Talk:Crop desiccation

Criticism section represents a European centric worldview

This entire section, though fairly short, represents an apparently European POV. The practice described (glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant) is quite rare in the US, for example. I don't know about other countries. Additionally, the single source reference is a heavily WP:FRINGE point of view. I'll work on it over the next few days as I get time. Meanwhile, anyone else is very welcome to do so as well. Thanks! Adv4Ag (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Before i would believe that "the practice is quite rare in the US" i would need to see sourcing on this claim. By all that i can glean from clues about this process, it seems fairly common and widespread in North America by my reckoning. It's done on lentils and garbanzos in Idaho. It's done on wheat. It's done on sugarcane. It's done on oats. These are crops i know use glyphosate for the pre-harvest treatment, with some regularity.

As for it being a "European" view, what does this mean exactly? I sit in Boston, and i am glad to see this criticism in the article, based on what i know about the chemical and its usage and its potential effects on the human organism.

I would like to see this article developed more, with sources on how common the practice is, and how much residue enters food products as a result.

SageRad (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Entire "criticism" section has been deleted by another user here without mentioning that was being done, only citing removal of a source that the editor called "extremely crap source" -- i don't like this editing practice. If we're deleting a category then do it honestly and open for debate. And, by the way, citing the "Glyphosate Working Group" on benefits of using glyphosate for desiccation is an "extremely crap source" in itself, clearly, as if we're citing the maker of a car about how awesome the car is, better than all others... inherent bias. So, the whole article could do with a rewrite, as it currently echoes the industry ad copy and is a glossy brochure. SageRad (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean, speaking of sourcing this article to the Glyphosate Working Group, we might as well just source it to Nurse Loves Farmer and call it a day. SageRad (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling out to the editor Smartse for comment, as i commented on their edit. SageRad (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I was being bold removing that but I stand by it. First of all, criticism sections are best avoided per WP:CRIT. More importantly though, the source presents zero evidence that glyphosate used as a desiccant is a substantial source of glyphosate in human urine and yet the text presented it as though it was. WP:MEDRS obviously applies here and that source fails miserably. You're right that the other sources are poor as well, but at least they aren't being used to support anything controversial. I've had a brief look for source myself, but haven't been able to find anything particularly useful. I'd also like more information about how frequently desiccants are used and on which crops they are used, but that information may not have been published. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, Smartse. I appreciate bold editing, but only when the editor is willing to engage in dialog is there is some. I agree that a better source could be used for critique of the use of glyphosate as a desiccant on crops. There is critique out there. Today i do not have time to pursue this. I also agree that it would be very relevant to the article to quantify use of glyphosate as a desiccant, though i seem to recall this information not being readily available, as you confirm. It's done on many crops, by the way -- on legumes, like garbanzos and lentils -- as well as many grains, not only wheat -- for example, there is a recent controversy over glyphosate use as a desiccant on oats, with one grain buyer announcing a policy to refuse oats finished with glyphosate. Perhaps i can reinstate the "controversy" section as there genuinely is controversy, and cite a report on that topic. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

After the above, which i considered good dialogue, SmartSE came and erased my contribution with this revert, giving reason "nothing whatsoever to say that this was a controversy. will r on tp later" whereas, my contribution most certainly did speak to a controversy about crop desiccation, specifically with glyphosate on oats. There is one miller who refuses glyphosate-finished oats, and another one who criticizes that, in one of the linked articles in The Western Producer, which is certainly a reasonably good source here and nothing anyone would ever call "fringe" or whatever. So i reverted my edit back into existence here. I hope that further dialog ensues here, or the edit stays. I will not edit war, but i will expect good dialog and logical edits. It is certainly an area of controversy in the world of crop desiccation, and speaks to potential changes in nutrition as well as other physical characteristics in the resultant grain through the use of chemical desiccants. SageRad (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My bad, in that SmartSE did not delete my text, but removed the "Controversy" category, whereas i do think this surely speaks to a controversy regarding chemical desiccation, and i edited the text to show that now. It seems a bit unwieldy and too long to me now, but given that SmartSE thought there was no controversy there, i chose to highlight the controversy. Anyway, very busy today, can return to this another day. SageRad (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's deal with the 'controversy' below. I don't think there is much else to say, other than we need more sources! SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Desiccants

It should be noted that numerous other substances have been used as desiccants, such as

• sulfuric acid,
  
• sodium chlorate, magnesium chlorate,
  
• potassium cyanate,
  
• calcium cyanamide,
  
• 4,6-dinitro-2-methyl phenol ("dinitro-o-cresol"), dinoseb,
  
• pentachlorophenol salts,
  
• aminotriazole/amitrole,
  
• bis(ethylxanthogene) trisulfide, sodium and potassium ethylxanthogenate,
  
• endothal,
  
• ethepon,
  
• uronium sulfate.
  

