What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
"Roundup Ultra 3000"?

"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
news:446c9a0d$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
> "Roundup Ultra 3000"?

Googling reveals one is marketed by Monsanto and the other by Scott.

Presumably the original patent on glyphosate has expired
and they all make their own formulations with extra "magic
ingredients". So as to make you choose theirs over the
competition.

Scott's Website is pretty uninformative but from a quick look at
the Monsanto website Biactive has better sufacents, which at a
guess means it adheres to the plant better. Which it does using
two different chemicals.

Or to quote the website

<quote>

- "two adjuvants. Alone they offer excellent benefits, but in
combination the synergistic effect of these two adjuvant partners
ensures an outstanding perfomance.

< quote >

Which makes it worth at least £20 a bottle, if not more IMO.

<quote>

" Novel technology
Roundup Pro Biactive was developed following many years of
exhaustive field and laboratory testing of a new surfactant
system known as Biactivator adjuvant technology.

Unique Biactive formulation gets more glyphosate into the plant"

<quote>

http://www.monsanto-ag.co.uk/layout/industrial/glyphosate.as p


The standard formulation probably has a greater tendency to run off the
leaf surface, stems and plant tissue generally.

Maybe its thicker as well, although not using cornflour
presumably.


michael adams

....

"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
news:446c9a0d$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
> "Roundup Ultra 3000"?

Googling reveals one is marketed by Monsanto and the other by Scott.

Presumably the original patent on glyphosate has expired
and they all make their own formulations with extra "magic
ingredients". So as to make you choose theirs over the
competition.

Stop press: apparently they're both pro-biactive.

<quote>

Roundup Ultra 3000 1ltr
Weedkiller. Unique biactive formulation quickly penetrates
the waxy surface of the weed's leaves enabling rapid absorption
of the active ingredients, thereby giving improved rainfastness
and reliability. Apply by spray or watering can. 1ltr covers up
to 3000 square mtrs. Contains concentrated Glyphosphate.
http://www.interiorlandscaping.co.uk/pest.htm

<quote>

Maybe "Roundup" like "Growmore" is a generic name whose
right awere allowed to lapse.

...
michael adams

....

"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
news:446c9a0d$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
> "Roundup Ultra 3000"?

3rd time lucky?

Ultra is definitely more concentrated compared with bio
at least. And works out cheaper as well.

<quote>


Roundup Ultra 3000 1ltr

1ltr covers up to 3000 square mtrs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Contains concentrated Glyphosphate. £40.62 ex VAT £47.73 inc VAT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Bio Glyphosate Concentrate 1ltr
Tough, systemic weedkiller for the control of docks,nettles, plantains,
thistles, willowherbs, speedwells, grasses and many more.

1ltr treats 400 sq mtrs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Contains glyphosate. MAPP 09242 £11.65 ex VAT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

</ quote>

http://www.interiorlandscaping.co.uk/pest.htm




I'll get me coat

michael adams

michael adams wrote:
> "Chris Bacon" wrote...
>>What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
>>"Roundup Ultra 3000"?
>
> 3rd time lucky?
>
> Ultra is definitely more concentrated compared with bio
> at least. And works out cheaper as well.

I actually meant "Roundup Biactive" rather than "Bio", although
the information on "Bio Glyphosate" is useful - thank you. I
don't think they're the same animal.

"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
news:446cc272$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> michael adams wrote:
> > "Chris Bacon" wrote...
> >>What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
> >>"Roundup Ultra 3000"?
> >
> > 3rd time lucky?
> >
> > Ultra is definitely more concentrated compared with bio
> > at least. And works out cheaper as well.
>
> I actually meant "Roundup Biactive" rather than "Bio",

That was inncluded in the first post -


"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
news:446c9a0d$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> What's the difference between "Roundup Pro Biactive" and
> "Roundup Ultra 3000"?

Googling reveals one is marketed by Monsanto and the other by Scott.

Presumably the original patent on glyphosate has expired
and they all make their own formulations with extra "magic
ingredients". So as to make you choose theirs over the
competition.

