Should we voluntarily lose glyphosate as a pre harvest desicant in food crops

[yellow belly]

what was the spring crop ? if not a spring cereal you could use lot of alternative chemistry to glyphosate for grassweed

rotation is the only way out of grassweed problems - that was something our grandfathers understood very well

to grow a spring break crop in the notill situation the cereal volunteers need controlling before the new year to break the takeall cary over this couldbe done with a cheap contact grass killer but then you would have large established thistles or rose bay willow herb that 3 l of round up do not touch in the spring

pre harvest use is not needed for any food crop
swathe the rape has an earlier harvest and plant an early wheat variety for a dryer harvest

 

[DrWazzock]

Allowing uninformed amateurs with a political agenda to take control of a strategic industry such as agriculture is a dangerous path to follow.

We see it with the failure to control TB. Soon, if not already, we'll see it with falling arable yields, wastage and financial hardship for farmers if we carry on down this route.

It's a pity that it will take a disaster of supply, a collapse of agriculture or some such national emergency to wake people up to the importance of allowing farmers to use the tools necessary to meet modern day production demands, be it glyphosate, GM crops or whatever is necessary at the farmers discretion.

A disaster of supply might seem a long way off but little by little these Eco warriors are chipping away the foundations of a secure food supply and our politicians don't have the balls to face them down.

I don't know what kind of land others farm, but here, if you give pests and diseases a chance and don't take action in a timely manner they can be devastating. But we don't have the time or money to use glyphosate any more often than strictly necessary. The idea that modern farmers are lashing it on willy nilly is complete nonsense.

There's a lot of talk on the net about "leaving things to nature" and all that kind of stuff but this too can be a precarious course of action. I have generally found that crops "left to nature" are generally taken by nature leaving very little for the farmer except a lot of wasted work and resources.

We do our best with the land we have, based on experience and training. it's time the amateur commentators minded their own business and showed some respect.

 

[Clive]

to grow a spring break crop in the notill situation the cereal volunteers need controlling before the new year to break the takeall cary over this couldbe done with a cheap contact grass killer but then you would have large established thistles or rose bay willow herb that 3 l of round up do not touch in the spring

pre harvest use is not needed for any food crop
swathe the rape has an earlier harvest and plant an early wheat variety for a dryer harvest

all I can say is I only use glyphosate once to kill the cover crop when growing a spring break, seems to work

 

[DrWazzock]

I never use it as a ripening aid. Only used preharvest if there are perennial weeds in the crop (mainly couch grass) that will take it in better before they are cut off and smothered in chopped straw.

 

[turbo]

other wise known as customers ?

doesn't matter if something is correct or not really, it's what people think that matters, if our customers tell us they want us to use less glyphosate then we should listen and find ways to deal with it rather than go crying to mother like spoilt children

its true to say that we don't all need to use as much glyphosate or insecticides as we do right now (just a couple of many examples) - there are ways to reduce use without compromising production yet many are simply to lazy to find them so simply don't bother

that attitude will get more and more products banned make no mistake

Not heard a single customer say that but then they don't want us to grow gm but are more than happy to eat food with gm in.

 

[chipchap]

Allowing uninformed amateurs with a political agenda to take control of a strategic industry such as agriculture is a dangerous path to follow.

We see it with the failure to control TB. Soon, if not already, we'll see it with falling arable yields, wastage and financial hardship for farmers if we carry on down this route.

It's a pity that it will take a disaster of supply, a collapse of agriculture or some such national emergency to wake people up to the importance of allowing farmers to use the tools necessary to meet modern day production demands, be it glyphosate, GM crops or whatever is necessary at the farmers discretion.

A disaster of supply might seem a long way off but little by little these Eco warriors are chipping away the foundations of a secure food supply and our politicians don't have the balls to face them down.

I don't know what kind of land others farm, but here, if you give pests and diseases a chance and don't take action in a timely manner they can be devastating. But we don't have the time or money to use glyphosate any more often than strictly necessary. The idea that modern farmers are lashing it on willy nilly is complete nonsense.

There's a lot of talk on the net about "leaving things to nature" and all that kind of stuff but this too can be a precarious course of action. I have generally found that crops "left to nature" are generally taken by nature leaving very little for the farmer except a lot of wasted work and resources.

We do our best with the land we have, based on experience and training. it's time the amateur commentators minded their own business and showed some respect.

Now that is the type of post the farming forum is all about.
Very well said Sir!!!

