Whew!

I sent out a glyphosate article from AP to my brain trust and this reply was interesting:

Thanks for the Mercer AP piece, Ed. Wish all I had to do was respond to this type of journalism. Not much in it for that redeems it from the file "13" category. Reminds me of using a decoy when hunting geese.

His credibility went right out the window in paragraph six..." glyphosate, is absorbed through plants' leaves and kills them by blocking the production of proteins they need to grow. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers it to have little toxicity to people and animals, and aside from the plants it's sprayed on, it's less of a threat to the environment because it quickly binds to soil and becomes inactive."There is so much half-truth and pseudo science in these two sentences i don't even want to begin. I'll simply commend the author and my fellows to the Huber, Means and Kremer work and a host of others from France, Russia and numerous other countries who do REAL research on glyphosate chemical. Just in case you don't take the time to read thru the content on the http://www.soilcursebuster.com/ website, I'll mention just a couple of things. GLY blocks protein production alright. It does it by chelating micro and macro minerals in soil and plant tissues. The proteins which are interfered with are essential to plant resistance to disease organisms. The infection of the plant that results is lethal. The chelation goes on and on and is anything but inactive. The environment that is threatened by the GLY residue in soil, now documented to able to persist at least ten years is biocidal against aerobic beneficials and stimulating to pathogens including pythium, phytophthera, and fusarium.

Playing the erosion card..."Farmers also found they could cut back or in some cases eliminate tilling, reducing erosion and fuel use." A casual examination of soil erosion on no-till acres would quickly reveal to any but the biased observer that there is alot soil movement taking place. How many times have the formulae had to be changed to try to account for actual soil loss in no-till ?This is the most ridiculous assertion in the whole piece..."just enough genetic variation to survive what kills most of their relatives." This whole Darwinian deception has so many captivated by fuzzy thinking that the carnage goes on for a prolonged period before it is too late. When the University of Guelph finds the enzyme for GLy-Tolerance in the bodies of four different major genera of soil insects, doesn't it seem likely that the bio-type that resists GLY was not there in the field until it was created. And then that becomes a distraction to the real event which is the proliferation of genes in the rhizosphere that have nothing to do with herbicide resistance. If you haven't read the Engdahl book, Seeds of Destruction and Smith's book, Seeds of Deception or Genetic Roulette, you need to if you think this article brings anything of lasting value to the table.Quoting a man from down-under I assume is supposed to add credibility? In Australia, weed scientist Stephen Powles has been a sort of evangelist for saving Roundup, calling it a near-miraculous farming tool. Why not talk about the increasing problem of Head scab in wheat (fusarium) since increases the use of GLY. Talk to the Canadian Wheat Board if you want to get an ear-full about the problem since they started growing RR Canola in the wheat rotation. The problem with GLY is NOT REALLY resistant weeds. It is a pathogen load that doesn't just go away when one stops use of the chemical or the gly chemical that is contained in the harvested GM and non-GM crop. Secondly, it's about unidentified altered portions of the DNA which will be reproduced in the soil ( the healthier the soil, the more pervasive the genes become) that are destined to find their way into the normally healthy food stuffs and feed grains. Whatever they are, these extraneous enzymes in GM soy are now documented in independent feeding trials to induce sterility and increase infant mortality in hamsters, and rats. These DNA segments are in your soil now and being embraced and duplicated for incorporation into the genome of virtually anything that grows there after that day. Glyphosate tolerance development in weed species is the prima facea proof of something much more serious, than weeds that no longer die when sprayed with Roundup!!Does anybody smell the coffee yet??? It's been brewin' for quite awhile.
Jim Martindaledba Hunchun God's Soil Tillage Manufacturing Company Ltd.Park One Economic Cooperation ZoneHunchun City, Jilin, PR China 133315freight contact phone 1303-909-4603 and North American Ag-Gro Consulting17535 N. State Road #1 Spencerville , IN 46788 genesis821jim@yahoo.comhttp://www.soilcursebuster.com/http://www.genesistillage.org/ verizon cell 315-408-2584 forwarded to Kathleen Gardner Direct from any phone, anywhere using Skype 260-918-0481 or jrmartindale China Mobile 1,303,909,4600 China Home Address: 228-2 Zhanqian Dong DaJieHunchun City , Jilin Province, PR China 133300 On 6/26/2010 8:07 PM, Ed Winkle wrote:

By DAVID MERCER (AP) – 5 days ago
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — When the weed killer Roundup was introduced in the 1970s, it proved it could kill nearly any plant while still being safer than many other herbicides, and it allowed farmers to give up harsher chemicals and reduce tilling that can contribute to erosion.
But 24 years later, a few sturdy species of weed resistant to Roundup have evolved, forcing farmers to return to some of the less environmentally safe practices they abandoned decades ago.