Scott's Website is pretty uninformative but from a quick look at
the Monsanto website Biactive has better sufacents, which at a
guess means it adheres to the plant better. Which it does using
two different chemicals.

Or to quote the website

<quote>

- "two adjuvants. Alone they offer excellent benefits, but in
combination the synergistic effect of these two adjuvant partners
ensures an outstanding perfomance.

< quote >

Which makes it worth at least £20 a bottle, if not more IMO.

<quote>

" Novel technology
Roundup Pro Biactive was developed following many years of
exhaustive field and laboratory testing of a new surfactant
system known as Biactivator adjuvant technology.

Unique Biactive formulation gets more glyphosate into the plant"

<quote>

http://www.monsanto-ag.co.uk/layout/industrial/glyphosate.as p


The standard formulation probably has a greater tendency to run off the
leaf surface, stems and plant tissue generally.

Maybe its thicker as well, although not using cornflour
presumably.


michael adams

....















although
> the information on "Bio Glyphosate" is useful - thank you. I
> don't think they're the same animal.

michael adams wrote:
> "Chris Bacon" wrote
>> I actually meant "Roundup Biactive" rather than "Bio",
>
> That was inncluded in the first post -

I did not see the that, but I've googleded - thanks.

Glyphosphate ...

A YEAR ago, Colonia Loma Senes was just another rural backwater in the
north of Argentina. But that was before the toxic cloud arrived. "The
poison got blown onto our plots and into our houses," recalls local
farmer Sandoval Filemon. "Straight away our eyes started smarting. The
children's bare legs came out in rashes." The following morning the
village awoke to a scene of desolation. "Almost all of our crops were
badly damaged. I couldn't believe my eyes," says Sandoval's wife,
Eugenia. Over the next few days and weeks chickens and pigs died, and
sows and nanny goats gave birth to dead or deformed young. Months later
banana trees were deformed and stunted and were still not bearing
edible fruit.

The villagers quickly pointed the finger at a neighbouring farm whose
tenants were growing genetically modified soya, engineered to be
resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. A month later, agronomists from
the nearby National University of Formosa visited the scene and
confirmed the villagers' suspicions. The researchers concluded that the
neighbouring farmers, like thousands of others growing GM soya in
Argentina, had been forced to take drastic action against resistant
weeds and had carelessly drenched the land - and nearby Colonia Loma
Senes - with a mixture of powerful herbicides.

To read further ...

http://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/04/289323.html?c=on#c91 824

La Puce wrote:
> Glyphosphate ...
>
> A YEAR ago, Colonia Loma Senes was just another rural backwater in the
> north of Argentina. But that was before the toxic cloud arrived.

The article does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate. It
does point to lots of issues with genetically modified plants
and their cultivation.

Chris Bacon wrote:
> La Puce wrote:
> > Glyphosphate ...
> >
> > A YEAR ago, Colonia Loma Senes was just another rural backwater in the
> > north of Argentina. But that was before the toxic cloud arrived.
>
> The article does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate. It
> does point to lots of issues with genetically modified plants
> and their cultivation.

You then haven't read the article.

La Puce wrote:
> Chris Bacon wrote:
>> La Puce wrote:
>>> Glyphosphate ...
>>>
>>> A YEAR ago, Colonia Loma Senes was just another rural backwater in the
>>> north of Argentina. But that was before the toxic cloud arrived.
>> The article does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate. It
>> does point to lots of issues with genetically modified plants
>> and their cultivation.
>
> You then haven't read the article.

"Oh yes I have!".

It does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate.

Chris Bacon wrote:
> "Oh yes I have!".
> It does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate.

What does it says then, perhaps it was a toxic cloud of custard? GM
farming uses intensive use of herbicides. If you want to be silly with
me, then so be it but I will not carry on the conversation. But if
you're not I just hope I will make change your mind in the use of
chemicals.