Some of them (sulfuric acid in potatoes, chlorates in cotton, uronium sulfate in fruit trees etc.) are still in use. Cheers, --37.49.110.89 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I added this section again, as follows, and used it for an example of one specific controversy. I would like if others would add general criticism of the use of chemical desiccants as well in this section, or other individual issues.

In April 2015, Grain Millers, Inc., one of the largest oat buyers in western Canada, announced a new policy of refusing oats on which glyphosate has been used as a desiccant or crop finisher, saying that it affects the integrity of the groats as well as lowering levels of beta-glucan in the food product, thereby affecting "Heart Healthy" certification.

References

SageRad (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is a source that calls this a controversy? It seems to be your own interpretation that it is controversial rather than what the sources state. We should just include the content rather than labelling it with a POV section header. And why do you want more general criticism added as opposed to neutral content? SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

One group is saying one thing and another group is saying another, in a fairly contentious way. That's a controversy. I do want this section to also contain any other criticism of chemical desiccation in general as well as relating to any specific chemical if such realities arise from myself or any other editor. SageRad (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Err no it's not, that's most certainly your own interpretation. I suggest we have a section on restrictions where we include the bans in Austria and Switzerland and can include this there. This is such a minor point in the grand scheme of the subject, that it barely needs mentioning (WP:WEIGHT]). SmartSE (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, so we're gonna be like this, eh? SageRad (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I happen to think it's important and it's worth telling in the article. SageRad (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Like what?! I've asked you to present evidence that it was controversial and you've produced none. SmartSE (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Like super-semantic about what is a controversy if there is not another source calling this a "controversy" with that word itself. SageRad (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So what we've got is Nancy Ames, a specialist in oats, expressing that she hasn't heard if glyphosate affecting quality of oats, though she has heard of it affecting quality of wheat. Passage is as follows:

Nancy Ames, an oat and cereal grain expert with Agriculture Canada in Winnipeg, was surprised by the Grain Millers announcement. She has never heard of glyphosate compromising oat quality.
 “I’ve looked through all of the literature and there’s really nothing out there on this,” Ames said. “There has been some research on spraying glyphosate… and its effect on the quality of wheat…. There were some effects on increasing protein and it may have reduced starch.”


How does this equate to "scientists and farmers"? "Other millers" is fair, as there are two other millers in the sources, and there is "a scientist" it seems, in these sources. SageRad (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC) As i think about it more, perhaps we're talking past one another. Do you mean to ask me to provide sources to document that there's a controversy about the oats desiccation, or about chemical desiccation in general? SageRad (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, i would call this edit warring at this point. I hear the words "millers, farmers, and scientists" to mean multiples of each of those categories, and yet there are no farmers, a couple millers, and one scientist, who has a voice in the articles i posted. I won't revert it but i'll just note this. I'm really busy today. SageRad (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

one buyer of one crop in a province in canada. the biggest miller of that crop in all of North America says meh. WP is not an indiscrimate collection of factoids. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against including it somewhere, but it's definitely not NPOV to say it is controversial and I haven't seen any high-quality sources that say that desiccation is controversial either. SageRad you had a fair point about my wording with the plurals though - I had just reworded it but got caught up with you two rving each other and thought it best not to replace it for now. Please let's try to be civilised and concentrate on content. SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that user Jytdog deleted my comment from this page, imperiously, for it was a comment on his imperiousness and he didn't like that. Quite classic multi-level imperiousness that censors others and stifles dialogue. Very bad behavior. And then to revert my edit with the note "you are pretty close to 3RR on this now..." -- clearly a threat of action, and he has taken action against me many many times in the past, and he has seemed to follow me around in a WP:HOUND way.... and that's just not cool. Not cool. SageRad (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So, here is what i want to include, which was worked on by myself and SmartSE. I find it interesting and relevant, and hoped that there would be a section in the article that would include this and any other controversies about desiccation of crops with chemicals. We can work on more sourcing:

In April 2015, Grain Millers, announced that it was refusing oats in which glyphosate had been used as a desiccant, stating that it affected the integrity of the groats and lowered levels of beta-glucan. Other millers, scientists and farmers noted that they were not aware of published evidence that glyphosate affected the quality of oats.

