5 ms·

Yes I know, but not to do what you are implying. Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? It would kill mos

by skosuri 12y ago

Yes I know, but not to do what you are implying. Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? It would kill most of their crop/harvest.

jacquesm 12y ago
> Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? Because it works even with non-GMO crops (always has). > It would kill most of their crop/harvest. No it would not. Not sure where you got that idea, but with Roundup-ready crops you can use more roundup without affecting the crops in a negative way. Roundup can - and routinely is - diluted before application. Crops will naturally tolerate some roundup, the pests it is working against can tolerate less (or so you hope). As pests become more resistant you need more roundup, so at some point roundup resistant crops will see a larger benefit.
- hga 12y ago
  It's a question of timing and targets, not quantity. This is one reason my question about farming background is relevant, from what you've been saying you clearly don't have this background, let alone have ever used (generic) Roundup yourself. I've helped my father do so, in general weed killing applications, and he knows farmers who use the stuff for real, and just asked one, who said: You never let Roundup touch the plants you're growing---it only works when a plant is growing, BTW, in a "plantostatic" way, like bacteriostatic, it inhibits the synthesis of some critical amino acids. If you don't have Roundup Ready seeds, you spray before planting or after harvest, or you make sure the spray hits weeds, not your plants. That's because it's such a general killer of plants (assuming it can get inside, but that has no bearing on this discussion of genetics). And why it's so safe, animals cannot synthesize these amino acids (well, not without using one of the others as a precursor): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_amino_acids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_amino_acids So, no selection pressure on the crops themselves, unless you really screw up.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Thanks! That's enlightening. So if I understood you right application of roundup on any non-resistant crop is in error, it is only to be used pre-emergence.
    - hga 12y ago
      One time you can use it is pre-emergence of your crops; the weeds have to have emerged and be actively growing. Post-emergence of your crops, you have to spray carefully, but that's possible in some circumstances.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    > And why it's so safe, animals cannot synthesize these amino acids "So safe"? Hmm. Okay, it's not as toxic as other herbicides that people had been using before glyphosate showed up. I think the question of long-term low-level toxicity is still open.
    - hga 12y ago
      Is there anything that would possibly, in principle, convince you it's safe?
      - ScottBurson 12y ago
        Certainly: a long-term controlled study looking for health effects on people exposed to it, vs. a control group that isn't. 50 years should be adequate. (You said "in principle" :-)

by skosuri 12y ago

Yes I know, but not to do what you are implying. Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? It would kill most of their crop/harvest.

jacquesm 12y ago

> Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? Because it works even with non-GMO crops (always has). > It would kill most of their crop/harvest. No it would not. Not sure where you got that idea, but with Roundup-ready crops you can use more roundup without affecting the crops in a negative way. Roundup can - and routinely is - diluted before application. Crops will naturally tolerate some roundup, the pests it is working against can tolerate less (or so you hope). As pests become more resistant you need more roundup, so at some point roundup resistant crops will see a larger benefit.

hga 12y ago
It's a question of timing and targets, not quantity. This is one reason my question about farming background is relevant, from what you've been saying you clearly don't have this background, let alone have ever used (generic) Roundup yourself. I've helped my father do so, in general weed killing applications, and he knows farmers who use the stuff for real, and just asked one, who said: You never let Roundup touch the plants you're growing---it only works when a plant is growing, BTW, in a "plantostatic" way, like bacteriostatic, it inhibits the synthesis of some critical amino acids. If you don't have Roundup Ready seeds, you spray before planting or after harvest, or you make sure the spray hits weeds, not your plants. That's because it's such a general killer of plants (assuming it can get inside, but that has no bearing on this discussion of genetics). And why it's so safe, animals cannot synthesize these amino acids (well, not without using one of the others as a precursor): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_amino_acids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_amino_acids So, no selection pressure on the crops themselves, unless you really screw up.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Thanks! That's enlightening. So if I understood you right application of roundup on any non-resistant crop is in error, it is only to be used pre-emergence.
  - hga 12y ago
    One time you can use it is pre-emergence of your crops; the weeds have to have emerged and be actively growing. Post-emergence of your crops, you have to spray carefully, but that's possible in some circumstances.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  > And why it's so safe, animals cannot synthesize these amino acids "So safe"? Hmm. Okay, it's not as toxic as other herbicides that people had been using before glyphosate showed up. I think the question of long-term low-level toxicity is still open.
  - hga 12y ago
    Is there anything that would possibly, in principle, convince you it's safe?
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      Certainly: a long-term controlled study looking for health effects on people exposed to it, vs. a control group that isn't. 50 years should be adequate. (You said "in principle" :-)