I have never planted roundup ready corn before. Always use conventional tillage methods for my 6 to 8 acers. Turned some sod land back in the winter and got it in good shape to plant on Saturday. Got it planted but have not sprayed and now we are getting rain today. Question?? Now that it is in the ground, when do I spray and what do I spray with? Can I use roundup after the corn emerges? If so, is this regular roundup or something special? Thanks for any info.
- Thread starter don v
- Start date
Fordfarmer
Well-known Member
Spray with Roundup when the weeds are starting to compete with the corn. The longer you can wait, the more weeds will be up and can be killed. Roundup wont do anything to weeds that arent up.
Corn doesn't like competition. You want to spray when the weeds are 2 or so inches tall, can be taller, but hate to wait too long. Spray with a glyphosate (such as Roundup, but there are many cheaper 'generic' brands just as good). About a quart per acre, less water, like 10 gallons per acre, is actually better.
Repeat again just before the corn canopies, or if you see weeds.
This double shot will be hardest on perannuals like Canadian thistle, etc. As long as you invested the money in the seed cost, might as well get good value, and knock those bad weeds down.
Gloyphosate only kills green plants it hits, it becomes inert on the soil in a very short time, will not affect new sprouts.
It takes a while for glyphosate to do something - it travels down to the bottm of the root & kills from the bottom up. You don't want to mix with something that burns the wewed top off fast, the glyphosate won't have a chance to work.
--->Paul
Repeat again just before the corn canopies, or if you see weeds.
This double shot will be hardest on perannuals like Canadian thistle, etc. As long as you invested the money in the seed cost, might as well get good value, and knock those bad weeds down.
Gloyphosate only kills green plants it hits, it becomes inert on the soil in a very short time, will not affect new sprouts.
It takes a while for glyphosate to do something - it travels down to the bottm of the root & kills from the bottom up. You don't want to mix with something that burns the wewed top off fast, the glyphosate won't have a chance to work.
--->Paul
Mike Aylward
Well-known Member
Paul, you are very right in saying that corn doesn't like competition. In fact, if you are killing weeds in corn you are already behind. The best corn will come from fields that start clean and stay that way. If you have to kill weeds in standing corn some yield damage has already been done. Mike
If you plant Roundup Ready corn and use Roundup or the generic form glyphosate, you have to allow the weeds to sprout before spraying. It is a contact herbicide, killing only weeds already sprouted and growing. No residual action, and does not kill anything still in the ground. With a second flush of weeds, must spray again.
Mike Aylward
Well-known Member
I am a full time farmer and know what you are saying. However, I know for a fact that if corn has to compete at all with weeds there will be a yield loss. To me, the Roundup system is a good backup plan if there are escapes. It is better to use some kind of a residual up front and THEN if there are weeds clean it up with Roundup. Mike
Put down Atrazine / triazine with some AMS when you put the seed in the ground if you are planting into conventional tillage and come back once it's up with glyphosate pre-canopy before weeds become too large and require a heavy rate knock down.... You'll need an applicator's license to purchase the atrazine.
While Monsanto has done wonders with the marketing of Roundup and RR crop seeds, the net benefits are not to the consumer, or the environment, but to Monsanto alone.
A very quick search on "roundup persistence" came up with this as a top hit:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm
A half life (half of what was applied) still being there 100 days later (and a quarter 200 days later, an eighth nearly a year later, etc) is not a rapid breakdown. From the link:
Then there is genetic drift. GM corn pollen has been proven to have contaminated OP seed stocks. The Supreme court ruled for Monsanto that those farmers planting OP crops and saving seed, if found with Monsanto genes (even due to drift), can be sued for patent infringement. Judge Clarance Thomas wrote the majority opinion for the court. Somehow, he forgot to recuse himself, as he was a former lawyer for Monsanto. The big M has over 76 lawyers taking up cases against farmers who save seed and seed cleaning operations. Why? because they want to be the sole source of seed stocks.
Oh, Monsanto also has former high level employees working for the EPA, because it's important whose best interests are protected.
