Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
poaky1

Roundup on tree leaves- Swamp Magnolia

poaky1
9 years ago

I was in a hurry today, I was using Roundup to get the weeds around my trees. I had company coming over and wanted to get done. Well, I accidentally drenched my Swamp Magnolia. It had dried before I got some water to rinse it off. It is a new transplant, but has done great since this springs transplant. I am hoping that it shrugs it off, any guesses on it's fate? It was at the end of my property or I would've soaked it and gotten all the roundup off. It was plain Roundup, not the Ivy and tough weed stuff.

Comments (32)

  • greenthumbzdude
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    i suggest you use vinegar next time....way better

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Poak, at times when I"ve accidentally hit landscape plants, if I can't rinse, I'll cut that portion of the plant off so as not to allow continued movement of the material into the rest of the plant.

    +oM

  • joeinmo 6b-7a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Poaky,

    Roundup is a nasty chemical, killing lots of honey bees and monarchs nationwide. I don't use the stuff.

    Hopefully your magnolia makes it.

  • IanW Zone 5 Ont. Can.
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree with wisconsitom .....wouldn't put it in that exact wording....but....it is important to do your research and not believe everything you read on the internet or what others say about a certain topic without getting a second or third opinion on things........

  • Huggorm
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Nevertheless, I wouldn't use roundup around my trees and especially not that incautious

  • Jon 6a SE MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    RoundUp can only affect a plant through its foliage. Spraying it on tree bark that is not green will not harm a tree. Spraying it on a Magnolia and letting it dry means that it has been absorbed and the plant is most likely terminal.

    RoundUp is the safest herbicide possible. The only caution (besides spraying it on a plant you don't want to kill) is to keep it away from any water as it kills fish and water life and keep kids and pets away from it until it dries. It kills plants by interrupting plant (and only plant) enzymes.

    Jon

  • fireweed22
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'd probably just pick the leaves sprayed off. It's late in year> If you hit is good it will end up dead or deformed.

    Roundup is not as inert as some of you believe, and it isn't all hippies and internet hype.
    When it hits the soil it does not immediately degrade as has been suggested for decades- it kills beneficial microbes and fungi creating a lifeless zone.
    Read the label. It says right on it DO NOT spray until dripping point. Why? Dripping into soil is bad for the environment. Even though it's totally harmless...

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I have taken leaves off of trees which i accidentally got a drip or 2 on. This gallon of roundup had the pump sprayer on it, the wand that sprays continuously, not the hand trigger sprayer. The swamp Mag got a nice all over coating. And I haven't checked it since my original post, so i don't have a post on it's condition. It is dark and I would rather not meet anything that is in my lower yard at dark. Could be nothing, could be a skunk, do they eat acorns? My chestnut oak has spit out quite a bounty down near my lower yard. If you want to hear Glyphosate demonisation, visit the soil, mulch and compost forum. I've heard it all before. I still use it, possibly ruining my yard, but maybe not. The vinegar method may be good, but you are adding salt to your soil if you use it. Over time that isn't a good thing either. I have trees and a few shade plants under them. As long as the trees are fine, with their deep roots, I am happy. The ferns, hostas, heuchera, Astilbe, and a couple handfuls of other shade plants are okay, I am happy as a clam. I DO keep killing my Liriope accidentally though. They look like grass (to those not familiar with them) I keep trying to plant ONLY the Variegated kind. I will check tomorrow on the original subject of this post, the Swamp Mag tree.

  • fireweed22
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As it is not actively growing, and nearing leaf drop, there's a good chance you won't know it's fate until next spring when the leaves come out. Will they be ok or come out deformed and possibly drop thereafter, time will tell.

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It's a shame that anyone with anything less than an immediate knee-jerk reaction to the mention of an herbicide being the very tool of the devil is immediately presumed to be in the back pocket of Monsanto Chemcial Corp. Far, far from the case. FWIW, I was once that ignorant too. I started out from the standpoint of a total organic approach. But after some decades of work in the field, it became clear that some ag. chemicals have their place, that they are legitimate tools, and that for some assignments, there's really no other way, things like getting rid of tough invasive plants in restoration sites, etc. It's all in the user, the degree of care and concern of the applicator, and the over-arching goal of the project. Why just yesterday, I sprayed a whole bunch of sandbar willows up at my property, in an area that I'm encouraging to transition back into meadow (And still later, into Thuja occidentalis, which are seeding into the area). I'd not have gotten rid of all these willows by any other means. We chainsawed them down last winter, they came back thick and green, of course, this growing season, and are now primed for the chemical to take them out. There are a few asters and Joe Pye weeds in the area, so I had to exercise much caution, but I've been doing this for years. I'm sure that if 100% of the readers of this thread saw before and after photos, say from two years hence, 99% would agree that I'd made an improvement in that area.