In Colonia Loma Senes they saw a toxic cloud made out of herbicides.
The herbicides they use has glyphosate, altrazine, picloram etc. mix.
Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
pesticides that British amateur gardeners keep bying for their nice
green lawn which includes:- ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and weed
killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
TUMBLEWEED, etc. as explained to Judith a couple of days ago. (source
Paula).

Also glyphosate readily "nitrosates" to form a new compound called
nitrosoglyphosate, which is known to cause tumours. Nitrosation occurs
in the human stomach by reaction with the nitrate in normal human
saliva. Nice innit. (source BDAA)

A mixture of picloram and 2,4-D, known as Agent White during the
Vietnam War, was sprayed by the US military on those plants that
survived the initial onslaught of Agent Orange (2,4,5-T and 2,4-D).
That mixture is sold in Australia as Tordon.

In the U.S. in 1993, university studies declared glyphosate the third
most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural
workers, and to be the most
commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape
maintenance workers.

Don't buy these products. Full stop.

La Puce wrote:
> Chris Bacon wrote:
>>> [Relevant stuff snipped by La Puce, see earlier posts.]
>>"Oh yes I have!".
>>It does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate.
>
> What does it says then, perhaps it was a toxic cloud of custard?

I don't know, but it does not say it was glyphosphate.

> GM
> farming uses intensive use of herbicides. If you want to be silly with
> me, then so be it but I will not carry on the conversation.

Now you are being silly. Quote me, from the article, where it says "had
carelessly drenched ... with glyphosphate. You can't, so I expect I
won't hear anything more about it.

"La Puce" <helene [at] rudlin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1148055718.255557.55590 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris Bacon wrote:
> > "Oh yes I have!".
> > It does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate.
>
> What does it says then, perhaps it was a toxic cloud of custard? GM
> farming uses intensive use of herbicides. If you want to be silly with
> me, then so be it but I will not carry on the conversation. But if
> you're not I just hope I will make change your mind in the use of
> chemicals.
>

....

Surely the lesson to be learned there, is if you're going to
use glyphosphate as a spot weedkiller in the garden, more especilly
in a suburban garden, don't try and and apply it using a crop
spraying aeroplane. More especially in windy conditions.

Which seems sensible enough advice to me.


michael adams







> In Colonia Loma Senes they saw a toxic cloud made out of herbicides.
> The herbicides they use has glyphosate, altrazine, picloram etc. mix.
> Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
> pesticides that British amateur gardeners keep bying for their nice
> green lawn which includes:- ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and weed
> killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
> TUMBLEWEED, etc. as explained to Judith a couple of days ago. (source
> Paula).
>
> Also glyphosate readily "nitrosates" to form a new compound called
> nitrosoglyphosate, which is known to cause tumours. Nitrosation occurs
> in the human stomach by reaction with the nitrate in normal human
> saliva. Nice innit. (source BDAA)
>
> A mixture of picloram and 2,4-D, known as Agent White during the
> Vietnam War, was sprayed by the US military on those plants that
> survived the initial onslaught of Agent Orange (2,4,5-T and 2,4-D).
> That mixture is sold in Australia as Tordon.
>
> In the U.S. in 1993, university studies declared glyphosate the third
> most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural
> workers, and to be the most
> commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape
> maintenance workers.
>
> Don't buy these products. Full stop.
>

