Yes, in an organic forum where glyphosate use is common, people do need to hear about this. Wait...

Don't you lecture people for talking about this stuff in an organic forum quite regularly?

Is it okay because you're taking a side in the issue that you support?

Can others get a little leeway on issue without a lecture for even daring to mention it if you're also going to engage in it on this forum?

Since others, NC, tout the benefits of an environmental poison, a product that is not and never has been ace[table to any real organic grower information about problems with that product are also warranted. It is educational, NC, did you learn anything?

I would be very interested in what folks on this forum see as alternatives to herbicide usage in large fields. I note that the article does not offer an alternative, just stating that people will be cultivating smaller fields to control weeds. The article does not mention the very significant economic as well as environmental impacts of such cultivation: fuel costs and equipment maintenance would be substantial, and labor costs would be very large. I think such an approach would drastically increase the price of what is, at the current time, quite an affordable food and feed. So, what do you folks think could be used?
Renais

The author is a "small farm" advocate, himself. His farm is 14-15 acres.

It's a nice concept til you see a high rise apartment block holding 3000 people and wonder where they're supposed to get food...and the 100 other high rise apartment blocks within a mile of that one...

He's a legit guy...rather funny, too. It's just what he advocates involves a whole lot less focus on the bigger farms...much less the mega-farms.

he may be a funny guy but not funny ha ha. if he thinks there are millions of people out there dying to run a small farm he is completely delusional.

Do weeds develop resistance to CGMs too?

CGM's? Corn Glucose Monitoring? Or do you mean something else?

CGM - Corn Gluten Meal?

Gene Logsden ... I remember him and his books from the "we're all going to have family farms and grow our own stuff" days of the 1980s, when my sister's church friends were prepping for the end times. He was convinced then that large-scale farming was coming to an end. Apparently he's still convinced.

He runs a "cottage farm", sometimes called a small-scale experimental farm, somewhere in Ohio, with a small woodlot, a barn, and 14 acres of crops. The trick with small-scale experiments is that you have to be able to scale them up to real-world conditions. For his dream to happen, either his methods have to scale up to today's farm sizes (they won't) or today's farms have to be divvied up among a whole lotta new farmers who will somehow be able to keep productivity up, buy small-scale equipment, and stay in business (they won't).

Weed control is becoming so complicated that even a seasoned farmer needs to get help to keep track of which new weedkillers plus which new varieties he needs to use and how to diversify them in alternate years so the weeds don’t become immune to them.

Looking at that picture on his article, I know pigweed (Palmer amaranth) has been resistant as an adult for a very long time - since the 1980s at least in AZ, perhaps it's naturally resistant. When it's young (less than a foot tall) it's very susceptible. Timing counts for weed control.

Logsden is another "farmers are dumb" writer. He makes it sound like rocket surgery, when all it takes is a notebook, a spreadsheet, or some of the really NIFTY GPS-based farm management software to keep track of the rotation. I hang out with a bunch of long-time family farmers and ranchers on facebook, and most of them can tell you exactly what they applied to what field and in what quantity up to a decade ago, and what the results were. They call it "confusing the weeds".

The most successful large (as in 1,000 acre up) no-till operations I know of use glyphosate at seeding to knock down the young weeds, and then let the wheat or corn canopy prevent later growth.

isn’t it quite possible that if they are clever enough to immunize themselves to Roundup, they will also figure out a way to handle a cocktail of herbicides too, even if they only get exposed to each of them every other year or so?

He's speculating, using weasel words, he has little science to back him up, and anthropomorphizing DNA to boot. Geneticists and agronomists can predict the results of mutation pressure and have ways to make it less likely. He makes the statement and proceeds as if it were true. It gets him clicks and book sales.

Yup, corn gluten meals.

Logsdon is a great writer for those interested in small scale farming and self sufficiency of all aspects.
It's obvious, LG that you prefer conventional farming, I mean you recommend roundup on a thread with Bermuda grass... But to many organic growers there is useful info to glean from his many books.

You may not like his organic leanings, but he has a great deal of experience to offer. He never claims to be a scientist, just offers what works for him on his plot.

Why again are there anti organic posters on this forum? Moderators?

I find articles like this interesting in that what they claim to be fact and imply to be the case that it is happening everywhere . I have many good friends who are large scale conventional grain farmers and ranchers. None of these guys are having RR crop and herbicide resistance problems let alone tire problems due to crop stover abrasion. I'm not agreeing with how they farm, just relaying the information that the article does not apply to all farms and farmers. Try growing your own wheat to make your bread and pasta sometime, you'll find out how tough the weed problem can be.

"Why again are there anti organic posters on this forum? Moderators?"

I don't think of people as anti organic but rather pro truth. I'm all for organics. My gut says it is by far better than using synthetics both for the consumer and the environment. This doesn't give anyone the right to either make stuff up or promulgate stuff that is made up.

Lloyd

"I don't think of people as anti organic but rather pro truth"

I find those that are anti organic here are less
"pro truth" than anything else.

I hate all haters!

A major part of the issue in the discussions here is that there is a significant disconnect between what someone might think would work based on their limited observations, and what the real world farmers observe in practice. As I've said to folks before, if you want to determine if a practice makes economic sense, ask the local farmers. These folks are generally very well educated, care about the land in a way few others can imagine, and are very sensitive to the bottom line. If a practice makes economic sense, they are going to be adopting it; if it only sounds like a nice idea, not backed up by a scientific evaluation which includes costs (especially fuel and machinery), then the farmers are not going to adopt unless, as noted above, there is an external stimulus such as a subsidy or additional regulations. Lots of farmers conduct their own field tests; they are good information resources, often willing to share their findings.

So, go ahead and ask a local farmer for the real scoop; they are likely to want to clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions about their work.

One of my pet peeves about many of the articles such as this is that they neglect to value fuel, machine time and costs, farmer labor and time. Farmers don't work for free, and their equipment and fuel bills are very significant.
Renais

I am not all that sure that I would consider researchers at Iowa State University or several other similar institutions to be anyone with limited observations. These are the places from which I have seen reports of resistance of those unwanted plants to the herbicides that are supposed to control them. Some of the same institutions of higher learning re finding that many of these same herbicides are causing genetic mutations in frogs, toads, and other lower order life forms where those herbicides are used.
Closing our eyes to these problems is not an option.