Glyphosate is one of the world's most popular weed killer. It's a broad spectrum herbicide; particularly useful for broadleaf weeds and grasses.
It was developed by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Monsanto's patent expired in 2000 and it's found under many different brand names now, most cheaper than Monsanto's. The chances are if you buy a commercial
broad spectrum weed killer from your local hardware or gardening store, it will contain glyphosate.
While there are so many brands containing the chemical, Monsanto still makes a killing from Roundup; not just in sales of the herbicide, but from "Roundup Ready" crops. These are
genetically engineered plants that are tolerant to glyphosate; meaning that a farmer can spray Roundup among these crops without harming them.
As you can imagine through having such crops, a *lot* of glyphosate is used each year. According to the USGS, agricultural use of glyphosate skyrocketed from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. No doubt, that latter figure has increased since 2007.
Glyphosate is often marketed as being safe and reasonably environmentally friendly in that it supposedly breaks down very quickly.
While more earth friendly weed killers are around made from common household ingredients, they are more suited to the average garden rather than large chunks of
land or commercial agriculture purposes.
Modern agriculture is heavily dependent on glyphosate ...and even I am to a degree.
There's no doubt it does its job very well. Where the doubts are lay in what
else it may be doing.
The majority of my chunk of Australia is pretty much weed free and doesn't require herbicide as the bush takes care of itself along with a bit of a helping hand with manual weed pulling. Unfortunately, I have a few acres where I swear every weed species on the planet
exists.
Over a couple of years of staged and very targeted low-level glyphosate usage, I was making headway and reduced the need for glyphosate to practically nil. One of the worst droughts in Australia's history helped as well -
it was one of the few positives of what was an otherwise dire situation.
Then the floods came, which wiped out some of the natives in the rehabilitated area that
didn't like getting their feet wet. The waters also swept down weed seeds from other properties that did and weed seed that had lay dormant in that area for years
also jumped at its chance. I was back to square one. I will never forget the day
I visited the area to see a carpet of green had sprung up pretty much overnight
- 99% of it weeds.
It's events like this that have provided me a very small taste of what some farmers battle and gave me a greater appreciation of the challenges they face in making a living
from the land while trying to keep the environment in mind.
I grudgingly started hitting this problematic patch with glyphosate again, somewhat reassured that a) it wouldn't be forever and b) glyphosate was the lesser of the herbicide evils.
Or is it?
We've already been hearing about weeds becoming resistant to the herbicide and I had also heard rumblings that this product may not be so safe after all - and might be significantly more persistent and pervasive than I believed.
Those rumblings have been building in recent weeks in Australia.
Veteran American plant pathologist, Dr Don
Huber, has linked glyphosate to the increasing severity of crop diseases, caused by a binding of minerals such as copper, zinc and manganese to the herbicide, making them unavailable for plants and thus susceptible to certain problems. Dr. Huber says it can also kill some beneficial microbes while allowing others to
thrive and also believes it could be associated with animal
infertility problems.
Others claim glyphosate does not break down quickly and takes up to 6 months to
do so.
According to two new USGS studies released in August 2011, glyphosate was frequently detected in surface waters, rain and air in agricultural areas of the Mississippi River watershed. In the air and rain? Hmm. A little unsettling. The author of the study said very little is known about glyphosate's long term effects on the environment.
In amongst this flurry of news hitting Australian rural journals over the last few months have been reports countering all this, stating some of these concerns are unfounded.
To confuse things further, US microbioligist Dr. Bob Kremer says glyphosate promotes complex reactions among soil
organisms and not enough is understood about these interactions to provide specific management advice
Who do we believe? I guess what it boils down to is of course not to use the
stuff if it isn't necessary - it's a poison after all and a synthesized one at
that.
Sometimes I am tempted just to let the weeds do their thing as I believe the bush will win out in the end.
A few years back I read a fascinating book by Peter
Andrews on a concept called Natural Sequence Farming, where he used weeds to
help rehabilitate his property. Peter's theory was the weeds were growing as
conditions weren't right for natives or desirable pasture species. By letting
the weeds grow in some areas, it restored the conditions to a point when the
native species could then take over. I've also read other studies where people
have used selected relatively non-invasive or useful
weeds to crowd out other more aggressive and damaging weeds.
It's all fascinating stuff, however, if I tried it, things would certainly get worse before they get better. That's a risk I would be happy to take if it were just my own block, but I have my neighbors' blocks to think of too; not to mention my legal obligation to carry out weed control.
If there is a more earth friendly herbicide out there, I'd sure like to know about
it - but with so much conflicting information about anything connected with Big
Agriculture, I'm not sure what can be trusted.
My situation is just the tip of the iceberg, not even a drop in the glyphosate
bucket in this country; but it hasn't escaped me that while I'm knocking down
weeds in this small area with the stuff, I really have no idea what else I may
be doing. For all I know after reading all I have in recent times, I could just
be making conditions more suited to weed growth by making it less suitable for
native species.
Why we have a product so readily available for so long yet the science still
doesn't appear to be settled is a little frightening.