"La Puce" <helene [at] rudlin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1148055718.255557.55590 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris Bacon wrote:
>> "Oh yes I have!".
>> It does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate.
>
> What does it says then, perhaps it was a toxic cloud of custard? GM
> farming uses intensive use of herbicides. If you want to be silly with
> me, then so be it but I will not carry on the conversation. But if
> you're not I just hope I will make change your mind in the use of
> chemicals.
>
> In Colonia Loma Senes they saw a toxic cloud made out of herbicides.
> The herbicides they use has glyphosate, altrazine, picloram etc. mix.
> Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
> pesticides that British amateur gardeners keep bying for their nice
> green lawn which includes:- ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and weed
> killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
> TUMBLEWEED, etc. as explained to Judith a couple of days ago. (source
> Paula).
>
> Also glyphosate readily "nitrosates" to form a new compound called
> nitrosoglyphosate, which is known to cause tumours. Nitrosation occurs
> in the human stomach by reaction with the nitrate in normal human
> saliva. Nice innit. (source BDAA)
>
> A mixture of picloram and 2,4-D, known as Agent White during the
> Vietnam War, was sprayed by the US military on those plants that
> survived the initial onslaught of Agent Orange (2,4,5-T and 2,4-D).
> That mixture is sold in Australia as Tordon.
>
> In the U.S. in 1993, university studies declared glyphosate the third
> most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural
> workers, and to be the most
> commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape
> maintenance workers.
>
> Don't buy these products. Full stop.
>

A fair bit of bad chemistry there La Puce!
You are quoting and misquoting from very dodgy provenances.

"La Puce" <helene [at] rudlin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1148055718.255557.55590 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> snip<
> Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
> pesticides that British amateur gardeners keep bying for their nice
> green lawn which includes:- ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and weed
> killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
> TUMBLEWEED, etc. as explained to Judith a couple of days ago. (source
> Paula).
<snip>

I wouldn't use it on my "green lawn" as glyphosate kills grass.

La Puce wrote:
> Chris Bacon wrote:
> > "Oh yes I have!".
> > It does not say the "toxic cloud" was glyphosphate.
>
> What does it says then, perhaps it was a toxic cloud of custard?

On the basis of the article that you have cited and given the
toxicology of the various active compounds involved it seems most
likely that the toxic cloud was a mixture of paraquat and atrazine
(both nasty toxic compounds) and any other old cheap and nasty generic
broad spectrum weedkillers the landowners had lying around.

They were almost certainly tryng to kill glyphosate resistant weeds.
Glyphosate resistance being one of the main threats to this short
sighted Roundup(TM) ready GM lazy farmer tactic.

> GM
> farming uses intensive use of herbicides. If you want to be silly with
> me, then so be it but I will not carry on the conversation. But if
> you're not I just hope I will make change your mind in the use of
> chemicals.

Glyphosate itself in pure form is about as toxic as caffeine in coffee.
I would be more worried about the surfactants.

I am no fan of Roundup Ready GM produce because it encourages farmers
to be lazy and then hit crops with an overdose of herbicide. But the
glyphosate is almost certainly blameless in this particular instance.

> In Colonia Loma Senes they saw a toxic cloud made out of herbicides.
> The herbicides they use has glyphosate, altrazine, picloram etc. mix.

Not all synthetic chemicals are bad. Glyphosate is astonishingly benign
in mammals considering how absolutely deadly it is to green plants.
Derivatives of it are also very deadly to the malaria parasite and are
being screened for that application too.

> Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
> pesticides that British amateur gardeners keep bying for their nice
> green lawn which includes:- ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and weed
> killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
> TUMBLEWEED, etc. as explained to Judith a couple of days ago. (source
> Paula).

This is complete and utter bollocks. Only the terminally stupid would
apply glyphosate to a lawn. Grass is exquisitely sensitive to the
effects of glyphosate at a level where if you walk over a lawn with
boots that are wet with glyphosate overspray every footfall will show
in outline of dead grass (or worse if you had it on the soles of the
boots).

Broadleaf specific lawn weedkillers are much nastier than glyphosate
but are just about acceptable for spot weeding. I cringe everytime I
see that blasted animated frog/hedgehog/ladybird dance around on the
chemically greened lawn advert.

We are getting almost as bad as the Merkins - a land where "TruGreen
ChemLawn" is a product franchise brandname and a *selling* point. I kid
you not.

> Don't buy these products. Full stop.

If you must use a chemical weedkiller then glyphosate is about as safe
as you can reasonbly get. All I would ask is that you buy generic and
not the Monsanto product.

