And you still have nothing to contribute to the topic.
'How to Protect My Vegetable Garden From Neighboring Agricultural Spraying
- Thread starter TNTreeHugger
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
To you perhaps. As you can't comprehend the information I provided or state tangible data to dispute it other than Art Bell and Alex Jones like conspiracy claims.And you still have nothing to contribute to the topic.
I'm sorry, did I give you the impression I wanted to debate the toxicity of pesticides with you? I don't.
I do have just one question for you though - how many covid jabs have you gotten?
@Del_ Starting this thread was your idea.
And while you haven't posted any thoughts or possible solutions, you are supporting those who claim chemical trespass and toxic chemical contamination is nothing to fret about.
is your problem?
@Del_ in fact, if I recall correctly you once said you wouldn't eat anything from my garden because of the farm chemical contamination.
I think you also advised against using leaves from my yard as mulch because of the chemical contamination.
You also advised me to not make a larger garden because of the issues I'm having with chemical contamination.
And yet, not only do you have no comment, but you are taking sides with those who poo-poo the toxicity of pesticides..
You remind me a little of something...
I think you also advised against using leaves from my yard as mulch because of the chemical contamination.
You also advised me to not make a larger garden because of the issues I'm having with chemical contamination.
And yet, not only do you have no comment, but you are taking sides with those who poo-poo the toxicity of pesticides..
You remind me a little of something...
You even suggested I move
@Del_ Starting this thread was your idea.
And while you haven't posted any thoughts or possible solutions, you are supporting those who claim chemical trespass and toxic chemical contamination is nothing to fret about.
I suggested that you start this thread because your blathering was 50% of the postings in the gardening thread and you were ruining it.
I prefer to not be involved in your various dramas.
John Lyngdal hit the nail on the head.
Questions about protecting a garden in a gardening forum are totally appropriate. Sorry if my participation was diverting attention away from you and making you feel neglected.
And yet, you do get involved. Just can't help it, can you?
But I know you prefer the Hit & Run style of forum posting.
About what? His reply was not in the least bit helpful to the topic of this thread. Whether, or not, he feels 2,4-D is toxic is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is three years in a row the plant samples from my property tested positive for 2,4-D. I don't use 2,4-D so that means it is coming from neighboring farms. That means chemicals that others are spraying on their fields is trespassing onto my property. That's a fact, Jack.
What I was asking suggestions for is how to best protect my garden from being contaminated from 2,4-D that others are spraying....
Since your suggestion of moving isn't an option for me, I am looking for other solutions. So far, covering my garden with clear plastic this year seemed to work - although, the farmer nearest to me no longer uses 2,4-D in those fields so that's a HUGE WIN for my team.
No doubt not all my "blathering" fell on deaf ears. At least one person has seen the light, and all the catastrophic damage done by 2,4-D LV6 ester, and has changed their ways for the better of all.
While you can call it "blathering" it's actually helping to enlighten others to the dangers of toxic chemicals... and you know exactly what I'm talking about, you just refuse to admit it out loud and in public.
I wouldn’t eat that with a gun to my head haha. That sounds absolutely disgusting.
Btw, FYI...
2022 - initial contamination, total decimation of everything, neighboring farmer (and every other farmer in the state) sprayed 2,4-D LV6 ester on soy and corn fields. Plant samples from my property tested positive for 2,4-D LV6 ester.
2023 - Neighboring farmer did NOT spray 2,4-D on that years corn fields adjoining my property. Repeat damage visible on those trees and plants most severely affected in 2022. Test results again positive for 2,4-D.
2024 - Again, neighboring crop fields were NOT sprayed with 2,4-D. Moderate damage visible to the same affected trees and plants, especially the Paulownia trees that are still dropping chlorotic and deformed leaves. Test results positive for 2,4-D.
So, the past two years damage on my property is either from other farms 1/2 mile, or further away from my property, or the damage is perpetual and annual from the initial contamination in 2022.
The Dept. of Ag inspector is either unable, or unwilling to say which it is.
The farmer doesn't believe it's possible for it to be "residual" chemical damage, but I don't think he and I are on the same page as far as the definition of "residual" goes. To him residual means the chemical is still "on" the plant. I believe it's the effects and damage caused by the initial contamination that is residual.
The two plant biologist I spoke to confirmed the chemical damage is systemic and would reappear each following year after initial contamination.
