# Roundup and bees..



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Considering that Roundup is an _Herbicide_ and not a _Pesticide, _and the fact that it has a very low toxicity to humans, aquatic life, and insects...............


No it is not a problem. 


That's waht makes Roundup such an awesome product. It does what it does to broadleaf weeds and leaves everything else alone.


----------



## Fuzzy (Aug 4, 2005)

I cannot provide a scientific answer. However, I apply 30-50 gallons of the stuff yearly around my yards to keep them from being overgrown. Generally this is not stuff
the bees are foraging on, and usually it is done when the plants will dry in less than 10-20 minutes. Been doing it since before I started with bees 10 yrs ago. 

As for my hives, they live longer than most hives do.


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

There was a similar thread several years ago... With the increases in no-till planting practices, I would notice a small bee die off in the spring when farmers were able to plant when the fields were in full bloom with dandelions. I would see the typical signs of a "pesticide" kill the day of and for a couple of days after when farmers were planting seed/spraying roundup. It was interesting in that Roundup is not considered toxic to bees, but in talking with some university researchers, they suggested that it may be the surfactants in the formulation that are detrimental to the honey bees if they come in contact with the solution during application.

Take if for what it worth... I have sprayed Roundup around the hives, but try not spray the bees.


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

It is good to be wary of chemicals but, roundup is one of the most benign and has allowed farmers to forgo many expensive, dust generating, errosion promoting, soil structure destoying, worm damaging, tillage operations. If you buy into the global warming mythology, millions of gallons fewer diesel is being burned to do that tillage. I have not seen glyphosphate affect the game birds, deer, waterfowl, moose or insects on the hundreds of thousands of acres it is used on. I have seen moisture saved and reduction os saline seep buildup that destroys arable land. Millions of people have been fed less expensive bread because of it. Until unthinking idiots started using food crops in a starving world for heavily subsidized motor fuel production and now we have people rioting all over Africa because of skyrocketing food prices. Without that tillage, nesting birds and small mammals are no longer being run over by tillage equipment. Ground nesting pollinators are not having their nests plowed up. The new crop is planted thru stubble before they normally set up housekeeping. All those who have the blind hatred for anythink man made please take a deep breath and study and THIMK!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*From Biotech-info.net


Conclusion *
Honey bees are not affected by glyphosate or Roundup formulations based on data from laboratory and field studies. Screening tests have been performed on a number of other beneficial arthropods including beetles, mites, spiders, and wasps. *These tests are designed to maximize exposure (maximum use rate, no interception, etc.)*. Large beneficial arthropods such as ground predators (spiders and beetles) are not at risk from glyphosate formulations. Several foliar dwelling species (e.g. parasitic wasp, predatory mite) for several glyphosate formulations are potentially affected based on laboratory screening tests. However, under realistic exposure regimes, testing showed that it is unlikely that effects will be observed. Within treated areas, alteration of the vegetation following glyphosate treatment can result in substantial change in habitats over the short term, and, consequently, in some cases,insect populations.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> It does what it does to broadleaf weeds and leaves everything else alone. -Nabber86


Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide. It kills broadleaved plants and grasses. The only plants that survive are ones that are resistant or haven't germinated when the application is made.

2, 4-D is a broadleaf herbicide, a selective herbicide.



> Ground nesting pollinators are not having their nests plowed up. -Vance G





> Within treated areas, alteration of the vegetation following glyphosate treatment can result in substantial change in habitats over the short term, and, consequently, in some cases,insect populations. -Nabber86


Both seem to be right, but figuring out which has a greater impact on pollinators can be very difficult. If ground-nesting bees are killed by tillage, they certainly do not need to find flowering plants. But, if they are not tilled up, emerge, and cannot find enough or suitable flowering plants, they do not need to find places to dig new nests.

Broadleaf herbicides around here have been used to convert roadsides into grasses predominantly. That reduction in pollen- and nectar-producing plants has certainly had an impact on pollinators, including honeybees. The use of non-selective herbicides to reduce weeds in ag fields, too, has reduced weedy plants that bees might visit to collect nectar and pollen.

Personally, I think the reduction in floral sources available to bees through the use of herbicides has had a greater impact on pollinator populations in this part of the country than the use of insecticides has had.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Kieck said:


> Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide. It kills broadleaved plants and grasses. The only plants that survive are ones that are resistant or haven't germinated when the application is made.
> 
> 2, 4-D is a broadleaf herbicide, a selective herbicide.


You are correct. My bad.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

I agree with Kiek, RU perse does not harm bees BUT, and it is a big but, its detrimental effects come from being non-selective and killing both good and bad plants i.e. our bee's feed sources. Spraying on fields has many beneficial outcomes, however its indicriminate use on fence rows, vacant lots, etc. are destroying much needed bee pastures. Same can be said for 2-4D and other herbicides. When I am asked at a farmer's market by customers what they can do to help the bees, my first response is to stop spraying their lawns and leave some flowering plants for the bees to feed upon.


----------



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm not sure I agree with the "roundup is harmless" mantra

Do a search for Roundup causes birthdefects in mammals and amphibians...you get things like this...

"...new international scientific team headed by Prof. Andres Carrasco and including researchers from the UK, Brazil, USA, and Argentina have demonstrated that Glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying and well below maximum residue levels in products presently approved in the European Union.[1]..."

“The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy.” 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21251

Here is a link to the peer reviewed research paper...

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

"...The broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate is widely used in agriculture worldwide. There has been ongoing controversy regarding the possible adverse effects of glyphosate on the environment and on human health. Reports of neural defects and craniofacial malformations from regions where glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are used led us to undertake an embryological approach to explore the effects of low doses of glyphosate in development. Xenopus laevis embryos were incubated with 1/5000 dilutions of a commercial GBH. The treated embryos were highly abnormal with marked alterations in cephalic and neural crest development and shortening of the anterior−posterior (A-P) axis. Alterations on neural crest markers were later correlated with deformities in the cranial cartilages at tadpole stages. Embryos injected with pure glyphosate showed very similar phenotypes. Moreover, GBH produced similar effects in chicken embryos, showing a gradual loss of rhombomere domains, reduction of the optic vesicles, and microcephaly. This suggests that glyphosate itself was responsible for the phenotypes observed, rather than a surfactant or other component of the commercial formulation. A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development. The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields..."


----------



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

And from a more local source....why would my neighbor be instructed to keep all livestock off any field sprayed with roundup...for an entire month?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

hilreal said:


> I agree with Kiek, RU perse does not harm bees BUT, and it is a big but, its detrimental effects come from being non-selective and killing both good and bad plants i.e. our bee's feed sources. Spraying on fields has many beneficial outcomes, however its indicriminate use on fence rows, vacant lots, etc. are destroying much needed bee pastures. Same can be said for 2-4D and other herbicides. When I am asked at a farmer's market by customers what they can do to help the bees, my first response is to stop spraying their lawns and leave some flowering plants for the bees to feed upon.


All good points; however only to a degree. 

If by "fence rows" you mean uncultivated areas between fields (or hedge rows as we call them here), I dont think too many farmers are going to waste time and money by indiscrimintely spraying fence rows. If you mean spraying the base of a chain-link fence around a suburban backyard, that is really an insignificant amount of land. Also, most people spray the base of the fence to kill the _grass_ so they dont have to mow so close or use a weed-whacker. And as far as suburdan lots go, nobody sprays RU on their entire lawn to kill dandylions. As Kiek pointed out 2-4D is more useful.

A vacant lot full of weeds is a nuisance to most people. And I am not sure the land area of vacant lots is that significant anyway. FWIW, the many vacant lots in my area (from foreclosures) are never maintained or sprayed. They bank sure isnt going to spend the money for a gallon of roundup. The lots tend to stay overgrown untill some pissed-off neighbor with a tractor eventually hits them with a brush hog, and that usually occurrs after the growing season.

Indiscrimanite spraying of bee pastures? I dont know too many landowners that want to wipe out every plant on their property by spraying with RU. Why would they want to turn their pasture land into barren ground? Except of course for farmers who are going to engage in monoculture anyway. (Roundup isnt the probelm here, farming is).

FWIW, I gave up spraying my lawn with herbicide long ago and now sport a lawn full of white clover. I have even gone as far as buying ten pounds of clover seed that I spread on vacant lots and even on the neighbors lawns at night they arent looking.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

jeb532 said:


> And from a more local source....why would my neighbor be instructed to keep all livestock off any field sprayed with roundup...for an entire month?


Dunno, the label calls for either 24 hours or 3 days depending on how you read it. http://www.paulowniaseed.com/PDF/paulownia_roundup_label.pdf I assume it would be a spot sprayed pasture as any pasture completely sprayed down wouldnt have anything to graze on after a month.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Nabber86 said:


> A vacant lot full of weeds is a nuisance to most people.


I know. I hate when that vacant lot and its weeds drive by with the radio blaring, start painting graffiti on a wall, or bully kids on their way home from school 

Don't disagree...just find it sad.


----------



## Hambone (Mar 17, 2008)

jeb532 said:


> Ok, so Ive heard that Roundup doesn't affect bees. But it does affect mammals and amphibians...especially in the reporductive organs.
> 
> So how about your neighbor sprays his field...full of dandenlions and bees..and the drenched bees bring the roundup back to the hive...where it gets stored in the cells along with the pollen/nectar...and possibly encapsulated in wax during comb building...which would probably mean that the Roundup would be protected from degradation.
> 
> Would you not consider that a problem?


Not really much you can do about your neighbors spraying. One thing you can do is see if you can get him to switch to 9% vinegar. It works the same as roundup and only cost about $2.00 a gallon.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Jeb: First off lets seperate the whole issue that seems to constantly rage on here about genetic engineering and (dare I say it?) Monsanto from the issue of whether herbicides cause bee losses. I can only state that I keep a large number of hives in a pretty intensive agricultural area and I have never seen bee losses from any kind of herbicide spray nor have I heard of anyone who claimed losses from any type of herbicide. I have no doubt that someone will post some type of link from somewhere but honestly I believe there are many threats more serious to your bees in the world than Roundup. Personally I dont much care for Roundup used in pasture areas because it pretty much burns down the whole area that the spray contacts such as large weed patches or fencelines. Unless you come back in a very short time later to reseed something desirable what always ends up happening is that something will grow there and it isnt going to be something any better than what you just got rid of. Best of luck with your bees Jeb, hopefully things are better in Texas this year than last.


----------



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

In this case the neighbor 100 feet from my bees sprayed his 15 acre field to kill everything and start over trying to make a hay crop - minus weeds and winter grasses.

My concern here is contamination of my honey that is then consumed by mammals. The bees apparently receive little if any harm. Us humans on the other hand, get to enjoy the collective concentration of whatever toxins the bees bring home.

So, I blocked my bees entrances at least until the roundup had dried on his field. Since that field will soon be 15 acres of waste land....I doubt the bees will be visting that field for a while.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Unfortunate for sure. You will find, though, that there won't be anything for the bees to work within a very short time. Perhaps you could suggest that he put a light sprinkling of some type of native legume in his reseeding, remind him that it makes for a very protein rich hay mixture. Some of the most valuable hay up in this country is an alfalfa grass mixture that is perfect for horse hay.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

A small pesticide kill during planting is much more likely to be neo-nic poisoning from residual talc blowing out of the machinery and onto flowers the bees are visiting. 

Similar minor kills can result from bees visiting small corn plants on damp mornings and picking up the sweet guttation fluid on the leaves.

Roundup is unlikely to cause much trouble.

Peter


----------



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Perhaps you could suggest that he put a light sprinkling of some type of native legume in his reseeding, remind him that it makes for a very protein rich hay mixture..


I'm pretty sure he thinks coastal bermuda is the only way to go....


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

JSL said:


> With the increases in no-till planting practices, I would notice a small bee die off in the spring when farmers were able to plant when the fields were in full bloom with dandelions. I would see the typical signs of a "pesticide" kill the day of and for a couple of days after when farmers were planting seed/spraying roundup. It was interesting in that Roundup is not considered toxic to bees, but in talking with some university researchers, they suggested that it may be the surfactants in the formulation that are detrimental to the honey bees if they come in contact with the solution during application.


Joe,

If the die-off occurred at planting time it was most likely from insecticides in the seed treatments, as has been mentioned. Typically, the Roundup is not applied until after the crop and weeds are up and the crop is close to creating a canopy.

Tom


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Kieck said:


> Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide.


Note that GLyphosate != Roundup. Roundup tends to surf on Glyphosate's merits, but this overlooks the other ugly crap they add that makes it roundup.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Roundup is a brand name. Glyphosate is the common name of the active ingredient in a number of herbicidal products, including Roundup.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Kieck said:


> Roundup is a brand name. Glyphosate is the common name of the active ingredient in a number of herbicidal products, including Roundup.


Thank you, captain obvious.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Now that 2-4-D has been brought up, check out it's toxicity to bees.


----------



## EastSideBuzz (Apr 12, 2009)

When I place my bee's into the orchards I spray roundup on the weeds to keep them from overtaking the entrances. Never had a problem yet. I also cycle them first.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Hambone said:


> Not really much you can do about your neighbors spraying. One thing you can do is see if you can get him to switch to 9% vinegar. It works the same as roundup and only cost about $2.00 a gallon.


Cool thing to know! wonder if it will actually kill Dallis Grass, johnson grass, hackberry, or sandspur though... (roundup won't)


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

If Glyphosate won't kill Dallas or Johnson (aka) buck grass for you, my advice is to look into where you’re buying your Round Up. For those of us who are Monsanto phobic, you can buy generic Round Up (Glyphosate) now-a-days because Monsanto’s patent on Round Up expired. Therefore you are not consorting with the enemy if you use Glyphosate.  

Some of the newest herbicides don't even require that non lactating livestock be removed from the pasture before or after spraying. That is why they have catchy green names like Grazon. (Graze on) Get it? The down side is they kill dandelions, clover, and every other "flower" that bees smooch. But like I said in the "Trends in Beekeeping" thread, no one, (but especially your run-of-the-mill trendy tree hugging beautification board or home owners association) is going to allow anything that is even slightly beneficial to bees, because in their jaded eyes its ugly. inch: But if you want to learn the truth, hide and watch them cry crocodile tears over the plight of honeybees.
....................... :ws:


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

jeb532 said:


> And from a more local source....why would my neighbor be instructed to keep all livestock off any field sprayed with roundup...for an entire month?


if they were milk cows, milk gets tested and they don't want to take a chance with any chemicals(even if harmless) getting there milk rejected. The apple grower and milk farmer down the road used to go round and round about it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Thank you, captain obvious. -mrspock


I'm not so sure it is as obvious as you indicate. The product you have referenced, Roundup, has an EPA registration number of 524-445. The only active ingredient listed on the EPA label is glyphosate. Are you suggesting that the "other ingredients" -- the surfactants and water and such -- are really what make Roundup so much different than generic formulations of glyphosate? What part of it do you think is so much different?

The real risk I see to pollinators comes from use of the active ingredient to "clean up" weeds in and around ag fields. Getting rid of weeds is profitable for producers. Getting rid of the flowers those weeds produce cuts down on nectar and pollen available to pollinators. For that purpose, I see no real difference from one formulation to another.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Kieck said:


> The real risk I see to pollinators comes from use of the active ingredient to "clean up" weeds in and around ag fields. Getting rid of the flowers those weeds produce cuts down on nectar and pollen available to pollinators.


If a field is under active cultivation, be definition, it isnt a significant source of bee forage (unless it is a crop that bees forage - see comments about soy below). How many flowering weeds live between the rows of corn in a field? Whether the farmer uses roundup or hoes the rows by hand, the goal is still weed removal. 

What about soy fields? Dont bees forage on soy? Killing flowering weeds (by roundup or by hand) in a soy field increases the amount of nectar available for the bees.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

BEES4U said:


> Now that 2-4-D has been brought up, check out it's toxicity to bees.


The main reason that 2-4D and Roundup are used so much is the fact that these herbicides have_* low *_toxicity. They were specifically developed to replace older herbicides that were much more toxic. Sure if you want to be organic, you dont want any chemicals of any kind, and you hate all pesticide/herbicides. But for the rest of the world, 2-4D and roundup are much better alternatives to what used to be available. 

From the EPA's own website: 

"_In acute studies, 2,4-D generally has low acute toxicity (Toxicity Category III or IV) via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. 2,4-D is not a skin irritant (Toxicity Category III or IV), nor a skin sensitizer. Although the 2,4-D ester forms are not eye irritants (Toxicity Category III or IV), the acid and salt forms are considered to be severe eye irritants (Toxicity Category I)."_


"_A honey bee acute toxicity study indicated that 2,4-D is practically non-toxic to the honey bee."_


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Kieck said:


> I Are you suggesting that the "other ingredients" -- the surfactants and water and such -- are really what make Roundup so much different than generic formulations of glyphosate? What part of it do you think is so much different?


Personally, I believe so. I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion on how significant the difference is.

I think the most important point is to make the point that the two are different. So frequently, I hear Roundup getting a pass based on the safety record of glyphosate - A sleight-of-hand that is sometimes innocent, and sometimes deceitful - But in either case, an obstacle to people making their own informed decisions.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> How many flowering weeds live between the rows of corn in a field? -Nabber86


I've seen fields awash with henbit between rows of corn while corn was still relatively young. Milkweed populations are declining, in part because of ag practices. Dandelions were common weeds in ag fields around here at one time. Patches of thistles were not uncommon, even in cultivated ag fields. Velvetleaf, smartweed, any number of weed formerly grew between corn rows.

