3 ms·

> Do some more digging instead of just snopes How about personal experience? I grow wheat. It doesn't get the roundup treatment. That would be a big waste of m

> Do some more digging instead of just snopes How about personal experience? I grow wheat. It doesn't get the roundup treatment. That would be a big waste of money. That's not to say that nobody does it, but it's not standard practice. Wheat tends to dry down sufficiently on its own (and there is no such thing as glyphosate-tolerant wheat, so you would never want to apply it through the growing season). My colored beans on the other hand... They definitely need the desiccation. Out of interest, does your friend get sick from beans (not soy)?

RobertRoberts 9y ago
Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the season, and just before harvest. Snopes seems to poo-poo this idea. So killing the wheat isn't the issue, it's already dead. No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products... Again, I will be seeing my friend (works in GMO crop industry) in about 2 weeks, and I will discuss this with him in person, since that is who I got this information from. Edit: I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. And if you want to play funny numbers, if you do the math, a _large_ percentage of farmers may not use glyphosates, but since there are very few large corporate farms, then that is where Snopes gets it's "small percentage of farmers" comes from. But ignores the fact that a large percentage of the wheat comes from them. Just a logic thought on statical manipulation.
- randomdata 9y ago
  > Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the season, and just before harvest. Naturally. You'd kill your crop off entirely if you did it any sooner. At the end of the season you don't care about killing the crop. In fact, it is desirable. > No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products... And often other products are preferred. However, especially in the case of beans I grow, it's common to have secondary growth. In this case, you really do want to kill the plant off completely to ensure it stops producing to allow harvest to begin. It turns out that roundup is really good at killing plants! > I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? It is not free, and the cost of apply it certainly isn't either. Application is quite expensive. Just from an economic perspective alone, the idea that large farms would randomly douse their field in roundup makes no sense. It is already a struggle to make money from wheat in this current market. I can imagine in some climates that wheat suffers from not dying off fast enough, similar to the beans I mentioned before, and glyphosate is used in those circumstances. However, I see nothing to suggest this scenario is common. Even if, for argument's sake, we say that it is common: Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    >Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. One core concept is time to harvest. There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. If your crop isn't ready on time, the loss in time and cost to come back south could be huge cost. Where if you douse a field with glyphosates, you can guarantee a very specific time for harvest. Both a dead crop, and a dry one. Which makes it so you don't have to use dryers, something common around our parts, that cost a lot of money to run. So I can see a lot of reasons that it would make sense to intentionally soak a field in the stuff every year weather it killed weeds or not. And this is just off the top of my head. >Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products? I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Doctors didn't think unseeable microbes could kill people until the 1800s. And more recently doctors didn't believe it possible that people would have sever reactions to latex, yet we know that is true now. So I am not going to assume anything good about a chemical designed to kill things, and it would be the first thing I'd remove from my diet if I was getting sick like her from eating. (vomitting and in bed with fever for days, ick)
    - randomdata 9y ago
      > The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that any path to productivity is quickly adopted by everyone. Especially when it comes to something you can cashflow like chemicals (fixed assets can be harder to justify for smaller farms). > There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. The large corporate farms have their own equipment. These harvest crews you speak that travel across the country are more apt to service the small farmer who cannot justify their own combines. If anything, based on your suggestion, that would promote more glyphosate use in small farms than the large farms who have control over their equipment. But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I'm further east and around here even the small farmers own their own combines due to a small window to get the crops off. You don't dare take the chance on someone else's schedule like you can in more forgiving climates. > I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Fair enough, but you originally said that I should do some more digging. I'm trying to see the link here, but I'm struggling to see where to go from here. Would you say the problem limited to durham wheat, or all types of wheat?

RobertRoberts 9y ago

Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the season, and just before harvest. Snopes seems to poo-poo this idea. So killing the wheat isn't the issue, it's already dead. No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products... Again, I will be seeing my friend (works in GMO crop industry) in about 2 weeks, and I will discuss this with him in person, since that is who I got this information from. Edit: I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. And if you want to play funny numbers, if you do the math, a _large_ percentage of farmers may not use glyphosates, but since there are very few large corporate farms, then that is where Snopes gets it's "small percentage of farmers" comes from. But ignores the fact that a large percentage of the wheat comes from them. Just a logic thought on statical manipulation.

randomdata 9y ago
> Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the season, and just before harvest. Naturally. You'd kill your crop off entirely if you did it any sooner. At the end of the season you don't care about killing the crop. In fact, it is desirable. > No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products... And often other products are preferred. However, especially in the case of beans I grow, it's common to have secondary growth. In this case, you really do want to kill the plant off completely to ensure it stops producing to allow harvest to begin. It turns out that roundup is really good at killing plants! > I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? It is not free, and the cost of apply it certainly isn't either. Application is quite expensive. Just from an economic perspective alone, the idea that large farms would randomly douse their field in roundup makes no sense. It is already a struggle to make money from wheat in this current market. I can imagine in some climates that wheat suffers from not dying off fast enough, similar to the beans I mentioned before, and glyphosate is used in those circumstances. However, I see nothing to suggest this scenario is common. Even if, for argument's sake, we say that it is common: Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  >Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. One core concept is time to harvest. There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. If your crop isn't ready on time, the loss in time and cost to come back south could be huge cost. Where if you douse a field with glyphosates, you can guarantee a very specific time for harvest. Both a dead crop, and a dry one. Which makes it so you don't have to use dryers, something common around our parts, that cost a lot of money to run. So I can see a lot of reasons that it would make sense to intentionally soak a field in the stuff every year weather it killed weeds or not. And this is just off the top of my head. >Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products? I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Doctors didn't think unseeable microbes could kill people until the 1800s. And more recently doctors didn't believe it possible that people would have sever reactions to latex, yet we know that is true now. So I am not going to assume anything good about a chemical designed to kill things, and it would be the first thing I'd remove from my diet if I was getting sick like her from eating. (vomitting and in bed with fever for days, ick)
  - randomdata 9y ago
    > The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that any path to productivity is quickly adopted by everyone. Especially when it comes to something you can cashflow like chemicals (fixed assets can be harder to justify for smaller farms). > There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. The large corporate farms have their own equipment. These harvest crews you speak that travel across the country are more apt to service the small farmer who cannot justify their own combines. If anything, based on your suggestion, that would promote more glyphosate use in small farms than the large farms who have control over their equipment. But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I'm further east and around here even the small farmers own their own combines due to a small window to get the crops off. You don't dare take the chance on someone else's schedule like you can in more forgiving climates. > I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Fair enough, but you originally said that I should do some more digging. I'm trying to see the link here, but I'm struggling to see where to go from here. Would you say the problem limited to durham wheat, or all types of wheat?