References

SageRad (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, there are still no sources which describe this as controversial and this is a crucial point in regards to NPOV, not merely semantics. As I mentioned before Jytdog removed it, I also have concerns with weight as it is only one miller on one crop in one region of one country. There are many other more relevant sources which could be used and if you are only searching for controversies to include here, you've really misunderstood what we're aiming to do. SmartSE (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

SmartSE, i heard your concern before when you removed the "Controversy" section yet kept the text about this. I do think it's a controversy but i'd be okay to include this issue in some other form. Other reports on this topic which help to show that it's picked up by media. I heard of it first in The Western Producer, yet when i search on "glyphosate oats" on Google News i get a dozen or two stories, including:

• The Observer: "Oats on forefront in industry news"

Oats may not be on the list of minor, or at least specialty crops on the Canadian Prairies these days, but a recent decision from a major buyer of the commodity has certainly put the crop at the forefront of industry news. On April 20, Grain Millers which owns several oat milling facilities including one at Yorkton sent out a memo stating it will no longer accept any oats and/or oat products which have been treated with glyphosate. The move away from accepting oats where glyphosate if applied in the fall is a significant step for Grain Millers as many growers who straight combine oats use glyphosate to hasten and even up crop maturity. The decision is certainly creating its level of controversy within the oat sector.

I would say that this story is a reliable source showing that it's weighty and holds controversy

Because this new sourcing shows weight and controversy, i am going to reinstate the text with this new source. Note that this is not edit warring, and i only say that because Jytdog threatened me with his recent revert in the comment, saying "You're getting pretty close to 3RR..." so note well that this is not a revert of the same, and not an edit war. If you think it is, then please talk here. If you wish to revert this with the new information and sourcing then please talk here. We can do this in a fair and civil way. SageRad (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll just point out too that this article was on my watchlist when SageRad made this addition yesterday, I and was planning to remove the content when I got to it this morning with the weight concerns SmartSE and Jytdog brought up. Right now, it doesn't look like it has enough weight for passing mention in the article based on the current sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I added content about the oats issue to the page again, with the addition of a new source that establishes notability of the issue in the industry ("forefront of industry news") and controversy, directly, as other editors here have been asking for, even though it was clear to me that it was a controversy already, and i believe it was already reasonably weighty to include. Here is what i have added now:

In April 2015, Grain Millers, announced that it was refusing oats in which glyphosate had been used as a desiccant, stating that it affected the integrity of the groats and lowered levels of beta-glucan. Other millers and one scientist noted that they were not aware of published evidence that glyphosate affected the quality of oats. It has been called a notable and controversial issue in the grain industry.

References

Short and sweet, and reliably sourced. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it. Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad. --Elvey^(t•c) 18:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible sources

• FSA guide to cereal residues - mentions how use of strobilurins has increased use of glyphosate in cereals. Good for controlling blackgrass.
• Potato haulm destruction good historical info from US.
• [1] Distinguishes between desiccants and pre-harvest hcide.
• A very thorough review of pre-harvest glyphosate use on UK cereals. The best source I've come across so far.
• SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• UK government HGCA that may help to define what is "pre-harvest treatment herbicide" or "harvest aid" versus "desiccant". Also gives percent of bread tested that contains glyphosate, if useful. May be useful to compile a list of terms used for this group of treatments that seem to be very similar, and idfferent in subtletlies or in name only sometimes.

SageRad (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Controversy" --> "Market Acceptance"

I find there to be actual controversy around the practice. I think the renaming of the category, which was done without discussion beforehand, is a significant change, and so i want to note it here, and that i think it puts a biased positive spin on what is actually controversy. "Market acceptance" feels similar to saying "pre-owned car" instead of "used car", an attempt to make it seem better by changing the term. We could just as logically call this section "Market rejection" as that is more accurately what it's about. Would that be acceptable to the other editors here? SageRad (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw this concern. I think "Market acceptance" is actually a fairly good category name for this. I did want to note this change on the talk page. I do think there is controversy beyond what the market will accept, though it's a reasonable proxy for it. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We are taking this on. Enough is enough. I think given that many experts in the field see desiccation as eminently harmful to humans and a violation of the philosophy of burden of proof regarding health and safety, that this article should mention and give EQUAL (not undue) weight to the reasoned and evidence-backed stance that crop desiccation using herbicides is irrational at best, and directly harmful to people at worst. It's about time this practice got out more. Our news article will be released on Sep 20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfV5DbCuwFw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:87F:B32F:1D79:6212:4267:9774 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerns on major edit