Almost everything else is more dangerous. Even grubbing the weeds out
manually by hand risks catching tetanus from the soil. And burning them
OrganicallyTM) will produce dangerous dioxins (shock! horror!). There
is no free lunch.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

<|||newspam||| [at] nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
> La Puce wrote:
<snip>
>> Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
>> pesticides that British amateur gardeners keep bying for their nice
>> green lawn which includes:- ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and
>> weed killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
>> TUMBLEWEED, etc. as explained to Judith a couple of days ago. (source
>> Paula).
>
> This is complete and utter bollocks. Only the terminally stupid would
> apply glyphosate to a lawn. Grass is exquisitely sensitive to the
> effects of glyphosate at a level where if you walk over a lawn with
> boots that are wet with glyphosate overspray every footfall will show
> in outline of dead grass (or worse if you had it on the soles of the
> boots).
>
> Broadleaf specific lawn weedkillers are much nastier than glyphosate
> but are just about acceptable for spot weeding. I cringe everytime I
> see that blasted animated frog/hedgehog/ladybird dance around on the
> chemically greened lawn advert.
>
> We are getting almost as bad as the Merkins - a land where "TruGreen
> ChemLawn" is a product franchise brandname and a *selling* point. I
> kid you not.
>
>> Don't buy these products. Full stop.
>
> If you must use a chemical weedkiller then glyphosate is about as safe
> as you can reasonbly get. All I would ask is that you buy generic and
> not the Monsanto product.
>
> Almost everything else is more dangerous. Even grubbing the weeds out
> manually by hand risks catching tetanus from the soil. And burning
> them OrganicallyTM) will produce dangerous dioxins (shock! horror!).
> There is no free lunch.

A voice of sanity, thank heavens.

It's probably a lot more eco-unfriendly to use a computer, given the
resources used up in their manufacture and the pollution caused by
subsequent disposal, than to spot treat a few hardcore weeds with
glyphosate when needs must. It's interesting how many of the Anti All
Manmade Chemicals Regardless brigade still maintain internet
connections.

--
Sue

Janet Baraclough wrote:
[...]
> The article you quote, says
>
> "The villagers quickly pointed the finger at a neighbouring farm whose
> tenants were growing genetically modified soya, ENGINEERED TO BE
> RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE. A month later, agronomists from the nearby
> National University of Formosa visited the scene and confirmed the
> villagers' suspicions. The researchers concluded that the neighbouring
> farmers, like thousands of others growing GM soya in Argentina, had been
> forced to take drastic action AGAINST RESISTANT WEEDS and had carelessly
> drenched the land - and nearby Colonia Loma Senes - with A MIXTURE OF
> powerful herbicides "
>
> The implication in the above is that the weeds had become resistant
> TO GLYPHOSATE, and therefore the farmers used something DIFFERENT , "a
> mixture of powerful herbicides". IOW not glyphosate.
>
Interesting, though. I thought one of the claims for glyphosate was
that non-GM plants would not develop resistant strains. (Though I
believe there was some evidence of acquired resistance somewhere.)

--
Mike.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"La Puce" <helene [at] rudlin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1148046835.706573.275430 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Glyphosphate ...
>
> A YEAR ago, Colonia Loma Senes was just another rural backwater in the
> north of Argentina. But that was before the toxic cloud arrived. "The
> poison got blown onto our plots and into our houses," recalls local
> farmer Sandoval Filemon. "Straight away our eyes started smarting. The
> children's bare legs came out in rashes." The following morning the
> village awoke to a scene of desolation. "Almost all of our crops were
> badly damaged. I couldn't believe my eyes," says Sandoval's wife,
> Eugenia. Over the next few days and weeks chickens and pigs died, and
> sows and nanny goats gave birth to dead or deformed young. Months later
> banana trees were deformed and stunted and were still not bearing
> edible fruit.
>
> The villagers quickly pointed the finger at a neighbouring farm whose
> tenants were growing genetically modified soya, engineered to be
> resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. A month later, agronomists from
> the nearby National University of Formosa visited the scene and
> confirmed the villagers' suspicions. The researchers concluded that the
> neighbouring farmers, like thousands of others growing GM soya in
> Argentina, had been forced to take drastic action against resistant
> weeds and had carelessly drenched the land - and nearby Colonia Loma
> Senes - with a mixture of powerful herbicides.
>
> To read further ...
>
> http://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/04/289323.html?c=on#c91 824

