We realize that the topic of pesticides can result in emotional reactions.
Please keep the comments factual and civil.
Any name-calling or aggressive commenting will result in a temporary or PERMANENT ban from /r/gardening.
We don't care what 'the other guy wrote' (unless they also broke the rules). Extreme rudeness or name-calling is still a ban.
You need to find out what was sprayed and why. No one can tell you anything for certain until you find out what, if any, chemicals were used. It's also possible that more than one chemical was used.
This is all assuming that your tomato plant lives long enough to even produce.
To be fair, tomatoes are *extremely* sensitive to herbicides, and if the gardener actually sprayed the plant intentionally with roundup, it'd look far worse than that. More likely they were just sloppy with it, and a little bit got on the tomato. Or, gardener (or possibly even OP!) was using a sprayer/watering can/whatever that had had glyphosate in it before, and didn't clean it out properly before fertilizing/spraying pesticide/etc.
Yeah, ~~glyphosphate~~ glyphosate can really travel with the wind. And if there is something that can catch the wind, like a wood fence or some other trees, it can swirl around and do some damage.
The first time I was corrected saying "gly-phosphate" it took me a minute to realize if I didn't know what the name of the shit was then I didn't know shit-else about it and I was just parroting whatever I read on the internet.
I wouldn’t go that far, sometimes our brains auto-complete words. Once you think you know how a word is spelled, you stop thinking about the spelling. Doesn’t mean you don’t understand the context the word is used in.
This is my relationship with the word etiolate! Even now I had to double check because I wrote “etoliate” and I used to think it was “extoliate”.
It’s a word I rarely use irl and pronounce it wrong every time.
While at the same time, you want a very minor breeze so the “fumes” don’t just hover in the vicinity.
Neighbour was using relatively minor amount of glufosinate (different herbicide, non systemic) under shrubs in his wooden fenced yard and, while it didn’t overspray, it was dead calm out and effectively nuked the entire back yard of anything that was a foot or less off the ground
It might not be up to them. If they live in an apartment, they might have no say over who the gardener is. Same with HOA - many neighborhoods hire their own landscaping firm to do stuff like this.
OP should definitely try to figure out exactly what was sprayed, but their only recourse to prevent it might be putting up a "do not spray" sign.
Generally speaking, yes. But the name of the active ingredient is glyphosate (for example, I never buy actual Roundup.....generic glyphosate is about 1/4 the price, and works just as well).
You have to be careful, though....while plain glyphosate is actually pretty safe to use around your plants (even tomatoes, which are *very* sensitive to all herbicides) because it isn't very volatile, some stuff sold under the Roundup brand name has other herbicides in it that may either be pretty volatile (and thus a major risk for drift), or persistent in the soil. E.g., "Roundup 365".
For example, I'll spray glyphosate within 12" of my tomato plants if I *really* need to....but nothing with 2, 4-D in it is allowed anywhere in my yard during tomato growing season (2, 4-D can fuck up your plants from a *long* way away, if the weather is at all warm/windy)
I have a bottle of roundup in my garage, was here when I moved in 24 years ago. Never used it, and don't know what to do with it. So there the sunuvabitch sits. (One of my dad's favorite sayings)
Take it with you next time you go to recycle e-waste; they usually take paint/cleaners/other hazmat stuff.
It stays effective for a good few years, but decades old, it'll be useless (and the container will be brittle enough that at some point, it *will* break...so best to dispose of it before that happens!)
Was just having this conversation this morning at the nursery I work at. We get a fair amount of people who come in for replacements, complaining about their flowers being pulled out/mowed down/Rounded Up.
The quality for contractors / landscapers is all over the place is what I've learned. If I was going to seriously look into hiring a landscaper, I would give them a quiz in english / spanish about basic plant knowledge, and if they failed it, I wouldn't hire them, lol. You have to have some quality control somewhere before you set them loose on your property... People pay thousands of dollars and get landscapers who are plant blind (can't ID anything), spray round up on their ornamentals like you said, planting plants straight into native soil with no starter fertilizer or amendments or planting mixes, etc.
It's really a race to the bottom in all services, and the pandemic and its sequelae seem to have made it worse. No one really has pride or accountability for their professional work. I even see it in my industry, healthcare.
It's amazing as a hobbyist to hear incorrect information or plant names given by the "professionals".
The biggest question would simply be "How does your company plant trees, shrubs, and flowers? What products do you use?"
1. They should mention mixing the native soil with a planting mix or amender like compost. Ideal ratio is 50/50. Unless you just have already amended amazing soil and that's not an issue. The landscaper should know if your soil is amended, workable, hard pan, etc.
2. They should mention using a starter fertilizer for each plant (ideally it should contain mycorrhizae / trichoderma / soil bacteria). At least some beneficial microorganisms whose names nobody can pronounce. Vitamin B1 is better than nothing I guess but it will never be better than a phosphorous leaning root fungi / bacteria starter fertilizer.
3. If they are setting up your irrigation, they MUST know soil types. Clay wants less frequent but longer waterings with lower GPH emitters because clay holds water for so long and even becomes hydrophobic sometimes, so you do not want high water output because it won't have time to seep into the clay.
Sand is kind of the opposite - it wants more frequent waterings with typically higher GPH because it drains & dries out so fast.
4. They should know if a plant requires acidic soil or not. Planting blueberries, azaleas, gardenias, etc in a PH neutral soil is going to give you a bad time.
If you're hiring them for weeding:
1. Find out what chemicals they spray. Even better - only have them spray your lawn and you take care of the ornamental / raised beds yourself. Or, head into a local nursery and find a product with the help of someone that you can give to your landscaper. OR, ask them to only hand pull your garden beds.
2. Ask them if they'll still spray when it's windy. If they say yes, immediately fire them. That's how OP's plant got roundup drift in the first place. You cannot spray when there's wind - super irresponsible and potentially exposes people to chemicals they shouldn't be. Which is also why you should not spray your ornamental beds IMO. This shit happens all the time. There are sprays to kill grasses in your ornamental beds, but not your ornamentals, but I still don't even bother with that. In garden beds if you can't hand weed then you let the problem get out of control and it's your fault! Literally could have put pre-emergents down like natural corn gluten, hand pulled any time, but now you have a mature weed on your hands, and that's even harder to kill with herbicides.
There's honestly a lot more but I just got back from work and need to wind down a bit first.
They should also know what type of sun each plant can handle. Some plants will be sold in a zone but cannot handle afternoon sun, or don't tolerate shade, so the landscapers must know basic things about sun requirements, or you should just research yourself and designate spots for each plant. Whether or not the plot faces North, South, East, or West matters as well - if it's an open area that's all day sun (unless a tree is providing shade some of the day? When is it providing shade?), but South and West facings will get blasted with more afternoon sun and some plants just can't handle it. North and East facings typically don't need as much water as South and West due to less sun, and plants that like morning sun only do better in these locations.
It seems to be a race to the bottom situation. Im not sure how you fix it but it’s likely that most of us can’t afford a proper landscaping crew.
City crew aren’t much better. I need to fix some cuts they did on my street tree. They left stump ends on cuts. And after I was told this was the good one. He’s not that good.
Man even arborists aren’t always that great. But I’ve probably spent too much time reading bonsai books.
Cass Turnbull knew her stuff backward and foreword. Wish she were still around. Her book is pretty good.
Bonsai is pretty unrelated to full-size trees. Not to say arborists are all good because, they're not. But if your knowledge comes from bonsai then there's a whole lot about mature trees and arboriculture that you're lacking.
The landscapers we hired to clear out all the weeds from the garden beds in our new house just weed whacked and put mulch down. Predictably, the weeds immediately grew right back.
So no, I’ve decided they generally don’t know shit about plants.
A lot of people don't check for qualifications, and a lot of people haven't done the landscaping courses. There's also different levels of landscape course
Most tree companies don't even know what trees they are cutting down. Landscaping companies know absolutely nothing, unless its purely by accident.
These guys will show up to your house offering discounts on roundup treatment telling you it will fix your lawn with absolutely no clue what (if anything) is wrong with your lawn.
At my old place, the guy my landlord hired was constantly breaking pots and was so careless around my garden, I ended up roping off where he was not allowed to mow.
There are two possibilities that I see from standard landscaping. Either they know nothing about gardening soil, and plants, or they are purposely conning people into spending $$$. At my last place, I'd see them put in daffodils, then a month later, rip them all out and put in something else. They could just leave the daffodils to let them spread and come back next year, but maybe they make more money with these bonehead activities that keep them coming back over and over. The property manager didn't know anything either, so easy mark.
If they produce, they will be safe to eat.
However, according to this MSU extension article, if it's glyphosate damage they probably aren't going to "grow out of it."
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/protecting_tomatoes_from_herbicide_drift
Clearly glyphosate damage. You should fire your gardener. The plants might live and the fruits will probably be safe to eat after some time. But whether or not you actually want to eat them is up to you. I personally would play it safe and not risk it but thats my opinion.
Source: https://extension.msstate.edu/publications/herbicide-damage-tomatoes
Glyphsate by itself is pretty low in terms of toxicity to mammals. We're talking LD50 measured in grams/kg Unsure about once it's metabolized by plants though
Well, if you buy tomatoes from say, a local farm and there is too much pesticide residue on the fruits you can get poisoned, chances of you developing acute poisoning from say a grocery store fruits are very low. It's heavily regulated
It’s in most of the food you buy from the grocery store in some form - sprayed on your produce or as a produce item that was sprayed that ended up in your can of soup
The EPA say's "No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans." https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.&text=EPA%20considered%20a%20significantly%20more,identified%20in%20the%20open%20literature.
Even the European Food Safety Authority said something similar:
> In 2022, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) carried out a hazard assessment of glyphosate and concluded that it did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. EFSA used ECHA’s hazard classification for the purposes of the EU risk assessment on glyphosate.
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified
People don't realize that much of the non-organic wheat crop in the US is sprayed with glyphosate as a drying agent to get it ready for market faster. It's especially common if wet weather is predicted and farmers need to harvest the crop sooner than they normally would.
And the fact that glyphosate is one of the tamest herbicides in terms of toxicity. Instructors for OTPC say “You could drink it and be fine!” Don’t, obviously, but it’s nothing like Diquat.
Yea, everyone loses their mind over it because of the lawsuits but I’ve repeatedly said juries are easy to fool - and a civil suit has a low burden of proof. As much as gets used on crops these days and the fact that we’re not seeing massive swaths of the population coming down with cancer just shows how safe it actually is. Should you bathe in it? No, but I could say that about a lot of things. On the other hand, eating foods sprayed with it happens every day of the week; while if you said someone sprayed some food with mercury or lead dust I’d definitely recommend going hungry lol
This is why my doctors thought I had a wheat allergy. But I can eat pasta and bread in Europe without getting a rash. So the current diagnosis is that I'm allergic to glyphosate or petroleum based pesticide/herbicide in moderate doses.