User Jytdog and other editors, i have some concerns about this major edit:

• A lot of crops are left off the list of those on which chemical desiccation is used. I understand sourcing is probably the issue here, and i thank Jytdog for adding sources where s/he did. I think we can work harder to source the other ones instead of deleting them. Perhaps a "citation needed" tag would be more in order than deleting them? I think so.
• Major re-write of the very issue of the oats that we just spent SO MUCH TIME talking about and working out, here and on my own talk page. I do NOT think that's good editing etiquette. I don't think it's good process. Jytdog removed several of my sources, and changed the language significantly, toward his typical direction, that of minimizing the appearance of potential harm by agrochemicals. That's not cool, not cool at all. Almost to the point of needing a dispute resolution call-out on this. Just DON'T DO THIS Jytdog. You continue to show a pattern of deleting the work of others rashly.
• Lastly, "There are some exceptions to the wide acceptance and use of chemical dessication" reads to me like a glossy brochure's fine print. We are NOT a glossy brochure for the agrochemical industry at Wikipedia.

SageRad (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What i've done now is to restore the text that we had arrived at on the oats issue. I haven't changed the other things but i noted them here. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

yes nothing can be in Wikipedia that is not sourced. I removed a source that was tagged as questionable by someone else. The sources provided for all the crops each make it clear that preharvest desiccation is mainstream ag practice. Please provide a source that says it is not mainstream ag practice, if you want to claim that it is not. I am fine with listing the few exceptions to mainstream practices but they need to be treated that way and not given WP:UNDUE weight. We do not make mountains out of molehills here - that is the essence of NPOV. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could call it "mainstream industrial agriculture", as that is what i see being used colloquially to refer to the kind of agriculture that you are referring to. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the actual policy of WP:VERIFY is that editors are advised to source all statements that are not common knowledge and/or are likely to be challenged. I think Wikipedia works on the basis of reasonable text being included without sources unless it's challenged. Most things are not challenged. Some are, and it forms the sort of contesting tension found in courtrooms, which is good. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

mainstream industrial agriculture is mainstream agriculture. WP is about the world as it is. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That usage of terms shows a perspective, and yours is not the only one. My perspective is that planting seeds in soil without chemicals is the mainstream agriculture of the human species, and that we are currently in a deep and strange detour in the last 100 years. You see, your perspective is not the only one. "Mainstream" defines a normal, and a center. It implies a frame. Even in the world today, a whole lot of agriculture is done without agrochemical inputs, and is done by other means. What you mean by "mainstream" is clearly "mainstream industrial agriculture". Think about the whole world. Think about the people who live in Nepal, in Tanzania, in Jordan. They're not mostly using glyphosate to finish their lentil crops. They're letting them finish on their own, without glyphosate or any other agrochemical input. SageRad (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That was very helpful. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

just want to note that my earlier comment here was shorthand for saying that the west canada miller refusing oats is a blip, not mainstream. my edits today and comments above are an elaboration of that. i've been busy elsewhere in WP and in RL - sorry i wasn't able to get back here sooner. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"mainstream industrial agriculture" aka agriculture! I agree though that content like "widely accepted" is pushing the boundaries of OR though... Not saying that it's not, but I don't think we can source that so best to stick with what can be. Sage - Jytdog's not been overly bold IMO and if we sought permission for every edit we make we'd never get anything done! And FWIW I searched for more info on Switzerland but couldn't find any - it seem unlikely to me that it would be completely banned and unless we have a better source, it shouldn't be reinstated. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your reckoning, but in my opinion, Jytdog has been overly bold, in greatly changing a passage that we have worked for a few days on, with the tension of back and forth here, and with the new source i found this morning to counter the challenge to "controversy" and "notability" -- why the wind blowing in the direction of deleting anything critical of the practice? Is this a pro-glyphosate editorial board? SageRad (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is currently against you and there are still no sources to show that this is anything other than an exceptional case. Can you please reconsider the end of your last comment? I don't consider it very collegial. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a paradox in terms. A consensus cannot be against me, for that means there is not consensus. I am an important voice here, as important as you and Jytdog. And yes, there is a source to show notability. Did you miss that? I'm not here to be collegial. I'm here to be straightforward and do good work. I do feel a wind blowing in one direction and i will say it out loud. There's nothing wrong with that. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Like it or not, 2 (3 inc. KoA) vs 1 is a consensus here. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "majority" which is not what consensus means. Check out WP:EDITCONSENSUS. SageRad (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I want to note that i disagree that it's "just a blip", as i think it's significant in terms of people noticing a difference with chemically desiccated crops and objecting to it. That is why i included it to begin with. I find it to be of import. Different people can see things differently and things different things are important and hopefully Wikipedia reflects this, along with good sourcing to show notability when there is contention. The Carlyle Observer news story that i had included also established that notability. I have added that source back from your deletion of it. I hope you will not delete that again. It seems that anything not nailed down goes into the dumpster sometimes with you. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that SmartSE changed the wording here to take out the value-laden aspect of it. Desiccation is used in some agriculture and not in others. I think the edit is good. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog --- we are getting into edit war territory here -- for all your warning me about edit warring, you sure seem to do it a lot. I don't like it. I don't think it's right. Look, there is more talk here in the thread about that subject. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should jump in and say that I think this was a good comprimise. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course you do, because you would have it gone altogether if it were up to you. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