apart from the disgusting actions of the 'neighbouring farm' environmental
fascists, from reading the article it strikes me as a combination of factors
including short sighted agricultural practises, the monopoly power of a
global corporation and the pursuit of profit and a failure of the (what
appears to be a very) free market.

rob

In message <1148077186.304540.203650 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Mike
Lyle <mike_lyle_uk [at] yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>Janet Baraclough wrote:
>[...]
>> The article you quote, says
>>
>> "The villagers quickly pointed the finger at a neighbouring farm whose
>> tenants were growing genetically modified soya, ENGINEERED TO BE
>> RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE. A month later, agronomists from the nearby
>> National University of Formosa visited the scene and confirmed the
>> villagers' suspicions. The researchers concluded that the neighbouring
>> farmers, like thousands of others growing GM soya in Argentina, had been
>> forced to take drastic action AGAINST RESISTANT WEEDS and had carelessly
>> drenched the land - and nearby Colonia Loma Senes - with A MIXTURE OF
>> powerful herbicides "
>>
>> The implication in the above is that the weeds had become resistant
>> TO GLYPHOSATE, and therefore the farmers used something DIFFERENT , "a
>> mixture of powerful herbicides". IOW not glyphosate.
>>
>Interesting, though. I thought one of the claims for glyphosate was
>that non-GM plants would not develop resistant strains. (Though I
>believe there was some evidence of acquired resistance somewhere.)
>
Some plants are naturally resistant. In Canada Malva pusilla has become
a serious pest in fields planted with RoundUp resistant crops, and there
is concern about Malva parviflora in Australia. Epilobium is another
genus with resistant species.

In other plants resistance can be a result of selection, or of
hybridisation with the resistant crop. I don't think the RoundUp
resistant cotton or maize are likely to be problems in themselves, but
RoundUp resistant Brassicas don't strike me as a particularly good idea.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

michael adams wrote:
> "La Puce" wrote
>>[ill effects from herbicides]
> Surely the lesson to be learned there, is if you're going to
> use glyphosphate as a spot weedkiller in the garden, more especilly
> in a suburban garden, don't try and and apply it using a crop
> spraying aeroplane. More especially in windy conditions.
>
> Which seems sensible enough advice to me.

I should think so.. I have a fairly large area including J. Knotweed
and G. Elder to deal with, so I will be using a backpack, hopefully
on a cool-ish day with no wind!

Chris Bacon wrote:
> Now you are being silly. Quote me, from the article, where it says "had
> carelessly drenched ... with glyphosphate. You can't, so I expect I
> won't hear anything more about it.

It said a mixture of powerful herbicides (quote below). Now I'm trying
to find out the exact components of the mix and I bet you a pint or
three that it had glyphosate in it. On?!

"The villagers quickly pointed the finger at a neighbouring farm whose
tenants were growing genetically modified soya, engineered to be
resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. A month later, agronomists from
the nearby National University of Formosa visited the scene and
confirmed the villagers' suspicions. The researchers concluded that the
neighbouring farmers, like thousands of others growing GM soya in
Argentina, had been forced to take drastic action against resistant
weeds and had carelessly drenched the land - and nearby Colonia Loma
Senes - with a mixture of powerful herbicides."

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
> A fair bit of bad chemistry there La Puce!
> You are quoting and misquoting from very dodgy provenances.