I'm hoping that's what I'm seeing, rather than a new contamination every year from annual spraying. That's kind of how the inspector was leaning also since the damage the past two years was not total like it was in 2022.
All I know for sure is that everything in, not only my yard, but the entire area looks better than it has in two years. I hope and pray it stays that way.
2022 - initial contamination, total decimation of everything, neighboring farmer (and every other farmer in the state) sprayed 2,4-D LV6 ester on soy and corn fields. Plant samples from my property tested positive for 2,4-D LV6 ester.
2023 - Neighboring farmer did NOT spray 2,4-D on that years corn fields adjoining my property. Repeat damage visible on those trees and plants most severely affected in 2022. Test results again positive for 2,4-D.
2024 - Again, neighboring crop fields were NOT sprayed with 2,4-D. Moderate damage visible to the same affected trees and plants, especially the Paulownia trees that are still dropping chlorotic and deformed leaves. Test results positive for 2,4-D.
So, the past two years damage on my property is either from other farms 1/2 mile, or further away from my property, or the damage is perpetual and annual from the initial contamination in 2022.
The Dept. of Ag inspector is either unable, or unwilling to say which it is.
The farmer doesn't believe it's possible for it to be "residual" chemical damage, but I don't think he and I are on the same page as far as the definition of "residual" goes. To him residual means the chemical is still "on" the plant. I believe it's the effects and damage caused by the initial contamination that is residual.
The two plant biologist I spoke to confirmed the chemical damage is systemic and would reappear each following year after initial contamination.
I'm hoping that's what I'm seeing, rather than a new contamination every year from annual spraying. That's kind of how the inspector was leaning also since the damage the past two years was not total like it was in 2022.
All I know for sure is that everything in, not only my yard, but the entire area looks better than it has in two years. I hope and pray it stays that way.
Half a mile away, I highly doubt that to be the culprit! It would disperse by the time it made that trip. And there would be a trail of damaged trees, showing more and more damage the closer you got to the source. It's damned obvious what happened! Nothing to wonder about.
2,4-D LV6 ester is actually a clue as to the source. Ester formulations are more prone to thermal vaporization during hot summer days than amine formulations and can drift as a vapor rather than a droplet particulate. There have been cases of 2,4-D ester vapor drift vine damage at vineyards from a suspected source miles away. I boom spray my pastures with a 2,4-D amine formulation in the early spring with the separation between the pasture and raised bed garden being less than 5 ft, without sign of chemical damage. My point is that it can be done without crop damage.
There's a famous saying in the field of toxicology "Dose makes the poison." An example would be salt, where a little on your food is perfectly safe but in excessive amounts is can kill you like a poison. There was also an incident where a radio station had a challenge for a prize involving bottled water. One contestant drank so much water that it impacted their electrolyte balance resulting in their death. OK, these are chosen actions by those involved, but there are also involuntary body burdens of radioisotopes that are detectable in your body; those being Carbon-13 and Potassium-40.
I mention this to make the point that there is a significant difference between detection of the material and effect caused by the material when modern analytical tools are employed. To many people, myself included, just stating that something was detected without specifying levels detected is a "red flag" warning to the veracity of the statement. If I read a report where the results were 50 ppt of a regulated material was detected and the legal limit was 1 ppm, I'd shrug my shoulders and look for a situation where action resources would be better applied.
Here's a story that is pretty well written about pesticide contamination:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-14/the-dirty-secret-of-californias-legal-weed
When you have testing done on your produce, quality test results should state the level detected, the uncertainty of the numerical value, and detection limit for the protocol employed.
There's a famous saying in the field of toxicology "Dose makes the poison." An example would be salt, where a little on your food is perfectly safe but in excessive amounts is can kill you like a poison. There was also an incident where a radio station had a challenge for a prize involving bottled water. One contestant drank so much water that it impacted their electrolyte balance resulting in their death. OK, these are chosen actions by those involved, but there are also involuntary body burdens of radioisotopes that are detectable in your body; those being Carbon-13 and Potassium-40.
I mention this to make the point that there is a significant difference between detection of the material and effect caused by the material when modern analytical tools are employed. To many people, myself included, just stating that something was detected without specifying levels detected is a "red flag" warning to the veracity of the statement. If I read a report where the results were 50 ppt of a regulated material was detected and the legal limit was 1 ppm, I'd shrug my shoulders and look for a situation where action resources would be better applied.
