can keep autumn use'. Once the anti pesticide lobby have seen us concede pre harvest use they will push for a total ban.

One reason why there are detectable residues of glyphosate in waterways is that glyphosate is approved for use in waterways to control pernicious aquatic weeds.
 

roscoe erf

Member
Livestock Farmer
Every load from every farm has a sample taken and kept on intake ay the docks (if going for export). If there is a problem at its final destination, and there is an issue with glyphosate, (on a shipment of non Glyphosate Malting barley), then tests would be done on all individual samples taken from the lorries, to find out who was responsible!.... This could be very expensive for those held responsible!
be a bit late then when its all loaded in the hull of the ship
 

DRC

Member
Glyphosate should always only be used for good agronomic reasons on the back of professional advice from a qualified agronomist. It should not be used routinely - that's bad practice that could encourage resistance.

But there are good reasons to use it preharvest in crops with uneven ripening such as OSR or where there are perennial weeds such a couch ( I tend to find the under 40s have forgotten couch grass not realising glyphosate is the reason we don't have it anymore - in the 1960s it was the number one arable weed on heavy soils). The are also good GHG saving reasons to use glyphosate pre harvest thereby reducing carbon footprint.

I'd be wary of the argument along the lines 'let's forgo pre harvest use so we can keep autumn use'. Once the anti pesticide lobby have seen us concede pre harvest use they will push for a total ban.

One reason why there are detectable residues of glyphosate in waterways is that glyphosate is approved for use in waterways to control pernicious aquatic weeds.
This goes hand in hand with the need raise tolerances on grain moisture at feed mill intakes. If feed wheat wasn’t penalised if it was 16%, then less sunshine in a can, would be used.
This was something you batted away when I talked about it months ago, but would reduced Unnecessary fuel use and thus carbon footprint .
Maybe it’s because you farm in the south , where grain drying isn’t needed as much .
 

Guy Smith

Member
Location
Essex
This goes hand in hand with the need raise tolerances on grain moisture at feed mill intakes. If feed wheat wasn’t penalised if it was 16%, then less sunshine in a can, would be used.
This was something you batted away when I talked about it months ago, but would reduced Unnecessary fuel use and thus carbon footprint .
Maybe it’s because you farm in the south , where grain drying isn’t needed as much .

No it's because most the mills I deliver into will accept up to 16% with a reasonable deduction for weightlosd and drying. That's a common occurrence for me.

But I take your point about GHG saving but im told the 15% rule is a standard clause for shipping - but see the above.

As you aren't an NFU member but a TFA one I'd be interested what the standpoint of your Association is on this point you feel strongly about. Please advise.

But with respect I think your point is a bit of a red herring in this thread.
 

fudge

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire.
Glyphosate should always only be used for good agronomic reasons on the back of professional advice from a qualified agronomist. It should not be used routinely - that's bad practice that could encourage resistance.

But there are good reasons to use it preharvest in crops with uneven ripening such as OSR or where there are perennial weeds such a couch ( I tend to find the under 40s have forgotten couch grass not realising glyphosate is the reason we don't have it anymore - in the 1960s it was the number one arable weed on heavy soils). The are also good GHG saving reasons to use glyphosate pre harvest thereby reducing carbon footprint.

I'd be wary of the argument along the lines 'let's forgo pre harvest use so we can keep autumn use'. Once the anti pesticide lobby have seen us concede pre harvest use they will push for a total ban.

One reason why there are detectable residues of glyphosate in waterways is that glyphosate is approved for use in waterways to control pernicious aquatic weeds.
I completely agree with the spirit of this post. Basis as a proof of professional competence has been devalued IMO. All agronomists "optimise" pesticide use but for whom? The farmer? The consumer? The environment? The chemical distributor? In your latest article in CPM I notice that you were pointing farmers in the direction of new tech with the potential to reduce pesticide use dramatically, we as farmers should invest in and be pressing for government to invest in the basic research necessary to make this vision a reality.
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
I completely agree with the spirit of this post. Basis as a proof of professional competence has been devalued IMO. All agronomists "optimise" pesticide use but for whom? The farmer? The consumer? The environment? The chemical distributor? In your latest article in CPM I notice that you were pointing farmers in the direction of new tech with the potential to reduce pesticide use dramatically, we as farmers should invest in and be pressing for government to invest in the basic research necessary to make this vision a reality.

To obtain your BASIS Certificate in Crop Protection you have to demonstrate that you are a good ambassador for the crop protection industry in its broadest sense. The viva in which you are grilled by a panel of agronomists & at least one person from BASIS itself will not pass a candiate who shows a lack of care for the environment, the public etc. The course does not teach anything about optimum doses or the best value product. Much of the course is about using a chemical as a last resort - only then worrying about what works on that pest. First comes the standard risk management - eliminate, substitute or cultural controls like rotation, resistant varieties, drilling dates, cultivation etc. Of course once you've got your BASIS ticket, you're free to do or say whatever you like.

Your agronomist is engaged by you, the grower, to make and save you money. Sure, there is a responsibility to minimise usage but you should be first priority if you have someone not paid on a serviced basis.

I agree with the tech - the ability to spot treat instead of blanket dose would be a great outcome, though not for the chemical industry.
 

Bogweevil

Member
Glyphosate s...n.

One reason why there are detectable residues of glyphosate in waterways is that glyphosate is approved for use in waterways to control pernicious aquatic weeds.

Another reason is that glyphosate is widely used (110,000ha/200,000kg) to control weeds on amenity situations especially impermeable surfaces, pavements, car parks etc, and rain will wash residues into surface water via drains and sewers. That does not include homeowners treating their drive with glyphosate in a watering can...

Railway lines commonly have a clay sub base to exclude water from the underlying soil and consequent erosion and are therefore considered impermeable ( 29,000Ha/23,500kg glyphosate).

Aquatic use covered 1900ha/1800kg Glyphosate

Source: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/documents/amenity2012v2.pdf
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 34.8%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 29 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top