:o) I must say I understand that Chris had had this conversation in the
past, with Paula, and it is interesting to see that there is still a
reluctance to completely stop using chemicals. From where I stand, I
cannot understand that we are feeding ourselves with food that is being
carried from far away on airplanes, exploiting poor communities,
destroying their communities in the process and their lives by using
chemicals, throwing away surplus food when millions of people starve
etc. when it is more and more obvious that we don't benefit at all from
this. I'm perhaps naive with chemistry, sure, but I know what's good
for us and what is not. And by doing our bit we can make changes.

|||newspam||| [at] nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

(snip very sensible post to which I agree entirely)

> Broadleaf specific lawn weedkillers are much nastier than glyphosate
> but are just about acceptable for spot weeding. I cringe everytime I
> see that blasted animated frog/hedgehog/ladybird dance around on the
> chemically greened lawn advert.

It is indeed the mix of chemicals that worries me. What piss me off is
that it is sold under bio degredable product as being the 'only'
component in the mix when it is in fact one of many other ingredients.
It is perhaps true in the long run that it will desapear in the soil
after 90 days, but the destruction of gardens habitat in the process is
not told to the amateur gardeners. The farmers know, but not the
amateur gardeners. This is why I feel a total ban on these products is
the solution.

> We are getting almost as bad as the Merkins - a land where "TruGreen
> ChemLawn" is a product franchise brandname and a *selling* point. I kid
> you not.

LOL! Organic this and that sell - off course. But wouldn't you be more
happy to see your society getting rich doing the right thing than
getting rich destroying us all?

> > Don't buy these products. Full stop.
>
> If you must use a chemical weedkiller then glyphosate is about as safe
> as you can reasonbly get. All I would ask is that you buy generic and
> not the Monsanto product.

That is something which needs to be told and loudly too. But how?

> Almost everything else is more dangerous. Even grubbing the weeds out
> manually by hand risks catching tetanus from the soil. And burning them
> OrganicallyTM) will produce dangerous dioxins (shock! horror!). There
> is no free lunch.

Yes absolutely (I got poisoned 2 weeks ago and was severely sick -
didn't wash my hands and ate lunch on my friends plot ... Stupid I
know). I'm interested in box schemes, local farmers markets etc. and
more and more organic wholesalers are opening selling local products at
affordable prices. I am interested in large scale organic farming and
hope that one day each cities will be fed from local farming industries
working organically which in turn will stop the large import
food/flowers industries from abroad.

Sue wrote:
> A voice of sanity, thank heavens.

Definitely an interesting point but it is not conversation to just stop
at this. The world doesn't spin around listening to one voice only.

> It's probably a lot more eco-unfriendly to use a computer, given the
> resources used up in their manufacture and the pollution caused by
> subsequent disposal, than to spot treat a few hardcore weeds with
> glyphosate when needs must. It's interesting how many of the Anti All
> Manmade Chemicals Regardless brigade still maintain internet
> connections.

My company alone has saved hundreds of pounds in cutting out printing
and writing letters, disposing of poisonous toner and catridges from
photocopier and copier, sending mail by Royal Mail and other couriers
using the roads, which in turns stoped the use of transport with
flying, road use etc not to mention the use of paper and therefore the
reduction on tree cutting. We ask our clients if it is necessary for
them to print the emails we send them. We use recycling computer parts
organisations and donate old computers to local businesses. We've
donated perhaps 20 computers in this way since 1993. Our office is
entirely eco friendly as much as we can. Our shelves and desks are made
of crushed recycled plastic which we got ourselves from Germany. All
our paper is 100% recycled, the only one is the plotter paper and
tracing paper which sadly has not yet been invented (maybe someone is
ready this and will change this and make a fortune!).

I now use more and more cycling couriers when working locally and often
use friends and colleagues to deliver items when on their way home or
to work so that we minimise costs but also beleive it's a good way to
cut on pollution too. We almost all come to work cycling - to the
exception of two colleagues who lives in Huddersfield and Liverpool. I
beleive if we all do this, if we all try it, it will become second
nature and future generations will take it in their stride and will
find it ordinary practice. When we go on holidays, I am happy to give
extra days for travelling by train or boat, so that flying is not an
option.

