We had talked about spraying with Glyphosate out of season but it seemed
that it was all guesswork so this afternoon as the grass and other weeds
out the field were just about dry, just the very odd droplet of water
close to the hedge I used one knapsack tank of spray.
I didn't think when I started to clean out the polyjey filter so only
about half volume spray to start, but cleaned the filter part way
through so most had full strength spray (that's 100ml to 5 litres of
water), so now it's just sit back and wait to see what happens.
There are several hawthorn with buds about to burst and some weed seed
has germinated also fresh leaves on buttercups also a few dandelions in
flower.
Next test will be to spray some of the brambles that have held their
leaves all winter, also with bursting buds, with a brushwood killer.
David@ a still dry side of Swansea bay after 4 days (almost a welsh drought)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:33:18 +0000, David Hill wrote:

There are several hawthorn with buds about to burst and some weed seed
has germinated also fresh leaves on buttercups also a few dandelions in
flower.

I've had very poor luck with buttercup. Which is too bad as it's a major
pest; dandelion responds pretty well, though not as well as grass.

I may try and do the same this WE as the weather looks propitious, but
still really struggling to come back from a very nasty bronchitis. Have
coughed it all out but remarkably quick to tire... wanted to bring up
wood to stack in the dry today, but the walk down to look at what there
was to do finished me!

-E



--
Gardening in Lower Normandy

On 26/02/2016 22:27, Emery Davis wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:33:18 +0000, David Hill wrote:

There are several hawthorn with buds about to burst and some weed seed
has germinated also fresh leaves on buttercups also a few dandelions in
flower.

I've had very poor luck with buttercup. Which is too bad as it's a major
pest; dandelion responds pretty well, though not as well as grass.

Buttercup is one of the things that merely suffers a growth check when
hit with glyphosate. You need a broadleaf specific weedkiller to take it
down (and even that isn't entirely reliable).

Glyphosate and a burn when tinder dry sets it back a bit harder.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 26/02/2016 17:33, David Hill wrote:
We had talked about spraying with Glyphosate out of season but it seemed
that it was all guesswork so this afternoon as the grass and other weeds
out the field were just about dry, just the very odd droplet of water
close to the hedge I used one knapsack tank of spray.
I didn't think when I started to clean out the polyjey filter so only
about half volume spray to start, but cleaned the filter part way
through so most had full strength spray (that's 100ml to 5 litres of
water), so now it's just sit back and wait to see what happens.
There are several hawthorn with buds about to burst and some weed seed
has germinated also fresh leaves on buttercups also a few dandelions in
flower.
Next test will be to spray some of the brambles that have held their
leaves all winter, also with bursting buds, with a brushwood killer.
David@ a still dry side of Swansea bay after 4 days (almost a welsh
drought)


Well it's around 4 weeks since I sprayed and it looks quite good despite
having had the nozzle on the sprayer partially block with crud from
leaving water in the sprayer over winter.
Took this picture yesterday 23rd March
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...psftcg09rb.jpg

Sprayed the rest of the field yesterday, so it had plenty of time to dry
before the rain this morning.
David @ a once again damp side of Swansea Bay

On 24/03/16 18:01, David Hill wrote:
On 26/02/2016 17:33, David Hill wrote:
We had talked about spraying with Glyphosate out of season but it seemed
that it was all guesswork so this afternoon as the grass and other weeds
out the field were just about dry, just the very odd droplet of water
close to the hedge I used one knapsack tank of spray.
I didn't think when I started to clean out the polyjey filter so only
about half volume spray to start, but cleaned the filter part way
through so most had full strength spray (that's 100ml to 5 litres of
water), so now it's just sit back and wait to see what happens.
There are several hawthorn with buds about to burst and some weed seed
has germinated also fresh leaves on buttercups also a few dandelions in
flower.
Next test will be to spray some of the brambles that have held their
leaves all winter, also with bursting buds, with a brushwood killer.
David@ a still dry side of Swansea bay after 4 days (almost a welsh
drought)


Well it's around 4 weeks since I sprayed and it looks quite good despite
having had the nozzle on the sprayer partially block with crud from
leaving water in the sprayer over winter.
Took this picture yesterday 23rd March
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...psftcg09rb.jpg

Sprayed the rest of the field yesterday, so it had plenty of time to dry
before the rain this morning.
David @ a once again damp side of Swansea Bay

Looks like it's done a good job. You'd better get the rest done before
the inmates of the EU asylum ban glyphosate:
http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulat...glyphosate-ban

It may be time to lay in a good stock before it disappears from the market.

--

Jeff

Timothy Murphy wrote:

The UK is certain to follow the US, France, Holland et al
in banning glyphosate

Given that most weedkillers *other* than Glyphosate seem to have been
outlawed in recent years, what options would remain available to Joe
Bloggs? Salt and vinegar plus giving weeds a hard stare?

On 24/03/16 21:51, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

Looks like it's done a good job. You'd better get the rest done before
the inmates of the EU asylum ban glyphosate:
http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulat...glyphosate-ban

The UK is certain to follow the US, France, Holland et al
in banning glyphosate, whether in or out of the EU.
It's a question of scientific evidence, not a matter of opinion.

Scientific evidence? I know "junk science" when I see it, and I know
what effects pressure groups can have on "scientific" opinion. Maybe you
should read this:
https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/201...ate-monograph/

Once the Greens have removed glyphosate, do you think it will end there?
There won't be a chemical left on the market, and food production will
soon fall foul of every insect and fungal pest under the sun. If you
don't believe that, you need only look at the Irish Potato Famine,
caused by Phytophthora infestans. And if you want modern examples of
disease wiping out plants, you need only look at Dutch Elm Disease, Ash
Dieback, and the Emerald Ash Borer. Neither tree is of sufficient
economic interest for the chemical companies to develop a treatment;
within a few years the English elm went almost completely, and it looks
like the ash will follow. Follow the analogy to food, and the future is
bleak.

Maybe "Eating your Greens" might stave of hunger for a short time, but
there won't be enough of them to make a difference.

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman wrote:

Scientific evidence? I know "junk science" when I see it, and I know
what effects pressure groups can have on "scientific" opinion.

The IARC is a branch of the UN's World Health Organisation.
It seems to me unlikely that it promotes "junk science".
Its aim is to determine if substances in general use
are carcinogenic, or likely to be carcinogenic.
It has looked at many different substances.
It places glyphosate in class 2A,
"likely to be carcinogenic, but not proven to be".

Once the Greens have removed glyphosate, do you think it will end there?
There won't be a chemical left on the market, and food production will
soon fall foul of every insect and fungal pest under the sun. If you
don't believe that, you need only look at the Irish Potato Famine,
caused by Phytophthora infestans. And if you want modern examples of
disease wiping out plants, you need only look at Dutch Elm Disease, Ash
Dieback, and the Emerald Ash Borer. Neither tree is of sufficient
economic interest for the chemical companies to develop a treatment;
within a few years the English elm went almost completely, and it looks
like the ash will follow. Follow the analogy to food, and the future is
bleak.

Dutch Elm Disease, etc, is completely irrelevant to the question
whether glyphosate is or is not carcinogenic.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 25/03/16 11:07, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

Scientific evidence? I know "junk science" when I see it, and I know
what effects pressure groups can have on "scientific" opinion.

The IARC is a branch of the UN's World Health Organisation.
It seems to me unlikely that it promotes "junk science".

No?
http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/i...ltiple-fronts/

FWIW, three other programs under WHO auspices are on record as
concluding the opposite to what IARC are saying.

Its aim is to determine if substances in general use
are carcinogenic, or likely to be carcinogenic.
It has looked at many different substances.
It places glyphosate in class 2A,
"likely to be carcinogenic, but not proven to be".

That is the nub of the matter - incorrect positioning based on bad science.

Once the Greens have removed glyphosate, do you think it will end there?
There won't be a chemical left on the market, and food production will
soon fall foul of every insect and fungal pest under the sun. If you
don't believe that, you need only look at the Irish Potato Famine,
caused by Phytophthora infestans. And if you want modern examples of
disease wiping out plants, you need only look at Dutch Elm Disease, Ash
Dieback, and the Emerald Ash Borer. Neither tree is of sufficient
economic interest for the chemical companies to develop a treatment;
within a few years the English elm went almost completely, and it looks
like the ash will follow. Follow the analogy to food, and the future is
bleak.

Dutch Elm Disease, etc, is completely irrelevant to the question
whether glyphosate is or is not carcinogenic.

To the specific question, yes. But it's a slippery slope when you start
ignoring facts. What next will go after glyphosate is removed, and will
it have negative ramifications for crop production?

--

Jeff

On 25/03/2016 20:40, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 25/03/16 11:07, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

Scientific evidence? I know "junk science" when I see it, and I know
what effects pressure groups can have on "scientific" opinion.

The IARC is a branch of the UN's World Health Organisation.
It seems to me unlikely that it promotes "junk science".

No?
http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/i...ltiple-fronts/


FWIW, three other programs under WHO auspices are on record as
concluding the opposite to what IARC are saying.

Its aim is to determine if substances in general use
are carcinogenic, or likely to be carcinogenic.
It has looked at many different substances.
It places glyphosate in class 2A,
"likely to be carcinogenic, but not proven to be".

That is the nub of the matter - incorrect positioning based on bad science.

Once the Greens have removed glyphosate, do you think it will end there?
There won't be a chemical left on the market, and food production will
soon fall foul of every insect and fungal pest under the sun. If you
don't believe that, you need only look at the Irish Potato Famine,
caused by Phytophthora infestans. And if you want modern examples of
disease wiping out plants, you need only look at Dutch Elm Disease, Ash
Dieback, and the Emerald Ash Borer. Neither tree is of sufficient
economic interest for the chemical companies to develop a treatment;
within a few years the English elm went almost completely, and it looks
like the ash will follow. Follow the analogy to food, and the future is
bleak.

Dutch Elm Disease, etc, is completely irrelevant to the question
whether glyphosate is or is not carcinogenic.

To the specific question, yes. But it's a slippery slope when you start
ignoring facts. What next will go after glyphosate is removed, and will
it have negative ramifications for crop production?

To think I started this thread to see if Glyphosate could be used in
winter and this year it's worked, though how useful this info will be
when it's no longer available who knows.
I was a great believer in Gramoxone, a very good contact weed killer but
it's no longer available and unfortunately I now have to use Glyphosate
even though I believe it does have some residual effect on some plants,
dahlias for one.
I used to have a combination of 2 chemicals I could use post planting on
dahlias but they have also been removed by the EC.
I dread to think what we will have in 5 years time.
David @ a lovely side of Swansea Bay (well today was)

On 25/03/16 21:27, David Hill wrote:

To think I started this thread to see if Glyphosate could be used in
winter and this year it's worked, though how useful this info will be
when it's no longer available who knows.
I was a great believer in Gramoxone, a very good contact weed killer but
it's no longer available and unfortunately I now have to use Glyphosate
even though I believe it does have some residual effect on some plants,
dahlias for one.

Very nasty chemical, paraquat (the active stuff in Gramoxone). Have you
tried using diquat (Weedol, etc)? It's still pretty good as a
weedkiller, and less toxic than paraquat.

I used to have a combination of 2 chemicals I could use post planting on
dahlias but they have also been removed by the EC.

To be fair, you'll probably find that it's not just the EU who have
removed chemicals from the market. But there have been quite a few
"removals" by manufacturers who simply do not have safety data for old
products and it would not be cost-effective to generate that data. So,
by default, as the safety data are not available for review, the
products are removed from the market.

I dread to think what we will have in 5 years time.

I doubt anything will be available to the amateur other than
ineffective, but environmentally safe, products. Just see how few
chemicals remain available to the amateur now at
https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/pdfs/p...home-gardeners and
even that list may be out of date. I have been trying to get some
concentrate to make a drench to get rid of a soil-based root-eater (vine
weevil? There is no sign of what ate the roots) in a potted plant I
bought. The only one listed in that RHS paper is Bug Clear Ultra Vine
Weevil Killer (acetamiprid), but all I can find are those little
hand-held spray bottles.

--

Jeff

On 26/03/2016 10:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 25/03/16 21:27, David Hill wrote:

To think I started this thread to see if Glyphosate could be used in
winter and this year it's worked, though how useful this info will be
when it's no longer available who knows.
I was a great believer in Gramoxone, a very good contact weed killer but
it's no longer available and unfortunately I now have to use Glyphosate
even though I believe it does have some residual effect on some plants,
dahlias for one.

Very nasty chemical, paraquat (the active stuff in Gramoxone). Have you
tried using diquat (Weedol, etc)? It's still pretty good as a
weedkiller, and less toxic than paraquat.

I used to have a combination of 2 chemicals I could use post planting on
dahlias but they have also been removed by the EC.

To be fair, you'll probably find that it's not just the EU who have
removed chemicals from the market. But there have been quite a few
"removals" by manufacturers who simply do not have safety data for old
products and it would not be cost-effective to generate that data. So,
by default, as the safety data are not available for review, the
products are removed from the market.

I dread to think what we will have in 5 years time.

I doubt anything will be available to the amateur other than
ineffective, but environmentally safe, products. Just see how few
chemicals remain available to the amateur now at
https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/pdfs/p...home-gardeners and
even that list may be out of date. I have been trying to get some
concentrate to make a drench to get rid of a soil-based root-eater (vine
weevil? There is no sign of what ate the roots) in a potted plant I
bought. The only one listed in that RHS paper is Bug Clear Ultra Vine
Weevil Killer (acetamiprid), but all I can find are those little
hand-held spray bottles.

I remember when Paraquat and Diquat were brought out. In the early days
we would alternate between then but over time it became clear that
paraquat was the more versatile product and a great chemical if you
wanted to grow using the "Stale seed bed " technique, also in around 50
years of using it I never saw any signs of possible residual damage to
follow on crops, (Can't say the same for Glyphosate)
The problem with Diquat is it's inability to control grass, so instead
of clearing the ground, you end up with a lawn.
The annoying thing is that in the US they have brought out a replacement
for Gramoxone, but not available in Europe.
For your Vine weevil you might still be able to get Provado either from
Amazon or on E bay. Otherwise nematodes do seem to work well for small
areas.
David @ a now wet side of Swansea Bay

On 26/03/16 14:23, David Hill wrote:


I remember when Paraquat and Diquat were brought out. In the early days
we would alternate between then but over time it became clear that
paraquat was the more versatile product and a great chemical if you
wanted to grow using the "Stale seed bed " technique, also in around 50
years of using it I never saw any signs of possible residual damage to
follow on crops, (Can't say the same for Glyphosate)

I thought that was pretty impossible as it's supposed to be inactivated
on contact with soil, but I guess that might depend on how long it takes
to become inactivated in specific circumstances.

The problem with Diquat is it's inability to control grass, so instead
of clearing the ground, you end up with a lawn.

I haven't tried it on grass, as glyphosate is so effective in dealing
with it.

The annoying thing is that in the US they have brought out a replacement
for Gramoxone, but not available in Europe.

As far as I can see Gramoxone is still available in the US. What is the
product you are referring to?

For your Vine weevil you might still be able to get Provado either from
Amazon or on E bay. Otherwise nematodes do seem to work well for small
areas.

The bad news is that Bayer have stopped making Provado (containing
thiacloprid - they still make something under that name containing a
pyrethrin). The only product containing a neonicotinoid now available
to the amateur is Scott's "BugClear" (acetamiprid). Good idea about
using Amazon - I see they have some. I've still got a few local garden
centres to try, though. I've not tried nematodes; I did try a predator
for red spider mite, but I was unimpressed with the results.

--

Jeff

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:23:21 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

I have been trying to get some
concentrate to make a drench to get rid of a soil-based root-eater (vine
weevil? There is no sign of what ate the roots) in a potted plant I
bought. The only one listed in that RHS paper is Bug Clear Ultra Vine
Weevil Killer (acetamiprid), but all I can find are those little
hand-held spray bottles.

It would be completly wrong of me to say what Fuchsia growers use to
kill Vine Weevil, as it's been banned, and is only sold now as a path
cleaner.

http://divingbrit.co.uk/afuchsia/vie....php?f=16&t=67

Jeff Layman wrote:

On 25/03/16 11:07, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

Scientific evidence? I know "junk science" when I see it, and I know
what effects pressure groups can have on "scientific" opinion.

The IARC is a branch of the UN's World Health Organisation.
It seems to me unlikely that it promotes "junk science".

No?
http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/i...ltiple-fronts/

This is just a list of a dozen or so scientists who think the IARC
has over-estimated the danger of glyphosate.
None of them seem to deny that glyphosate is carcinogenic,
and none of them appear to have carried out any experiments themselves.
The only institution mentioned that I have heard of is someone at Harvard
who thinks "that glyphosate is not as risky as the alternatives",
which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Note that the IARC's judgement is that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic,
but not proven to be", which sounds to me like a fairly careful opinion.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dubl