snipe
Member
- Location
- west yorkshire
I agree with this in one respect, if it was a choice between not applying it pre harvest or lossing it altogether I’d be happy to do that and adjust my agronomy a little. On the other hand if we volunteer stopped using glyphosate pre harvest on safety grounds would that look like the industry think there are health concerns around glyphosate which may lead to an own goal and a100%ban.The way I see it if we are to keep Glyphosate then we should ALL should be looking to reduce the chances of it being picked up in our end product . That in itself takes away one point of argument of it being found in the food chain .
The less the use on naked grain crops the less chance of it being found .
I am not thick to say there are not times when it would have to be used to clear up bad grass weed problems . All I'm trying to say is to think that if you want to have a chemical in the armoury then think about its use .
Residues of glyphosate sprayed onto a naked grain (barley)14 days before harvest are a lot more likely to found on the grain than residues from the chems use on stubbles .
A few green grains from tramlines soon wither up in the store and most time the sprayer itself rolls them down . So why not just run a tractor up the tramline and save a few quid on chems .
Glyphosate is on very thin ice as it is and when its gone the new alternatives will be very costly that's for sure .
Waiting a little longer for crop to ripen off a bit more evenly isn't the end of the world .