"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:
So it may depend on the amount of phosphate present. Very fertile
may have a lot and therefore it is not adsorbed.
I bet the effect was at a trivial level, otherwise, since glyphosate is
on a truly vast scale, its deleterious effects would have made
visible on a macroscopic scale, via, for example, reduced crop sizes.
I remember using glyphosate (Roundup) to kill a nasty lawn, after the
grass was dead I simply raked the soil, no new soil added, and re sowed
with dwarf ryegrass. Apart from needing to scare the birds we had no
problems. At the time we lived 300m from the sea on a reclaimed salt
marsh that had been market gardens. So very fertile, highly sandy soil.
If glyphosate was as persistant as claimed under such circumstances why
did my new lawn come up fine?
I used to live on the Bagshot sand. I killed a has-been lawn with two
applications of glyphosate and raked up the dry stuff after some weeks. I
immediately resowed the patch, without even attempting to cultivate the
soil. Within a few months I had a luxurious new lawn. ( I did start
feeding it after it had got off to a start).
I simply cannot understand why folk continue to bring up negligible second
order effects ascribable to the use of glyphosate, except if they do it in
order to grind axes.