The situation is the worst in the South, where some farmers now walk fields with hoes, killing weeds in a way their great-grandfathers were happy to leave behind. And the problem is spreading quickly across the Corn Belt and beyond, with Roundup now proving unreliable in killing at least 10 weed species in at least 22 states. Some species, like Palmer amaranth in Arkansas and water hemp and marestail in Illinois, grow fast and big, producing tens of thousands of seeds.

"It's getting to be a big deal," said Mike Plumer, a 61-year-old farmer and University of Illinois agronomist who grows soybeans and cotton near the southern Illinois community of Creal Springs. "If you've got it, it's a real big deal."(Mike is a friend in Illinois)

When Monsanto introduced Roundup in 1976, "it was like the best thing since sliced bread," said Garry Niemeyer, who grows corn and soybeans near Auburn in central Illinois.

The weed killer, known generically as glyphosate, is absorbed through plants' leaves and kills them by blocking the production of proteins they need to grow. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers it to have little toxicity to people and animals, and aside from the plants it's sprayed on, it's less of a threat to the environment because it quickly binds to soil and becomes inactive.

Monsanto's introduction of seeds designed to survive Roundup made things even better for farmers because they could spray it on emerging crops to wipe out the weeds growing alongside them. Seeds containing Monsanto's Roundup Ready traits are now used to grow about 90 percent of the nation's soybeans and 70 percent of its corn and cotton.

With increased reliance on Roundup, herbicide use on corn decreased from 2.76 pounds an acre in 1994 to 2.06 in 2005, the most recent year for which the U.S. Department of Agriculture has data. Spread that out over the 81.8 million acres planted in 2005, and it's a decrease of more than 57 million pounds of herbicides annually.

Farmers also found they could cut back or in some cases eliminate tilling, reducing erosion and fuel use.

But with any herbicide, the more it's used, the more likely it'll run into individual plants within a species that have just enough genetic variation to survive what kills most of their relatives. With each generation, the survivors represent a larger percentage of the species.

St. Louis-based Monsanto maintains the resistance is often overstated, noting that most weeds show no sign of immunity.

"We believe that glyphosate will remain an important tool in the farmers' arsenal," Monsanto spokesman John Combest said.

That said, the company has started paying cotton farmers $12 an acre to cover the cost of other herbicides to use alongside Roundup to boost its effectiveness.

The trend has confirmed some food safety groups' belief that biotechnology won't reduce the use of chemicals in the long run.

"That's being reversed," said Bill Freese, a chemist with the Washington, D.C.-based Center For Food Safety, which promotes organic agriculture. "They're going to dramatically increase use of those chemicals, and that's bad news."

The first weeds in the U.S. that survived Roundup were found about 10 years ago in Delaware.
Agricultural experts said the use of other chemicals is already creeping up. Monsanto and other companies are developing new seeds designed to resist older herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D, a weed killer developed during World War II and an ingredient in Agent Orange, which was used to destroy jungle foliage during the Vietnam War and is blamed for health problems among veterans.

Penn State University weed scientist David Mortensen estimates that in three or four years, farmers' use of dicamba and 2,4-D will increase by 55.1 million pounds a year because of resistance to Roundup. That would push both far up the list of herbicides heavily used by farmers.

Dicamba and 2,4-D both easily drift beyond the areas where they're sprayed, making them a threat to neighboring crops and wild plants, Mortensen said. That, in turn, could also threaten wildlife.

"We're finding that the (wild) plants that grow on the field edges actually support beneficial insects, like bees," he said.

In Australia, weed scientist Stephen Powles has been a sort of evangelist for saving Roundup, calling it a near-miraculous farming tool.

Australia has been dealing with Roundup-resistant weeds since the mid 1990s, but changes in farming practices have helped keep it effective, Powers said. That has included using a broader array of herbicides to kill off Roundup resistant weeds and employing other methods of weed control.

Those alternative methods, such as planting so-called cover crops like rye to hold back weeds during the winter and other times when fields aren't planted with corn, soybeans or cotton, are the key, said Freese, the Center For Food Safety chemist.

Otherwise, he said, "We're talking a pesticide treadmill here. It's just coming back to kick us in the butt now with resistant weeds."

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
Roundup resistant weeds pose environmental threat The Associated Press - 4 days ago
Roundup resistant weeds pose environmental threat The Associated Press - 5 days ago
Super Weeds: Another Reason Why Organic Farming is the Solution Technorati (blog) - 4 days ago
More coverage (1) »

One friend said the big AP article was old news. For others it triggers the big news.

Ed