Salt to kill weeds in gravel driveway???

[susanne]

@goldenrow

What a lot of people don’t think about, is WHY glyphosate (aka RoundUp) was developed in the first place

Monsanto developed glyphosate and RoundUp TO MAKE MONEY. Others may disagree – that is their choice – but I will never trust Monsanto to be the least bit concerned about those I love. They are my responsibility, so even if the risk is slight, I will not take it.

There are dangers with overuse of the salt + vinegar + Dawn solution, so I use it carefully. I am well aware that these are chemicals, but at least I don’t need to worry about my horses or dogs ingesting slight amounts. Salt is a required mineral, vinegar is often added to horses’ water, and Dawn is used to clean the feathers of waterfowl after oil spills.

As with most organic weed control, this is not a permanent solution and I’ll have to continue dealing with weeds in the future. I can live with that.

The flame thrower approach is good as long as it doesn’t create a fire hazard. Living in the middle of a forest, I’m not comfortable with that approach.

Once again, if you feel comfortable using glyphosate around your animals and children, go ahead. I choose not to.

[goldenrow]

I want to address some of the concerns I’ve read about in the last few posts. I might use a couple of entries, so bear with me!

The first one I want to discuss, is about weeds developing resistance to glyphosate, because this is a real-world concern. And not only to some people on this bulletin board, but to agronomists and farmers around the world. However, things are not as dismal as you may have been lead to believe, by reading things on the internet.

There are currently 14 weeds species that have had one or more individual plants confirmed as being resistant to the Group 9 Site of Action family, which is the SOA that glyphosate affects. All 14 of these species are resistant to more than just glyphosate. They have developed resistance to other SOA’s, and the Group 9 was actually the most recent SOA added. These weed species have high adaptability, just due to their biology (i.e. having 600,000 seeds). Total downer, right?

Although that may sound “scary,” we still have ways to control these weeds. And in fact, glyphosate still controls the large majority of these resistant species, there are just some pockets of the country where resistant individuals (and their offspring) have evolved. Smart little buggers - but not all of them have evolved as quickly. Also, even resistant individuals, if sprayed while the weed is still small (2"), glyphosate can still be effective. We also still have 9 other Modes of Action. And within those 9 Modes, we have 18 other Sites of Action. And within these 18 Sites of Action, we have 42 Chemical Families, and 101 Active Ingredients, which become the almost 5,000 licensed herbicide brands sold in the United States.

Similar to all of COTH now using fecal assessments to determine the appropriate dewormer Active Ingredient and dosage amounts on a per horse event, rather than just ivermectin, ivermectin, quest “rotations,” - agronomists and farmers have become much more diligent and educated about rotating AI’s, usage rates, adjuvants, and timing.

We all know that ivermectin and glyphosate and penicillin are good tools but have to be better managed than in the past. Half-rates, guess rates, and poor timing have resulted in all of them losing some of their effectiveness - but with careful consideration of their use, we can keep them in our tool box.

One more thing I wanted to mention about herbicide resistance, is the technology that will be available in the “near-ish” future. These are such exciting times in science!!!

So. A friend of mine works in OMG! Monsanto Research & Development!!! and is working with an RNAi project that can TURN OFF plant resistance BIOLOGICALLY!!! And not just to glyphosate, but it will eventually be able to make your BARNYARD GRASS, your KOCHIA, your PRICKLY LETTUCE, your WILD CARROT!! ALL susceptible to 2,4-D again!!!

Whew! This one gets me pretty pumped up!!!

[goldenrow]

Needless to say, Yes. Monsanto is in business, which means at some point, their share holders want to see some profit - just like your dressage/jumper/QH/Polo trainer does not work for free, either. They would rather have their own barn, and ride their own horses all the time, but they have to work your horse, to make some money, to continue their education and show careers, too. Money does NOT equal evil.

In order to fund their R&D department, which is HUGE and pretty impressive, really, they need to “sell stuff.” And that “stuff” does include RoundUp. Last I was told by an ag distributor, there are only 3 operating glyphosate manufacturing plants on the planet - one is owned by Monsanto, one is owned privately but operated by Monsanto, and the other one is owned by ChemChina. So, even if you buy “non-Monsanto” glyphosate, it’s still either “Evil Monsanto” or “Evil China” glyphosate. I DON’T WANT TO DISCOURAGE YOU FROM USING GLYPHOSATE, but we’re in an open, full-disclosure discussion here, right? Buy American!

Monsanto gives lots of scholarships, grants to FFA chapters, rural hospitals and churches, and the like. They aren’t ALL bad. They have invested a lot of money back in to rural America. I don’t typically have much respect from “the men in suits.” But I have a ton of respect for the R & D, the science, and the money donated by this company.

*** I do not work for Monsanto. I am a farmer by night, and by day, I am an agronomist for an independent, family farmer-owned company in the heart of the cornbelt.

[JJK]

@HungarianHippo

Yup, and to my post on Off Topic ( https://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/forum/off-topic/off-topic-aa/9662479-quack-science) it’s a perfect good example of the lack of peer review. The article you link is not research, it’s an activist website who refers to some other researcher to prove her point. So, what the heck, I followed the link to the “french researcher” she based her article on, and sure enough, it’s the usual psuedo science, full of conspiracy theories kind of crap. It’s not a peer reviewed journal. And the french researcher is basically rehashing a prior study he did that was so flawed that it had to be retracted-- which he claims was because the rest of the scientists are all in the pocket of (or afraid of) Monsanto, who installs sympathizers on the editorial boards of the scientific journals.

