This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Glyphosate and 24 hours

For MSDS searches I found this link and I am sure there are others out
there

http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/msds.html

Just a short comment on the instructions to not let stock onto pastures
etc "for 24 hours after spraying"
as much as any concern for the stock health it is also fairly important
in allowing time for the herbicide to penetrate the leaf cuticle and
enter the target plants tissues.  A bunch of cattle or people or pets
for that matter wandering over the treated species could either wipe off
the herbicide or in crushing or damaging the plants stress them to a
point where herbicide uptake is minimal and hence ineffective.
Stressed plants do not respond well to herbicide application ie they
don't die easily  :-)
be it drought, competition effect, foliage damage, whatever.

Glyphosate takes between 6-18 hours to penetrate sufficiently, dependent
on temp and humidity, to be effective.  So application just before a
rainstorm would be pointless...

Oh and there is a new formulation on the market that is a granule that
has fewer of the detergents/penetrants that are of concern to some
people, can't think of any trade names but it was designed to allow
application in areas that might be affected by off target drift into
waterways.


Cheers, Rod

Rod Randall
Weed Risk Assessment
Weed Science Group, Agriculture Western Australia
Home Page  http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/progserv/plants/weeds/Weedsci.htm

             "I weed..."

> ----------
> From: 	Richard Dufresne
> Reply To: 	salvia@nr.infi.net
> Sent: 	Wednesday, 7 January 1998 11:47 AM
> To: 	MEDIT-PLANTS@ucdavis.edu
> Subject: 	Re: Glyphosate and pets
> 
> >According to the pamphlet that comes with RoundUP - Hazards to Humans
> and
> >animals says "Harmful if swallowed."  I would interpret that to mean
> if your
> >cat walked across the area you sprayed, went on to lick itself a bit
> later
> >that it would ingest some the product which would be harmful.
> Elsewhere I
> >have read that you should not let cattle into an area you have
> sprayed with
> >RoundUp for 24 hours. Cannot recall the source at the moment. Roundup
> is a
> >great product. I use it, but with caution and have had no fatalities
> among
> pets.
> >June Taylor
> >Biggs, Ca
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
> 
> >You may want to know that glyphosate, ie Roundup is not as harmless
> as
> >previously thought.
> >Check out
> http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/glyp.html
> >for a good article about it.
> >Or browse the archives of rec.gardens ( Usenet) through Dejanews.
> >
> >In short it can be said that it is an organophosphate but it doesn't
> affect
> >our nervous system as most organophosphates do. It can affect pets,
> but
> >only in very high doses.
> >However, it does kill the bacteria in the ground..the micro life or
> micro
> >organisms of the soil. It affects the wild flora.
> >
> >Here in Sweden, Roundup has been found to have contaminated the
> ground
> >water and wells in certain areas. The manufacturer claims that the
> >glyphosate is bound to the particles of the soil. But recent finds
> indicate
> >this is not so.
> >
> >The most dangerous about Roundup and similar brandnames isn't the
> >glyphosate, it is the additional compunds. They are carcinogenic, and
> act
> >as serious irritants of the respitory tracts, eyes and skin.
> >And if it gets out in the water, it kills frogs and fish.
> >
> >However, it is less toxic than a lot of other herbicides.
> >
> >Ingrid
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
> 
> >
> >The LD50 is an indication of acute toxicity, not long term.
> >I elect to minimize exposure all possible.
> >Clark
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _____
> 
> To all:
> 
> IN REVERSE ORDER,
> 
> A few more words about Roundup.  I'm not concerned about chronic
> effects,
> since it is a simple compound that breaks up into phosphoric acid,
> formaldehyde, and glycine very quickly.  All three of these compounds
> are
> naturally-occurring metabolites.  Yes, formaldehyde is bad, but in
> large
> quantities.  It really is the initial carbohydrate, a one-carbon sugar
> (CH2O), and as such, doesn't last very long in vivo.  
> 
> The highly toxic insecticides (and nerve gases) have very reactive
> phosphorus-sulfur or phosphorus-fluorine bonds that IRREVERSIBLY alter
> vulnerable and critical groups on enzymes and other key bodily
> compounds,
> making them unable to function.  Since only a few enzyme molecules are
> needed by the body, it doesn't take much of a potent toxin to cause
> severe
> effects.  The chemical bonds in glyphosphate are relatively inert this
> way.
> 
> The secondary components are indeed of greater concern.  I'm not sure,
> but I
> think one of them is diethanolamine.  This is biodegradable, but at a
> much
> lower rate.  I think it is added to stabilize and disperse the
> glyphosphate.
> I believe it acts as a wetting agent, allowing the solution to cover
> the
> waxy cuticle of green leaves and stems.
> 
> Since either sunlight or a suitable mold is needed to break it down,
> once it
> has gotten below the organically active surface soil into an inactive
> subsoil, I would expect that it would persist longer.  The secondary
> compounds would certainly last longer here.  It would be good to know
> if it
> was the glyphosphate or the secondary components were detected in the
> well
> water.
> 
> In the water, there is no surface area exposed to air as in soil,
> which has
> gas, liquid, and solid phases that can thus provide greater varieties
> of
> supporting environments for microflora than water.  While water may be
> brimming with microorganisms, I would expect that fewer mechanisms for
> activity to be present.
> 
> Finally, Rod is right.  The dose does indeed make the poison.  I used
> to
> work in an organic synthesis group for a tobacco company, and one of
> our pet
> peeves was that modestly as well as dangerously toxic compounds were
> labeled
> as harmful.  We were grateful for MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets)
> when
> they appeared, since they gave us some sense of the magnitude and
> action of
> toxicity. Some compounds are relatively harmless, and others are quite
> insidious.  It was always necessary to check out the nature of these
> materials before handling them and to take adequate precautions.
>  
> Does anyone know of a Web site that posts MSDS orHazmat (Hazardous
> Material)
> info on agricultural compounds?  It would be of enormous value for
> resolving
> discussions as this one.
> 
> Rich Dufresne
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index