Here's a story that is pretty well written about pesticide contamination:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-14/the-dirty-secret-of-californias-legal-weed
When you have testing done on your produce, quality test results should state the level detected, the uncertainty of the numerical value, and detection limit for the protocol employed.
I get the feeling you're still trying to debate the toxicity of 2,4-DLV6 ester with me. Still not interested.
I suggest you reread what you posted two years ago, and it wouldn't hurt to reread the entire thread to get you up to speed.
So as to not upset Del any further by blathering on in this thread about what happened two years ago, I suggest you post those comments in that other thread.
You have STILL not offered any suggestions on how to protect a garden in the middle of thousands of acres of farmland.
And you still haven't answered my question, "How many covid jabs have you gotten?"
And that's pretty much what the Dept. of Ag inspector said. Which is why he's leaning towards to possibility the 2,4-D detected is somehow "left over" in the plants from 2022.
Not sure I follow you... are you saying it's obvious to you, as it is to me, that the pesticide damage seen this year is from the original contamination that occurred in 2022?
Let me try to state my comments a different way. In the 70's it was a challenge to detect and identify pesticides at 100 parts per billion, but current analytical methodologies can detect those same chemicals at .0001 parts per billion. Stating it can be detected may have been at a health, impact, or legal limit in the 70's, but with the sensitivity of the current analytical instrumentation for halogenated compounds ( like 2,4-D) everything contains detectable amounts of one thing or another.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ence_and_Toxicity_Effects_on_Living_Organisms
The article stated that the half-life of 2.4-D is nominally 10 days in soil and their should be methodology in place that compares the detected levels of 2,4-D to that of its decomposition products in the sample to calculate when the 2,4-D arrived in the sample.
The Dept. of Ag inspector might have looked at the test results and determined that action wasn't necessary. In some ways it's like a police officer enforcing the speed limit, are they going to pull someone over for going 56 in a 55 which is in violation of the law, or wait for an egregious speeder who is more likely to injure another traveler by their actions.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ence_and_Toxicity_Effects_on_Living_Organisms
The article stated that the half-life of 2.4-D is nominally 10 days in soil and their should be methodology in place that compares the detected levels of 2,4-D to that of its decomposition products in the sample to calculate when the 2,4-D arrived in the sample.
The Dept. of Ag inspector might have looked at the test results and determined that action wasn't necessary. In some ways it's like a police officer enforcing the speed limit, are they going to pull someone over for going 56 in a 55 which is in violation of the law, or wait for an egregious speeder who is more likely to injure another traveler by their actions.
Listen very carefully to me... no matter how many times you try, and no matter how you reword, or rephrase your opinion on 2,4-D, or make a pitiful attempt to act like you know anything about what's going on in the state of Tennessee and particularly on my property, I have ZERO intention of debating the toxicity of 2,4-D with you.
For every link, article, document, or scientific report you post I have hundreds more that will prove you wrong. And since I've been down this road going on three years now, I have no desire to start over, from square one, with you - especially since you obviously haven't read the original thread I started two years ago on the incident.
At this point in time, it's also very clear that you have nothing of value to contribute to the topic of this thread.
So, the only question left for you to answer is:
How many covid jabs did you get?
Probably safe to say, "All of them."
I'll say this veerrryyyy sloooowly, modern analytical techniques will almost always detect a background level of a substance on the surface of the earth.
Therefore is comes as no surprise that tests of your soils and plants show the presence of 2,4-D.
If an assay for plutonium was done on your soil, it would be detectable as a result of Chernobyl and all the above ground testing nuclear weapons.
Not that it is any big deal my number of jabs is three. There was a time that international travel required it.
Therefore is comes as no surprise that tests of your soils and plants show the presence of 2,4-D.
If an assay for plutonium was done on your soil, it would be detectable as a result of Chernobyl and all the above ground testing nuclear weapons.
Not that it is any big deal my number of jabs is three. There was a time that international travel required it.
Geeze you're dense.
https://www.arboristsite.com/threads/tree-damage-from-crop-spraying.360136/
In this case, especially this year, the tissue sample tests were simply a confirmation of what caused the visually observed damage. I didn't need to see the test results to know it was 2,4-D.
Your silly analogies have nothing to do with chemical trespass.
It's like he is an employee of the Chemical company that makes it!