Seriously, read the research yourself. You don’t have to be a scientist to get the gist of what they’re saying, and to pick up on signals that the study author is defending a subjective conclusion (which is a big red flag).

I am new to the forum but looking for the best way to permanently eliminate plants in a perimeter around the house cleared for wildfire mitigation. I think we can build a perimeter with treated railroad ties or 6x6 to contain he salt. In this mountain terrain i wouldnt exorct very much horizontal leeching as there is never pooled or running water and the ground is permeable decomposed granite below about 6-12 inches. So im thinking of sowing rock salt inti the soil surface and into a layer of gravel. I dont want to use weed barrier because when it fails you cant dig it up whereas we can always add more salt. If this makes sense, i would like to know what coverage to design, hoe many pounds per sq yard?

[JJK]

I am new to the forum but looking for the best way to permanently eliminate plants in a perimeter around the house cleared for wildfire mitigation. I think we can build a perimeter with treated railroad ties or 6x6 to contain he salt. In this mountain terrain i wouldnt exorct very much horizontal leeching as there is never pooled or running water and the ground is permeable decomposed granite below about 6-12 inches. So im thinking of sowing rock salt inti the soil surface and into a layer of gravel. I dont want to use weed barrier because when it fails you cant dig it up whereas we can always add more salt. If this makes sense, i would like to know what coverage to design, hoe many pounds per sq yard?

[JJK]

@Where'sMyWhite

goldenrow, your reply does address the possible negative heath aspects of glyphosate and it appears that with the many studies, there is no solid connection between glyphosate and cancer or other health conditions. Even the EU, who is, IMO, fussier than the US in this regard, appears to have renewed its license.

However, there appears to be, IMO again, more solid research showing that plants that are glyphosate targets are becoming resistant to it. While plant resistance is not at the level of human or animal health concerns, to me, it is concerning if the resistance continues to “spread”.

I want to comment on this as a research scientist. The comment is not about roundup research pe se, because im not well versed in it, but about he way it is referenced in discussions like this. Its a comment about the ature of science. The question “why” was raised wih regard to creating roundup to address a problem. “Why” also relates to the comment that there is “no credible evidence” …etc. The answer to that “Why” is actually he first and most important question you should ask. Science is only rarely biased by tainted results; but it is always biased by what questions are asked. So when citing safety of a product it means nothing to say there is no published evidence, unless we can say what specific studies were done to find that evidence. And, of course that is affected a lot by available funding, most of which is from the companies, and secondly from USDA, which is also influenced by lobbyists and congress. In addition, the comment that roundup is a chemical and salt is also a chemical misses an important point about biology and the kind of research needed. Organisms are adaptive and evolutionary. Thus they have had millions of years to adapt to natural substances and work out how to deal with side effects. Any new chemical is “ecological gambling” – it is almost impossible to do research to find those side effects, which every intervention will have. After decades of use we might know there are minimal short term risks, but we cant know about long term or even short term in uncommon exposure scenarios or species. In all cases one must cite specific studies properly designed to test for safety in a specific scenario. One of my favorite quotes from a beloved colleague is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (John A. Eddy)

[csaper58]

Well, that [salting the land] is a very bad idea for any number of reasons.

Railroad ties and 6x6 lumber will catch fire and burn.

The amount of salt needed to do what you propose would be expensive and heavy to move.

It could potentially poison the soil and be carried away to poison trees and streams in any rain run off. And it will also poison amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals that live in the area.

After the salt kills everything, all the plants and trees will still need to be removed, root systems too.

The best way to establish a perimeter is to physically remove all burnable material. The easiest way to do that is with a controlled back-burn that you then maintain as cleared space.

You should check with the County Agent, or Agriculture Extension Office where you live, They will have up to date info and intimate knowledge of the terrain, plant/animal species, and preservation laws, you are dealing with.

[Where_sMyWhite]

JJK, got a little lost in the middle of the paragraph…

As for your thought to salt and re-salt and re-salt… as csaper58 pointed out, just say no.

No RR ties, no lumber, no salt.

Mow short and regular 30’ or so around the home perimeter. Clear cut any trees (esp pine trees) up at least 10’ off the ground. As your local FD to come out and do an assessment of your property and ask them for their recommendations on mitigation.

I am more familiar with fire mitigation in the Rockies than the gulf coast but any FD should come out and help you will mitigation as well as any evacuation or livestock concerns you might have. Ask them what you can do, as a landowner, to make their job easier.

Fire can, IMO, be frightening with the speed and intensity that it can travel… sometimes spotting up to a mile away if the fire crowns.

[hosspuller]

@JJK

I am new to the forum but looking for the best way to permanently eliminate plants in a perimeter around the house cleared for wildfire mitigation. I think we can build a perimeter with treated railroad ties or 6x6 to contain he salt. In this mountain terrain i wouldnt exorct very much horizontal leeching as there is never pooled or running water and the ground is permeable decomposed granite below about 6-12 inches. So im thinking of sowing rock salt inti the soil surface and into a layer of gravel. I dont want to use weed barrier because when it fails you cant dig it up whereas we can always add more salt. If this makes sense, i would like to know what coverage to design, hoe many pounds per sq yard?

You’re likely on a well. I would not salt the earth like biblical times. You might get it in your tap water. RR ties will not contain dissolved salt either. Once your ground water is contaminated your alternatives are limited and expensive. The most benign fire break is a plowed strip. No chemicals, once a year turn the earth, keeping erosion in mind. Besides, tractors are fun …:lol: