Re: RR Beans, Alfalfa and Plant Back Restrictions

Greg & Lei Gunthorp (hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com)
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:11:31 -0500

This post brings up a point that they were discussing on WGN radio, Chicago
yesterday on the noon show. They were talking about the EPA potentially
regulating GMO's. Now I can see in an instance that just because we put
the chemical in the plant that it does not imply that it is safe. Is it
surprising that they didn't see it that way on the radio? I was going to
call them and ask does that mean it would be safe to genetically engineer a
plant to produce 12 tons/acre of DDT?
Best wishes,
Greg
Gunthorp's Pasture-ized Pork
LaGrange, Indiana
visit our farm at www.grassfarmer.com

----------
> From: Charles Benbrook <benbrook@hillnet.com>
> To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: RR Beans, Alfalfa and Plant Back Restrictions
> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 12:37 PM
>
> There are no crop rotation or plant back restrictions associated
> with any uses of Roundup, whether with a GMO variety or not. Roundup
breaks
> down quickly and is not persistent, which is why it must be applied two
or
> three times in most RR systems.
>
> The information on restrictions against planting alfalfa (or many
> other rotation crops, cover crops and grasses/legumes) probably was in
> reference to imidazolinone or sulfonylurea resistant corn or beans
> varieties. These products typically have a 12 month or more crop
rotation
> restriction, in some cases, much more (see below).
>
> Some major soybean herbicides by class associated with GMOs and
some
> of the crop-rotation or plant-back restrictions are briefly reviewed
below.
> Soybean herbicide percent acres treated data are from USDA/NASS, for
1997.
> Plant back, crop rotation restrictions are from pages 143 to 168, section
on
> soybeans, in "Weed Control Manual," Meister publication, Vol. 31, 1998.
>
> Sulfonylureas
>
> Chlorimuron-ethyl (Classic), 13% national soybean acres treated. Plant
back
> depends on soil Ph and region, have to see the label, but is surely 12 to
24
> months or longer for most crops.
>
> Sulfentrazone+chlorimuron-ethyl (Authority), new product, market-share
> unknown. Canola, beets, 30 months. Alfalfa, sorghum, 42 months. (Recall
> one reason the low doses work is because of the chemical' persistence;
> persistence=longer plant back restrictions, and more undiagnosed (and
> diagnosed) crop injury when, for one reason or another, herbicide
residues
> in the soil take longer to break down than "normal").
>
> Sulfentrazone (Cover). New product. Alfalfa, 12 months. Many other
crops
> 12-18 months, and rest, 30 months.
>
> Imidazolinone
>
> Imazaquin (Scepter), 13% acres treated. Most crops, 18 months (include
> alfalfa). Sugar beets, 24 months.
>
> Imazethapyr (Pursuit), 38% acres treated (average rate of only 0.05
pounds
> a.i. per acre). Potatoes, 26 months. Sweet corn, 18 months. All other
> crops 40 months after application. (So much for cover crops, small grain
> rotations, alfalfa, etc, on 1/3 of soybean acres).
>
> Clomazone (Command). 5% acres treated. No crop rotation until 16 months
> after planting in Northern U.S., 12 months elsewhere.
>
> Clearly, some herbicide tolerant plant varieties are going to
cause
> some serious localized problems. Application rates tend to be a bit
higher,
> and repeat applications are much more common in herbicide tolerant
programs.
> One reason -- herbicide/GMO-seed companies are, in effect, guaranteeing
> "satisfactory" weed control, and give growers the chemical needed for
later
> season resprays. These extend the crop rotation restrictions, but more
> worrisome, can lead to runoff following an early summer thunderstorm.
> Imagine what a little of these herbicides will do to that nice new
grassed
> waterway, or grass filter strip, half or 3/4 paid for with public
dollars,
> as runoff flows over the newly established grass stand. Also, expanded
use
> of these technologies will lead to more problems among neighbors when
either
> drift, runoff, or volatization (and drift) lead to herbicide injury in
> nearby fields.
>
> chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
> Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
> 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
> Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail