In article ,
John Bachman wrote:

There have been misuses and overuse in the past. I am not familiar
with the operations of large, commercial farms, just small ones. My
experience is that the small farmers are very aware of the dangers of
overuse of any pesticide and pay close attention to their activities.
The introduction of IPM techniques has dramatically changed small farm
operations for the better.

John

Thanks for the honest answer.

How are small farms doing? Are you doing OK or just hanging on? I
thought small farmers were being run-over by large agri-corporations.
Have you found a niche market or do the corps just take-over the most
lucrative crops and, leave small farmers the marginal ones? Do you think
there is a future for small farms?

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

In article
,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Bill Rose" wrote in message
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What a silly response. I pointed out that we know NOTHING about these
chemicals. If I had all the answers, I'd be happy to share them.

Silly? Me? Well, probably:-)

I was referring to John's apparent faith in the text of advertising
spewed out by Monsanto to separate lazy "Earth Killers" from their
money. Considering it took three years, AFTER the mutagenic properties
expressed themselves in babies, to get Thalidomide off the market,

???? Bill McBride was the first Doctor to make the connection between
thalidomide and birth defects in 1961 and Persephone's post on Kelsey says
that thalidomide was taken off the market in 1961.

G'day Love,
shouldn't you be out feeding the chooks instead of coming in like a
bomb-thrower while I'm expounding? OK, OK, I'll take off the lamp shade
and be serious.

Lord, this takes me back a bit. Fortunately, I don't have to rely on the
little grey-cells any mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide .

Good on Bill McBride. I guess that everyone else was dead to the world.
The long and the short of it is that it should have never gotten to
market in the first place.

"It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost 50 countries under at least 40
(different) names . . ."

Then once released in 1957, it took these blobheads 3-4 more years to
figure out that from " 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were
born with severe malformities, . . .)
OK, so there is a bit of an over lap on the dates. If we just average
it, we are talking about about 7,000 babies with "extreme deformities",
and how many with just your average deformity?

"Before its release inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug's
safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had
taken thalidomide during their pregnancies."

Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. Your a good conch.

Scratch y'er crater,

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

In article , Persephone
wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:57:33 -0700, Bill Rose
wrote:


http://www.fda.gov/oashi/patrep/nih99.html#kelsey

Thanks for the citation.


Not surprising. Monsanto is an international crazed capitalist (as
opposed to progressive capitalist) monster of Biblical proportions.

In regard to extreme disregard to human suffering I'm not seeing much
difference.


A brief reference to Monsanto and water can be found on this site:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

which takes you directly to "Millions against Monsanto".
On the right side, go to "If you're talking about", and scroll down to
"Water Privatization".

The crimes of Monsanto on the above link are absolutely stupefying!
Wonder who their fellow-criminals in Congress might be...

Better than a double expresso.


All I want to do is swim in the non-chlorinated end of the pool.

Is that the end where they can't tell if you,uh, YOU know...?

No I don't know. Could you tastefully elucidate your drift?

Sometimes the urge is so, uh, urgent that I elucidate until I'm BLUE
in the pool...er...in the face...

Persephone

Then there was the time that the traveler called down to the front desk
and said,"I gotta' leak in my sink." The front desk said,"Go ahead."

Persephone, just so's you knows, I'm not going in the pool with YOU;-)

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:54:18 -0700, Bill Rose
wrote:

In article ,
John Bachman wrote:

There have been misuses and overuse in the past. I am not familiar
with the operations of large, commercial farms, just small ones. My
experience is that the small farmers are very aware of the dangers of
overuse of any pesticide and pay close attention to their activities.
The introduction of IPM techniques has dramatically changed small farm
operations for the better.

John

Thanks for the honest answer.

How are small farms doing? Are you doing OK or just hanging on? I
thought small farmers were being run-over by large agri-corporations.
Have you found a niche market or do the corps just take-over the most
lucrative crops and, leave small farmers the marginal ones? Do you think
there is a future for small farms?

I am not really a small farmer. I am a guy who runs a mini-farm as a
hobby. I like my hobbies to pay for themselves so I have some cash
crops for that purpose.

I am now in year two of a three year plan to move to garlic as the
cash crop. It is less labor intensive than some other crops
(raspberries was my start) and there are few growers here (New
Hampshire). So far it is looking pretty good.

I am able to visit small farms throughout the year, folks who are
larger than me and depend upon their farms for their livelihood - most
are organic. They are doing OK, not great but keeping their heads
above water. They find ways to increase revenue and adapt, adapt,
adapt - a great bunch of people.

You will not find their produce in the supermarket, farmer's markets
and stands on their farms are the principal outlets. Sadly, most
people do not experience produce produced locally.

I took some of my peaches to the gym where I work out and gave them
away. The reaction was incredible. Most people have never
experienced a fresh, ripe peach picked off the tree just a couple of
hours ago. They could not believe it and had never visited a farmer's
market. Some of them do now.

Being the sole proprieter and only worker on my parttime mini-farm I
cannot possibly go organic. But I can use IPM and do. Many of the
organic disciples think that I am a heathen because I use chemical
products where I deem them necessary. That's life, but I admit to
annoyance from time to time.

Good luck.

John

On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:38:59 -0400, John Bachman
wrote:


[...]

I am now in year two of a three year plan to move to garlic as the
cash crop. It is less labor intensive than some other crops
(raspberries was my start) and there are few growers here (New
Hampshire). So far it is looking pretty good.

[...]

Well, I sure hope you can undercut the Chinese g

I could not BELIEVE my eyes, the last few times I bought
garlic at the supermarket -- imported from CHINA??!!!
Is that insane, or what?

Persephone

On Sun, 20 May 2007 14:29:33 -0700, Persephone wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:38:59 -0400, John Bachman
wrote:


[...]

I am now in year two of a three year plan to move to garlic as the
cash crop. It is less labor intensive than some other crops
(raspberries was my start) and there are few growers here (New
Hampshire). So far it is looking pretty good.

[...]

Well, I sure hope you can undercut the Chinese g

I could not BELIEVE my eyes, the last few times I bought
garlic at the supermarket -- imported from CHINA??!!!
Is that insane, or what?

Yes, it is true. Most supermarket garlic is imported from China
impacting the California garlic growers.

No, I will not undercut them. But I will produce a better product.

I think that this is another niche that small time farmers can fill
but people have to get in the habit of buying from farmers markets.

John


John

"John Bachman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 14:29:33 -0700, Persephone wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:38:59 -0400, John Bachman
wrote:


[...]

I am now in year two of a three year plan to move to garlic as the
cash crop. It is less labor intensive than some other crops
(raspberries was my start) and there are few growers here (New
Hampshire). So far it is looking pretty good.

[...]

Well, I sure hope you can undercut the Chinese g

I could not BELIEVE my eyes, the last few times I bought
garlic at the supermarket -- imported from CHINA??!!!
Is that insane, or what?

Yes, it is true. Most supermarket garlic is imported from China
impacting the California garlic growers.

No, I will not undercut them. But I will produce a better product.


Good, because the garlic's getting pretty ugly lately.

"Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" wrote in
6.121:

Pambo forced Ook to post this at: rec.gardens:

Does anyone have any information on the usage of roundup in the yard
and garden? The information on the container indicates that it is not
toxic to most life forms. Other then eye irritation, it doesn't seem
to bother anything but plants, and even then it decomposes rapidly.
The bottle says you can spray, and then 3 days later plant a garden.

So - how good/bad/toxic is the stuff? Is it a good way to get rid of
unwanted plants, or should it be avoided at all costs?

Roundup has been my friend for many, many years. One has to be very
careful with it. Go exactly by the directions. The hardest for me is
finding a day with absolutely no breeze. The drift from the spray can
float around anywhere, including open windows. I use it on those PITA
violets but I don't spray them with it. I put some Roundup in a
styrofoam cup and brush a bit on the offending plant with one of those
cheapie paint sponge brushes. The brushes are dirt cheap and I pitch
the cup and brush afterwards. Good luck.

Michael


VIOLET SLAYER!!! UNCLEAN!! UNCLEAN!!!

Oh, Michael, how can you kill those marvelous little things? I'll have
to introduce you to Tincture of Violet and eating the flowers in your
salads which is so cool that people are in awe when they see them. And
then you can press/dry the flowers and make lovely gifts like candles and
stationary and soaps. Plus you can sugar the flowers for cake
decoration. It's a wonderful plant! And you kill them. Shame.
Shammmmmmmmmmmmmme. ;P

"FragileWarrior" wrote in message
...
"Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" wrote in
6.121:

Pambo forced Ook to post this at: rec.gardens:

Does anyone have any information on the usage of roundup in the yard
and garden? The information on the container indicates that it is not
toxic to most life forms. Other then eye irritation, it doesn't seem
to bother anything but plants, and even then it decomposes rapidly.
The bottle says you can spray, and then 3 days later plant a garden.

So - how good/bad/toxic is the stuff? Is it a good way to get rid of
unwanted plants, or should it be avoided at all costs?

Roundup has been my friend for many, many years. One has to be very
careful with it. Go exactly by the directions. The hardest for me is
finding a day with absolutely no breeze. The drift from the spray can
float around anywhere, including open windows. I use it on those PITA
violets but I don't spray them with it. I put some Roundup in a
styrofoam cup and brush a bit on the offending plant with one of those
cheapie paint sponge brushes. The brushes are dirt cheap and I pitch
the cup and brush afterwards. Good luck.

Michael


VIOLET SLAYER!!! UNCLEAN!! UNCLEAN!!!

Oh, Michael, how can you kill those marvelous little things? I'll have
to introduce you to Tincture of Violet and eating the flowers in your
salads which is so cool that people are in awe when they see them. And
then you can press/dry the flowers and make lovely gifts like candles and
stationary and soaps. Plus you can sugar the flowers for cake
decoration. It's a wonderful plant! And you kill them. Shame.
Shammmmmmmmmmmmmme. ;P


The same twits who spray for every damned "weed" would probably also have
the biggest mouths if they discovered their drinking water was measurably
and dangerously contaminated. They probably blame everyone but themselves.
It's interesting that compared to 30-40 years ago, homes and golf courses
are now the primary point sources for the majority of groundwater pollution.
These are big words and inconvenient concepts, though, so it's hard for
twits to even think about them.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
.121...
Pambo forced "JoeSpareBedroom" to post this at:
rec.gardens:


The same twits who spray for every damned "weed" would probably also
have the biggest mouths if they discovered their drinking water was
measurably and dangerously contaminated. They probably blame everyone
but themselves. It's interesting that compared to 30-40 years ago,
homes and golf courses are now the primary point sources for the
majority of groundwater pollution. These are big words and
inconvenient concepts, though, so it's hard for twits to even think
about them.

I'm not sure who or what you are responding to. Are you accusing me of
being a twit that sprays for every weed?

Michael


I know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary, especially in the
food NG, but in this one regard (chemicals), you are being a twit. Sorry,
Michael. It's a cop out to say "I just use a small amount of chemicals". As
I mentioned above, homeowners are one of the two largest sources of
groundwater pollution. That's bad, and there is no room to debate it. Your
kitchen is yours to spend a fortune on. But outdoors, the things you do
don't stay on your property.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:13:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
86.121...
Pambo forced "JoeSpareBedroom" to post this at:
rec.gardens:


The same twits who spray for every damned "weed" would probably also
have the biggest mouths if they discovered their drinking water was
measurably and dangerously contaminated. They probably blame everyone
but themselves. It's interesting that compared to 30-40 years ago,
homes and golf courses are now the primary point sources for the
majority of groundwater pollution. These are big words and
inconvenient concepts, though, so it's hard for twits to even think
about them.

I'm not sure who or what you are responding to. Are you accusing me of
being a twit that sprays for every weed?

Michael


I know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary, especially in the
food NG, but in this one regard (chemicals), you are being a twit. Sorry,
Michael. It's a cop out to say "I just use a small amount of chemicals".
As
I mentioned above, homeowners are one of the two largest sources of
groundwater pollution. That's bad, and there is no room to debate it. Your
kitchen is yours to spend a fortune on. But outdoors, the things you do
don't stay on your property.

There are non-twits, twits, and then there are Uber twits. You joe are in
the
third catagory. Roundup does not enter the ground water supply when
applied as
directed. Likewise your comments do not eneter the inbtellegent acatagory
when
read as written.


Right. Unlike all other materials in the universe, Roundup vanishes
completely without a trace of either the product or its ingredients. How
could I have been so wrong?

In article ,
Rick wrote:

On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:13:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
Pambo forced "JoeSpareBedroom" to post this at:
rec.gardens:


The same twits who spray for every damned "weed" would probably also
have the biggest mouths if they discovered their drinking water was
measurably and dangerously contaminated. They probably blame everyone
but themselves. It's interesting that compared to 30-40 years ago,
homes and golf courses are now the primary point sources for the
majority of groundwater pollution. These are big words and
inconvenient concepts, though, so it's hard for twits to even think
about them.

I'm not sure who or what you are responding to. Are you accusing me of
being a twit that sprays for every weed?

Michael


I know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary, especially in the
food NG, but in this one regard (chemicals), you are being a twit. Sorry,
Michael. It's a cop out to say "I just use a small amount of chemicals". As
I mentioned above, homeowners are one of the two largest sources of
groundwater pollution. That's bad, and there is no room to debate it. Your
kitchen is yours to spend a fortune on. But outdoors, the things you do
don't stay on your property.

There are non-twits, twits, and then there are Uber twits. You joe are in
the
third catagory. Roundup does not enter the ground water supply when applied
as
directed. Likewise your comments do not eneter the inbtellegent acatagory
when
read as written.

I hope you meant that:-)

Got your back Joe. Now if the doubters would just click on over to

http://www.bodyburden.org/

or read a fellow poster

Ten reasons to "NOT" use roundup.

Compiled by Caroline Cox, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides- (NCAP)

Roundup, and related herbicides with glyphosate as an active
ingredient, are advertised as products that can "eradicate weeds and
unwanted grasses effectively with a high level of environmental safety."
However, an independent, accurate evaluation of their health and
environmental hazards can draw conclusions very different from those
presented in the ads. Consider these facts:

1. Glyphosate can be persistent. In tests conducted by Monsanto,
manufacturer of
glyphosate-containing herbicides, up to 140 days were required for half
of the applied glyphosate to break down or disappear from agricultural
soils. At harvest, residues of glyphosate were found in lettuce,
carrots, and barley planted one year after glyphosate treatment.
2. Glyphosate can drift. Test conducted by the University of
California, Davis, found that glyphosate drifted up to 400 meters (1300
feet) during ground applications and 800 meters 12600 feet) during
aerial applications.
3. Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a
cup can be lethal. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, lung
congestion, and erosion of the intestinal tract. Between 1984 and 1990
in California, glyphosate was the third most frequently reported cause
of illness elated to agricultural pesticide use.

4. Glyphosate has shown a wide spectrum of chronic toxicity in
laboratory tests. The National Toxicology Program found that chronic
feeding of glyphosate caused salivary gland lesions, reduced sperm
counts, and a lengthened estrous cycle (how often an individual comes
into heat). Other chronic effects found in laboratory tests include an
increase in the frequency of lethal mutations in fruit flies, an
increase in frequency of pancreas and liver tumors in male rats along
with an increase in the frequency of thyroid tumors in females, and
cataracts. (ne fruit fly study used Roundup; the other studies used
glyphosate.)

5. Roundup contains toxic trade secret ingredients. These include
polyethoxylated tallowamines, causing nausea and diarrhea, and
isopropylamine, causing chemical pneumonia, laryngitis, headache, and
bums.

6. Roundup kills beneficial insects. Tests conducted by !he
International Organization for Biological Control showed that Roundup
caused mortality of live beneficial species: a Thrichgramma, a predatory
mite, a lacewing, a ladybug, and a predatory beetle.

7. Glyphosate is hazardous to earthworms, Tests using New Zealand's
most common earthworm showed that glyphosate, in amounts as low as 1/20
of standard application rates, reduced it- growth and slowed its
development.

8. Roundup inhibits mycorrhizal fungi. Canadian studies have shown
that as little as 1 part per million of Roundup can reduce the growth or
colonization of mycorrhizal fungi.

9. Glyphosate reduces nitrogen fixation. Amounts as small as 2
parts per million have had significant effects, and effects have been
measured up to 120 days after treatment. Nitrogen- fixing bacteria
shown to be impacted by glyphosate include a species found on soybeans
and several species found on clover.

10. Roundup can increase the spread or seventy of plant diseases.
Treatment with roundup increased the severity of Rhizoctonia root rot
in barley, increased the amount and growth of take-all fungus, a wheat
disease), and reduced the ability of bean plants to defend themselves
against anthracnose.

These facts about Roundup are taken From a two-part article about the
health and environmental hazards of glyphosate published in NCAP's
Journal of Pesticide Reform. Copies of the article, with complete
references for all of .the information presented, are available from
NCAP for $2.00. NCAP, PO Box 1391; Eugene, OR 97440; (541) 344-5044.


Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
-----------

Sooo, do you backyard warriors have bibliograpies?

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

Charlie wrote in :

On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:38:57 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
wrote:

Pambo forced Ook to post this at: rec.gardens:

Does anyone have any information on the usage of roundup in the yard
and garden? The information on the container indicates that it is
not toxic to most life forms. Other then eye irritation, it doesn't
seem to bother anything but plants, and even then it decomposes
rapidly. The bottle says you can spray, and then 3 days later plant
a garden.

So - how good/bad/toxic is the stuff? Is it a good way to get rid of
unwanted plants, or should it be avoided at all costs?

Roundup has been my friend for many, many years. One has to be very
careful with it. Go exactly by the directions. The hardest for me is
finding a day with absolutely no breeze. The drift from the spray can
float around anywhere, including open windows. I use it on those PITA
violets but I don't spray them with it. I put some Roundup in a
styrofoam cup and brush a bit on the offending plant with one of those
cheapie paint sponge brushes. The brushes are dirt cheap and I pitch
the cup and brush afterwards. Good luck.

Michael


You go to all that time and trouble?

Jeez man, it's a lot quicker to just dig the offending plant. Carry a
garden knife.

Uh, not to mention......safer!

Sometimes I just can't belive what I'm readin'!

BTW where do you pitch the cup and brush. Are you following proper
disposal procedure?

Charlie


Hey, can everyone stop picking on Michael now? I think the points have
been made often enough and hard enough and more-than-occasionally *rude
enough* that he understands the pros and cons now.

A kinder approach teaches people; pig pile/shit upons just drives them
away.

In article 1,
"Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens


I know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary, especially in
the food NG, but in this one regard (chemicals), you are being a twit.

The little cascade Charlie started is about as enlightened as you calling
me a twit. I also know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary in
the groups you participate in but resorting to finger pointing and name
calling will not make any points for your cause, at least in my direction.

Sorry, Michael. It's a cop out to say "I just use a small amount of
chemicals". As I mentioned above, homeowners are one of the two
largest sources of groundwater pollution. That's bad, and there is no
room to debate it. Your kitchen is yours to spend a fortune on. But
outdoors, the things you do don't stay on your property.

Well Joe, neither does air pollution for autos and industry, alcohol in a
body behind the wheel of an automobile or letting screaming children cross
your property line etc. I am not, nor ever have been a purist. I am more
of a middle ground person. Am I aware chemicals may cause contamination?
Of course I am. Do I use organic and natual herbicides, pesticides and
fertilizers? That is all I use, even on the lawn, except for the Roundup.
I use Roundup very responsibly and will not apologize, or even feel bad,
for using it. I have great respect and fear of chemicals. I have 3 cats, a
dog and a horse. All rescue animals. But yet I find PETA to be a rabid
organization. IMO they take things to the very extreme and do nothing but
damage to the organization. I like vodka martinis and hate gin. I am gay
but firmly denounce NAMBLA and other organizations like it. See how I am?
People and organizations that are extreme in any area, with completely
rigid attitudes and opinions, generally snap off during the big storm.

Michael - just my 2 cents

Long winded ******* aren't you. Act like a fool be treated like a fool.

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

3. Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a
cup can be lethal. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, lung
congestion, and erosion of the intestinal tract. Between 1984 and 1990
in California, glyphosate was the third most frequently reported cause
of illness elated to agricultural pesticide use.


3/4 of a cup, huh? So that would be what, a pint of the 41%
concentrate? (I would guess that most homeowners buy the 26% or less)
If you drink a couple of gallons of the .5% ready-to-use Roundup, I
think you'll suffer more from water intoxication than from the glyphosate.

I wonder if those "illness [r]elated to agricultural pesticide use"
include heat stroke, dehydration, getting run over by the tractor, etc.
Why didn't they just say "accidental poisonings"? This one statistic
IMHO makes all the rest suspect because it looks so dishonest.

BTW, I thought about spraying Round-up today, but it was so much more
satisfying pulling the weeds by hand. It rained a couple of days ago
and the ground was just right. :-)

Bob