What will the no tillers do ?

Discussion in 'Direct Drilling Crops & Agronomy' started by warksfarmer, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. Simon C

    Simon C Member

    Essex Coast
    So assuming your maths is right, I think it is, the glyphosate is not coming out evenly with the water but has been held up somehow over winter and then released perhaps, when the soil starts to warm in the Spring.

    Anyway, glyphosate is in the water everywhere, therefore it is getting into the plants and ,must also be in all the food that we produce. The only argument that we can use is that it is in such minute quantities that it can't have any effect. The problem I have with this is that if people are consuming tiny amounts with everything they eat, there could be an accumulative effect, where the body can't process it and has to stack it up somewhere. Pregnant mothers do this by passing anything they can't deal with onto the foetus, which is why unborn babies are so vulnerable to any harmful substances. (Thalidomide).

    The other thing is the continuous drip, drip effect on the gut biology. We know that like any medically prescribed antibiotic, a good dose of glyphosate can decimate much of our digestive bacteria which will then later recover, but what if it is always present in our food, surly over a period of time our finely balanced gut biology is going to be modified in some way. This has serious implications with regard to our immune system and mental health.

    I am afraid going around shouting GLYPHOSATEISVITAL at anyone who will listen is not going to win the argument and stop them banning it. We have to address the serious issues and come up with a solution, hence my attempt at getting it broken down more quickly in the soil.
    David_A, York, martian and 4 others like this.
  2. Jason

    Jason Member

    South West
    Very interesting stuff....

    I see from your results that the detection levels for other ai's are very significantly lower.

    However I am concerned by the ramifications of this general ethos of 'glyphosate (or AMPA) is in the water therefore it's in the plant and so it's in the food and through a drip effect is damaging people's health'.

    Surely the logical conclusion of this is that ultimately we should be growing organically as the presence of any of these chemicals (much smaller amounts but still drip drip drip) is also potentially dangerous?

    Or is it the comparatively higher 'dose' re glyphosate that is the perceived issue here? If so I would suggest that any such dose consideration would be at odds with the hazard based regime employed by European regulators...

    In a nutshell glyphosate is either 'dangerous' and under the hazard based agenda should and will be banned irrespective. Or we are considering cumulative dose and so risk assessing its use in a different way? This is a very different calculation and does not fit the current protocol.

    Personally I'm as keen as the next chap to avoid chemicals entering my body unnecessarily and eat a considered diet. However I am also mindful of the air many many millions of people breathe and its atrocious chemical makeup. This is one of several 'elephants in the room' in my opinion re declining health in the western world. Minuscule detections of Ag-Chem (with thus far no proven health effects) in our food simply pales by comparison to this day in day out inhalation exposure to known killers.
  3. even if we ban glyphosate it is in the food that is imported if it can get from soil to seed which needs testing for just assuming because it is in the soil water it is in the plant is not good science

    if we ban it on the basis that it is present in the food we will need to ban food produced with it
  4. Adeptandy

    Adeptandy Member

    Surely the important piece of information here is the Water Companies CAN clean it out easily and are therefore not that concerned about it, pity its not the same for the contraception pill, but I guess that won't be getting banned any time soon. :whistle:
    nonemouse and Steevo like this.
  5. Richard III

    Richard III Member

    CW5 Cheshire
    I've had a look around and found this :-


    It would appear that in 2015, out of 70 wheat samples tested 41 had no measurable levels of glyphosate and 19 did, but were below the maximum MRL. Is this glyphosate coming from the soil or pre harvest? My guess is most, if not all, could be accounted for by the latter.

    Doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about that glyphosate does in the soil, but we chuck an awful lot of other chemicals on too.
    fudge and SilliamWhale like this.
  6. York

    York Member

    just do your own research on the "half life" of Glyphosate, meaning how long it takes to "berak down" 50% of it and so on.
    It will be around for quite a while this topic.
    I'm by no means happy when I hear that the water people can take it out. Question remains: are they taking it out every where & always?
    Next question: as the effect of Glyphosate as beeing one of the strongest chelators is know what does that mean to nature & wild life?
    This is only a excample, the Glyphosate. We will see many more to come.
    SimonC, I'm absolutly with you: our goals should be to find solutions for the challenges we have OUTSIDE of "chemical sprays".
    The plow & heavy tillage I'm not even going near as beeing "a part" of the solution.
    Looking forward to discuss this "alternatives" at Agritechnica. When & where will be announced on my web site.

    p.s. @Jim Bullock : 3 teespoon of Vit C & 35mg of Zi will "make you jump" out of bed within 2 days. Method used in multiple cases & times. So far never been a failure.
    Simon C and Jim Bullock like this.
  7. Simon C

    Simon C Member

    Essex Coast
    Ok @York, I've done a bit of homework on this.