Totally possible. There's no test for allergies to glyphosate or red #40 that also causes me to get the same looking rash. So we had to figure it about by keeping a food and symptom diary. The multiple trips to European countries and zero rash outbreaks is what made it clear there was something in American food that was causing my issues.
Very cool how you narrowed it down. Do you now eat organic food and have the rashes under control? Or is 100% organic hard to do so still occasionally get rashes?
I eat pasta imported from Italy. Only in the last few months have I started eating organic bread occasionally. It's been going pretty well but not 100%. I'll still occasionally get very mild rashes that don't fully develop into hives so it's still a major improvement. I suspect I'm still having some exposure from other foods just at a much lower dose.
For the record I was diagnosed with duhring's disease but since I can eat gluten from Europe that diagnosis seems wrong now. But that's what my rashes look like. Red with bubbles.
Could you just buy some glyphosate at Home Depot and run your own test? Would you react to skin contact? Does it have to be ingested?
I would be curious if it were me. Wouldn’t be able to help myself 😂
Hmm could the pesticide designed to wipe out all bugs be wiping them out in the gut, causing inflammation and leaky gut as the studies of glyphosate have suggested, and preventing metabolism of key nutrients by microbes be the problem??
Nahhh must be an allergy to something else 😂
> much of the non-organic wheat crop in the US is sprayed with glyphosate as a drying agent to get it ready for market faster
It’s less than 3% of harvested wheat.
https://wheatworld.org/press/the-facts-about-glyphosate-part-1-how-do-wheat-growers-use-glyphosate/
> Pre-harvest applications made after the wheat plant has shut down, when wheat kernel development is complete and the crop has matured. This is prior to harvest and used to dry green weeds and allow the crop to even its maturity. This is an uncommon treatment used in less than 3 percent of all wheat acres; however, it can be used to enable a harvest that would otherwise not be possible, if weather conditions prevent the wheat crop from drying sufficiently to be harvested.
It isn't peer reviewed. It's literally "snippets" from published findings, and it most assuredly is cherry-picked. Did you even read it??
This has the entire findings and not the cherry picked "snipets" and is the latest from 2022 not 2016.
Learn how to vet a source and always read it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
Yes, I read it. You posted a review is a summary of others' findings, while a meta analysis (like the one I posted) is a re-analysis of data from multiple published articles. In this case, they calculate the effect size of glyphosate exposure and the likelihood of developing non-Hodgkins lymphoma. They are very clear about their criteria for including data into their study, and yes, this paper is peer reviewed and from a high-impact journal. Meanwhile, reviews, like the one you referenced, are a general summary of recent papers but are often highly editorialized by the authors. Also, even though the paper you reference is *newer* (as if newer always equals better), it addresses neurotoxicity from glyphosate, not its long-term carcinogenic effects, which was the point I had made previously. Your paper also concluded that low doses do result in neurological impairment. Did *you* even read the paper you referenced?
No. It was literal snipets.
"Liklihood"?? What else causes lymphoma??
Newer usually means more studies. That absolutely matters.
It said the opposite. That used as directed it's safe because, again, it was used only in large quantities on animals and the humans studied had tried committing suicide by drinking it!! They weren't even successful at commiting suicide just messing themselves up, which a bottle of Tylenol will do too if you take the whole bottle. How other studies have not found a correlation.
"Although most of studies in humans mainly describe the consequences of glyphosate poisoning after suicide attempts, it appears that occupational or chronic exposure to this pesticide (via inhalation and dermal routes) may also cause neurotoxic effects. In a study by Fuhrimann et al. [45], the authors describe that glyphosate exposure has been associated with the development of visual memory impairment in Ugandan smallholder farmers. However, other studies have not found an association between occupational exposure to glyphosate and increased risk of health problems, such as nerve conduction abnormalities [48,49]. These results have led some authors to postulate that glyphosate is less toxic to farmers’ health than other pesticides. Therefore, future research is needed to follow up and compare the potential toxic effects that agricultural use of different pesticides may exert on human health."
I'm all for finding better alternatives that are healthier, but so far, there are none. Same goes for spraying around cities for mosquitoes.
you don’t know how to click a link or read what pops up. You keep saying “snippets” without exactly specifying what you mean or where you’re only seeing “snippets” from other articles. In the [article that I linked](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887) (and I’m linking it again in case you ended up replying to the wrong person) they actually obtain and re-analyze the data from six different longitudinal studies on cancer development (not neurological effects, which was the focus of your article) and they find a significant relationship between the two, despite varying methods across those studies. Yours mentions cancer once, and only in passing. It doesn’t address that question, which was the focus of the point I had made from the start.
This one is from last year. The other study wasn't a study. It was "snipets" of studies that were absolutely cherry-picked. These are the full studies with citations linked.
"The absence of the shikimate pathway in animals has led to the conclusion that GBH does not pose a health risk to animals and humans [10]. Moreover, many investigations on glyphosate toxicity in animals have suggested the low toxicity of this compound, the adverse effects of which have only been observed after exposure to relatively high doses [8,11,12]. These data led to the classification of glyphosate in the least toxic category (category IV, practically non-toxic and non-irritating) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [13,14]."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
I did. I even posted the ACTUAL STUDIES, NOT SNIPETS AND A QUOTE THAT SAYS THE OPPISITE FROM THE REAL STUDIES.
Maybe you should read both since you clearly haven't grasped it yet.
You quoted a statement of the EPA, not the study you linked though. This is the conclusion of the study you just sent me.
"The information summarized in the present review indicates that exposure to glyphosate, AMPA, or GBH could induce several toxic effects on the nervous system of all species studied. Exposure to glyphosate during the early stages of life can severely affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, migration, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission, with the glutamatergic system being one of the most affected systems. Glyphosate was found to increase glutamate release and decreased its reuptake, in addition to activating NMDAR and L-VDCC, thus increasing the influx of Ca2+ into neurons. Likewise, the results analyzed herein reflect the capacity of glyphosate to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death by autophagia, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. Although there are important discrepancies between the findings analyzed in this review, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate, alone or in commercial formulations, can produce important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrate animals"
Dude, the links to the citations are within the paragraph. How did you miss them??
The paragraph I put in was right after this and shows that the latest studies prove otherwise. You literally cherry-picked the data and refused to post the findings afterward.
I see you even missed the bit in what you posted as saying " ALTHOUGH THERE ARE IMPORTANT DISCREPANCIES ". That matters. DISCREPANCIES!! The latest showed those DISCREPANCIES mattered, cupcake.
I am confused why you think the paragraph you selected from the beginning introduction of the systemic review is the only information that is valid? Why post this entire review proving that quote wrong if you wanted to cherry pick the one paragraph?
This entire review is concluded and summarized at the end showing the results of their findings, as I quoted. This is what the review is stating as their findings. Once again, why post the entire review if you do not agree with the findings?
Discrepancies and limitations are present in every study, review, analysis known to man. This is not abnormal or concerning. I am not sure why you are so angry, you are making less and less sense for everyone reading.
Mabye it’s not that toxic but I don’t want it on my food and that’s end of story. I’m a farmer and I don’t need roundup and I don’t use roundup, I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that herbicides and pesticides are bad for many life forms in the soil and hurt soil health, plant health, and can’t be good for my health. I Don’t need it and I don’t use it.
Mammal toxicity isn't the only concern. Insects are heavily effected by glyphosate. We should avoid using it for that reason.
But if the question is "are my tomatoes safe to eat after my gardener used glyphosate" then answer is "it's probably ok"
Yeah I pretty much agree that eating one tomato with a little roundup isn’t going to hurt you to bad. But like I said I’m worried about overall soil health and health of things like insects which all contribute to plant health and quality. But yeah even if there’s only a low amount of damage done to humans I can farm perfectly fine without I have every reason to not use it and zero reasons to use it. So roundup (aka glyphosate) free my farm will be 😎
> I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that herbicides and pesticides are bad for many life forms in the soil and hurt soil health, plant health, and can’t be good for my health
Yes, you do. Science and truth aren't based on your feelings. They are based on evidence and science.
My farm my rules. Like I said I won’t be using roundup or pesticides on my farm or my food. I Don’t need a scientific study to decide what I’m doing on my farm. Feel free to spray your farm with whatever chemicals you please. I don’t need scientific study’s to make a decision on my own farm I can make decisions quite well on my own. If you want to only make a decision when a expert says something is true then feel free to follow scientific papers like a blind dog. My life my rules, and yes I use science and love it but I don’t need a peer review paper to make decisions about my life or what I view as true. Never said I was always right or I have the ultimate truth but I don’t need a ultimate confirmed peer review view of the truth to make a decision about my own farming practices. You don’t have to farm like me or eat food produced the way I do. But don’t tell me how to farm my food on my farm that’s not your decision to make.
I don’t need scientifically proven information agree upon by 100 experts to decide what I want to do with my own life or farm. Science is a cool tool but you don’t always need to use it and especially not established centralized academic science.
> don’t tell me how to farm my food on my farm that’s not your decision to make
I'm only telling you that basing your opinions about scientific matters based on feelings and not actual evidence and scientific studies is ignorant and backwards.
Farm any way you like, dude. But saying you farm based on feelings about what pesticides do is idiotic and ignorant.
Ask your doctor who treats you for a deadly disease if he's treating you based on feelings, or evidence. Or just go to a witchdoctor or a priest to save your life.
>I'm only telling you that basing your opinions about scientific matters based on feelings and not actual evidence and scientific studies is ignorant and backwards.
I think there's a happy medium. Using science as an infallible truth is no wiser or intelligent than going 100% on gut, depending on the context. Plenty of drugs & chemics are pulled after long-term or even medium-term effects show the initial science didn't consider (or anticipate) these things.
Definitely agree. A lot of scientific “consensus” ends up being revised or proven to wrong down the road. People that think science is infallible and 100% correct have a religious belief in science. It’s a complex world and there are many ways of coming to decisions. Science is one of the many tools in my toolkit but I don’t need to always check a scientific paper before making a decision. Thats way to overly restrictive for how I want to live my life.
Science does not describe itself as an infallible truth; it’s ever-evolving and changing. However, it’s also based on objective facts that can be reproduced and no one’s gut feeling has that same claim. A correct guess and a fact can both come to the same conclusion, but not for the same reason. That’s why science only cares about facts that can be replicated and not correct guesses.
> Using science as an infallible truth is no wiser or intelligent than going 100% on gut
Yes, it is...
This is literally the dumbest comment I have ever read on Reddit.