    BTW, someone up yonder correctly mentioned the fact that Roundup, and its many copycat products, are toxic to aquatic life. Turns out it's the surfactants, or wetting agents, in the formulation responsible for this effect. Therefore, many formulations of glyphosate exist which are purposely designed for aquatic use by reason of not having these surfactants present.

    +oM

  • joeinmo 6b-7a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Oh brother Wisconsinistom must be a schill for Monsanto - or just plain ignorant to the facts. If Monsanto is soooooo proud of their GMO crops some classified as a pesticide by the EPA why don't they want anybody labeling the fact that foods contain GMO's? And why have they spent hundreds of millions to,prevent you and I from making an informed choice about what foods we want to eat?

    First, If two fields are side by side, one a non-GMO crop and the other your precious Monsanto crop, and the wind blows Monsanto pollen and it cross pollinates with the non-GMO crop, the farmer who owns the non-GMO crop is now liable for patent infringement and will be sued, it already has happened.

    Second, Monsanto is in the business of bio-engineering crops to control the food supply, it's that simple. They want to own every crop. Their crops are dead end crops, they won't reproduce. You must buy more seed from them to have more crops, you can't save them back, like they have always done in the past. Their crops are also 'self pollinating' they do not need bees and other pollinators, nor do they want pollinators. Why? Because if there are no pollinators then you need to purchase self pollinating crops from them which are patented. Control

    What's really scary about this, is that it's getting very difficult to actually find non-GMO seed anymore, the old crop is going extinct because farmers don't grow it anymore because Monsanto makes it cheaper to buy seed from them, thereby capturing the market. 98% of Soy is GMO and 95% of Corn is GMO -

    Let's not try to confuse the issue.

    Monsanto has two basic products that it sells, an herbicide and various seeds that grow into crops that contain a toxic to insect gene, wether they eat the plant or as a recent Washington State study shows gather pollen from it.

    The Monsanto herbicide has decimated nearly 90% of the Monarch Butterfly's main food supply - Milkweed. It's gone. This year the Monarch is at its lowest levels ever. They have an annual count, it looks like the numbers will not be sufficient to allow the Monarch to continue on as a species.

    But the real disaster is Honey Bee Colony Collapse. Neonicotinoids are now the main culprit along with Monsanto's insecticides. What's interesting, Bee farmers that Send their bees into commercial fields and groves have the most catastrophic rate of bee colony collapse - farmers that use bees for strictly honey collection have a very low rate of colony collapse. Why? Because their (non commercial pollinators) bees are not subject to BT crops, Neonicotinoids etc, because they do not get pollen from commercial crops.

    The advent of bee colony collapse and Monsanto GMO crops is nearly identical on timelines, in addition the increase in Gluten allergies is identical to about when Monsanto's first wheat GMO crop came out in the 1980's. The increase in gluten allergies has skyrocketed since the 1980's.

    While Monsanto does not produce Neonicotinoids, other commercial crop insecticide producers like Syngenta do, a brand new Harvard study now shows a direct link between these Neonicotinoids and bee collapse, as well as the Washington State study on Monsanto's product.

    Glyphosate is considered by the EPA as a Class III toxic substance - fatal to an adult at 30 grams. According to the USGS, 88,000 tons of the stuff were used in the US in 2007 alone.

    Researchers have found it in 60-100% of all air and rain samples tested.

    Glyphosate's broad spectrum toxicity has been identified to be the main cause of the disturbing loss of food-starter bacteria from soils.

    So if it's really so safe why don't you make and post a YouTube video of you drinking some Roundup Wisconsin Tom?

    A nice movie to watch

    Here is a link that might be useful: Monsanto GMO OMG

  • Toronado3800 Zone 6 St Louis
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm going to split the difference and try finding some common ground.

    First off, Monsanto is for sure looking for a Solutia to any problem they have ; ) I am not a friend of that company.

    The bug spray I should have put on my apples this year is NOT safe for me to drink. Yet used properly it just isn't that bad.

    The GMO lawsuits are bunk for the most part. GMO crops do allow a farmer to cheaply and mechanically kill weeds wholesale. Darn capitalism is helping GMO crops win out with an assist from lobbyists.

    Bees are dying probably because of insecticides not Round-Up. Neonicotinoids like Imidacloprid just should not be used on plants which use bees for pollination. Although Round-Up just isn't good for bees to get sprayed by Round-Up no doubt just like I should not spray myself.

    Far as the milkweed problem....sounds like a problem with farmers. Perhaps future generations will regulate the environmental monoculture disaster large scale farming is. We take it pretty easy on them to help keep food costs low (and ethanol so we take a few pennies off the cost of ISIS oil).

    Still, that Round-Up I sprayed a few days ago did not cause an environmental disaster. Saying Round-Up kills monarchs is at best like saying cars kill drunks. But I agree, I spray and don't run through the stuff if for no other reason than I don't trust Monsanto lol.

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Classic example of comparing apples to oranges.....and then getting angry because the apples are red. There are huge problems with our ag system, our reliance on genetically engineered plant lines (not at all the same as genetic manipulation-we've been doing that for as long as mankind has had the ability to look at a patch of plants and notice differences between some), our gross wasting of topsoil in the current ag paradigm.....and this person who wants to use a little herbicide in their ornamental garden! What a foolish argument is being made up above. Do you actually not realize how ridiculous this conversation is? There are real problems out there. If all anybody does is key off on company names, completely ignorant of the myriad nuances of the situation.....I should know better by now than to even get into it here. There's some good folks on these GW boards, but it is after all a free-for-all, with anybody's words being held more or less as equivalent to anybody else's.

    Every single mouthful of food you've ever eaten has been produced by means of one or more technological inputs, be it a pesticide, a fertilizer, or just a farmer selecting plants to save seed from in our distant past. That's technology. To simplify this matter down to Monsanto bad is the height of stupidity, right here for all to see.

    Then you throw in the pollinator crisis, the causes of which range from a mite (Very high on the list) to one specific type of insecticide chemistry (neonicotinoids) as if, were these products to be banned, farmers would suddenly cease to have the need to control pests, is exemplary of a tiny mind at work. Neonics have nothing whatever to do with this convo, yet you couldn't resist dragging them in, thereby showing your lack of acumen.

    Back pocket of Monsanto, huh? One of the stupidest and most misguided things I've read on here in a while. Folks, the issue is not one of whether or not we will use pest control technology in our food and fiber growing, it's which technology we will use, and on that score, more is being learned all the time. But to conflate huge world-system problems down to what OP is doing in his back yard to control a few weeds is to showcase for all time that you have no powers of discernment, no ability to see the importance of scale and perspective.

    Right now, in some third-world country, pesticides long-banned in the US are still being used willy-nilly as these countries try to catch up to modern ag as practiced in our part of the world. Huge ecological damage is resulting from this push to modernize, but at the same time, more food is being produced. The answers just are not simple, even if some of us would like them to be.

    +oM

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm sorry, but my brain went on "numb" when I saw the Monsanto references. I had been a regular follower on the Soil, mulch and compost section of GW. I have read most or all that you guys mentioned. I looked at my Swamp Mag today. I tried to take pics, my friend put my digital camera on "nightvision" and my dumb ass can't figure out how to fix it. We were up the mountains on Sunday and she wanted to see the "features" of my camera, and they are on "nightvision". But I will post a pic eventually. I looked at the Swamp mag today, and it is definitely affected by something. Some yellowing around the leaf edges, but not dead yet. I should see my friend soon, and will have her put my settings on my digital camera back to "normal", so I can say that now, it looks like it could go either way. My pap is sick so I may NOT post anything right away, though. I will take a pic as soon as things are okay here, sorry, But I have seen many Monsanto arguments already. The Mag has put out a new leaf since the roundup dousing though. Not a good thing now in Sept, but, i believe it will "cope" with the situation, not sure though.

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hey Poak, for whatever I inadvertently contributed to that discussion's, er, trajectory, my apologies. No, I didn't bring the name of a chemical company into the discussion, but there it was all the same!

    I'd expect-it's been what, a week or so now-that you won't have to wait much longer to see just exactly what the outcome will be. I find it interesting that new growth has occurred. Oddly enough, in all my years of working with glyphosate herbicides, I don't recall if I've ever seen growth subsequent to application on target vegetation. Hmmm? Let us know what happens.

    +oM

  • Toronado3800 Zone 6 St Louis
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    FWIW, I have given some honeysuckle virtual baths in Round Up and it often takes repeat applications to kill them.

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    {{gwi:427729}} This is crappy picture, but I took it 2 days ago. I need to take another one, but it is still green as of then. Yes, there is a tiny leaf on top of it. As the leaf fall mentioned above, I believe my Swamp Magnolia is evergreen. Maybe dormancy coming will help in some way, I hope. I will get another picture soon. Don't worry Wisconsitom, no problem with anything you or anyone else has posted, I am not in any position to judge anyone for anything they've posted here. Toronado, i am aware of those plants you want dead that roundup just won't kill, I have a hosta that is rough looking by early to mid summer, I have coated it good and yet it lives.

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Okay, I just took this pic a couple hours ago, I believe it will be fine, thank goodness {{gwi:427732}}

  • davidrt28 (zone 7)
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I've been struggling mightily not to click on this thread. Because I knew it would have devolved into the latest fight over roundup.

    Tom, thanks for fighting the good fight on this thread.
    I happen to think Monsanto is basically an evil company...I'm not an across-the-board, check-the-boxes hippie or liberal but I agree with them on that. But, just as a broken clock is right twice a day, not everything that came out of an evil company is an evil product. So long as it is used correctly. To conflate the problems with RU ready crops with gardener use of glyphosate is ridiculous. Firstly, I use the generic so I'm not supporting Monsanto. Second, the amount used by farmers literally dwarfs the amount used by gardeners by several orders of magnitude. I sure hope the people complaining about Roundup eat 100% organic food, otherwise you are contributing to the use of this chemical far more than I am.
    One minor correction: a strong concentration of roundup, applied with a surfactant, certainly can kill by translocation through thinner barks. Works well for poison ivy if you do it correctly and doesn't even need to be the full 41%, though the diluent ought to be something thicker than water.

  • arktrees
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    FWIW,
    Those that attack and automatically rant "it's killing the earth" are just as bad as those that claim anything is great as long as it makes money. I'm not talking about the ideological/political perspective. Both sides making wild ass crackpot claims only turn off the reasonable caring people in the middle, so that they disengage. This results in the current stalemate where absolutely ZERO is done for anything.

    Some years ago locally, a s site was being discussed that needed mitigation. The soil pH was a problem. During a public discussion on solutions, and scientist/ecologist in the room were discussing how to get the pH to near 7.0. At which point one of the crackpots stood up and went on a rant that 7.0 was not good enough, that they should not stop until it's all the way down to zero. This is the very same kind of ignorance demonstrated above by some.

    I am in NO way a friend of the chemical industry, nor the drug industry, or many other industries for that matter. I am of the opinion when it has been demonstrated that companies have deliberately broken the law (ie. falsified results, failed to report problems, etc.), that prison terms for top company brass need to be handed out.

    You want to be heard? Be reasonable, articulate, and back up your statements with real evidence. But even then, anymore your chances of being heard are tiny as the crackpots on all sides have taken over and the country sits on it's hands.

    As for the Monarch, absolute in great trouble, but it can be saved despite what was stated above. A 90% reduction in the insect world is actually very common, and easily recovered after 2-3 generations at most. That for the Monarch would be 1 (ONE) growing season if things magic turned for the better. With that said, that is hardly an excuse for inaction. Because in reality it will take many years to recover the habitat so that such a recovery is possible. Therefore pressure must be applied by the public to force changes.

    Arktrees

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks Poak, Ark, et al, for an insistence on reasonable discussion versus wildly flinging false or under-supported accusations. And I find that we're in very similar headspace on such issues. To put one's self into the 'anti-all-chemicals-everwhere-always camp is to be against life itself. I wonder if some of these folks know what allelopathy is all about! Would the plants practicing this all need to be extirpated in order for the world to be right in their view?

    But right now, I must go. I have much work to do today, getting my soil down to a pH of 0!

    +oM

  • joeinmo 6b-7a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Oh brother, WisconsinTom,

    I have studied extensively on Monsanto, their products, their GMO crops and you have no clue. But keep after it you are getting paid well by Monsanto I'm sure.

    But as you try and pretend to be the "reasonable" one here, I will remind the others that you are the one that named called with your post by starting out the "level of ignorance here in the above post" dated Sept 18.

    You were talking about me in that post, but you have no clue to my education on the subject or scientific research people in my family have done on the subject.

    The only knee jerk reactions are your own and I could school you on the subject but will not waste my time.

    I hope you are getting paid well.

    Oh and lastly Europe has totally outlawed all GMO crops, as has Hawaii except for the grandfathered in Papaya.

    But ignore all the recent scientific studies that came out this year on what's killing bees and monarchs among other insects and yes I remember the ads by tobacco companies that said their was no evidence that smoking caused lung cancer too....lol

    This post was edited by joeinmo on Mon, Sep 29, 14 at 20:14

  • PRO
    Whitelacey
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    joeinmo.

    Maybe a little knowledge before you post would be a good practice. Round-up is not a nasty chemical or even a chemical at all. It is a growth hormone. It causes a plant to speed its growth to the point of exhaustion and then death. It does not affect bees. Imidacloprid is the major suspected culprit of Bee Hive Collapse.

    Linda
    Horticulturist and Beekeeper

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I dare to add to the conversation, I had thought that Round-up's plant killing power was from "fatty acids" that coated the plants, making them unable to use sunlight to grow. I sure hope I don't regret posting this. Just give me a simple fact based answer, or just ignore my post. But really the soil, mulch and compost forum has some long a*s posts/threads on the subject. I don't think I could stand to never use roundup, really. When I try pulling weeds, I can't get the root and all. I have so many trees to weed around. My trees look fine. The first tree to croak when I have not accidentally drenched it all over, I will quit using it. Maybe, anyway. The first nicely sized oak or Mag to croak I will rethink the roundup application.

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Poak, glyphosate interferes with some enzymes plants need to do their thing. I'm going to leave it at that, but such info can easily be had on these very interwebz. As for the accusations being tossed about, they've quickly become not worth responding to.

    Life is chemistry, plain and simple (With a dash of electricity thrown in!). To be anti-chemical is to be utterly confused about what's going on here. But enough about that. I've got to get back to the Monsanto board meeting!

    +oM

  • arktrees
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Tom, you better not stop what your doing, that damn pH is still not down to ZERO!!!

    Arktrees

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Anyone looking on here that doesn't know any better, a PH of 5.5 or less is likely too low for some plants, and 7.0 is kinda alkaline, or maybe neutral. In between those extremes is likely great.

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Good call, Poak. In my enthusiasm for a good round of satire, I sometimes forget not everybody that shows up here knows what's up! Thanks for that.

    In the area I happen to live, the soil pH tends to be "circumneutral", that is, roughly 6.5 to 7.5. This is indeed suitable for the vast majority of plant species. A few outliers like blueberries or rhododendrons need lower, but in the main, this is a good range.

    +oM

  • fairfield8619
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    And the 30mg purported toxicity is grossly wrong, as usual, scare tactics, from Extoxnet(Cornell):

    Chronic Toxicity
    Subchronic and chronic tests with glyphosate have been conducted with rats, dogs, mice, and rabbits in studies lasting from 21 days to two years. With few exceptions there were no treatment-related gross (easily observable) or cellular changes (5). In a chronic feeding study with rats, no toxic effects were observed in rats given doses as high as 31 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. No toxic effects were observed in a chronic feeding study with dogs fed up to 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (8). Mice fed glyphosate for 90 days exhibited reduced body weight gains. The lifetime administration of very high amounts of glyphosate produced only a slight reduction of body weight and some microscopic liver and kidney changes. Blood chemistry, cellular components, and organ function were not affected even at the highest doses.

    Hens fed massive amounts over three days and again 21 days later showed no nerve related effects.

  • wisconsitom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    There are legitimate concerns with any and all ag. chemicals. The largest threat from the emergence of "Roundup-Ready" major agricultural crops is the fact that now, being used on a mass scale, the stage is set for the creation of super weeds, weeds no longer susceptible to the chemical. Likewise with splicing Bt genes into corn, etc. What was once a useful tool for the home gardener, organic farmer, etc. is being ruined by the widespread exposure of insects to this bacteria, such that, once again, resistant strains of these insects are emerging.
    I could talk all day about the true impacts of such mass-scale use of pest control products. But that kind of discussion would not be possible here.

    +oM

  • poaky1
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Science or no science testing NEEDED whoever fed a dog Glyphosphate or Gly whatever, needs their butt kicked big time.