What do you do Sue to contribute towards an ethical and ecological way
of living?

Chris Bacon wrote:
> Now you are being silly. Quote me, from the article, where it says "had
> carelessly drenched ... with glyphosphate. You can't, so I expect I
> won't hear anything more about it.

FOUND IT !!!

"If Argentina's soya revolution brought local economic benefits,
perhaps there would be less hostility. But the genius of Monsanto's
Roundup Ready soya is that it allows the crop to be farmed intensively
with minimal labour. Only one worker is needed for every 400 hectares
compared to more than 70 on a traditional citrus farm. By inserting a
special gene into the plant's DNA, Monsanto's scientists discovered
they could make it immune to a very powerful herbicide called
glyphosate. Farmers can then spray this over their crops once or twice
a year and everything but the soya is exterminated leaving the soya to
grow vigorously with highly profitable yields and little maintenance.
So more than 300,000 farmworkers have lost their jobs. Most head
towards the big cities like Buenos Aires or Salta to find work, but
with few skills they end up unemployed and homeless."

Full news below ...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,1342291, 00.html

In message <1148214504.929257.20660 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, La
Puce <helene [at] rudlin.co.uk> writes
>
>Chris Bacon wrote:
>> Now you are being silly. Quote me, from the article, where it says "had
>> carelessly drenched ... with glyphosphate. You can't, so I expect I
>> won't hear anything more about it.
>
>FOUND IT !!!
>
>"If Argentina's soya revolution brought local economic benefits,
>perhaps there would be less hostility. But the genius of Monsanto's
>Roundup Ready soya is that it allows the crop to be farmed intensively
>with minimal labour. Only one worker is needed for every 400 hectares
>compared to more than 70 on a traditional citrus farm. By inserting a
>special gene into the plant's DNA, Monsanto's scientists discovered
>they could make it immune to a very powerful herbicide called
>glyphosate. Farmers can then spray this over their crops once or twice
>a year and everything but the soya is exterminated leaving the soya to
>grow vigorously with highly profitable yields and little maintenance.
>So more than 300,000 farmworkers have lost their jobs. Most head
>towards the big cities like Buenos Aires or Salta to find work, but
>with few skills they end up unemployed and homeless."

That doesn't prove your case. The previous material you quoted wasn't
specific, but the implication was that the proximate problem was the use
of non-Glyphosate herbicides in response the proliferation of Glyphosate
resistant weeds in response to the overuse of Glyphosate.
>
>Full news below ...
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,1342291, 00.html
>

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
> That doesn't prove your case.

My case?! Blimey!

The previous material you quoted wasn't
> specific, but the implication was that the proximate problem was the use
> of non-Glyphosate herbicides in response the proliferation of Glyphosate
> resistant weeds in response to the overuse of Glyphosate.

You've just proved that the overuse of glyphosate in the first place as
produced the contamination and the desperate attempts to overcome this
problem now. Whole villages are moving into the cities because they are
now ruin and have no work.

If this is my case I'm resting it now.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Janet Baraclough wrote:
> LOL. Your posting history says you "need to" drive a large 4 by 4
> around town, and use your own doubledecker Routemaster bus for work and
> weekend trips.

Hello Janet. Long time ... I don't have a 4x4 but run a doblo on
biodiesel actually. Yes we did have a very old frontera bought from an
electrician in Leeds in 1996 and I missed it very much, still does, it
was I think the comfy seats and the height, but the doblo is near
enough the space we need for the kids, dogs, staff, equipment we carry
everyday.

Our Routemaster was indeed not very good - I agree entirely - but it
also runs on biodiesel. It carries up to 40 people, has exhibition
space, is a fantastic marketing tool and is absolutely great for going
camping and going on picnics with friends and kids. The only
inconvenient is that I can smell chips fat everywhere I go.

How's Aran?! I was in Edinburgh last week during the amazing glorious
sunny days we had. Couldn't have been in a more beautiful town really.
I'm really wondering if that rain will ever stop ...