Removing weeds

[imnukensc]

I love Round Up! Great stuff. Use it quite frequently. Often mix up a "cocktail" of Round Up (glyphosate), triclopyr, and 2-4 D. When I spray something, I want it dead!

 

[Nardo]

Are you in the South? I like the goat idea, but it seems like hard work and sweat are going to be the ticket.
Except for the copperheads. Leather boots. thick gloves. And don't ever bend down and turn over or pick up anything. Kick it over or use a long handled shovel or rake. And keep a machete and an axe nearby if not a gun.

You probably know all of this.

 

[MichelleBelle]

I know you don’t want to kill the grass long term....
the original, cheapest-available Round-up weed and grass killer will kill what is there without preventing new stuff from growing there later — actually even the long acting kind will work the same way, but you don’t need to spend the extra money...
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-up, kills by disrupting the enzymes in plant cells preventing them from being able to move water through the cells. Furthermore, it becomes completely inert (inactive) upon contact with the soil. It won’t hurt people or pets (well, unless you actually drink the stuff— but their website says it is not toxic to people or pets when applied as directed, and the directions say to exclude pets until it has dried.... not a problem for any future chickens). Round-up will not prevent new plants from growing in the treated area....

I simply do not believe the burden of proof for the safety of glyphosate has been met, and this conclusion is based upon serious gaps in data. For many other chemicals introduced into our environment through agricultural or industrial applications, causal links between exposure and manifestation of disease are substantiated by experimental animal models, and are consistent with correlative epidemiological data in humans. In the specific case of glyphosate based herbicides, the current safety standards may fail to protect humans and the environment. These risk assessments rely heavily upon archaic standardized assays performed over 30 years ago that provided data limited to specific short-term endpoints regarding overt toxicity. Technological advances over the past several decades have allowed scientists to more comprehensively assess the mechanisms through which chemicals exert adverse effects on humans, animals, and the environment. The field of endocrine disruption has blossomed during this timeframe, and has shown that regulatory testing inadequately addresses this hazard. Researchers have developed and validated significant advances in methodology at a rate that has greatly outpaced their rate of adoption by regulatory agencies. Scientific studies that demonstrate adverse effects of a chemical may not be considered by regulatory agencies when assessing risk, simply because the methodology used in the study doesn't fall within a very narrow range of accepted approaches. Results from more recent studies show that glyphosate based herbicides exert actions on neural function, as well as reproductive and neuroendocrine endpoints. However, using their current Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, the US EPA’s review on glyphosate excluded such data. Moreover, examples abound of Montsano and other large corporations directly influencing communication of safety data (for example, paying editors-in-chief of major journals to either suppress “negative” findings or publish “positive” results to ensure the desired “credible science” story is promoted. (see for example https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41271-018-0134-z and http://www.ehn.org/monsanto-effort-to-skew-science-2581194459.html ) Sadly, the dissemination of science is not immune from politics or corporate influence. Those of you who want further details on the limitations inherent in the methodology which guides current glyphosate (and GBH) safety standards, I recommend this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484035/

I also used to believe that glyphosate became inert and readily degraded upon contact with soil, because that’s what my favorite environmental chemistry professor taught us many years ago. However, the half-life is much longer than was originally reported, as I (and a number of other scientists) later discovered.

As an environmental toxicologist and green chemist, I wouldn’t suggest using glyphosate-based herbicides as a first-choice solution for removal of tall weeds. Personally, I really like the army of goats option- so that choice gets my vote

 

[April’s Zoo]

As an environmental toxicologist and green chemist, I wouldn’t suggest using glyphosate-based herbicides as a first-choice solution for removal of tall weeds. Personally, I really like the army of goats option- so that choice gets my vote

I only brought up the round-up because OP said something about not wanting to use something that would keep grass from growing there later.
But like I originally said, I don’t think any herbicide is a good option for tall weed removal at all.... because weed control products, Glyphosate or otherwise, aren’t going to actually remove the weeds. Not to mention, it would be next to impossible to effectively spray the weeds that are 5+ ft. tall. Even if the weed killer got applied properly, and the weeds/grass died, the area still gonna be potentially harboring those copperheads .
So my recommendation is still to hire a crew— human or goat. That gets the first step in the OP’s plan done so they can move on to the fun part.... chicken math .....

Thanks for the links, btw. More things to read.... yay!