Corporate ethics like that don't get my green, even if I have to weed my acres by hand, and take a loss in yield in doing so.
Well Worn
A very quick search on "roundup persistence" came up with this as a top hit:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm
A half life (half of what was applied) still being there 100 days later (and a quarter 200 days later, an eighth nearly a year later, etc) is not a rapid breakdown. From the link:
The proven health risks among farmers who use it, such as an increase in non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Then there is genetic drift. GM corn pollen has been proven to have contaminated OP seed stocks. The Supreme court ruled for Monsanto that those farmers planting OP crops and saving seed, if found with Monsanto genes (even due to drift), can be sued for patent infringement. Judge Clarance Thomas wrote the majority opinion for the court. Somehow, he forgot to recuse himself, as he was a former lawyer for Monsanto. The big M has over 76 lawyers taking up cases against farmers who save seed and seed cleaning operations. Why? because they want to be the sole source of seed stocks.
Oh, Monsanto also has former high level employees working for the EPA, because it's important whose best interests are protected.
Corporate ethics like that don't get my green, even if I have to weed my acres by hand, and take a loss in yield in doing so.
Well Worn
You can buy glyphosate tolerant corn from Syngenta or Pioneer, get a generic glyphosate product, and not ever touch anything from Monsanto. Since this comes up so often, it seems the hate is for the one company... There are options to not deal with M at all.
Took care of your problems, you are welcome.
A bit sarcastic of me, but the fever of such comments is always a bit puzzling to me. There is a lot I don't like about the direction of farm ecconomics & regulations, but I'm a bit player and have to find my way through. There is no one company that is doing me in, tho the govt seems to want to move ag off-shore these days & import all our food from the southern hemisphere.... I'd rather deal with big M than the USDA/EPA/Fedral govt any more! They are the enemy of USA ag these days.
Consumers end up with more & cheaper food supplies because of these gmo crops, and that is indeed a direct benifit to them. I disagree with you on that point.
If that cheaper food is a good thing - we can debate for many moons, and perhaps would agree with eachg other on several points.
But - food is cheaper in the long run. That is simple ecconomics. People in the USA appear to cherish cheaper food, as it has been a govt & popular goal for many decades now.
This is not a black & white issue, but I find your comments a bit misleading & off-base.
--->Paul
Took care of your problems, you are welcome.
A bit sarcastic of me, but the fever of such comments is always a bit puzzling to me. There is a lot I don't like about the direction of farm ecconomics & regulations, but I'm a bit player and have to find my way through. There is no one company that is doing me in, tho the govt seems to want to move ag off-shore these days & import all our food from the southern hemisphere.... I'd rather deal with big M than the USDA/EPA/Fedral govt any more! They are the enemy of USA ag these days.
Consumers end up with more & cheaper food supplies because of these gmo crops, and that is indeed a direct benifit to them. I disagree with you on that point.
If that cheaper food is a good thing - we can debate for many moons, and perhaps would agree with eachg other on several points.
But - food is cheaper in the long run. That is simple ecconomics. People in the USA appear to cherish cheaper food, as it has been a govt & popular goal for many decades now.
This is not a black & white issue, but I find your comments a bit misleading & off-base.
--->Paul
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Not exactly true Paul, the base ingredients for glyphos is controlled by monsanto so any glyphos you buy generic or not benefits monsanto. They are not farmer friendly they have caused the demise of many seed companies and are in a large part responsible for our seed costs today. As for economic value I'll let you know this fall how my $120 conventional corn compared to my $240 vt3, last year the conventional won out.
I still plant regular soybeans, tho last year & more this year, I have tried Liberty Link soybeans.
Don't have any love for that company, nor the others.
I'm not aware of China paying many royalties to anyone, including M? Glyphosate is out off patent, so it might be _easier/cheaper_ to buy some prtion from M, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Be interesting in 2 years, or is it 3, when the seed technology itself goes off patent, how that is going to be handled.
There actually is a yield drag on soybeans that are RR; but in the big picture, being able to contol weeds in soybeans leads to a better national yield. Same with corn - conventional herbicides work well, but being able to rescue a weedy field or plant earlier & spray later leads to less miserable weeds, higher national yields. I agree you can get a better yield from the regular stuff & better $$$ return on any given year. My $$$ comments were based on ag in the USA in whole. There becomes a benifit to consumers when weeds - and now insects - can be controlled more quickly, more cheaply, over a broader time fram.
You probably don't have to use expensive Stinger to control Canadian thistles in your cheap corn seed, because previous applications of glyphosate got rid of those patches. You don't have to use the very spendy & damaging soybean herbicides to control difficult broadleaves, because previous years of glyphosate have knocked them down....
I'm talking the big picutre over a decade, not an individual on any one year.
Farmers wouldn't buy the stuff if it didn't do something for them.
As time goes on, it seems to do less & less, and we will abandon it, and find something else. For now, it has helped a lot of folks eat a little cheaper.
--->Paul
Don't have any love for that company, nor the others.
I'm not aware of China paying many royalties to anyone, including M? Glyphosate is out off patent, so it might be _easier/cheaper_ to buy some prtion from M, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Be interesting in 2 years, or is it 3, when the seed technology itself goes off patent, how that is going to be handled.
There actually is a yield drag on soybeans that are RR; but in the big picture, being able to contol weeds in soybeans leads to a better national yield. Same with corn - conventional herbicides work well, but being able to rescue a weedy field or plant earlier & spray later leads to less miserable weeds, higher national yields. I agree you can get a better yield from the regular stuff & better $$$ return on any given year. My $$$ comments were based on ag in the USA in whole. There becomes a benifit to consumers when weeds - and now insects - can be controlled more quickly, more cheaply, over a broader time fram.
You probably don't have to use expensive Stinger to control Canadian thistles in your cheap corn seed, because previous applications of glyphosate got rid of those patches. You don't have to use the very spendy & damaging soybean herbicides to control difficult broadleaves, because previous years of glyphosate have knocked them down....
I'm talking the big picutre over a decade, not an individual on any one year.
Farmers wouldn't buy the stuff if it didn't do something for them.
As time goes on, it seems to do less & less, and we will abandon it, and find something else. For now, it has helped a lot of folks eat a little cheaper.
--->Paul
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I suspect that RR2 beans are the answer to RR's patent expiring. I have considered conventional soybeans but fear a weed control train wreck.
Doidn't plant any, but I hear the RR2 beans are a tad underperforming.
I had 2 trainwrecks with conventional beans back a couple years after RUP came out. The coop lost track of conventionals so fast, what they sold me didn't do nothing one year, so I had them apply the 2nd year so it was done 'right' and that ended up worse.
Went to a private merchandiser & they had a good plan for conventionals, multiple trips but I only have 1/3 beans any more, not many acres so that isn't too bad.
I have a hard time putting down pre for anything; wet soils, a rain can change my planting plans in a hurry, and once I can drive through a field, I need to be using the planter most years.
But if farming were easy, everyone would do it right?
The real ethical questions will come when we get comercial aminal GMOs. That's going to be the can of worms......
--->Paul
I had 2 trainwrecks with conventional beans back a couple years after RUP came out. The coop lost track of conventionals so fast, what they sold me didn't do nothing one year, so I had them apply the 2nd year so it was done 'right' and that ended up worse.
Went to a private merchandiser & they had a good plan for conventionals, multiple trips but I only have 1/3 beans any more, not many acres so that isn't too bad.
I have a hard time putting down pre for anything; wet soils, a rain can change my planting plans in a hurry, and once I can drive through a field, I need to be using the planter most years.
But if farming were easy, everyone would do it right?
The real ethical questions will come when we get comercial aminal GMOs. That's going to be the can of worms......
--->Paul
nw_bearcat
Member
WW,
Let me begin by stating that I am a Monsanto employee and proud to be. As a company, our income comes only from agriculture. If farmers don't see value in our products and make that vote with their purchases, we do not profit. We take alot of steps to ensure that we have a quality, high performing product available to get that vote.