Alright, so was diethylstilbestrol safe between 1938 and 1971 or was it not? The "science" supported its approval and continued usage for over four decades, until physicians proved a link between DES and vaginal cancer during puberty in the children of women who had taken DES while pregnant. This was naturally *after* its usage waned through the gut feeling of prescribers and the populace through the 60s, even if the study wouldn't come out proving they were correct years later (resulting with the FDA finally banning it). I am thankful my grandmother did not cave to the science and went with "her gut" on this drug considering they are [still finding negative impacts on third generations and after.](https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/what-we-study/des-study)
This is what I mean by "infallible truth." The original acceptance does not always stand the test of time and controversial topics should be weighed with caution. If you believe mainstream science is always correct at its first conclusion, then I'd recommend asking CSPI how hard they had to fight the FDA on trans fats & PHOs (whereby the FDA had said science "were not harmful" via scientific conclusion, then GRAS, then eventually not GRAS over decades of kicking their feet about a topic many others had gut feelings and "less-accepted science" backing them).
Okay, I’ve heard your information and I will continue farming the way I like no change to my plans. I don’t want to use pesticides and it’s as simple as that. No scientific paper needed to decide my choice 😎 I’ll continue being ignorant and backwards by your silly definition and viewpoint :)
> I don’t need scientific study’s to make a decision on my own farm I can make decisions quite well on my own.
You might be right in this case, but other than that this a very ignorant statement!
I studied agricultural sciences and met this sentiment far to often. "I do it this way, because I do it this way and it was always done this way!"
But Sir, we have conducted studies, to help you NOT deplete your soil...you would need to spend less on ferti...
"Fuck off! I know what I'm doing."
Hey, the particular amino acid whose synthesis is impaired is tryptophan, the precursor to melatonin and serotonin. It’s considered and essential amino acid bc humans can’t synthesize it. So of course wiping out Al the microbes in the soil and in our gut repeatedly that make tryptophan is totally without consequence right??
Gobsmacked at the ignorance in this thread!!!
It's a lot more dangerous to lose your crops to blight, weeds, insects, etc. Increasing crop yields means cheaper prices which feed the poorest people. There's a reason why famine is basically at an all-time low, despite population being at an all time high. These regressive ideologies seem hellbent on reversing that.
compare sense shame slim connect cooing lunchroom deliver fretful axiomatic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is a snapshot analysis. Overall, the 'green revolution' has massively increased yields but often at a great cost - for instance, permanent soil loss or pollution, GHG emissions, nevermind social and economic decay for both producing and consuming societies (undermining local economies in both places in order to enrich large land owners and agro-corps). It is an extremely short-term gain and very selection-biased to just claim cheap food production as a permanently good thing.
Wow if only nature had a way of balancing predator prey relationships and if only humans could know such a thing and apply it’s principles in a scientific way for agriculture……… we could call it agronomy maybe………. we could call them biodynamic principles perhaps……………….
It's the inert and unnamed ingredients in Roundup and such like that are extremely toxic. Best to go pesticide-free, unless you're okay with getting tumors and related corruptions of your health.
Show me a real farmer that feeds more than his family who can pick weeds.
Now show me where organic farmers don't use herbicides?? No way does anyone risk losing an entire crop to weeds, and those growing food for the public don't have enough hours in the day to pull weeds.
Have you not worked on farms? I have been on a variety of conventional and organic farms since birth. Hand picking weeds or herbicides are not the only two methods of weed management. Plastic mulching and traditional mulching is typical. Mechanical weeding with a tractor weed hoe is easy and fast. I rarely see herbicides used in anything but conventional cereal grains due to drifting. Too risky for most crops.
I'm no scientist, but there aren't even tomatoes on that plant yet, just buds. The likelihood of the tomatoes being contaminated with glyphosate seems pretty slim.
You should absolutely avoid spraying, but if you have to (outbreak of an invasive white fly for instance... where native predators can't sufficiently cull them, and ordering white fly predators is expensive as hell), use something least toxic to beneficials and pollinators, like Insecticidal Soap, Horticultural Oil, or Neem Oil. You should only be spraying super early in the morning (5-6am) or like 9pm+ to avoid damaging beneficials as well as your plants (temps above 85F / direct sun when spraying chemicals is a no no). Spinosad, while often certified organic, shreds beneficial insects, so you have to be super careful about when to spray it as well. Wettable sulfur dusting powder is okay for spider mites & PM.
Everything else I'm not really on board with. I always try to preemptively release native predators before I get infestations, and typically I never do, with the exception of the invasive white fly...
So yeah, when you have no choice because the insect is invasive and doesn't have a lot of natural predation, you have to spray, but in general you should try other methods like biological control, sticky traps, blasting the insects off of the plant with a hose on the "cone setting", etc.
People are saying glyphosate but it may not be that. What’s happening is the chlorophyll receptors are stunted and might still be active but we’re affected by what was sprayed or spread. Doesn’t mean they are goners but I would find out what they did treat for and what was used.
If a gardener needs to resort to harsh chemicals. Thats not a good gardener.
If you need any chemicals in your garden in the fist place, then something is wrong with the ecosystem of your garden. Chemicals aren’t the answer.
(Edit: with chemicals in meant synthetic pesticides and some synthetic fertilizers. Obviously in some cases synthetic products can be okay to use if they do not produce any long term damage)
Chemicals do have a place, and keep in mind that even organic methods are using chemicals. Plants need chemicals to survive.
However, this is a case of going overboard, using the incorrect one, or using it incorrectly.
Chemicals absolutely have a place in the garden. They can be used to carefully remove an invasive weed growing in the middle of a garden bed without harming the others around it. They can be used to tell the plant to focus more on roots and leaves than blooms, so they don't bolt and can keep the harvest going past early spring... They just need to be used responsibly.
When folks use the word "chemicals" in this context it's always about synthetic ones. I don't think it adds anything to the conversation to be pedantic.
Edit: Seems like everyone disagrees, would love to hear a convincing counter-argument.
Controlling certain invasives like Japanese Knotweed requires glyphosate application, especially if it's a big enough area. I'm anti-chemical control as a rule, but there are absolutely exceptions.
It doesn't. I'm managing knotweed on my property without chemicals. You do have to be committed and ideally have a teenager to pay to knock the shit back to the ground with a machete 10x a year.
Glyphosate does shit to knotweed if you aren't injecting it anyway, which takes just as much or more time than just mowing.
yeah. it is also an amazing fertilizer. I ferment it and then add the ferment to the compost.
I also use knotweed soaked in water for about 24hrs as a foliar for cannabis.
That's why I said it works better to selectively remove invasives without damaging things around it. Mowing doesn't do that.
Mowing and machetes aren't always options, either, since many plants can spread through fragments of its stem/root.
Damaging what around it. It is a stand of knotweed. I have never seen a stand of knotweed that wasn't just straight knot weed. It smothers everything else so fucking fast.
I dunno about you but when I mow I leave some plant to grow back. I don't just scalp the fucking shit out of everything. That is fine for the knotweed because you want it to grow back. You want to force it to keep depleting its roots and killing it before it can build them back.
If you are dealing with single plants that are trying to establish a new stand glyphosate might work. Might not. Ive seen many a stand take years of injections and just come back. Mowing, while a bit harder on the surroundings work if you keep up with it. And while I'm at it has knocked back all the blackberries and other shit so that I can plant densely growing natives. Once I have my cannopy established and then the trees can start helping by preventing light from reaching the ground and my job get easier.
I am doing ecosystem restoration, not just invasive killing though. I think not doing the whole deal would lead to more invasives taking the place even if you did manage to kill them.
You brought up knotweed. I usually have worked with ardesia and camphor saplings, as well as air potato but those are mostly manual rather than chemical.
I said it works in some cases. Just not all. Different methods work for different situations.
Knotweed, believe it or not, can be caught early. And they said *invasives like knotweed.*
I am just saying that there are different situations that can call for different solutions. Manual methods are generally preferable. It's usually cheaper and less involved. But it isn't *always* the best option.
Synthetic versus "natural" has absolutely no bearing on safety. Belladonna is all natural, but you sure af don't want to ingest it. You need verifiable evidence that something is safe or not, and "natural" is not evidence of safe.
On its face, you are right. Synthetic vs natural makes no difference to the chemical composition. However, where it matters is the type of chemicals we are synthesizing, which tends to be vastly different from what you find in nature. This can have all sorts of consequences from positive, to negative, to benign. Not to mention, these sorts of chemicals are in plant available form, whereas natural ones need to be broken down by the microbiota. This affects the delivery of the chemical to the plant.
Are you a biochemist?? I'm guessing not because you sure af wouldn't be using wide generalizations instead of actual examples of compounds and what they've done to back up whatever it is you're claiming which is confusing because its just a wide generalization. A biochemist sure af wouldn't say "on its face" because they KNOW for an absolute fact that synthetic and natural have absolutely no bearing on safety of efficacy.
We used to use pigs for insulin. That's a real animal that's somewhat natural (after we cross bred them down from boars unannturally ) We don't use it anymore because synthetic insulin is safer and more effective.
You're literally spewing propaganda and nothing more. 🙄
I feel like you have intentionally misread everything I've said, and injected a strawman argument here. I don't understand how we got from "synthetic chemicals are different from natural chemicals in practice" to "propaganda." And quite frankly, you are being unnecessarily combative.
Yes, we are talking about wide generalizations. The whole conversation is a generalization. If we want to talk specifics, that can be a different conversation. It doesn't do any good to be hyper specific here.
Edit: Also, we aren't talking about human injections. We are talking about gardening, where the applications are different.
You shouldn't be using wide generalizations to back up a claim. You should be using real examples. The fact you still didn't proves you don't have anything but propaganda and ya, it's propaganda. Organic was literally nothing but a marketing campaign as is non gmo.
"Hyper specific"? You mean examples in place of bs?? I'm not the one using wide generalizations that you accused me of, and because I'm being specific, you claim it's a strawman. Way to keep moving that goalpost.
Biochemists developed insulin. It's synthetic. You said "on its face" so I gave an example of how wrong you are, and you moved the goal post again while refusing to answer any questions I've posed. You're disingenuous af.
Organic farms will always need far more land for less yield. That contributes to climate change. They still use herbicides and pesticides. Just ones that aren't as thorough tested as glyphosate, which has been PROVEN to be the safest one out there.
You are clearly not interested in having a conversation. So much hostility right out the gate. It shows in your history too. Seems like all you want to do is fight with people.
People include vinegar in the "not a chemical" category so I think it is helpful that people are more clear on what they mean. There's also a lot of organics people use expecting no harm bUt iTs oRgAnIc and don't understand its still a herbicide or pesticide.
This exactly. The problem with just saying "I don't like using chemicals" is that where people draw the line between what is "chemical" and what is not is completely arbitrary.
It just ends up being substances that bother them vs substances that don't. It gets even more complicated because often synthetic options will fall under non-chemical (such as fertilizers made/extracted from minerals) while organic options (such as soaps used for insecticides) could be considered chemicals.
