This is a soybean field six weeks after spraying Gly. As you can see, the clover was set back but not killed like everything else. This was commercially sprayed, hired by the farmer who crops our farm.
I will use a mixture of 1.5 percent of 41 percent Gly to water on my clover when I want to extend it another year but have a weed/ grass presence above acceptable. I will frost seed that field in late winter and I have had solid results.
End of rant...
I share stuff like this because not everyone can afford to grow weed free, cover ready, drilled plots like some here. Specialty chemicals are much pricier than Gly. There are ways IMHO for a habitat guy to take acceptable risks, especially when on a budget.
Rant probably not over:-)
A 1.5 percent solution of 41percent Gly ought to kill everything that is not already Gly resistant, if properly sprayed. Not going hotter just allows your clover to recover quicker.
It has not been that long since 41 Gly has been widely available. A 1.5 of 41 is much hotter than we used to spray just several years back.
Spray at the right speed, with complete coverage with the right atmospheric conditions and especially no drift. Forget the scare tactics here. If you have some problems like cat pointed out you will know it and this approach will not work.
Why would I spray a field with a solution too weak to kill the invasives? Do you think I like wasting money? Is that what the pros did above? Or did they spray hot enough like I do to kill everything except the clover?
This deer has been in one section of clover a bunch this early season.
Of all the hills you are choosing to die on. You are just flat out wrong on this one. I get people do this all the time and are successful. But if they are contributing to a glyphosate resistance are they really successful? It’s a real problem and the list of weeds is growing by the Year. It’s not just the big weeds marestail, Palmer, pigweed, water hemp. They are now finding strains of rye grass, Johnson grass, lambsquarter, and the list goes on and on. It’s clear from your statements you have no clue what causes a resistance problem. The thing is you won’t know you have a problem until you have a problem. Kinda like everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth right? Your precious RR soybeans will be overrun with a glyphosate resistance weed and you want to talk about wasting money. You will have to swap to a Liberty bean and best case scenario purchase Interline for control and that’s over $100 for 2.5 gallon generic at 40 ounces an acre or swap to a heavy Winter Rye rotation with a pre-emerge. Talk about wasting money. All to extend the life of a clover plot for a year.... okay. Maybe it’s just me but I am not reading anything above that has anyone endorsing the practice. I digress though and I am not here to pile on. What’s done is done and we all have to live with it.
Again, you keep talking major agriculture operations, which is not the direction of this conversation. We get you know a lot.
The process outlined works and is not breeding killer weeds, period.
Go on-line, the recipes are there for Gly 41 for .5 percent and above. I am not recommending this for agriculture practices, but for small food plots that purchasing specialty chemicals is cost probitive for some.
Habitat for Wildlife's Link
On the Micro thread, I tilled ground last year to plant beans, then broadcasted rye grain over the yellowing beans, then frost seeded ladino clover in winter.
I mowed the rye after it matured and allowed the seeds to germinate, which they did. I also broadcasted winter bulbs and sugar beets into that clover maybe 3 weeks ago, which are coming up as well. I will frost seed clover again this winter, and most know clover is better the second year.
If we wanted to we could keep this clover plot going for several years, and extend it with the process outlined above to get another year or two. That would be several years with no tillage and a "hybrid" form of rotation. All of that is especially good for the soil's health. There is a method to my madness, I try and keep an eye on the long run.
I have been here a long time and I remember when I told guys about broadcasting rye grain into yellowing beans and I had some who were absolutely adamant it would not work. Same thing happened when I said I frost seeded clover more than a decade ago. My grandfather taught me that by frost seeding his lawn before a late snowfall every winter in Cleveland.
Economics is my background, and a central theme in that subject is there are trade-offs to everything we do. Is there a chance my spray method contributes to gly resistance? Theoretically, yes. But the savings as well as improving soil health is a worthwhile trade-off IMO.
All of us can purchase RU at WM or HD etc. To spray commercially you have to be licensed to do so, and when I did it that required passing a test. The reason homeowners are not subjected to the same constraints is because we are not concerned about weed resistance building from small operations, it is coming from the major commercial producers.
For example, last year within one mile of my farm the Co-Op sprayed dicab/gly ready beans. No wind, but thermal drift and morning timing with a change in ground elevation on the adjoining property smoked 40 acres of RU ready only beans, for which their insurance company paid out. I am not sure MO even allows spraying like this now because of all the problems last year. You know this has happened with RU as well, and RIT, that is what I meant by the "pros", guys paid to do it commercially.
I just share, take it or leave it. Realize though, Pat even said it works, but the trade-offs are too great for him. If I was well enough off to own properties in three states , I might feel the same way. And Pat, I begrudge you nothing, you earned it and just like with JJ I will never cut down the wealthy who earned it. I am just not that talented, but want to improve the habitat for wildlife and have found what I believe are effective and efficient ways of doing so with minimum risk.