The sheer number can be important, but I think diversity of floral sources and timing of the bloom periods can be critical for bees and other pollinators, too.



> Killing flowering weeds (by roundup or by hand) in a soy field increases the amount of nectar available for the bees. -Nabber86


I think in some cases you are likely correct. Whether or not bees forage in soybeans seems to vary quite a bit. I've seen a number that do, but some fields seem to have no bees in them. Some beekeepers have suggested that certain varieties of soybeans do not attract bees. I'm not sure. I am convinced that bees need diversity in pollen sources, particularly, to obtain balanced rations of proteins. I believe diversity is vital to healthy pollinator populations. And that includes honeybees. Weeds may provide some diversity.

More importantly, I think, is that roadsides and fencerows around here are often sprayed with herbicides (broadleaf herbicides, in particular) to eliminate all by grasses. The acreage contained in a single fencerow may seem small (although how many beekeepers write about wanting to plant 1000 square feet or a bit more of some specific flower to help their bees?), but roadsides can be relatively wide and offer a great deal of space for foraging pollinators. Pastures, too, are often sprayed to eliminate all but grasses. I agree that the acute toxicity of the chemicals to bees is likely very low. The risk really seems to be in loss of many flowering plants that bees rely on for nectar and pollen.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> So frequently, I hear Roundup getting a pass based on the safety record of glyphosate .... -mrspock


Of course, for a number of years glyphosate was only available in the market as "Roundup."

Are you talking Roundup in your statements here, or some of the newer formulations that include other active ingredients as well? Many ag producers are tank-mixing glyphosate (either in brand name form, or in generic form) with other herbicides to get the weed control they desire.

If you're suggesting that a particular surfactant is particularly toxic, I'd be interested to hear which one you think is the issue. Honestly, I'm not sure which "other ingredients" are even included in straight Roundup.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

I believe most surgactants are a soap like material reducing surface tension and causing the herbicide to cling to the leaves longer. We all know that one of the ways to humanely depopulate a hive is with a soap bath so it is conceivable that if sprayed directly on insects it could interfere with their breathing. Though this would only account for a minor kill.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

True, hilreal, but most generic forms of glyphosate also include surfactants, or surfactants are added in the tank when mixing. Must be something in particular that mrspock believes is nasty in brand-name stuff? I'm curious to know what it is.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

"I think in some cases you are likely correct. Whether or not bees forage in soybeans seems to vary quite a bit. I've seen a number that do, but some fields seem to have no bees in them. Some beekeepers have suggested that certain varieties of soybeans do not attract bees. I'm not sure. I am convinced that bees need diversity in pollen sources, particularly, to obtain balanced rations of proteins. I believe diversity is vital to healthy pollinator populations. And that includes honeybees. Weeds may provide some diversity."

Visited with a friend who is a commercial soybean breeder and he said there was a study done at the Univ of IL a few years back that did show that there are differences in the amount of nectar produced and their attractiveness to bees. However, flower color, as is so often quoted was not a correlated trait.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Kieck said:


> Of course, for a number of years glyphosate was only available in the market as "Roundup."


That hasn't been the case for 11 years, and doesn't seem relevant to the discussion in progress. Are you a historian, perhaps?




Kieck said:


> Are you talking Roundup in your statements here, or some of the newer formulations that include other active ingredients as well? Many ag producers are tank-mixing glyphosate (either in brand name form, or in generic form) with other herbicides to get the weed control they desire.


Given that I'm emphasizing the difference between two specific products, it seems odd to ask if I'm discussing a different product. 




Kieck said:


> If you're suggesting that a particular surfactant is particularly toxic, I'd be interested to hear which one you think is the issue. Honestly, I'm not sure which "other ingredients" are even included in straight Roundup.


I'm not making any "suggestion". I'm making a very linear and direct point: That point, in the simplest terms, is that Glyphosate is not the same and roundup. Roundup is not the same as Glyphosate. 

I'll leave it to others to determine what the difference is, and if that difference is meaningful to them.

Given that this does seem meaningful to you, may want to investigate the specifics for yourself, instead of causing distraction and generating disinformation with uninformed speculation.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Spock: You are the one insinuiting that there is something different yet you accuse Kieck of uninformed speculation for asking what you feel is different? :scratch:


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> Spock: You are the one insinuiting that there is something different yet you accuse Kieck of uninformed speculation for asking what you feel is different? :scratch:


No, I accuse him of uninformed speculation for his uninformed speculating upon what the difference is. Not for asking.

My point is only to indicate that the difference exists.

As stated, I'll leave it to others to determine what that difference is, to determine if it is significant, or to just chase their own tails, as they desire.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

mrspock said:


> No, I accuse him of uninformed speculation for his uninformed speculating upon what the difference is. Not for asking.
> 
> My point is only to indicate that the difference exists.
> 
> As stated, I'll leave it to others to determine what that difference is, to determine if it is significant, or to just chase their own tails, as they desire.


No you are the only one in this thread that has speculated at all about this difference, yet you choose to comment no farther and leave it to "others". If you have some evidence lets hear it, if not lets move on.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> No you are the only one in this thread that has speculated at all about this difference


I haven't speculated there's a difference. There is. I have pointed it out that the difference exists, and added my own opinion that I feel the difference is significant.



jim lyon said:


> yet you choose to comment no farther and leave it to "others".


It is, as they say, an exercise "left up to the reader".



jim lyon said:


> t, if not lets move on.


The option to move on has always been yours to exercise.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Scrapfe said:


> If Glyphosate won't kill Dallas or Johnson (aka) buck grass for you, my advice is to look into where you’re buying your Round Up. For those of us who are Monsanto phobic, you can buy generic Round Up (Glyphosate) now-a-days because Monsanto’s patent on Round Up expired. Therefore you are not consorting with the enemy if you use Glyphosate.
> ....................... :ws:


Actually I think I bought spectracide. I gave the last half bottle away, changed my weed wipeout force to chickens for areas where I would use a broad spectrum product. Since I last treated the lot in 2009, trying to eradicate grass spur - I figure I can turn my hens out there and the stuff won't hurt them. Nothing aerates the top inch of soil and removes weeds quite like a hungry flock of hens. I got them in 2010, backyard hasn't been the same since. And my shovel has just about got all of the johnson grass, excess bermuda (which roundup will not kill), sandspur, dallis grass and burdock out of the areas I'm most concerned about. Eventually I won't have any bermuda out there, I hope. just clover or something that doesn't need mowed.


----------



## kincade (Feb 3, 2011)

I'm shocked that so many are rushing to the defense of a company that refuses to list all the ingredients for its customers. Whether or not it is harmful is a complete guess (aka speculation) as we dont really know what else is in roundup. Since when has any large corporation had anyones best interest in mind other than its own? It doesnt take much searching to come up with dozens of examples to prove this point. 

Ill no sooner use roundup than i will buy food to eat with unlisted ingredients. Ill gamble with my money instead of my health. Ymmv.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

kincade said:


> I'm shocked that so many are rushing to the defense of a company that refuses to list all the ingredients for its customers...


Who are your refering to, Coca Cola?  I doubt Coca Cola keeps their super secret formula in a mayoniaze jar, anymore than Monasanto advertises the process for manufacturing Round Up.  Remember, Round Up is sprayed on things that grow like weeds and Regular Coke is drunk like water. But Coka-Cola is still not forthcoming with the formula for Regular Coke, going on 140 years already.


----------



## kincade (Feb 3, 2011)

Scrapfe said:


> Who are your refering to, Coca Cola?  I doubt Coca Cola keeps their super secret formula in a mayoniaze jar, anymore than Monasanto advertises the process for manufacturing Round Up.  Remember, Round Up is sprayed on things that grow like weeds and Regular Coke is drunk like water. But Coka-Cola is still not forthcoming with the formula for Regular Coke, going on 140 years already.


Just so we are clear, you really think I'm referring to Coca Cola? And you are equating an edible soft drink with an inedible herbicide? Not that I'd assert either is good for you, but I certainly don't think they are equal or anything alike. Your are really grasping at straws with this argument.

[hint], think chemical companies.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Since cotton traditionally has the highest pesticide use of any crop, I am surprised that no one has mentioned Round Up’s role in defoliating cotton prior to harvest with cotton picking mechanical cotton pickers.


----------



## New Ky Beekeeper (Jun 27, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Considering that Roundup is an _Herbicide_ and not a _Pesticide, _
> 
> That's waht makes Roundup such an awesome product. It does what it does to broadleaf weeds and leaves everything else alone.


I thought 24D is for broad leaf plants. Roundup kills all green leaf plants....


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Cool thing to know! wonder if it will actually kill Dallis Grass, johnson grass, hackberry, or sandspur though... (roundup won't) 

Add a tablespoon of ammonium sulphate or, better yet, one teaspoon ammonium nitrate to the spray mix. I hand sprayed 1/4 of an acre and it killed the rhyzomes of the Johnson grass!
Thats 1, one tsp/gallon.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

kincade said:


> ... you really think I'm referring to Coca Cola?...


No. The Coca-Cola company is just the first company that came to my feeble mind and which has a SECRET formula like Monsanto does and whose SECRET formula enjoys a lot of controversy. But it looks like my sarcasm did not fulfill the function I intended for it to perform which was to provoke thoughtful debate of all sides of the issue. 

I just don't think that many companies as well as most people on Beesource are prepared to scrawl their credit card, Social Security, intellectual property, or other sensitive financial information on a public restroom wall. Would you? Why should Monsanto do something that you, I , Coca-Cola or any other company for that matter are unwilling to do? IMHO, when the anti Monsanto crowd lacks a red hearing to throw us off the scent, they go fishing for one. That is what complaints about not knowing what is in Round Up are about, it is a fishing expedition or else a way to create fear and paranoia.


----------



## kincade (Feb 3, 2011)

Scrapfe said:


> That is what complaints about not knowing what is in Round Up are about, it is a fishing expedition or else a way to create fear and paranoia.


You are trying to put words in my mouth and label my intent and you are wrong. Actually, it's not either of those. It's an unwillingness to trust my families health to a corporation that is motivated solely by profit, and as I said before it's not limited to Roundup. But I've already stated this and you have already ignored it so I don't know why you'd listen this time around. 

You are free to trust any company or corporation you like, but I'm not sure how a lack of trust on my behalf could be construed as threatening to you or anyone else unless you have a stake in one of the aforementioned companies. Monstato or any other big corporation are driven by one primary goal: Profit. Sometimes that aligns with the common good, and sometimes it doesn't. I prefer to err on the side of caution.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

kincade said:


> Monstato or any other big corporation are driven by one primary goal: Profit. Sometimes that aligns with the common good, and sometimes it doesn't. I prefer to err on the side of caution.


There is nothing wrong with profit. Without it there would be no corporations or even mom-and-pop operations. And Monsanto does align with the common good; the common good of supplying herbicide to the millions of people who like ther products.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> There is. I have pointed it out that the difference exists, and added my own opinion that I feel the difference is significant. -mrspock


In fairness, you've stated that you believe a difference exists, but you've made it clear that you believe the difference to be significant. You have yet to reveal what you believe that difference to be.

There may be a difference. I don't know, really, in terms of bees. I've used both the name brand and generic formulations for weed control. I see no significant difference between the two for weed control.

I've also heard that the "molecule" used to produce glyphosate is still under the parent company's control (no one else has come up with the way to manufacture it yet), so even all generic glyphosate (the active ingredient) is manufactured in the same facility as name-brand glyphosate. I don't know whether or not that's completely true.



> It is, as they say, an exercise "left up to the reader". -mrspock


Aw, give already. If you have some real evidence of the difference and what that difference is, please add it to the discussion. Just bashing a manufacturer doesn't give evidence of a difference, really. And I'm genuinely curious to know exactly what differences might exist. I expect others are, too.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert. Perhaps this "dead horse" has been beaten enough but when a label mentions inert ingredients I am going to assume that they are, in fact, inert and if there were other chemically active agents then why else would the products perform exactly the same?


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Jim, I am not attempting to beat a dead horse, but what about Colonel Sanders blend of 11 secret herbs and spices? Don't we deserve to know what is in his fried chicken? The same principle applies. Besides I eat way way more fried chicken than I down shots of Round Up. The doc told me to cut down my Round Up intake.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

kincade said:


> ... And you are equating an edible soft drink with an inedible herbicide? ...Your are really grasping at straws with this argument....


Hold on, I think I just caught a straw with my 'wittle' hand.
In my wonderings through the waste land that is sometimes the World Wide Web I came upon this tidbit. 
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/15/has-coca-colas-top-secret-recipe-been-leaked-not-really/

I know that fiction is a total stranger to truth, so here is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding patens on formulations courtesy of dailyfinance.com. 

“Coke's proprietary blend of oils and extracts is among the 10 most highly valued trade secrets, and the company goes to incredible lengths to protect it from competitors…. when NPR… released a recipe for the drink earlier this week, it quickly captured the attention of the chattering class…. the mystery recipe… is probably exaggerated, but another piece of Coke lore is strongly based in fact: surprisingly, Coke has never patented its recipe. To do so, Coke would have had to disclose its recipe and, given that patents expire after 20 years, the recipe would eventually become publicly available, leaving the company vulnerable to competitors. For similar reasons, Coke pulled out of India in 1977, when it became clear that sending the delicious sugared soda to the subcontinent would require that the company disclose its secret formula.”---dailyfinance.com

So Monsanto has already revealed the ingredients in Round Up and they did so over 30 years ago to have received a paten on it that expired 11 years ago. There is however one "inert" chemical used with Round Up that is suspected in the deaths of thousands of humans annually. That chemical is DHMO. Learn more about DHMO by clicking here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Scrapfe said:


> That is what complaints about not knowing what is in Round Up are about, it is a fishing expedition or else a way to create fear and paranoia.


Monsanto is the archetype of the evil corporation that respects nothing, and bends the law as far as it can as much as it can.

Monsanto, simply put, is the death-star of corporate america. Mnnsanto is every example of corporate misconduct rolled into one.

Monsanto's behavior alone is sufficient reason not to buy round-up. If a person takes no issue with Monsanto's conduct, then it can only be concluded that they would never find fault with any corporation.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Would I be out of line to say that you hold a negitive opinion about Monsanto?


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Kieck said:


> In fairness, you've stated that you believe a difference exists, but you've made it clear that you believe the difference to be significant. You have yet to reveal what you believe that difference to be.
> 
> There may be a difference. I don't know, really, in terms of bees.


Actually, I have no idea either, in terms of bees. Given what I see as the shortcomings to roundup, I expect them to be minimal, but probably not what I would accept as a risk.




Kieck said:


> Aw, give already. If you have some real evidence of the difference and what that difference is, please add it to the discussion. Just bashing a manufacturer doesn't give evidence of a difference, really. And I'm genuinely curious to know exactly what differences might exist. I expect others are, too.


I simply don't have the time or interest in championing the case of whether the difference is significant. For me, it is enough to leave others with the knowledge that the difference exists, allowing those that are interested to followup with their own research.

It boggles my mind that anyone could remain curious about anything for more than 5 minutes in the age of google.

But perhaps some people are just used to having things hand delivered to them. That's ok.... But I'm probably not the delivery man to expect.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Actually Halliburton has a secret formula they inject into the ground to extract gas, and that's another herring of an entirely different kind.

Is Spectracide the same as Roundup? if the formula is public, then it probably is, and if it is, and it didn't work on what I needed it to work on, it is not profitable for me to purchase either product ever again, and that is ok, because my money folded up in my pocket equals my profit.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

mrspock said:


> ... For me, it is enough to leave others with the knowledge that the difference exists...
> It boggles my mind that anyone could remain curious about anything for more than 5 minutes in the age of google...
> But perhaps some people are just used to having things hand delivered to them...
> 
> ...


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Scrapfe said:


> mrspock said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

mrspock said:


> Scrapfe said:
> 
> 
> > That's a rather sweeping, broad statement, but I would cautiously accept a sliver of that sentiment.... my point is this: The significance of the difference is open to interpretation...
> ...


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Scrapfe said:


> Fair enough.
> Then you and I agree to disagree about any direct impact Round Up has on bees. That too is fair.



I don't know that there's any disagreement, given that I have no real stance on the matter.



Scrapfe said:


> What if a predominance of the facts proves either one or both of us are wrong.


I'll leave it in your hands to suggest a penance sufficiently dramatic to balance the books.



Scrapfe said:


> Are either one or both of us willing to cling to an out dated theory like the theory that the Earth is flat or else the center of the Universe, or are we both willing to absorb new knowledge (not opinions or suppositions) but real knowledge even if that knowledge violates our most treasured and long held ideas?


You really do think in terms of things in very absolute and dramatic terms. - Which further vindicates my own desire to adopt ambiguous positions, as it saves me from crossing swords with people who perceive the world around them far differently than I perceive my own.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Monsanto's behavior alone is sufficient reason not to buy round-up. If a person takes no issue with Monsanto's conduct, then it can only be concluded that they would never find fault with any corporation. -mrspock


Ah. The difference seems to be an opinion of the company with its name on the label. From the veiled implications, I thought you might know of some physical difference in the products. Each person has to make his own decisions about whether or not to purchase from any company or any person. If your ethics convince you not to support a company, for whatever reason, more power to you.



> I simply don't have the time or interest in championing the case of whether the difference is significant. For me, it is enough to leave others with the knowledge that the difference exists, allowing those that are interested to followup with their own research. -mrspock


For the purposes of this discussion, it seems to me that no significant difference between the name-brand product and the generic product exists. My comments were intended about the practices surrounding the use of the active ingredient glyphosate in either form, and the effects of that active ingredient on available floral sources for pollinators. I haven't found anything to cause me to want to alter my comments. I stand by my use of the term "glyphosate."


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Kieck said:


> Ah. The difference seems to be an opinion of the company with its name on the label. From the veiled implications, I thought you might know of some physical difference in the products.


I do - You are confusing two different points.




Kieck said:


> I stand by my use of the term "glyphosate."


Sounds good. Just make, for the sake of accuracy an full disclosure, you're using it in reference to generic Glyposate, and not Roundup, which is different.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I do - You are confusing two different points. -mrspock


Then share, please. I'm interested to hear what this difference might be. I'm sure others would like to know as well.



> Just make, for the sake of accuracy an full disclosure, you're using it in reference to generic Glyposate, and not Roundup, which is different. -mrspock


No difference for the purpose of my statements. Glyphosate in both generic and brand-name products is used to kill plants. The use of both brand-name and generic is often intended to "clean up" areas with flowering plants that the users deem "weedy." Those flowering plants are likely providing resources to pollinators. The death of those plants reduces resources available to pollinators. Hence, my statements.

I doubt either form of non-selective, glyphosate-containing herbicide is acutely toxic to bees or most other insects directly. Chronic effects have shown up in other organisms, apparently, with no distinction made between forms. The same is possible, I think, for insects, but I don't have any evidence of it. I keep an open mind if someone can produce evidence that direct toxicity from these herbicides on pollinators.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Kieck said:


> Glyphosate in both forms is used to kill plants.


You have totally lost me. When you speak of glyphosate "forms" are you differentiating between the glyphsote acid and it's various salt forms?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

My fault, Nabber86. I got in a hurry. I intended "forms" to mean both the brand-name and generic formulations that are available. I've edited that post to better reflect what I was attempting to say.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

So we are talking trade names or formulations (mixes), not chemical forms of glyphosate? 

In either case, I fail to see why it would make any difference. Who needs a secret formula? If one product has 25 percent glyphosate by weight as acid, and another products has 50 percent glyphosate by weight as acid. The second product is twice as strong as the first. If one product happens to include surfactants to help the glyphosate stick to plant leaves better, then that product may be more effective than another. In the end we are still talking about killing plants with glyphosate, that being the _active_ ingredient. As for the other ingredients, _inert_ means _inert_. 

Even if differentiating between the actual _chemical forms _of glyphosate, it's still the glyphosate that does the job, not the Na+ or K+ ion that happens to be riding along with it. (As an example think of elemental cyanide, hydrogen cyanide, sodium cyanide, and potassium cyanide - they are all equally as effectve).

What's the big whoop?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Yep, we're taking name-brand versus generic formulations only, here. (On a side note, most generic and name-brand concentrates sold for ag use contain 41 percent glyphosate. Even the concentration is the same, to make it easier when calculating for mixing before application.)

The "secret formula," I think, may only exist in the chemical molecules that are used to actually produce the active ingredient glyphosate. Even with a patent, as I understand it, the idea can be patented without giving all details of how the end product is produced.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Kieck said:


> Yep, we're taking name-brand versus generic formulations only, here. (On a side note, most generic and name-brand concentrates sold for ag use contain 41 percent glyphosate. Even the concentration is the same, to make it easier when calculating for mixing before application.)
> 
> The "secret formula," I think, may only exist in the chemical molecules that are used to actually produce the active ingredient glyphosate. Even with a patent, as I understand it, the idea can be patented without giving all details of how the end product is produced.


At this point I think we are more in the arena of trade names and marketing, rather than patents and secret formulas.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Oh, I agree, Nabber86. Veiled accusations and insinuations have appeared in this thread, though, that something else (or more than one thing?) is being added to at least one of the formulations.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Could it be dihydrogen monoxide? 

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


:ws:


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Could it be dihydrogen monoxide?
> 
> 
> 
> :ws:


Deadly stuff... when inhaled....


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

hpm08161947 said:


> Deadly stuff... when inhaled....


Prolonged contact with solid DHMO results in tissue damage, ending in lost fingers, toes, and eventfully death. And DHMO is a proven killer of whole colonies of bees, especially over wintering colonies. DHMO's power to act as an acid is well known, DHMO can dissolve Plutonium. DHMO in a gaseous state is explosive and through out history has resulted in the deaths of many famous people, Casey Jones was one of them.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

mrspock said:


> …You really do think in terms of things in very absolute and dramatic terms…


I do? Really? Gee! 
You mean in absolute and dramatic terms like these?



mrspock said:


> Monsanto is the archetype of the evil corporation....
> Monsanto... is the death-star of corporate america.
> Mnnsanto is every example of corporate misconduct rolled into one.
> Monsanto's behavior alone is sufficient reason not to buy round-up...
> If a person takes no issue with Monsanto's conduct… they would never find fault with any corporation.


That sounds pretty absolute and dramatic to me. But I'll leave it for others to decide.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Could it be dihydrogen monoxide?
> 
> http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
> 
> ...


Like the Onion.com?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Gypsi said:


> Like the Onion.com?


Yes, but most people know the Onion is humor. You would be surprised how many morons fall for the DHMO page. Hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

The beginning was believable but when it got to behavior problems in schools, etc., it was too much. And I actually use DMSO on my knee - which is why I went to the page in the first place. (DMSO IS labeled "not for use on humans") My uncle is 82, been using it 40 years, would put the doctors out of business for sprains and sports injuries..


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Gypsi said:


> The beginning was believable but when it got to behavior problems in schools, etc., it was too much. And I actually use DSMO on my knee - which is why I went to the page in the first place. (DSMO IS labeled "not for use on humans") My uncle is 82, been using it 40 years, would put the doctors out of business for sprains and sports injuries..