    Half life of glyphosate is anything from 30 to 140 days, so even after four and a half months, half of the original application could still be in the soil, this will be dependent on temperature, moisture and abundance of the right bacteria to break it down. Glyphosate molecules are held on the clay particles but are competitive with phosphate and in a straight fight, phosphate will dominate for the attachment site. What this means is that if an application of P coincides with a glyphosate spray, it will be tied up first and leave the glypho free and dissolved in the soil water. Without much P around, all the glypho will be tied to the clay where it will be gradually "eaten" by bacteria.

    In my case where we are finding glyphosate in the water in the Spring, it would seem that it has been held on the clay all winter and not broken down very quickly because of the low temperatures, and then released as the soil warms. presumable by being pushed off by available phosphate. Trouble is I haven't applied any P for 20 years but I am never short on soil or tissue tests, so I must have a pretty good natural cycling system going on which is making the P available when it is needed as the soil warms and crops start to re-grow.

    I still don't see how glyphosate cannot be in the plants if it is in the water, roots take up water with all their nutrient requirements in solution. They don't have a way of picking and choosing what comes in unless all their needs are supplied by mycorrhizae, in which case there is good control of nutrients in the correct ratios and avoidance of anything detrimental.

    Three more water tests attached, one is from a neighbour's ditch which is under a full deep cultivation system.

    Attached Files:

  8. Adeptandy

    Adeptandy Member

    Just curious, are you in a soft water area, as just putting Glyphosate with water here its half life is supposedly reached in 10-15 mins in the sprayer :scratchhead:
  9. shakerator

    shakerator Member

    How did the latter happen do you think ?
  10. Simon C

    Simon C Member

    Essex Coast
    No idea but it does call into question how accurate the tests are.
    Pedders and shakerator like this.
  11. shakerator

    shakerator Member

    So much for the EU's 0.1ppb "precautionary principle". I bet false positives are rife, and the methods not as cut and dried as we have been led to believe
    Steevo likes this.
  12. Simon Chiles

    Simon Chiles DD Moderator

    That was the conclusion I came to.
  13. what the governments of eu countries that are abstaining or voting against the use of glyphosate want is for the eu commission to reautherise it on appeal and then they can say to their greens we did every thing we could it was the eu

    if it is banned I believe the problem for notill will be perennial weeds
    black grass can be reduced to non yield reducing levels with a rotation and a contact herbicide such as reglone
    but long term couch crainsbill rosebay willow herb creeping thistle are weeds that will be harder to control without cultivations in spring crops and after beans
    Richard III likes this.
  14. Adeptandy

    Adeptandy Member

    .....and now they're after Nitrates according to the radio this morning :facepalm:
    chaffcutter likes this.
  15. Steevo

    Steevo Member

    If only we all went on strike and decided to leave all fields fallow because there’s little point trying to grow crops at loss making levels with no tools to control weeds/promote yield.
  16. Adeptandy

    Adeptandy Member

    Think they want us back to the stereotypical farmer with a scythe, a hoe and the horse :whistle:
  17. Steevo

    Steevo Member

    The thing is the public don’t see any change in their daily lives as a result of these things....thus support them. Same with most of the “projects” on Countryfile. If they are told it helps nature and is no skin off their nose then great. What is better than getting someone else to do the good deeds so you don’t have to make the effort or lose out yourself.

    Ban cigarettes?! You’re having a laugh!

    Stop me driving me car?! No way!

    Make me pay more for food because the farmer isn’t able to produce the 2p value of wheat in bread at a profit?! I can’t afford it what with my sky tv, PCP car, credit card bills, sofa finance, gym membership etc payments all going out each month. It’s expensive enough getting three takeaways each week as it is!
    Bankville, Colin, rob1 and 2 others like this.
  18. Shutesy

    Shutesy Moderator

  19. Will Blackburn

    Why is it farmers say N is essential for productivity, is that going to become debatable?

    We as an industry are desperate for some food inflation to turn these debates round.
  20. Colin

    Colin Member

    Some form of N is necessary, it either comes from a bag, legumes or a coos erse.
    David_A and Renaultman like this.

Share This Page