In some respects you're right. Glyphosate resistant products do not have alot of value to the end user of the grain...directly. Where they do provide value is at the grower/farmer level. They offer a safe, effective weed management tool. Some users have abused this tool, and are finding that it is not as effective as it once was, but those that used it resposibly are still finding it quite effective. This is no different than a screwdriver. If you use you screwdriver as a chisel, a prybar, or in other methods that it was not designed for, it is not going to be as good to use as a screwdriver anymore. Glyphosate is not, and has not been positioned as a stand alone weed control solution. For many years, both Monsanto and University weed management experts have promoted the use of other residual herbicides to be used in conjunction with Roundup for a comprehensive weed resistance management program.
You've cited a source there that has been critized within the industry. A limited number of observations, and is not supported by other studies. I'm including a link to some other articles that we've put together using 3rd party data and trials that discusses several of the topics you brought up.
Do we have pending cases against farmers for improper use of our technology? Yes. Is it because of blow in pollen? NO. We do not prosecute those who truely do have GM pollen drift issues. We and every other seed company in the U.S. do protect our investment in seeds and traits. Keep in mind that it is not just the traits that are patent protected, but in some cases the genetics are PVP also. I believe in the last 2 years, the Ag college in Kansas (I don't remember if that's U of K or KSU) brought suits against a few wheat farmers for just that. We aren't expecting to be sole source of seed stock, but would like the same level of patent protection that those companies in other industries have.
Is Monsanto a big company? Yes. Are there others bigger? Yes. But I really feel that the ethics within this company are as solid as any other out there. Again, I am a PROUD employee of Monsanto, and feel that the innovation that we're bringing to the market will really help the U.S. farmer to continue to provide a safe and abundant food supply for the world, and do that at a competitive price point vs. production from other world regions.
here
Let me begin by stating that I am a Monsanto employee and proud to be. As a company, our income comes only from agriculture. If farmers don't see value in our products and make that vote with their purchases, we do not profit. We take alot of steps to ensure that we have a quality, high performing product available to get that vote.
In some respects you're right. Glyphosate resistant products do not have alot of value to the end user of the grain...directly. Where they do provide value is at the grower/farmer level. They offer a safe, effective weed management tool. Some users have abused this tool, and are finding that it is not as effective as it once was, but those that used it resposibly are still finding it quite effective. This is no different than a screwdriver. If you use you screwdriver as a chisel, a prybar, or in other methods that it was not designed for, it is not going to be as good to use as a screwdriver anymore. Glyphosate is not, and has not been positioned as a stand alone weed control solution. For many years, both Monsanto and University weed management experts have promoted the use of other residual herbicides to be used in conjunction with Roundup for a comprehensive weed resistance management program.
You've cited a source there that has been critized within the industry. A limited number of observations, and is not supported by other studies. I'm including a link to some other articles that we've put together using 3rd party data and trials that discusses several of the topics you brought up.
Do we have pending cases against farmers for improper use of our technology? Yes. Is it because of blow in pollen? NO. We do not prosecute those who truely do have GM pollen drift issues. We and every other seed company in the U.S. do protect our investment in seeds and traits. Keep in mind that it is not just the traits that are patent protected, but in some cases the genetics are PVP also. I believe in the last 2 years, the Ag college in Kansas (I don't remember if that's U of K or KSU) brought suits against a few wheat farmers for just that. We aren't expecting to be sole source of seed stock, but would like the same level of patent protection that those companies in other industries have.
Is Monsanto a big company? Yes. Are there others bigger? Yes. But I really feel that the ethics within this company are as solid as any other out there. Again, I am a PROUD employee of Monsanto, and feel that the innovation that we're bringing to the market will really help the U.S. farmer to continue to provide a safe and abundant food supply for the world, and do that at a competitive price point vs. production from other world regions.
here
stan jefferies
Member
i hope gmo animals come along soon, I want cheaper food. I use pre's on beans and corn, F monsanto I like agent orange though, what should I do?
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy