On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:20:45 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:
(Torsten Brinch) writes:

By all means let it all hang out. And?

Talk about farming.

Right, let us leave it there, your personal problems are not generally
germane.

So, how do YOU handle jointed goat grass?

Oooh, a rare species, not for me to handle. I'd call in a botanist
pronto.

Wouldn't
it be nice to just spray it once with Roundup and be done with the
problem?

Difficult to see your jointed goatgrass as much of a problem if it can
be just sprayed once with Roundup to be done with. Now, OUR annual
rye-grass, THAT'S a problem, it just keeps coming and coming, despite
all the Roundup we throw on it, on average, 0.4 kg glyphosate/ha
arable/year, most of that in the autumn. Of course Roundup -- rather
than the usual grass herbicides -- could theoretically be useful for
control in the spring on a winter RR wheat. However, rather mooting
that option, Roundup is set to be restricted to autumn use, because
it has been found to contaminate our groundwater.

Dean Ronn ?@?.? writes

Actually Oz, I see that obviously there are a few harder to kill grassy
weeds in your part of the world.

Yes sigh

With this being the case, obviously there
is a fit for the wheat technology. Our three primary ones are wild oats,
yellow(green) foxtail, and quackgrass.

Wild oats are relatively easy, although dimfop resistant ones are
increasing. Foxtail sounds horribly like a blackgrass replacement and
quackgrass is probably what we call couch (I seem to remember it as an
alternative UK name), which responds well to roundup.

As far as the canola goes, we've been fighting hard to kill broadleaves
here for some time. Such weeds as round leaf mallow and cleavers have made
Round-Up a (pardon the expression) godsend.

Round leaf mallow I haven't come across.
Cleavers we control in the cereal part of the rotation but don't reduce
yield much and we can cut them fine with our rape header, and then
screen them out in the drier (mempries of 10T cleanings trailers full of
cleaver seeds ...).

Trifurallin is just not
acceptable in a no-till situation, as you are moving too much dirt, and it
would completely destroy the principle.

Absolutely.

The other two weeds that were very
expensive to control in crop with conventional methods were Canada thistle
and perennial sow thistle. Clopyralid(Lontrel) costs a pile of money to use,

Clopyralid = dow shield. Indeed pricey (!) but I use half rate and rely
on the canola to do the rest, applies when the rape is about 6" across
(ie early).

and the Round-Up gives excellent season long control of both.

Yes.

My most worrying rape weed is a wild cabbage/mustard, which is
unsurprisingly unkillable and like rape germinates over a period of many
years. However I would expect it to become RR-resistant almost
immediately due X-fertilisation.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:09:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:47:54 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you
don't
have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-)

Bah, if you mean control you need to get at the grass weeds early in
any case.

LMAO...keep trying Torsten.

Laugh away, you know I am right. Or otta.

Hmm...mighty sure of yourself. And who voted and made you god? From the
sounds of others in this thread, I suspect no one. Keep trying - why dont
you try giving evidence to support your god-like claim.

How much wheat do you actually grow?

This year nothing, it is all maize.

Bt perhaps? ;-)

Dave



Dave

Bummer
about the cursing. Only frustrated folks need to curse and then it
makes
others not want to listen to what you are saying. In fact IMO it
weakens
your case.

Bwhahaha. An American offended by one of the ****ing most commonly
used word in ****ing common American.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat"
herbicide
than Roundup. Thanks.

Huh? If you want a herbicide to kill wheat, Roundup would be the
better of the two. Roundup just ****ing kills wheat, while Puma is
well tolerated up to a point.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:49:52 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:09:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:47:54 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you
don't
have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-)

Bah, if you mean control you need to get at the grass weeds early in
any case.

LMAO...keep trying Torsten.

Laugh away, you know I am right. Or otta.

Hmm...mighty sure of yourself. And who voted and made you god? From the
sounds of others in this thread, I suspect no one. Keep trying - why dont
you try giving evidence to support your god-like claim.

Bah. Rather you should come with some evidence that "up to a point"
is a 'nasty' concept with Puma, and that it would be a good thing for
chemical grass weed control to wait with the spray until the wheat is
growing tall, thickly canopied, when good coverage become troublesome
and you unlikely will gain back the yield you already have lost from
weed competition.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:49:52 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:09:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:47:54 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you
don't
have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-)

Bah, if you mean control you need to get at the grass weeds early in
any case.

LMAO...keep trying Torsten.

Laugh away, you know I am right. Or otta.

Hmm...mighty sure of yourself. And who voted and made you god? From the
sounds of others in this thread, I suspect no one. Keep trying - why
dont
you try giving evidence to support your god-like claim.

Bah. Rather you should come with some evidence that "up to a point"
is a 'nasty' concept with Puma, and that it would be a good thing for
chemical grass weed control to wait with the spray until the wheat is
growing tall, thickly canopied, when good coverage become troublesome
and you unlikely will gain back the yield you already have lost from
weed competition.

Puma is toxic to some wheat varieties. Wheat engineered with the RR trait
wont have such phytotoxicity studies. A full canopy is a very good weed
control method - that coupled with a single dose of a broad spectrum
herbicide to which it is resistant - ah, smell the profit and minimized
damage from running the machinery over the land. I am not quite sure what I
will do with all that extra free time I will have on my hand - maybe try
some online investing ;-)

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 03:13:19 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

Bah. Rather you should come with some evidence that "up to a point"
is a 'nasty' concept with Puma, and that it would be a good thing for
chemical grass weed control to wait with the spray until the wheat is
growing tall, thickly canopied, when good coverage become troublesome
and you unlikely will gain back the yield you already have lost from
weed competition.

Puma is toxic to some wheat varieties. .. A full canopy is a very
good weed control method ..

Pitiful.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Torsten Brinch"
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 3:25 AM
Subject: RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)


: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 03:13:19 GMT, "David Kendra"
: wrote:
:
: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
: .. .
:
: Bah. Rather you should come with some evidence that "up to a point"
: is a 'nasty' concept with Puma, and that it would be a good thing for
: chemical grass weed control to wait with the spray until the wheat is
: growing tall, thickly canopied, when good coverage become troublesome
: and you unlikely will gain back the yield you already have lost from
: weed competition.
:
: Puma is toxic to some wheat varieties. .. A full canopy is a very
: good weed control method ..
:
: Pitiful.

Not when you are spending you money on it. I checked with 3 chemical dealers
in southwest Oklahoma. The sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats. They won't accept the
liability of spraying it.

It ****es me off when egotistical anarchist assholes like you use fake
concerns for health and ecology to further you anti business, anti
globalizization and anti American agenda. To prevent on the rack solution
form being used to make a cleaner more productive world. At least you are
not as bad as the green leaders that foster a course of action that is 180
degree conflict with their stated concern for sustainable farming and
protection of the environment and don't spend a penny to help the farmer
with ways to protect the environment but promote methods that assure
continued damage to the environment of agricultural and decreasing yields in
a time when we desperately need the opposite and line their pockets in the
process. They too stand squarely in the way of progress and promote anarchy.

Torsten you have spent you live fighting the system that is the only way to
improve the lot of the world. If you have spent as much in you life that
directly benefits the land as I have spent in a month I would be very much
sup.

You are such an expert in organic agriculture that you can't grow a organic
garden in your back yard. And grow a few plots of wheat with no means of
keeping them genetically poor or showed any records of production that shows
you might be trying to learn something from you plots.

You discourse on agriculture shows a lack of knowledge and an unwillingness
to learn any thing about it that does fit with your belief.

You have made your point hat you are anti American, anti business, and anti
progress. So in order to conserve space lets adopt a code system
#1 means America sucks
#2 means GW Bush's IQ is less than he weight in stones.
#3 The evil Monsanto is trying to take over agriculture
#4 Organic food will save use all
#5 America is taking over the world
# 6 Gordon I full of shit

That should cover 90% of you post and save you a lot of typing.

Best regards
Gordon

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:13:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
----------insert---------------
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma
Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold.
Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered
wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat
won't control them.

But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing
crop, haven't you?
-----------insert----------------

I checked with 3 chemical dealers
in southwest Oklahoma. The sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats. They won't accept the
liability of spraying it.

Pity you didn't ask on which evidence they base their concerns.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
I checked with 3 chemical dealers
in southwest Oklahoma. The sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats. They won't accept the
liability of spraying it.

Pity you didn't ask on which evidence they base their concerns.

local experience, the very thing that makes a Dane such an expert in US
agriculture

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:13:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
----------insert---------------
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma
Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold.
Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered
wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat
won't control them.

But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing
crop, haven't you?
-----------insert----------------

I checked with 3 chemical dealers
in southwest Oklahoma. The sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats. They won't accept the
liability of spraying it.

Pity you didn't ask on which evidence they base their concerns.

There is almost always some damage to the wheat and it is unpredictable
how bad the damage will be depending on soil type and weather after the
application.

The area has some granite based and mixed granite and limestone bases soils
and some soils that can range in pH from 6.5 to 9 in the same field. There a
lot of 7.5 pH fields of clays, and clay loams. The soils along Red River a
range from sandy to sandy loams with 1 to 2% organic matter depending on how
well they have been cared for over the last 100 years. Many herbicides can't
be used in these soils becuse they can wash down in the root system instead
of being held in the surface of the soil as in most soils.

The area is one of the geologically oldest areas of North America. The soils
along the Red River have no definition between top soil, subsoil, water
sand and red bed it is just piled in there as the river and wind left it in
a basin about 30 or 40 miles wide. The only thing that distinguish top soil
is the organic matter and dust from volcano's, fires and dust storms and
other air born sours the grass trapped over the eons. The clay soils of the
county are primarily decomposes granite with a some lime stone from The
Wichita Mountains that are 35 miles north of Red river were the granite is
above ground and falls to 6,000 feet at Red River which is juncture of a
very old tectonic plate. The soils on the other side of the river are
completely different.

There are a number of herbicides that can't be use in one part of the county
or another because of pH, being too sandy or the weather being to dry. At
lest a third of the herbicides for cotton don't work there and only one or
two of the defoliants work on drought stressed cotton.

Reading the label doesn't take into account local conditions.

Of course local condition don't have much meaning to internet organic
farming expert that can't even grow organic crops in his own local
conditions.

Gordon

Very little research has been done on this small area of soils.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:13:47 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:13:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
----------insert---------------
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma
Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold.
Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered
wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat
won't control them.

But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing
crop, haven't you?
-----------insert----------------

I checked with 3 chemical dealers
in southwest Oklahoma. The sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats. They won't accept the
liability of spraying it.

Pity you didn't ask on which evidence they base their concerns.

There is almost always some damage to the wheat and it is unpredictable
how bad the damage will be depending on soil type and weather after the
application.

snip

So many words, and yet you couldn't spare any to present a shed of
evidence, that "the sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats." I think you are
fibbing, you don't have evidence to support that claim.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message


I think you are
fibbing, you don't have evidence to support that claim.

you accuse someone of lying, so have you any evidence to support your claim?

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:13:47 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:13:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
----------insert---------------
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma
Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold.
Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered
wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat
won't control them.

But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing
crop, haven't you?
-----------insert----------------

I checked with 3 chemical dealers
in southwest Oklahoma. The sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats. They won't accept
the
liability of spraying it.

Pity you didn't ask on which evidence they base their concerns.

There is almost always some damage to the wheat and it is unpredictable
how bad the damage will be depending on soil type and weather after the
application.

snip

So many words, and yet you couldn't spare any to present a shed of
evidence, that "the sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats." I think you are
fibbing, you don't have evidence to support that claim.

I think I will trust Gordon's actual experience. What evidence do you have
to support yourself or are you just putting up strawmen, which is, saddly
all you seem to do lately?

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:58:17 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:13:47 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

There is almost always some damage to the wheat and it is unpredictable
how bad the damage will be depending on soil type and weather after the
application.

snip

So many words, and yet you couldn't spare any to present a shed of
evidence, that "the sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats." I think you are
fibbing, you don't have evidence to support that claim.

I think I will trust Gordon's actual experience.

Bwahahahaha. When Gordon was asked about Puma two weeks ago
he thought it was a wheat variety.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:58:17 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:13:47 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

There is almost always some damage to the wheat and it is
unpredictable
how bad the damage will be depending on soil type and weather after
the
application.

snip

So many words, and yet you couldn't spare any to present a shed of
evidence, that "the sandy soil and high pH clays make it very
dangerous to use Puma at rates to kill wild oats." I think you are
fibbing, you don't have evidence to support that claim.

I think I will trust Gordon's actual experience.

Bwahahahaha. When Gordon was asked about Puma two weeks ago
he thought it was a wheat variety.

I will still trust his practical experience over your slanderous jibes. As
I said earlier, a while back I did value your opinion but lately you come
across as so pompous and whine like a little spoiled child when people
disagree with you. That's too bad.