You keep insulting with emotional stuff, you must be a democrat. You are certainly not someone worth listening to.
Maybe you are just not smart enough to understand that buying only one chemical is less expensive than purchasing multiple ones? Good luck yourself, you have proven you will need it.
To everyone else, I do apologize that sometimes I guess my words come off as arrogant. Not intending to be. I started doing threads like Micro and this one to have pictures that show things work as described. When the original post about the clover and gly, a thread Pat participated on back then, there were numerous people who did not believe it. I felt showing results was the best way to say we were not making this up. Again, my sincere apology if I come off a certain way, but hopefully most of you have thicker skin than RIT and ignore the personal side and consider the information. Honestly, I can care less what strangers think of me, but do like when I read helpful stuff from others here and try and do the same.
I should have said democrat or Trumpette, he is great at insulting as well. Now I understand where you are coming from.
There are already gly resistant strains present. We had Johnson Grass near our property, on the community land, and had to use Outrider, I believe. And Remedy for serecia.
$80 savings? First, how do you know how much I would need? Do you have any idea of how many acres of plots I have? No, you don't. Please quit pretending you know more than you do because you are looking foolish.
Second, it is really pompous to think $80 might not make a difference in someone's budget. It does for some.
Lastly, it's not illegal but "you could argue ill advisable but that's a choice each land manager will have to make." DUH? That's exactly what I have been saying. It is entertaining to watch you chase your tail, LMAO!
Yes, there are pros and cons, I offered this approach without any emotion, but then enter the emotional dragon, you.
We done yet? Or should we say this approach works, is cost effective, but may contribute to assisting in the creation of gly resistant weeds and each land manager will have to make the call?
I may very well be an emotionally dragon. I’ve been called worse. But I didn’t inject politics into a hunting forum thread first. Was there no undertones or emotions involved?. I often think if you aren’t emotionally invested about something it may not be worth doing. No tail chasing here it’s just not something I would not do clear on that from the start.
The Sturgis thing was just a play on words sort of.. I am sorry that it eluded you. You know he claims to have created no till, he claims WR was first discovered by him. He created weather algorithms since the 80s. Just watch any of his videos and he will tell you. He often says the last decade, many years ago etc. it just reminded me a little of that. I guess we can’t really say it’s cost effective Mr. long run economics. You should know you can’t solve that riddle until you have all the inputs. If you never run into an issue with gly resistant weeds then it will have been cost effective.
Either or at this point we aren’t doing the thread or site any good so I’ll let you have center stage. Good luck!
I am not taking credit for anything either, I am not that smart. I said grandfather taught me about frost seeding and a farmer maybe 30 years ago that I hunted on and helped with his cattle part of the farm operation taught me about broadcasting grain for food and soil erosion control and did not waste time with a planter because, according to him, rye would grow on cement if it was watered. Early on he would use oats or wheat, if I remember correctly.
So, if it looked like I was trying to take credit, then I apologize. I have always tried to share ideas that have been helpful to me.
Resistant weeds are a problem. Dealing with them is much more expensive than with non-resistant plants whether you are a plotter or large scale farmer. Resistant weeds has a huge economic impact on everybody from producers to consumers. I truly wish them on nobody. Ignoring the significance of resistant weeds and stating it's just another method is irresponsible. I hope your methods don't cause the next gly resistant weed to emerge that costs the nation untold dollars, but if it does it won't be an accident. Failure to take known precautions (to save a dollar) can end up costing everyone and is not accidental. I enjoy your threads and micro-habitat stuff, but disagree with this method you are promoting. I consider it dangerous at a minimum.
As he said, .5 works when used correctly, and you can use 1.5 correctly as well.
Thanks for the compliment. The direction this thread started to take, like so many others lately where an individual gets bashed, was not helpful.
As a plotter of small parcels, I can directly see my coverage when spraying. The plants are being properly covered. You are correct IMO to point these concerns out; however, a 1.5% properly sprayed will kill everything not already resistant IMHO and there are other factors to consider. I understand we live in a litigious society and the Europeans see more problems with RU than POSSIBLY exist, but I also believe not using a higher concentration than necessary to do the job is safer just in case of contact or inhalation. I have read others with similar concerns. Safety to me is a bigger concern than resistance, but both are concerns.
I get there are legitimate concerns with building resistance, but there are other concerns as well. My intent here was not a discussion of that. I will go back to wanting to be effective, frugal and safe. It makes no sense to not want to kill everything other than the clover, in fact I would be wasting money with such an approach.
Again, thanks. I hope others with solid ideas don't decide sharing is a waste because they observe what happens every time someone doesn't agree totally with an approach. If you have any articles or other proof of a 1.5% solution properly applied that creates resistant weeds, please advise and I will reconsider immediately. Proof though, not theories, especially ones propagated by companies wanting to sell more of their products.
I didn't find a article correlating 1.5% with resistance (I stopped looking after reading the first abstract I opened). I seldom take much in print seriously if it isn't peer review. I did find this interesting though. It says the quick onset of resistance evolution is linked to single mode of control rather than multiple. ie- using herbicide solely without mechanical controls such as tillage quickened weed resistance to herbicides.
Please understand my approach. On a plot this is done once in a 3-5 year cycle.
Your article is in regards to using no till methods of annual plantings. Not the same.
Firstly - You've admitted it is a dangerous practice that can cause resistance, but repeatedly justified this risk based on cost savings. Since we agree that this practice can cause resistance I guess we are just discussing what's an acceptable risk. Palmer alone costs the nation millions a year which I'm not ok with contributing to. Obviously we don't see eye to eye on what's acceptable risk so I'll leave it at that.
Secondly - My link above was not a comparison of your practices, I found it interesting and said exactly that.
Thirdly - I just realized that you do not view clover as a potential weed. You spray it with weak concentrations of gly so that it recovers faster. You are taking it's genetic ability to withstand some gly, spraying it, then letting it recover. This is the exact blueprint you laid out for creating resistance in weeds per drift on neighboring fields. I know clover is YOUR goal crop, but assuming everybody else in the world wouldn't be affected by clovers in their crops is self centered. Your practice of weakly spraying clover so that it survives is exactly what you say creates resistance. To anyone trying to grow something other than clover it is in fact a weed. I simply do not agree that it is an acceptable risk. Resistance is very costly to this nation and more of it is not needed. I'm very much ok with people taking risks on a personal level. If you don't want to spray gly due to health concerns that's fine. If you want to drink gly due to personal reasons that's fine... but helping create something that costs the nation so much is a bit overstepping in my view.
You know you are stepping way over. I could have said with your link that exactly the farming practices you and thousands of others employ, no till, is creating super weeds faster. Quit doing it, but you will not because of profits.
What I am admitting is there is the possibility with use of any herbicide to create resistance, which research supports. I use herbicides, minimally because I do not like their environmental impact, therefor I possibly help create resistance. As does probably everyone who has a lawn and uses weed killers.
Clover can be easily killed with an appropriate broadleaf application, so let's start by being forthright with the facts.
I find a lot of things interesting, I don't just dump them into any semi-related discussion. I try and keep things on track.
Again, there is more than just resistance to consider when using herbicides. Such as cost, personal safety, environment etc. My understanding is gly is considered much safer than most herbicides, and also with less environmental impact probably.
If I had a weed problem with my 8 acres of food plots, 1 acre is always left idle for 2-3 years. I rotate this portion, and will disc to have bare dirt as well as natural forbs. I would be more aggressive on turning the soil multiple times to kill difficult weeds and eliminate them from the seed bank before using herbicides. I can do this with habitat, a farmer needing production can not. Again, what I do and what you farmers do are two different things.
"Clover can be easily killed with an appropriate broadleaf application, so let's start by being forthright with the facts."... And grass can easily be killed with cleth without the risk of creating resistance, being forthright with facts.
OK, let's use your logic...you are making soybeans more resistant by spraying them with RU and not killing them. Yes, they were genetically modified to do that, but so have some alfalfas and clover. There is no difference in the logic, people are just wanting to argue.
And I use RU because I am not just killing grasses in the clover, but plants in general that have reduced the clover presence enough that deer/turkey utilization dropped considerably. It appears we are both making assumptions, so let's get back to my challenge. Show me proof that a 1.5% 41 Gly application properly conducted does not kill everything that is not already gly resistant.
My bet, you won't be able to. We keep going to higher percentages not just because plants started building resistance, but also because of improper spraying and so the hotter percentage is a little insurance. And even though the so called experts say Gly is quickly "neutralized" in the environment, I have my suspicions. For example, some believe the chemicals may be responsible for bee hive collapses which can threaten pollination of certain plants that cannot be artificially pollinated. The jury is still out if there is a link IMO.
Jason, obviously I am informed on this. I haven't taken the matter lightly. In terms of resistance building, environmental impact etc, the large farmers are the concern IMHO.
In fact your article is basically challenging no-till methods and implying that approach is more of a resistance building problem. You don't hear farmers discussing that too much do you? And after all of the benefits we were told no-till contributed, less fuel use (impacts climate change), better microbes and bacteria, more earthworms, better water retention etc. Like I said much earlier, there are always trade-offs. Yes, we should be informed, I agree.