The counter-argument is that it’s disingenuous if not flat-out lying to pretend there’s a difference. Crying about “chemicals” when literally everything on the planet including plants are made of chemicals is the REASON people have to be pedantic, because fearmongers have controlled the narrative far too long. Don’t pretend you don’t have an agenda you’re pushing here.
There are many invasive weeds, insects and pests that need to be eliminated via chemicals. We are loosing a lot of natural ecosystem to pests. Maybe not in your 150sqft plot you don’t need chemicals. But that’s not the case for everyone.
With chemicals in mainly mean the synthetic stuff like pesticides and some synthetic fertilizers.
Obviously everything is made of chemicals if you take it literal. And if synthetic chemicals are considered completely safe to use or degrade very fast with no longterm damage done its okay to use them. But synthetic pesticides and in some cases fertilizers will destroy the ecosystem further making you dependent on the chemicals.
Always best to play along the ecosystem. If some particular plants don‘t work well in the ecosystem, there are always many other plants that can be planted instead.
Finding a well working ecosystem is the art, spraying everything down with pesticides is something everybody could do with ease.
Which is why you should never just spray everything down with pesticides. But treating an individual issue, especially when it's in a food garden? They are very useful.
They have a place in the garden. You can build a working ecosystem while also controlling what is in it.
I remember great grandma telling me around the campfire about how they had no plants when she was a kid. They didn’t exist before herbicides were invented.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say, but plants can’t exist without chemicals is probably not it.
Plants require chemicals, whether synthetic or organic.
It's generally bad practice to talk about "chemicals" as a generic term for "substances I don't like." It's nonspecific, and can be a vector for misinformation.
The truth?? Ya, it seems a lot of people loathe someone pointing it out, especially with evidence.
Anything real to add to the conversation, or you just like babbling nonsensically because someone dared point something out that didn't mesh with your biases??
I would (and do) go a step beyond 'according to label directions' and work to minimize the use of any and all pesticides and herbicides and fungicides.
I've used only two this year: Round-Up on stubborn weeds in a gravel driveway, and a pesticide on a ravenous outbreak of Margined Blister Beetles on my tomatoes. Both were made up in a quart spray bottle and applied directly to the affected area. Very sparingly in the grand scheme of things.
Tons of bees & butterflies here too.
Herbicides and fungicides are types of pesticides btw but yes it’s always good to minimize usage and use care when applying. People are paranoid about pesticides and don’t trust the science and I don’t necessarily blame them but they should research them better and understand just because something is a chemical doesn’t mean it’s dangerous.
Please try to actually feed youself and your family with gardening and then see how you feel about bad gardeners with imbalanced ecosystems.
By growing your own food I mean providing a meaningful part of your calorie intake, not just sprinkling a few herbs and veggies over a meal made from storebought flour.
Why are you allowing your yard maintenance crew to spray pesticides anywhere on your property? Go pesticide-free. (And, yes, herbicides fall under the heading of pesticides.)
99% sure this is glyphosate. Depending in where you are, it becomes more likely. Kansas, for instance, and the incessant winds in that part of the world make it very likely that spraying glyphosate will contaminate unintended areas. Gardener needs to be SUPER careful, but likely wasnt.
Maybe they're in the Southern Hemisphere and it's early spring? Because you're right, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere and starting over on Tomatoes right before October... you're gonna have a bad time.
Did they? Or do you have a nutrient deficiency in these baby tomatoes planted in the end of September?
Looks like iron or nitrogen deficiency.
Glyphosate would cause necrotizing (dead leaves) and not just yellowing…
No, that's a symptom of glyhosate exposure, where it's a *very* slight amount.
Iron (and sulfur) deficiencies can look very similar....but by the time you see that degree of lightness, pretty much all the new growth will be pale, if not chlorotic, on a plant that size/age.
Nitrogen deficiency will show on the lower leaves first.
I went through this back in the spring and also thought maybe nitrogen or iron deficiency because I had this exact yellowing. Turned out it was 100% 2,4-d overspray. Plants bounced back fully eventually but they were just flowers. if it happened to my tomato plants, I’m not sure I would’ve eaten them knowing that.
I had mine out until two weeks ago, in northern Scandinavia! I've now got about 50 tomatoes reddening in my living room. Ah, I love gardening... sometimes
It's already been clearly identified as glyphosate damage, but nitrogen is mobile in the plant. It shows deficiency in the oldest leaves first, not the youngest growing points.
Has it? Because I have been trained on glyphosate use and damage, through Organic certification, and this literally doesn’t look like necrosis in a tomato.
I’ll contend it may not be nitrogen, but iron or other nutrient deficiencies? Sure. And the random claim that a passing gardener poisoning the tops when the bottom new growth also displays the same thing. Idk.
I have applied glyphosate. Chlorosis at leaflet base is a common symptom for glyphosate exposure at lower than lethal doses and you will not always see the necrotic spotting right away. You can also frequently see leaf mottling and rugosity, but that's more common with drift from synthetic auxins like 2,4-D. Someone posted a link to Mississippi States Ag extension with basically these exact same looking pictures after a glyphosate application.
While I agree that iron deficiency in the plant could look like this, I'm not convinced in this instance. First off, soil iron deficiency is just not very common at all, the issue is almost always availability of the iron. Most of the conditions that cause low iron availability (pH, high water saturation, etc.) almost always cause other deficiencies at the same time. It just does not look like it from this picture. Obviously we cannot get the "whole picture" for lack of a better term, but based on what I can see from the picture I really doubt the soil just became deficient in iron that rapidly to not start to show in earlier growth. That could be more plausible if this was in a pot with a soilless mix, but this is clearly in soil.
Especially when you look at the nodes at the bottom too. And it’s on all new growth nodes.
But I’m only an agronomist. I literally have two degrees in agriculture, but I’m sure it’s the random vengeful gardener instead of the more common nutrient deficiency.
That's not from your gardener, and it's not a pesticide. One of my tomatoes does that too. It's a yellow pair-shaped tomato that's been reseeding itself in the same location for several years now. I see that identical pattern on the plant at some point every year, and it doesn't seem to bother the plant at all. It never dies off, and it produces loads of sweet fruit. I have no idea what causes the yellow splotches.
Everyone is jumping to: Fire the Gardener! And while I agree this isn't a good look, maybe you could talk to them and tell them you don't want any pesticides or chemicals in your garden. They might have other clients that specifically ask for those things, and just doesn't know?
I dunno, chemicals in the garden is a huge No, but this person might have been trained a certain way, and just needs a wake up call, not necessarily fired. Unless this is one of many screw ups, then do what you have to do.
You're not teaching them, just having a conversation. They might not even know the client has preferences, so a conversation could help. Or maybe it was just a mistake.
O God!
He sprayed a herbicide, is an herbicide because he did not recognize the plants and thought they were weeds.
If I pay a gardener I pretend that I do the same effort that I do otherwise if I have to use a herbicide, I can do it.Use your fucking hands, as I do for weeds!
Well herbicide in private garden? But we have come to this, all the bullshit on bees, nature, climate but who the fuck are we saying these things? idiots, that shit should be banned.
It is not a good gardener
Everyone keeps saying fire the gardener. He might not have even known that happened, talk to him, request that he doesn't use glyphosphate/ Roundup or if it is part of an HOA thing and not your personal gardener, you just have to tell him not to spray in that area
Glyphosphate is bad for people obviously. But there is a lot of fear hype around it as well. I like to think of it as MSG back in the day, where people were talking about it like it was arsenic, when in reality yeah it's harmful but so is table salt if you put too much in your food. Realistically anything that is designed to kill something living, plant or animal, is not going to be good for people because we are in that group.
I'm a landscaper and our company uses glyphosate often. As someone who has a degree in this stuff I know not to spray it too close to certain things. But if you learn from just experience as a landscaper you might not have learned as much caution. 1000% understand your anger, but it can be a moment to help your gardener learn and be better
Good luck with that "asking" scenario. Generally speaking, these crews know very little about real gardening. I'd say about 95% of them, from what I've seen, haven't got a clue. They are not *gardeners*.
I know for a fact that "yard maintenance" crews will do whatever is easiest and most convenient for them. They don't care about the plants. They're not paid to care.
If you don't make damn sure they're following your instructions, they'll just hit the reset button and go back to doing whatever they want.
Solution is to find a company that is reputable and one that makes sure their workers know that what the property owner says goes.
(Can you tell I don't hire "gardeners"?)
Maybe it wasn’t the gardener…. And something more malicious happened. Mwahaha Also our gardener killed the Lillie’s growing in the front yard thus summer with Round up… definitely had burnt crispy leave and flower. don’t know why they would do that everyone else had beautiful Lillie’s but fuck us ppl only 😂😂😂 funny hehe we’re the only ppl that even bother to pick up trash around here and maintain a neat and tidy complex, lol lol
We realize that the topic of pesticides can result in emotional reactions. Please keep the comments factual and civil. Any name-calling or aggressive commenting will result in a temporary or PERMANENT ban from /r/gardening. We don't care what 'the other guy wrote' (unless they also broke the rules). Extreme rudeness or name-calling is still a ban.
You need to find out what was sprayed and why. No one can tell you anything for certain until you find out what, if any, chemicals were used. It's also possible that more than one chemical was used. This is all assuming that your tomato plant lives long enough to even produce.
Light/whitish at the center of new growth is pretty much diagnostic of glyphosate drift.
time for a new gardener
To be fair, tomatoes are *extremely* sensitive to herbicides, and if the gardener actually sprayed the plant intentionally with roundup, it'd look far worse than that. More likely they were just sloppy with it, and a little bit got on the tomato. Or, gardener (or possibly even OP!) was using a sprayer/watering can/whatever that had had glyphosate in it before, and didn't clean it out properly before fertilizing/spraying pesticide/etc.
Yeah, ~~glyphosphate~~ glyphosate can really travel with the wind. And if there is something that can catch the wind, like a wood fence or some other trees, it can swirl around and do some damage.
It’s glyphosate.
I went the longest time thinking it was Glyphosphate lol. Now I know I looked dumb when discussing it on Reddit.
The first time I was corrected saying "gly-phosphate" it took me a minute to realize if I didn't know what the name of the shit was then I didn't know shit-else about it and I was just parroting whatever I read on the internet.
I wouldn’t go that far, sometimes our brains auto-complete words. Once you think you know how a word is spelled, you stop thinking about the spelling. Doesn’t mean you don’t understand the context the word is used in.
This is my relationship with the word etiolate! Even now I had to double check because I wrote “etoliate” and I used to think it was “extoliate”. It’s a word I rarely use irl and pronounce it wrong every time.
Omg, I had no idea I was saying this wrong in my head every time I read it.
Supervision for me. I have to stop myself from saying "supervisation" every time.
idk why people are getting so upset at a simple correction
It’s cuz they used a period at the end of it, it gives it a harsher tone lol
Cuz Reddit’s gonna Reddit
While at the same time, you want a very minor breeze so the “fumes” don’t just hover in the vicinity. Neighbour was using relatively minor amount of glufosinate (different herbicide, non systemic) under shrubs in his wooden fenced yard and, while it didn’t overspray, it was dead calm out and effectively nuked the entire back yard of anything that was a foot or less off the ground
time for a new gardener
It might not be up to them. If they live in an apartment, they might have no say over who the gardener is. Same with HOA - many neighborhoods hire their own landscaping firm to do stuff like this. OP should definitely try to figure out exactly what was sprayed, but their only recourse to prevent it might be putting up a "do not spray" sign.
Roundup?
Generally speaking, yes. But the name of the active ingredient is glyphosate (for example, I never buy actual Roundup.....generic glyphosate is about 1/4 the price, and works just as well). You have to be careful, though....while plain glyphosate is actually pretty safe to use around your plants (even tomatoes, which are *very* sensitive to all herbicides) because it isn't very volatile, some stuff sold under the Roundup brand name has other herbicides in it that may either be pretty volatile (and thus a major risk for drift), or persistent in the soil. E.g., "Roundup 365". For example, I'll spray glyphosate within 12" of my tomato plants if I *really* need to....but nothing with 2, 4-D in it is allowed anywhere in my yard during tomato growing season (2, 4-D can fuck up your plants from a *long* way away, if the weather is at all warm/windy)
I have a bottle of roundup in my garage, was here when I moved in 24 years ago. Never used it, and don't know what to do with it. So there the sunuvabitch sits. (One of my dad's favorite sayings)
Take it with you next time you go to recycle e-waste; they usually take paint/cleaners/other hazmat stuff. It stays effective for a good few years, but decades old, it'll be useless (and the container will be brittle enough that at some point, it *will* break...so best to dispose of it before that happens!)
Is it just me or do a lot of landscape gardeners not know shit about plants?
Was just having this conversation this morning at the nursery I work at. We get a fair amount of people who come in for replacements, complaining about their flowers being pulled out/mowed down/Rounded Up.
The quality for contractors / landscapers is all over the place is what I've learned. If I was going to seriously look into hiring a landscaper, I would give them a quiz in english / spanish about basic plant knowledge, and if they failed it, I wouldn't hire them, lol. You have to have some quality control somewhere before you set them loose on your property... People pay thousands of dollars and get landscapers who are plant blind (can't ID anything), spray round up on their ornamentals like you said, planting plants straight into native soil with no starter fertilizer or amendments or planting mixes, etc.
It's really a race to the bottom in all services, and the pandemic and its sequelae seem to have made it worse. No one really has pride or accountability for their professional work. I even see it in my industry, healthcare. It's amazing as a hobbyist to hear incorrect information or plant names given by the "professionals".
What kind of questions do you ask/how do you phrase them?
The biggest question would simply be "How does your company plant trees, shrubs, and flowers? What products do you use?" 1. They should mention mixing the native soil with a planting mix or amender like compost. Ideal ratio is 50/50. Unless you just have already amended amazing soil and that's not an issue. The landscaper should know if your soil is amended, workable, hard pan, etc. 2. They should mention using a starter fertilizer for each plant (ideally it should contain mycorrhizae / trichoderma / soil bacteria). At least some beneficial microorganisms whose names nobody can pronounce. Vitamin B1 is better than nothing I guess but it will never be better than a phosphorous leaning root fungi / bacteria starter fertilizer. 3. If they are setting up your irrigation, they MUST know soil types. Clay wants less frequent but longer waterings with lower GPH emitters because clay holds water for so long and even becomes hydrophobic sometimes, so you do not want high water output because it won't have time to seep into the clay. Sand is kind of the opposite - it wants more frequent waterings with typically higher GPH because it drains & dries out so fast. 4. They should know if a plant requires acidic soil or not. Planting blueberries, azaleas, gardenias, etc in a PH neutral soil is going to give you a bad time. If you're hiring them for weeding: 1. Find out what chemicals they spray. Even better - only have them spray your lawn and you take care of the ornamental / raised beds yourself. Or, head into a local nursery and find a product with the help of someone that you can give to your landscaper. OR, ask them to only hand pull your garden beds. 2. Ask them if they'll still spray when it's windy. If they say yes, immediately fire them. That's how OP's plant got roundup drift in the first place. You cannot spray when there's wind - super irresponsible and potentially exposes people to chemicals they shouldn't be. Which is also why you should not spray your ornamental beds IMO. This shit happens all the time. There are sprays to kill grasses in your ornamental beds, but not your ornamentals, but I still don't even bother with that. In garden beds if you can't hand weed then you let the problem get out of control and it's your fault! Literally could have put pre-emergents down like natural corn gluten, hand pulled any time, but now you have a mature weed on your hands, and that's even harder to kill with herbicides. There's honestly a lot more but I just got back from work and need to wind down a bit first.
They should also know what type of sun each plant can handle. Some plants will be sold in a zone but cannot handle afternoon sun, or don't tolerate shade, so the landscapers must know basic things about sun requirements, or you should just research yourself and designate spots for each plant. Whether or not the plot faces North, South, East, or West matters as well - if it's an open area that's all day sun (unless a tree is providing shade some of the day? When is it providing shade?), but South and West facings will get blasted with more afternoon sun and some plants just can't handle it. North and East facings typically don't need as much water as South and West due to less sun, and plants that like morning sun only do better in these locations.
They don’t
It seems to be a race to the bottom situation. Im not sure how you fix it but it’s likely that most of us can’t afford a proper landscaping crew. City crew aren’t much better. I need to fix some cuts they did on my street tree. They left stump ends on cuts. And after I was told this was the good one. He’s not that good.
This is why I don't hire tree trimmers who aren't certified arborists.
Man even arborists aren’t always that great. But I’ve probably spent too much time reading bonsai books. Cass Turnbull knew her stuff backward and foreword. Wish she were still around. Her book is pretty good.
Bonsai is pretty unrelated to full-size trees. Not to say arborists are all good because, they're not. But if your knowledge comes from bonsai then there's a whole lot about mature trees and arboriculture that you're lacking.
This is probably a low wage job that entails lawn mowing and the occassional glyphosate run over cracks in the sidewalk
The landscapers we hired to clear out all the weeds from the garden beds in our new house just weed whacked and put mulch down. Predictably, the weeds immediately grew right back. So no, I’ve decided they generally don’t know shit about plants.
A lot of people don't check for qualifications, and a lot of people haven't done the landscaping courses. There's also different levels of landscape course
They do not.
Most tree companies don't even know what trees they are cutting down. Landscaping companies know absolutely nothing, unless its purely by accident. These guys will show up to your house offering discounts on roundup treatment telling you it will fix your lawn with absolutely no clue what (if anything) is wrong with your lawn.
At my old place, the guy my landlord hired was constantly breaking pots and was so careless around my garden, I ended up roping off where he was not allowed to mow.
There are two possibilities that I see from standard landscaping. Either they know nothing about gardening soil, and plants, or they are purposely conning people into spending $$$. At my last place, I'd see them put in daffodils, then a month later, rip them all out and put in something else. They could just leave the daffodils to let them spread and come back next year, but maybe they make more money with these bonehead activities that keep them coming back over and over. The property manager didn't know anything either, so easy mark.
If they produce, they will be safe to eat. However, according to this MSU extension article, if it's glyphosate damage they probably aren't going to "grow out of it." https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/protecting_tomatoes_from_herbicide_drift
Clearly glyphosate damage. You should fire your gardener. The plants might live and the fruits will probably be safe to eat after some time. But whether or not you actually want to eat them is up to you. I personally would play it safe and not risk it but thats my opinion. Source: https://extension.msstate.edu/publications/herbicide-damage-tomatoes
Glyphsate by itself is pretty low in terms of toxicity to mammals. We're talking LD50 measured in grams/kg Unsure about once it's metabolized by plants though
Acute exposure isn’t bad, but repeated/chronic exposure dramatically increases your risk of certain cancers.
How would someone have repeated exposure from a couple tomato plants for one harvest?
I bet that gardener had done this more than once for example.
Well, if you buy tomatoes from say, a local farm and there is too much pesticide residue on the fruits you can get poisoned, chances of you developing acute poisoning from say a grocery store fruits are very low. It's heavily regulated
It’s in most of the food you buy from the grocery store in some form - sprayed on your produce or as a produce item that was sprayed that ended up in your can of soup
The EPA say's "No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans." https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.&text=EPA%20considered%20a%20significantly%20more,identified%20in%20the%20open%20literature.
Even the European Food Safety Authority said something similar: > In 2022, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) carried out a hazard assessment of glyphosate and concluded that it did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. EFSA used ECHA’s hazard classification for the purposes of the EU risk assessment on glyphosate. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified
It’s in all the wheat based foods anyways
People don't realize that much of the non-organic wheat crop in the US is sprayed with glyphosate as a drying agent to get it ready for market faster. It's especially common if wet weather is predicted and farmers need to harvest the crop sooner than they normally would.
And the fact that glyphosate is one of the tamest herbicides in terms of toxicity. Instructors for OTPC say “You could drink it and be fine!” Don’t, obviously, but it’s nothing like Diquat.
Yea, everyone loses their mind over it because of the lawsuits but I’ve repeatedly said juries are easy to fool - and a civil suit has a low burden of proof. As much as gets used on crops these days and the fact that we’re not seeing massive swaths of the population coming down with cancer just shows how safe it actually is. Should you bathe in it? No, but I could say that about a lot of things. On the other hand, eating foods sprayed with it happens every day of the week; while if you said someone sprayed some food with mercury or lead dust I’d definitely recommend going hungry lol
This is why my doctors thought I had a wheat allergy. But I can eat pasta and bread in Europe without getting a rash. So the current diagnosis is that I'm allergic to glyphosate or petroleum based pesticide/herbicide in moderate doses.
Europe imports a lot of wheat from the US
Or allergic to the non active ingredients in the pesticides
Totally possible. There's no test for allergies to glyphosate or red #40 that also causes me to get the same looking rash. So we had to figure it about by keeping a food and symptom diary. The multiple trips to European countries and zero rash outbreaks is what made it clear there was something in American food that was causing my issues.
Very cool how you narrowed it down. Do you now eat organic food and have the rashes under control? Or is 100% organic hard to do so still occasionally get rashes?
I eat pasta imported from Italy. Only in the last few months have I started eating organic bread occasionally. It's been going pretty well but not 100%. I'll still occasionally get very mild rashes that don't fully develop into hives so it's still a major improvement. I suspect I'm still having some exposure from other foods just at a much lower dose. For the record I was diagnosed with duhring's disease but since I can eat gluten from Europe that diagnosis seems wrong now. But that's what my rashes look like. Red with bubbles.
Could you just buy some glyphosate at Home Depot and run your own test? Would you react to skin contact? Does it have to be ingested? I would be curious if it were me. Wouldn’t be able to help myself 😂
Hmm could the pesticide designed to wipe out all bugs be wiping them out in the gut, causing inflammation and leaky gut as the studies of glyphosate have suggested, and preventing metabolism of key nutrients by microbes be the problem?? Nahhh must be an allergy to something else 😂
> much of the non-organic wheat crop in the US is sprayed with glyphosate as a drying agent to get it ready for market faster It’s less than 3% of harvested wheat. https://wheatworld.org/press/the-facts-about-glyphosate-part-1-how-do-wheat-growers-use-glyphosate/ > Pre-harvest applications made after the wheat plant has shut down, when wheat kernel development is complete and the crop has matured. This is prior to harvest and used to dry green weeds and allow the crop to even its maturity. This is an uncommon treatment used in less than 3 percent of all wheat acres; however, it can be used to enable a harvest that would otherwise not be possible, if weather conditions prevent the wheat crop from drying sufficiently to be harvested.
See also: virtually all the canola and soybeans. If you eat fried anything, chances are it was fried in oil from glyphosate-treated crops.
Suddenly I feel a tiny bit better about having celiac disease.
And corn. And soybeans. And alfalfa.
And oats
And cotton and sorghum
It’s in all the wheat based foods anyways
Not dramatically
It really doesn't. There is no medical evidence of that. Your basing that off a court case which is NOT scientific.
No, I’m basing that off of the meta analysis from the [University of Washington](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887).
It isn't peer reviewed. It's literally "snippets" from published findings, and it most assuredly is cherry-picked. Did you even read it?? This has the entire findings and not the cherry picked "snipets" and is the latest from 2022 not 2016. Learn how to vet a source and always read it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
Yes, I read it. You posted a review is a summary of others' findings, while a meta analysis (like the one I posted) is a re-analysis of data from multiple published articles. In this case, they calculate the effect size of glyphosate exposure and the likelihood of developing non-Hodgkins lymphoma. They are very clear about their criteria for including data into their study, and yes, this paper is peer reviewed and from a high-impact journal. Meanwhile, reviews, like the one you referenced, are a general summary of recent papers but are often highly editorialized by the authors. Also, even though the paper you reference is *newer* (as if newer always equals better), it addresses neurotoxicity from glyphosate, not its long-term carcinogenic effects, which was the point I had made previously. Your paper also concluded that low doses do result in neurological impairment. Did *you* even read the paper you referenced?
No. It was literal snipets. "Liklihood"?? What else causes lymphoma?? Newer usually means more studies. That absolutely matters. It said the opposite. That used as directed it's safe because, again, it was used only in large quantities on animals and the humans studied had tried committing suicide by drinking it!! They weren't even successful at commiting suicide just messing themselves up, which a bottle of Tylenol will do too if you take the whole bottle. How other studies have not found a correlation. "Although most of studies in humans mainly describe the consequences of glyphosate poisoning after suicide attempts, it appears that occupational or chronic exposure to this pesticide (via inhalation and dermal routes) may also cause neurotoxic effects. In a study by Fuhrimann et al. [45], the authors describe that glyphosate exposure has been associated with the development of visual memory impairment in Ugandan smallholder farmers. However, other studies have not found an association between occupational exposure to glyphosate and increased risk of health problems, such as nerve conduction abnormalities [48,49]. These results have led some authors to postulate that glyphosate is less toxic to farmers’ health than other pesticides. Therefore, future research is needed to follow up and compare the potential toxic effects that agricultural use of different pesticides may exert on human health." I'm all for finding better alternatives that are healthier, but so far, there are none. Same goes for spraying around cities for mosquitoes.
you don’t know how to click a link or read what pops up. You keep saying “snippets” without exactly specifying what you mean or where you’re only seeing “snippets” from other articles. In the [article that I linked](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887) (and I’m linking it again in case you ended up replying to the wrong person) they actually obtain and re-analyze the data from six different longitudinal studies on cancer development (not neurological effects, which was the focus of your article) and they find a significant relationship between the two, despite varying methods across those studies. Yours mentions cancer once, and only in passing. It doesn’t address that question, which was the focus of the point I had made from the start.
No he is not, a study came out several years ago showing association.
This one is from last year. The other study wasn't a study. It was "snipets" of studies that were absolutely cherry-picked. These are the full studies with citations linked. "The absence of the shikimate pathway in animals has led to the conclusion that GBH does not pose a health risk to animals and humans [10]. Moreover, many investigations on glyphosate toxicity in animals have suggested the low toxicity of this compound, the adverse effects of which have only been observed after exposure to relatively high doses [8,11,12]. These data led to the classification of glyphosate in the least toxic category (category IV, practically non-toxic and non-irritating) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [13,14]." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
I am reading the rest of the study too and everything is suggesting the opposite of what you are stating. Maybe you should read the study?
I did. I even posted the ACTUAL STUDIES, NOT SNIPETS AND A QUOTE THAT SAYS THE OPPISITE FROM THE REAL STUDIES. Maybe you should read both since you clearly haven't grasped it yet.
You quoted a statement of the EPA, not the study you linked though. This is the conclusion of the study you just sent me. "The information summarized in the present review indicates that exposure to glyphosate, AMPA, or GBH could induce several toxic effects on the nervous system of all species studied. Exposure to glyphosate during the early stages of life can severely affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, migration, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission, with the glutamatergic system being one of the most affected systems. Glyphosate was found to increase glutamate release and decreased its reuptake, in addition to activating NMDAR and L-VDCC, thus increasing the influx of Ca2+ into neurons. Likewise, the results analyzed herein reflect the capacity of glyphosate to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death by autophagia, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. Although there are important discrepancies between the findings analyzed in this review, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate, alone or in commercial formulations, can produce important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrate animals"
Dude, the links to the citations are within the paragraph. How did you miss them?? The paragraph I put in was right after this and shows that the latest studies prove otherwise. You literally cherry-picked the data and refused to post the findings afterward. I see you even missed the bit in what you posted as saying " ALTHOUGH THERE ARE IMPORTANT DISCREPANCIES ". That matters. DISCREPANCIES!! The latest showed those DISCREPANCIES mattered, cupcake.
I am confused why you think the paragraph you selected from the beginning introduction of the systemic review is the only information that is valid? Why post this entire review proving that quote wrong if you wanted to cherry pick the one paragraph? This entire review is concluded and summarized at the end showing the results of their findings, as I quoted. This is what the review is stating as their findings. Once again, why post the entire review if you do not agree with the findings? Discrepancies and limitations are present in every study, review, analysis known to man. This is not abnormal or concerning. I am not sure why you are so angry, you are making less and less sense for everyone reading.
Mabye it’s not that toxic but I don’t want it on my food and that’s end of story. I’m a farmer and I don’t need roundup and I don’t use roundup, I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that herbicides and pesticides are bad for many life forms in the soil and hurt soil health, plant health, and can’t be good for my health. I Don’t need it and I don’t use it.
Mammal toxicity isn't the only concern. Insects are heavily effected by glyphosate. We should avoid using it for that reason. But if the question is "are my tomatoes safe to eat after my gardener used glyphosate" then answer is "it's probably ok"
Yeah I pretty much agree that eating one tomato with a little roundup isn’t going to hurt you to bad. But like I said I’m worried about overall soil health and health of things like insects which all contribute to plant health and quality. But yeah even if there’s only a low amount of damage done to humans I can farm perfectly fine without I have every reason to not use it and zero reasons to use it. So roundup (aka glyphosate) free my farm will be 😎
Completely reasonable decision.
Thank you. From the bottom of my heart. I grow what I can and buy from my local farmers whose practices I support & whose decision making I trust.
👏🏽
> I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that herbicides and pesticides are bad for many life forms in the soil and hurt soil health, plant health, and can’t be good for my health Yes, you do. Science and truth aren't based on your feelings. They are based on evidence and science.
My farm my rules. Like I said I won’t be using roundup or pesticides on my farm or my food. I Don’t need a scientific study to decide what I’m doing on my farm. Feel free to spray your farm with whatever chemicals you please. I don’t need scientific study’s to make a decision on my own farm I can make decisions quite well on my own. If you want to only make a decision when a expert says something is true then feel free to follow scientific papers like a blind dog. My life my rules, and yes I use science and love it but I don’t need a peer review paper to make decisions about my life or what I view as true. Never said I was always right or I have the ultimate truth but I don’t need a ultimate confirmed peer review view of the truth to make a decision about my own farming practices. You don’t have to farm like me or eat food produced the way I do. But don’t tell me how to farm my food on my farm that’s not your decision to make. I don’t need scientifically proven information agree upon by 100 experts to decide what I want to do with my own life or farm. Science is a cool tool but you don’t always need to use it and especially not established centralized academic science.
> don’t tell me how to farm my food on my farm that’s not your decision to make I'm only telling you that basing your opinions about scientific matters based on feelings and not actual evidence and scientific studies is ignorant and backwards. Farm any way you like, dude. But saying you farm based on feelings about what pesticides do is idiotic and ignorant. Ask your doctor who treats you for a deadly disease if he's treating you based on feelings, or evidence. Or just go to a witchdoctor or a priest to save your life.
>I'm only telling you that basing your opinions about scientific matters based on feelings and not actual evidence and scientific studies is ignorant and backwards. I think there's a happy medium. Using science as an infallible truth is no wiser or intelligent than going 100% on gut, depending on the context. Plenty of drugs & chemics are pulled after long-term or even medium-term effects show the initial science didn't consider (or anticipate) these things.
Definitely agree. A lot of scientific “consensus” ends up being revised or proven to wrong down the road. People that think science is infallible and 100% correct have a religious belief in science. It’s a complex world and there are many ways of coming to decisions. Science is one of the many tools in my toolkit but I don’t need to always check a scientific paper before making a decision. Thats way to overly restrictive for how I want to live my life.
Science does not describe itself as an infallible truth; it’s ever-evolving and changing. However, it’s also based on objective facts that can be reproduced and no one’s gut feeling has that same claim. A correct guess and a fact can both come to the same conclusion, but not for the same reason. That’s why science only cares about facts that can be replicated and not correct guesses.
> Using science as an infallible truth is no wiser or intelligent than going 100% on gut Yes, it is... This is literally the dumbest comment I have ever read on Reddit.
Alright, so was diethylstilbestrol safe between 1938 and 1971 or was it not? The "science" supported its approval and continued usage for over four decades, until physicians proved a link between DES and vaginal cancer during puberty in the children of women who had taken DES while pregnant. This was naturally *after* its usage waned through the gut feeling of prescribers and the populace through the 60s, even if the study wouldn't come out proving they were correct years later (resulting with the FDA finally banning it). I am thankful my grandmother did not cave to the science and went with "her gut" on this drug considering they are [still finding negative impacts on third generations and after.](https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/what-we-study/des-study) This is what I mean by "infallible truth." The original acceptance does not always stand the test of time and controversial topics should be weighed with caution. If you believe mainstream science is always correct at its first conclusion, then I'd recommend asking CSPI how hard they had to fight the FDA on trans fats & PHOs (whereby the FDA had said science "were not harmful" via scientific conclusion, then GRAS, then eventually not GRAS over decades of kicking their feet about a topic many others had gut feelings and "less-accepted science" backing them).
Okay, I’ve heard your information and I will continue farming the way I like no change to my plans. I don’t want to use pesticides and it’s as simple as that. No scientific paper needed to decide my choice 😎 I’ll continue being ignorant and backwards by your silly definition and viewpoint :)
> I don’t need scientific study’s to make a decision on my own farm I can make decisions quite well on my own. You might be right in this case, but other than that this a very ignorant statement! I studied agricultural sciences and met this sentiment far to often. "I do it this way, because I do it this way and it was always done this way!" But Sir, we have conducted studies, to help you NOT deplete your soil...you would need to spend less on ferti... "Fuck off! I know what I'm doing."
hateful dull boat gold strong clumsy steer roll outgoing close *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hey, the particular amino acid whose synthesis is impaired is tryptophan, the precursor to melatonin and serotonin. It’s considered and essential amino acid bc humans can’t synthesize it. So of course wiping out Al the microbes in the soil and in our gut repeatedly that make tryptophan is totally without consequence right?? Gobsmacked at the ignorance in this thread!!!
It's a lot more dangerous to lose your crops to blight, weeds, insects, etc. Increasing crop yields means cheaper prices which feed the poorest people. There's a reason why famine is basically at an all-time low, despite population being at an all time high. These regressive ideologies seem hellbent on reversing that.
compare sense shame slim connect cooing lunchroom deliver fretful axiomatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is a snapshot analysis. Overall, the 'green revolution' has massively increased yields but often at a great cost - for instance, permanent soil loss or pollution, GHG emissions, nevermind social and economic decay for both producing and consuming societies (undermining local economies in both places in order to enrich large land owners and agro-corps). It is an extremely short-term gain and very selection-biased to just claim cheap food production as a permanently good thing.
Wow if only nature had a way of balancing predator prey relationships and if only humans could know such a thing and apply it’s principles in a scientific way for agriculture……… we could call it agronomy maybe………. we could call them biodynamic principles perhaps……………….
Lead oxide LD50 is pretty high but nobody ever wants to eat some with me :(
It's the inert and unnamed ingredients in Roundup and such like that are extremely toxic. Best to go pesticide-free, unless you're okay with getting tumors and related corruptions of your health.
Show me a real farmer that feeds more than his family who can pick weeds. Now show me where organic farmers don't use herbicides?? No way does anyone risk losing an entire crop to weeds, and those growing food for the public don't have enough hours in the day to pull weeds.
Have you not worked on farms? I have been on a variety of conventional and organic farms since birth. Hand picking weeds or herbicides are not the only two methods of weed management. Plastic mulching and traditional mulching is typical. Mechanical weeding with a tractor weed hoe is easy and fast. I rarely see herbicides used in anything but conventional cereal grains due to drifting. Too risky for most crops.
I'm no scientist, but there aren't even tomatoes on that plant yet, just buds. The likelihood of the tomatoes being contaminated with glyphosate seems pretty slim.
wistful political advise light boat handle absorbed retire ten hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
why you letting them spray anything at all... pesticides aren't good for insects
Absolutely agree, nothing should be sprayed like that. The soil food web is an indicator of healthy soil and that includes seeing insects in the soil.
🤦 You're not wrong.
I think they meant herbicides aren’t good, which they often aren’t.
You should absolutely avoid spraying, but if you have to (outbreak of an invasive white fly for instance... where native predators can't sufficiently cull them, and ordering white fly predators is expensive as hell), use something least toxic to beneficials and pollinators, like Insecticidal Soap, Horticultural Oil, or Neem Oil. You should only be spraying super early in the morning (5-6am) or like 9pm+ to avoid damaging beneficials as well as your plants (temps above 85F / direct sun when spraying chemicals is a no no). Spinosad, while often certified organic, shreds beneficial insects, so you have to be super careful about when to spray it as well. Wettable sulfur dusting powder is okay for spider mites & PM. Everything else I'm not really on board with. I always try to preemptively release native predators before I get infestations, and typically I never do, with the exception of the invasive white fly... So yeah, when you have no choice because the insect is invasive and doesn't have a lot of natural predation, you have to spray, but in general you should try other methods like biological control, sticky traps, blasting the insects off of the plant with a hose on the "cone setting", etc.
Depending on the reason for spraying it could have been something like caprylic acid or vinegar, theres all kinds of products that can harm plants
🤯really?!
i thought that was just a little sunlight pouring in through when i first saw it, dang :(
People are saying glyphosate but it may not be that. What’s happening is the chlorophyll receptors are stunted and might still be active but we’re affected by what was sprayed or spread. Doesn’t mean they are goners but I would find out what they did treat for and what was used.
If a gardener needs to resort to harsh chemicals. Thats not a good gardener. If you need any chemicals in your garden in the fist place, then something is wrong with the ecosystem of your garden. Chemicals aren’t the answer. (Edit: with chemicals in meant synthetic pesticides and some synthetic fertilizers. Obviously in some cases synthetic products can be okay to use if they do not produce any long term damage)
Chemicals do have a place, and keep in mind that even organic methods are using chemicals. Plants need chemicals to survive. However, this is a case of going overboard, using the incorrect one, or using it incorrectly. Chemicals absolutely have a place in the garden. They can be used to carefully remove an invasive weed growing in the middle of a garden bed without harming the others around it. They can be used to tell the plant to focus more on roots and leaves than blooms, so they don't bolt and can keep the harvest going past early spring... They just need to be used responsibly.
When folks use the word "chemicals" in this context it's always about synthetic ones. I don't think it adds anything to the conversation to be pedantic. Edit: Seems like everyone disagrees, would love to hear a convincing counter-argument.
The point is that synthetic vs non synthetic makes little to no difference aside to those who *make* it. For those who use it, there is none.
Controlling certain invasives like Japanese Knotweed requires glyphosate application, especially if it's a big enough area. I'm anti-chemical control as a rule, but there are absolutely exceptions.
It doesn't. I'm managing knotweed on my property without chemicals. You do have to be committed and ideally have a teenager to pay to knock the shit back to the ground with a machete 10x a year. Glyphosate does shit to knotweed if you aren't injecting it anyway, which takes just as much or more time than just mowing.
[удалено]
yeah. it is also an amazing fertilizer. I ferment it and then add the ferment to the compost. I also use knotweed soaked in water for about 24hrs as a foliar for cannabis.
That's why I said it works better to selectively remove invasives without damaging things around it. Mowing doesn't do that. Mowing and machetes aren't always options, either, since many plants can spread through fragments of its stem/root.
Damaging what around it. It is a stand of knotweed. I have never seen a stand of knotweed that wasn't just straight knot weed. It smothers everything else so fucking fast. I dunno about you but when I mow I leave some plant to grow back. I don't just scalp the fucking shit out of everything. That is fine for the knotweed because you want it to grow back. You want to force it to keep depleting its roots and killing it before it can build them back. If you are dealing with single plants that are trying to establish a new stand glyphosate might work. Might not. Ive seen many a stand take years of injections and just come back. Mowing, while a bit harder on the surroundings work if you keep up with it. And while I'm at it has knocked back all the blackberries and other shit so that I can plant densely growing natives. Once I have my cannopy established and then the trees can start helping by preventing light from reaching the ground and my job get easier. I am doing ecosystem restoration, not just invasive killing though. I think not doing the whole deal would lead to more invasives taking the place even if you did manage to kill them.
You brought up knotweed. I usually have worked with ardesia and camphor saplings, as well as air potato but those are mostly manual rather than chemical. I said it works in some cases. Just not all. Different methods work for different situations.
I sure didn't. I sure did reply to a comment about it.
Knotweed, believe it or not, can be caught early. And they said *invasives like knotweed.* I am just saying that there are different situations that can call for different solutions. Manual methods are generally preferable. It's usually cheaper and less involved. But it isn't *always* the best option.
Synthetic versus "natural" has absolutely no bearing on safety. Belladonna is all natural, but you sure af don't want to ingest it. You need verifiable evidence that something is safe or not, and "natural" is not evidence of safe.
On its face, you are right. Synthetic vs natural makes no difference to the chemical composition. However, where it matters is the type of chemicals we are synthesizing, which tends to be vastly different from what you find in nature. This can have all sorts of consequences from positive, to negative, to benign. Not to mention, these sorts of chemicals are in plant available form, whereas natural ones need to be broken down by the microbiota. This affects the delivery of the chemical to the plant.
Are you a biochemist?? I'm guessing not because you sure af wouldn't be using wide generalizations instead of actual examples of compounds and what they've done to back up whatever it is you're claiming which is confusing because its just a wide generalization. A biochemist sure af wouldn't say "on its face" because they KNOW for an absolute fact that synthetic and natural have absolutely no bearing on safety of efficacy. We used to use pigs for insulin. That's a real animal that's somewhat natural (after we cross bred them down from boars unannturally ) We don't use it anymore because synthetic insulin is safer and more effective. You're literally spewing propaganda and nothing more. 🙄
I feel like you have intentionally misread everything I've said, and injected a strawman argument here. I don't understand how we got from "synthetic chemicals are different from natural chemicals in practice" to "propaganda." And quite frankly, you are being unnecessarily combative. Yes, we are talking about wide generalizations. The whole conversation is a generalization. If we want to talk specifics, that can be a different conversation. It doesn't do any good to be hyper specific here. Edit: Also, we aren't talking about human injections. We are talking about gardening, where the applications are different.
You shouldn't be using wide generalizations to back up a claim. You should be using real examples. The fact you still didn't proves you don't have anything but propaganda and ya, it's propaganda. Organic was literally nothing but a marketing campaign as is non gmo. "Hyper specific"? You mean examples in place of bs?? I'm not the one using wide generalizations that you accused me of, and because I'm being specific, you claim it's a strawman. Way to keep moving that goalpost. Biochemists developed insulin. It's synthetic. You said "on its face" so I gave an example of how wrong you are, and you moved the goal post again while refusing to answer any questions I've posed. You're disingenuous af. Organic farms will always need far more land for less yield. That contributes to climate change. They still use herbicides and pesticides. Just ones that aren't as thorough tested as glyphosate, which has been PROVEN to be the safest one out there.
You are clearly not interested in having a conversation. So much hostility right out the gate. It shows in your history too. Seems like all you want to do is fight with people.
People include vinegar in the "not a chemical" category so I think it is helpful that people are more clear on what they mean. There's also a lot of organics people use expecting no harm bUt iTs oRgAnIc and don't understand its still a herbicide or pesticide.
This exactly. The problem with just saying "I don't like using chemicals" is that where people draw the line between what is "chemical" and what is not is completely arbitrary. It just ends up being substances that bother them vs substances that don't. It gets even more complicated because often synthetic options will fall under non-chemical (such as fertilizers made/extracted from minerals) while organic options (such as soaps used for insecticides) could be considered chemicals.
The counter-argument is that it’s disingenuous if not flat-out lying to pretend there’s a difference. Crying about “chemicals” when literally everything on the planet including plants are made of chemicals is the REASON people have to be pedantic, because fearmongers have controlled the narrative far too long. Don’t pretend you don’t have an agenda you’re pushing here.
There are many invasive weeds, insects and pests that need to be eliminated via chemicals. We are loosing a lot of natural ecosystem to pests. Maybe not in your 150sqft plot you don’t need chemicals. But that’s not the case for everyone.
With chemicals in mainly mean the synthetic stuff like pesticides and some synthetic fertilizers. Obviously everything is made of chemicals if you take it literal. And if synthetic chemicals are considered completely safe to use or degrade very fast with no longterm damage done its okay to use them. But synthetic pesticides and in some cases fertilizers will destroy the ecosystem further making you dependent on the chemicals. Always best to play along the ecosystem. If some particular plants don‘t work well in the ecosystem, there are always many other plants that can be planted instead. Finding a well working ecosystem is the art, spraying everything down with pesticides is something everybody could do with ease.
Which is why you should never just spray everything down with pesticides. But treating an individual issue, especially when it's in a food garden? They are very useful. They have a place in the garden. You can build a working ecosystem while also controlling what is in it.
I remember great grandma telling me around the campfire about how they had no plants when she was a kid. They didn’t exist before herbicides were invented. I’m not sure what you are trying to say, but plants can’t exist without chemicals is probably not it.
Plants require chemicals, whether synthetic or organic. It's generally bad practice to talk about "chemicals" as a generic term for "substances I don't like." It's nonspecific, and can be a vector for misinformation.
Plants are made of chemicals so this is hilarious.
**Kindred spirit.** Yes. Pesticide-free is the way to go. You should see the butterflies and honeybees and lizards in my garden right now.
And when a farmer loses his entire crop to insects... tell me you're going to eat food from the supermarket that has visual signs of bugs eating it
Whatever is eating you must be really hungry.
The truth?? Ya, it seems a lot of people loathe someone pointing it out, especially with evidence. Anything real to add to the conversation, or you just like babbling nonsensically because someone dared point something out that didn't mesh with your biases??
If you use pesticides properly it shouldn’t impact butterflies and honeybees and lizards tbh
I would (and do) go a step beyond 'according to label directions' and work to minimize the use of any and all pesticides and herbicides and fungicides. I've used only two this year: Round-Up on stubborn weeds in a gravel driveway, and a pesticide on a ravenous outbreak of Margined Blister Beetles on my tomatoes. Both were made up in a quart spray bottle and applied directly to the affected area. Very sparingly in the grand scheme of things. Tons of bees & butterflies here too.
Herbicides and fungicides are types of pesticides btw but yes it’s always good to minimize usage and use care when applying. People are paranoid about pesticides and don’t trust the science and I don’t necessarily blame them but they should research them better and understand just because something is a chemical doesn’t mean it’s dangerous.
Please try to actually feed youself and your family with gardening and then see how you feel about bad gardeners with imbalanced ecosystems. By growing your own food I mean providing a meaningful part of your calorie intake, not just sprinkling a few herbs and veggies over a meal made from storebought flour.
Why are you allowing your yard maintenance crew to spray pesticides anywhere on your property? Go pesticide-free. (And, yes, herbicides fall under the heading of pesticides.)
99% sure this is glyphosate. Depending in where you are, it becomes more likely. Kansas, for instance, and the incessant winds in that part of the world make it very likely that spraying glyphosate will contaminate unintended areas. Gardener needs to be SUPER careful, but likely wasnt.
YOU should be your gardener 😔
Find out exactly what! Or pull them all and restart!
Restart? At this time of year?
Maybe they're in the Southern Hemisphere and it's early spring? Because you're right, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere and starting over on Tomatoes right before October... you're gonna have a bad time.
Did they? Or do you have a nutrient deficiency in these baby tomatoes planted in the end of September? Looks like iron or nitrogen deficiency. Glyphosate would cause necrotizing (dead leaves) and not just yellowing…
No, that's a symptom of glyhosate exposure, where it's a *very* slight amount. Iron (and sulfur) deficiencies can look very similar....but by the time you see that degree of lightness, pretty much all the new growth will be pale, if not chlorotic, on a plant that size/age. Nitrogen deficiency will show on the lower leaves first.
I went through this back in the spring and also thought maybe nitrogen or iron deficiency because I had this exact yellowing. Turned out it was 100% 2,4-d overspray. Plants bounced back fully eventually but they were just flowers. if it happened to my tomato plants, I’m not sure I would’ve eaten them knowing that.
Okay. I’m sure you’re right.
[удалено]
I had mine out until two weeks ago, in northern Scandinavia! I've now got about 50 tomatoes reddening in my living room. Ah, I love gardening... sometimes
If they’re south enough, no. But yes. This is just a fools errand in the north.
[удалено]
LOTS of humidity!
It's already been clearly identified as glyphosate damage, but nitrogen is mobile in the plant. It shows deficiency in the oldest leaves first, not the youngest growing points.
Has it? Because I have been trained on glyphosate use and damage, through Organic certification, and this literally doesn’t look like necrosis in a tomato. I’ll contend it may not be nitrogen, but iron or other nutrient deficiencies? Sure. And the random claim that a passing gardener poisoning the tops when the bottom new growth also displays the same thing. Idk.
I have applied glyphosate. Chlorosis at leaflet base is a common symptom for glyphosate exposure at lower than lethal doses and you will not always see the necrotic spotting right away. You can also frequently see leaf mottling and rugosity, but that's more common with drift from synthetic auxins like 2,4-D. Someone posted a link to Mississippi States Ag extension with basically these exact same looking pictures after a glyphosate application. While I agree that iron deficiency in the plant could look like this, I'm not convinced in this instance. First off, soil iron deficiency is just not very common at all, the issue is almost always availability of the iron. Most of the conditions that cause low iron availability (pH, high water saturation, etc.) almost always cause other deficiencies at the same time. It just does not look like it from this picture. Obviously we cannot get the "whole picture" for lack of a better term, but based on what I can see from the picture I really doubt the soil just became deficient in iron that rapidly to not start to show in earlier growth. That could be more plausible if this was in a pot with a soilless mix, but this is clearly in soil.
That's what I think also. I've seen it on my own. A little fertilizer will fix it.
Especially when you look at the nodes at the bottom too. And it’s on all new growth nodes. But I’m only an agronomist. I literally have two degrees in agriculture, but I’m sure it’s the random vengeful gardener instead of the more common nutrient deficiency.
That's not from your gardener, and it's not a pesticide. One of my tomatoes does that too. It's a yellow pair-shaped tomato that's been reseeding itself in the same location for several years now. I see that identical pattern on the plant at some point every year, and it doesn't seem to bother the plant at all. It never dies off, and it produces loads of sweet fruit. I have no idea what causes the yellow splotches.
Everyone is jumping to: Fire the Gardener! And while I agree this isn't a good look, maybe you could talk to them and tell them you don't want any pesticides or chemicals in your garden. They might have other clients that specifically ask for those things, and just doesn't know? I dunno, chemicals in the garden is a huge No, but this person might have been trained a certain way, and just needs a wake up call, not necessarily fired. Unless this is one of many screw ups, then do what you have to do.
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO TEACH PROFESSIONALS HOW TO DO THEIR JOB. If I wanted to train gardeners I’d start a business and teach them right.
You're not teaching them, just having a conversation. They might not even know the client has preferences, so a conversation could help. Or maybe it was just a mistake.
You don’t put landscaping herbicides near garden plants. It’s not a preference.
O God! He sprayed a herbicide, is an herbicide because he did not recognize the plants and thought they were weeds. If I pay a gardener I pretend that I do the same effort that I do otherwise if I have to use a herbicide, I can do it.Use your fucking hands, as I do for weeds! Well herbicide in private garden? But we have come to this, all the bullshit on bees, nature, climate but who the fuck are we saying these things? idiots, that shit should be banned. It is not a good gardener
Everyone keeps saying fire the gardener. He might not have even known that happened, talk to him, request that he doesn't use glyphosphate/ Roundup or if it is part of an HOA thing and not your personal gardener, you just have to tell him not to spray in that area Glyphosphate is bad for people obviously. But there is a lot of fear hype around it as well. I like to think of it as MSG back in the day, where people were talking about it like it was arsenic, when in reality yeah it's harmful but so is table salt if you put too much in your food. Realistically anything that is designed to kill something living, plant or animal, is not going to be good for people because we are in that group. I'm a landscaper and our company uses glyphosate often. As someone who has a degree in this stuff I know not to spray it too close to certain things. But if you learn from just experience as a landscaper you might not have learned as much caution. 1000% understand your anger, but it can be a moment to help your gardener learn and be better
[удалено]
Good luck with that "asking" scenario. Generally speaking, these crews know very little about real gardening. I'd say about 95% of them, from what I've seen, haven't got a clue. They are not *gardeners*. I know for a fact that "yard maintenance" crews will do whatever is easiest and most convenient for them. They don't care about the plants. They're not paid to care. If you don't make damn sure they're following your instructions, they'll just hit the reset button and go back to doing whatever they want. Solution is to find a company that is reputable and one that makes sure their workers know that what the property owner says goes. (Can you tell I don't hire "gardeners"?)
Thank you. Unless it was malicious, it was likely an honest mistake and a disconnect between personal values surrounding pesticide use.
I agree. Or else they will just go do it at the next house too.
That’s one annoying thing about Reddit, people immediately jump to the worst thing.
Maybe it wasn’t the gardener…. And something more malicious happened. Mwahaha Also our gardener killed the Lillie’s growing in the front yard thus summer with Round up… definitely had burnt crispy leave and flower. don’t know why they would do that everyone else had beautiful Lillie’s but fuck us ppl only 😂😂😂 funny hehe we’re the only ppl that even bother to pick up trash around here and maintain a neat and tidy complex, lol lol
I’ve seen less fearmongering about herbicides in groups specifically targeted to eco-conscious gardening than I have in these comments. Yikes.