So you did fall for it. :lpf:

"DHMO" dihydrogen monoxide. *Di*hydrogen means 2 hydrogens and *mon*oxide means 1 oxygen, hence the chemical formula H2O, or plain water. 

The page was not about DSMO, which is the acronym for Dimethyl Sulfoxide, is something all together different (snake oil IMHO, but that doesnt matter here). You also just proved a secondary trait of human nature that the DHMO website weaves into the mix: people eyes tend to glaze over when they see a bunch of scary looking accronyms and chemical formulas. This is commonly referred to the 1,2,3-tetraethylmethyldeath syndrom in the environmrntal biz.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Yes, I fell for it sufficiently to open the link, but I think a genuine fall would have had me proclaiming the need for regulation. Given the fact that I had a really long and horrendous day, and read that at 10 pm, I'm not going to put myself in the "moron" class.

You gonna come down here and help me get this engine in?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Gypsi said:


> I'm not going to put myself in the "moron" class.
> 
> You gonna come down here and help me get this engine in?


Agreed. The moron crack was not meant to be personal. Your reference to the Onion lead me to beleive that you knew that it was a joke from the beginning. (if you like the onion, check out the Chive). 

And yes I could help you put an engine in, but you will have to trailer your rig to Kansas City. I have a full set of tools and do a lot auto/truck work myself.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Think it will be daughter and I, done in the parking space next to my garage. This Ford's transmission is killing me. (darn near did on Saturday). I need my chevy back. Towing the truck with engine here is 121 miles, far enough. Thank you though.


----------



## Boone (Jul 21, 2011)

I must disagree with Nabber86 100%, and maybe others, Round-Up is a very dangerous chemical, to both bees and humans. If you think they are getting Round-Up, try moving the bees to another location, or ask your neighbor to not spray.


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

Roundup replaces so many truely toxic chemicals that I truely don't understand the hubub about it. Think of all the oil not being burned because of it's ability to kill weeds on fallow ground. What billion people do you want to withhold food from because it is outlawed? No one you know I am sure. Bees are not affected by it or people either when used anything like safely.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Boone said:


> Round-Up is a very dangerous chemical, to both bees and humans.


On the contrary, Roundup is decidely "non-toxic". At least in terms of any toxicity data that I have ever seen. 

Do you have some new data to support your claim?


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Do you have some new data to support your claim?


I use Glycophospate in all our bee yards, I have never observed anything bad for the bees. I have been told that my comb is infected with this substance, but I have read nothing to support this idea, Is there research to support the idea that Glycophospate had negative effects on bees?


----------



## jgatto (Apr 4, 2014)

It is a problem, and a big one; you and I are more microbe, than 'human' -- 10x the number of bacterial cells to human cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412

"..highly pathogenic bacteria as Salmonella Entritidis, Salmonella Gallinarum, Salmonella Typhimurium, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium botulinum are highly resistant to glyphosate. However, most of beneficial bacteria as Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus badius, Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus spp., were found to be moderate to highly susceptible." 




Nabber86 said:


> Considering that Roundup is an _Herbicide_ and not a _Pesticide, _and the fact that it has a very low toxicity to humans, aquatic life, and insects...............
> 
> No it is not a problem.
> 
> That's waht makes Roundup such an awesome product. It does what it does to broadleaf weeds and leaves everything else alone.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I don't think it affects my symbiotic gut bacteria cos I don't drink it.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> I don't think it affects my symbiotic gut bacteria cos I don't drink it.


....and no one has demonstrated that there is any avenue for human consumption of glyphosate. If there is a single food product that contains any glyphosate I would be interested in hearing about it.


----------



## Chemguy (Nov 26, 2012)

It is known that glyphosphate is not acutely toxic to honeybees at doses as high as 100 ug/bee, the highest level tested in the studies I have found. This means that application of glyphosphate in that amount to honeybees did not result in death within 72 hours. If glyphosphate is used as an 18% solution (the concentration generally sold for use on lawn and garden), and a colony of honeybees contains 30,000 bees, this means that directly treating a hive with 1.1 lb of the glyphosphate solution did not kill the bees within 72 hours. I think that 1.1 lb of an 18% solution of glyphosphate is equal to about 1 pint (or, more exactly, 1/2 liter).

All of this information is easily available online, from multiple sources. All you have to do is start looking and do some research and a little work. Here's where I started: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf 

A note about "inert" additives: The term means that the additive does not have the same chemical properties as the ingredient that causes the desired effect. It does not mean that the additive has no chemical properties, does not decompose, etc. Usually, an inert additive is used to enhance the delivery of the active ingredient. In the case of some formulations of glyphosphate, the detergents that are added do not kill weeds but instead help to spread the glyphosphate more evenly over the surface of the plant, maximizing the effect of the glyphosphate. I do not know of any studies that have investigated the effects of these additives, but I have not looked into it, either.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

jim lyon said:


> If there is a single food product that contains any glyphosate I would be interested in hearing about it.


Well, at least in Germany it is well known, that Glyphosat is found in a wide range of food. Farmers here use it just before the harvest, because the crop plants die, dry up and can be harvested better. Anyway, in 8 out of 10 bread products in Germany Glyphosat has been found. They also tested the blood from city slickers that live in the city and do not have any contact to Glyphosat in their everyday life. They have been positively tested and have had Glyphosat (or it's metabolites) in their blood. 

That fact is discussed widely in the news and the government is thinking about a ban on the overuse/excessive use/unnecessary use of Glyphosat. When used before the harvests is doesn't have to do anything with crop protection. It just accelerates ripening and eases harvesting. But because it is applied just before the harvest it most likely contaminates the food chain of humans. 

With bread there was a surprise. The pesticide admission board thought heat would destroy the Glyphosat in the wheat when the bread was baken in the oven. But it didn't. 

So yes, it enters your body sooner or later, once it is put into the environment. This is why polar bears have DDT in their blood. Don't think that a farmer sprays DDT on icebergs...


----------