 

[Banana Bar]

other wise known as customers ?

doesn't matter if something is correct or not really, it's what people think that matters, if our customers tell us they want us to use less glyphosate then we should listen and find ways to deal with it rather than go crying to mother like spoilt children

its true to say that we don't all need to use as much glyphosate or insecticides as we do right now (just a couple of many examples) - there are ways to reduce use without compromising production yet many are simply to lazy to find them so simply don't bother

that attitude will get more and more products banned make no mistake

I agree with you but science suggests that coffee is as harmful but no one suggests we should ban that.
I'm all for using less of all inputs but not when the arguments against ignore facts.

 

[Banana Bar]

No bagged N, grass lays and ploughing. Its not rocket science, but then the yields were rubbish.

And 5 times as many staff ( at least )

 

[Clive]

I agree with you but science suggests that coffee is as harmful but no one suggests we should ban that.
I'm all for using less of all inputs but not when the arguments against ignore facts.

my point is the facts never get in the way of propaganda, its pointless trying to fight these things, better to put the same energy into finding solutions

 

[An Gof]

No, it's rubbish, nothing has proved it to be unsafe and until it has been there should be no restrictions other than those that already exist. Sick of bloody Eco warriors peddling there own convenient agenda when it suits them and ignoring science when it doesn't.

You're bang on there @Banana Bar I feel the same way, just can't express it that way in polite society
It's proving to be an uphill battle.

 

[SilliamWhale]

my point is the facts never get in the way of propaganda, its pointless trying to fight these things, better to put the same energy into finding solutions

I dont agree. Propaganda is always trumped by fact ot just sometimes needs more time and less hysteria

 

[Clive]

I dont agree. Propaganda is always trumped by fact ot just sometimes needs more time and less hysteria

not in todays media heavy world IMO

 

[homefarm]

The good old days

http://www.cropyields.ac.uk/project.php

A good yield was 4 grains for every grain sown. Looks like lots of years only 2 grains for every one sown.

The customer is always right but at what point does progress stop?

 

[B'o'B]

The customer is always right but at what point does progress stop?

What the customer says and way the customer does are two very different things. Which time are they right?

 

[Clive]

The good old days

http://www.cropyields.ac.uk/project.php

A good yield was 4 grains for every grain sown. Looks like lots of years only 2 grains for every one sown.

The customer is always right but at what point does progress stop?

it stops when you are over supplying a market so have no need to produce more and / or when the ability to produce is taken away from farmers and placed into the hand of input suppliers

 

[T C]

We need it for OSR dessicant - it looks like diquat's days are numbered which I think is the only alternative.
If it is unsafe then why was it registered in the first place ?
The whole fiasco really annoys me - use the science not a commitee to register pesticides.
We have a situation in te EU where some countries are going to ban it, some wanting a withdrawl from all EU, some not sure and some wanting to reregister - MADNESS

 

[neilo]

Should be limited to X1 application per year of 3 L max and a 90 day harvest interval

Why would anyone farming properly possibly need more than that ? Even in our zero-till system that's as much as we use now so surely for a tillage or plough farmer that's also plenty ?

3L/ha wouldn't look at some of my old pp when I want to take it out to bring into a rotation. Or is a mixed farm with grass in a rotation not deemed as 'farming properly' any more?

I'd be very unhappy to lose pre-harvest approval on my Spring Barley. I have no drying facilities and don't have the scale to justify it (being a mixed farm, with grass in the rotation). Farming in the West of the country on heavier land than sand, it can't be drilled early, so harvest will never be early. If I combine it wet in late September, I will need to move it out early, and sell at the bottom of the market.

 

[Vernon]

Should be limited to X1 application per year of 3 L max and a 90 day harvest interval

Why would anyone farming properly possibly need more than that ? Even in our zero-till system that's as much as we use now so surely for a tillage or plough farmer that's also plenty ?

I sort of find myself agreeing with you clive. If we become soley reliant on this one chemical over multiple applications per year to enable us to farm then perhaps something is wrong and we should look at what we're doing more closely. Perhaps swath or as you say wait with the rape if we need to use it for blackgrass control later on. Surely long term many applications per season is asking for trouble?
Vernon

 

[Clive]

I sort of find myself agreeing with you clive. If we become soley reliant on this one chemical over multiple applications per year to enable us to farm then perhaps something is wrong and we should look at what we're doing more closely. Perhaps swath or as you say wait with the rape if we need to use it for blackgrass control later on. Surely long term many applications per season is asking for trouble?
Vernon

If it doesn't get banned / restricted we will end up with resistance eventually anyway I suspect

We really are our own worst enemies sometimes

 

[homefarm]

The customer is always right but at what point does progress stop?

My point was really more about the future ,not just glyphosate today.

As a supplier to the ag industry will we get any investment/innovative R+D and therefore improvements if they see products banned on a customer's whim.