# Roundup really in the news lately



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/roundup-ingredient-found-in-cheerios-quaker-oats-other-cereals


----------



## Farmerbrown2 (Sep 25, 2018)

I listen to a podcast yesterday Science Versus on GMOs the one scientist did a study on roundup well it turns out the rats he used had a high number of tumors. But thing he didn’t tell anyone was the breed of rats he used was known to have a high rate of tumors in old age . It’s all in how people come up with there numbers to make something look good or bad. In other words more fake news to use another mans words.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Agree fb.....some folks get the holiest of holies going on when the word scientist is mentioned. They act like scientist are infallible or 100% honest. Scientist are men and women......that is all you have to say.

Regards, Mike


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a long term prediction...

At some point in the future - and it may be years from now, Glyphosate will be banned. Just like the pesticide DDT and the gasoline additive MTBE, these products ended up being detected everywhere.

Note: In the early 1990's, I helped commission a refinery just outside Houston, TX that manufactured MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a product that lowers auto emissions. It was one of only two facilities in the world that made this stuff. Enterprise Products probably spent over a billion dollars building that plant. The facility was only on line for a few years when they had to shutter it.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

NewBerlinBaler said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a long term prediction...
> 
> At some point in the future, and it maybe be 10 years from now, Glyphosate will be banned. Just as DDT and that gasoline additive that was manufactured briefly in the early 90''s (can't remember it's name). These products ended up being detected everywhere.


I don't doubt that one bit.....I just might go buy about 20 gallons and put it back for use around the place in the long-term future. I would miss glyphosate, but maybe there will be something else developed. Probably the old Monsanto outfit has already come up with something and they sold out so they can start over with a new company with a new name. 

Regards, Mike


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

Glyphosate is done anyway. Still works in a burn down program on grass and great for Johnson grass and shatter cane in RR corn, but it is totally ineffective on broadleaves. Oh, and Monsanto is gone, sold out to Bayer. Rumor has it in the seed world the reason they sold out was bankruptcy was looming. And Bayer had to peddle several million in assets to BASF to swing the deal. And another thing about scientists, follow the money behind them, they are simply “whores to the highest bidder”.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

haybaler101 said:


> And another thing about scientists, follow the money behind them, they are simply "whores to the highest bidder".


Kinda like politicians.

Unless I'm only trying to kill grass, roundup is about pointless anymore here as well.

For killing weeds around the buildings I've been using a generic Extreme (RU+Pursuit) and 2-4d in a spot sprayer.


----------



## vhaby (Dec 30, 2009)

haybaler101 said:


> Glyphosate... And another thing about scientists, follow the money behind them, they are simply "whores to the highest bidder".


Now wait one d__n minute...you have to be ignorant to make such a general statement. Note, the term ignorant refers to uninformed. How many products do you use in your farming operation, like crop varieties, chemicals, etc., that were developed by non-scientists? What about antibiotics that you might take, such as penicillin, how many were developed by farmers? Be careful how you generalize your statements.

Respectively, a retired scientist turned rancher,

Vincent


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

vhaby said:


> Now wait one d__n minute...you have to be ignorant to make such a general statement. Note, the term ignorant refers to uninformed. How many products do you use in your farming operation, like crop varieties, chemicals, etc., that were developed by non-scientists. What about antibiotics that you might take, such as penicillin, how many were developed by farmers. Be careful how you generalize your statements.
> 
> Respectively, a retired scientist turned rancher,
> 
> Vincent


My bad!! Yes, I generalized. Should have said government funded scientist as well as some scientists at the university level. They can definitely be swayed by the $$$.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

mlappin said:


> Kinda like politicians.
> Unless I'm only trying to kill grass, roundup is about pointless anymore here as well.
> For killing weeds around the buildings I've been using a generic Extreme (RU+Pursuit) and 2-4d in a spot sprayer.


 I see some areas where Roundup will not work. Our agronomist says the guys that used it regularly mixed with liquid nitrogen have ruined it on their Farm. In our area it still does a good kill we're definitely missing Mare's tail and pigweed.. We plant wheat in the fall and spray it with Harmony in the spring harvest the end of June and plant soybeans wait 3 weeks to weeds come, then we hit it with PowerMax and that pretty well cleans it up. The guy next to us planted his double crop wheat beans in Liberty beans.. he has sprayed them twice with Liberty and it is a Pity full situation. If he doesn't figure something out it's going to be a total loss. And with all this rain now the the grass is coming on in those beans like gangbusters.. I'll bet he would give his right arm to spray some useless round up right now on those beans.. .. there's a lot of double-cropping goes on here and it's a bit tricky because you don't have the ability to jam a whole bunch of residual into the program..


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

Well Endrow, you are only about 2-3 years behind us! Round-up “worked pretty well” for us then too. Those few waterhemps and marestails that are getting past you now will be your worst nightmare in another year or two.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

haybaler101 said:


> Well Endrow, you are only about 2-3 years behind us! Round-up "worked pretty well" for us then too. Those few waterhemps and marestails that are getting past you now will be your worst nightmare in another year or two.


 Hate to say it but you're exactly right.


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

Vol said:


> Agree fb.....some folks get the holiest of holies going on when the word scientist is mentioned. They act like scientist are infallible or 100% honest. Scientist are men and women......that is all you have to say.
> 
> Regards, Mike


 One of the biggest problems I see in science today is the exponential proliferation of junk journals and predatory journals. There are thousands of them, and with a very low editorial and acceptance standard. What this means is even if someone has junk research, while they will never be able to get it into a reputable journal, they will still be able to get it published somewhere. And that means is it is still web-searchable and publicly available for interest groups with low information standards to cite.

My work email address is publicly available because I publish research (and your email address is listed for author contact information). As a result, I get no less than 5 emails from junk journals every day requesting I submit an article, review an article, or join their editorial board.


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

haybaler101 said:


> My bad!! Yes, I generalized. Should have said government funded scientist as well as some scientists at the university level. They can definitely be swayed by the $$$.


I have to concur with Dr. Haby here. What are you basing any of this on? I would argue--being an industry scientist--that industry scientists possess the risk to be far more biased and swayed by money (read: answering to shareholders, revenue, and tight timelines) than govt. and University scientists, who aren't getting rich by any means and tend to subscribe to pretty ethical and rigorous standards in their work.


----------



## pede58 (Oct 27, 2015)

I think research can be tainted by either side, not lied about but stacking the odds for a desired outcome, it's all about chasing the money, from big corporate trying to make a profit to the researcher looking for funding, JMO. Roundup will be an interesting case, did I see in this lawsuit that the guy had only worked with it for 2 years? Anyways it's been overused to the point of ineffectiveness, but still nothing better for grasses, I still have to mix a little in for just that, in with other stuff that's way worse.


----------



## Hayman1 (Jul 6, 2013)

vhaby said:


> Now wait one d__n minute...you have to be ignorant to make such a general statement. Note, the term ignorant refers to uninformed. How many products do you use in your farming operation, like crop varieties, chemicals, etc., that were developed by non-scientists? What about antibiotics that you might take, such as penicillin, how many were developed by farmers? Be careful how you generalize your statements.
> 
> Respectively, a retired scientist turned rancher,
> 
> Vincent


Sic em Vincent. I too am a retired scientist and I was an environmental manager. Worked in multple environmental management issues with local government and then did solid waste management for 20 years As such I had to comply with lots of standards I did not agree with like treating groundwater with parts per trillion of suspected pollutants. Now you can't assess exactly what is there at that level you just know if something is there that is manmade. It's a mess.

That said, the sad part of things in research is that we as a country underfund basic ag research (and other fields as well I suppose) so that our research university staff have to get grants to fund research which takes a lot of time (that is not research time, it is administrative time) and guess what, the funds are provided by some firm with a vested interest in a product or outcome. SOO, you get what you get. If you want completely unbiased general research, it has to be funded. This is the reason I decided not to pursue a research career.

And then people are people. some good some bad some diligent, some less so, some with complete integrity some with less. Scientists are people and subject to the same flaws.

falling off the soapbox now....


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Excellent point hayman......never thunk about it.


----------

