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

[Goldilocks]

This whole glyphosate fiasco is starting to get really scary now. Accepting the fact that those in charge of decision making are not necessarily acting logically ,shouldn't we be pressing to voluntarily give up its use as a harvest aid for food crops in order to preserve it as a herbicide?

 

[Fuzzy]

I would also suggest a limit to the amount used per hectare each year.
But it must be alongside an immediate ban on imports of GM crops.

 

[SilliamWhale]

We shouldn't really in the absence of evidence because give an inch they will take a mile. However there could be potentially rotational advantages to doing so.

I'm not that scared really as I think it will remain.

 

[Daniel]

I would also suggest a limit to the amount used per hectare each year.
But it must be alongside an immediate ban on imports of GM crops.

Although I do agree re GM, if it was banned overnight I don't think enough non GM soya could be sourced to feed the animals we have in the UK.

The reason the egg laying industry finally accepted GM soya a couple of years back was because not enough non-GM could be sourced and that that was sourced was found to be contaminated. I.e they'd been chucking whatever they wanted on the boat. This was after the pig and broiler industry had accepted GM so there is surely no way enough could be found now.

 

[Henry B]

Surely we should restrict our preharvest Roundup use if we want to keep this Chemical.

 

[franklin]

No.

Its all very well countries with lovely summers being all high and mighty about dessicants, but we are not one of them.

I'd learn to live with no pre-harvest roundup, but mills would have to learn to live with 16% wheat again for starters.

Happier with a quota per acre or maximum number of doses.

 

[franklin]

Better to keep pre-harvest and pre-drilling, ie twice, than 6 x stale seedbeds and no pre-harvest.

 

[David.]

How about removing the tallow amine wetter, which I am told is the problem.
But yes, it is easy soundbite PR for eco-warriors to talk about "drenching food crops with chemicals, only days before making them into bread"

 

[shakerator]

No.

Its all very well countries with lovely summers being all high and mighty about dessicants, but we are not one of them.

I'd learn to live with no pre-harvest roundup, but mills would have to learn to live with 16% wheat again for starters.

Happier with a quota per acre or maximum number of doses.

your sounding like you have power as a grower! (admirable!)

 

[scholland]

Better to keep pre-harvest and pre-drilling, ie twice, than 6 x stale seedbeds and no pre-harvest.

Depends on public perception of eating food which was sprayed not long before it was cut.

 

[JNG]

This whole glyphosate fiasco is starting to get really scary now. Accepting the fact that those in charge of decision making are not necessarily acting logically ,shouldn't we be pressing to voluntarily give up its use as a harvest aid for food crops in order to preserve it as a herbicide?

Yes i think it should not be allowed pre harvest, especially if it means we can keep it as a stubble hygiene product, it's not ideal and I also farm in a place where we rarely cut wheat below 18% but we can live without, might mean using less strobs or sdhi chemistry later in season (at t3) cause they enhance greening and has been said it keeps stems greener for longer. We use very little pre harvest glyphosate anyway except for OSR, so back to swathing or give up rape maybe.

 

[Wooly]

They could always bring back stubble burning to eliminate the pre drilling spraying of glyphosate !!

 

[rob1]

They could always bring back stubble burning to eliminate the pre drilling spraying of glyphosate !!

not sure it will catch in mid feb

 

[murphy]

Well being in the NE of Scotland it would be a disaster for us

 

[neilo]

How many of those advocating banning pre-harvest glyphosate are large arable farms with drying facilities? How many are smaller, mixed farms, situated in the West or North of the country?

Why should we accept any restrictions, without any evidence of any harmful effects. If it's dangerous, then restrict it's use. If it's not, then don't. Otherwise we are just pandering to half truths and rumours....... again.

 

[Pedders]

This whole glyphosate fiasco is starting to get really scary now. Accepting the fact that those in charge of decision making are not necessarily acting logically ,shouldn't we be pressing to voluntarily give up its use as a harvest aid for food crops in order to preserve it as a herbicide?

why ?

 

[T Hectares]

I would happily give up its harvest dessication use to retain it's approval as its an essential active that would cause huge issues in Bg control if we were to lose it.

However in the absense of any concrete evidence to its risks, it's a hard to accept any restrictions in its use.

 

[Pedders]

I would happily give up its harvest dessication use to retain it's approval as its an essential active that would cause huge issues in Bg control if we were to lose it.

However in the absense of any concrete evidence to its risks, it's a hard to accept any restrictions in its use.

as you say there is no evidence concrete or otherwise that its harmful so why should we accept any restriction on its use ?

 

[turbo]

No,if you give them an inch they will take a mile

 

[Gong Farmer]

Well being in the NE of Scotland it would be a disaster for us

I was going to say, try suggesting this to Northumbrian farmers.