current version is OK with me. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Just when I thought we might be getting somewhere. If I wanted it gone, I'd delete it wouldn't I? SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully not, if it's sourced, and if other people think it's relevant, in good faith. SageRad (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Threading is messed up above, so i start a new root here: Note that there is *not* currently consensus on the present version and i'm not happy that sources disappeared and concepts like the lowered beta-glucan levels of glyphosate-finished oats. Two out of three editors is not a "consensus" -- let's admit that's not what consensus means. We discuss. We arrive at conclusions. SageRad (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Now i have restored the sources (all four) and the reason of refusal given by Grain Millers, changes in quality of the groats. I cut the second sentence, as you seem to want it to be very brief, and i agree on brevity as long as sources are there. They don't cost us any length to the reader's eyes and can be pursued if the reader wants. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I stayed out of the recent conversation since it seemed like we'd obtained consensus that there was a weight issue with adding more content in. The current version describes and sources the event just fine. It appears you're the only editor that doesn't agree with this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sagerad, please see the note I left at your Talk page about this edit. What is relevant here, is that we cannot make claims about science or give UNDUE weight to such content based on news articles. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate draft

Just in case anybody else was thinking of adding more on glyphosate, I've started a draft based on the HGCA reports linked #Possible sources above. Might take me a while to finish but feel free to jump in and help. SmartSE (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added this to the article now. I wondered whether we should include the "toxic wheat" stories, but sourcing would be a real challenge. How do others feel about these [2] [3] [4]? Or maybe the lack of any coverage in really solid sources demonstrates that it shouldn't be included... SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

very nicely done. thx. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the first three links in the chain are: preharvest glyphosate usage is common, this use leads to residue, this residue is in food. 9 citable links for evidence of preharvest glyphosate usage in 6 American states, 4 Canadian provinces and 5 other countries , Coincidentally, the list was originally compiled to dispute the snopes article you cite.Elmwoodie (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

References

A few suggestions

I just wanted to make a few suggestions that might also help improve this article, but I'm afraid I don't really have the time to find references for all this. If nobody wants to do them, maybe I'll get to it come winter time.
1. Opening sentence appears to indicate that desiccation refers only to herbicidal desiccation. What about mechanical desiccation through swathing? That's a fairly common practice in the US at least.
2. Potatoes get desiccated by more than just one compound. Diquat is also commonly used.
3. The whole lead paragraph seems a little disjointed in that it includes information not in the body, yet doesn't exactly summarize the body, either.
4. Seems like the "Use" section should be fleshed out a little more than just listing the crops which sometimes get desiccated.
5. A whole section on glyphosate. Understandable, considering its controversial nature. But then no discussion of any other method? Other chemicals? Mechanical swathing? Even just a sentence or two would be good.
I apologize for just dropping this here, but it seemed like it might be a good time since there seems to be some new interest in the article over the last few weeks. Anyway, if nobody wants to do anything, I really do understand. I hope you all understand as well -- just the wrong time of year for me. Adv4Ag (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's certainly a work in progress but hopefully better than a week ago! I agree there should be some mention of swathing as an alternative [5] and was planning on writing a section on potatoes as well once I get a few more sources together and find the time. Given all the discussion about glyphosate above, this seemed like a sensible place to start though. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of Glyphosate as a dessicant contributes to residue ranking

Can someone please provide a quote of where the sources say that the use of Glyphosate as a dessicant contributed to it being the second most common pesticide found in UK foods? Becuase I can't see anything remotely like that. Without that, this whole sections seems to consist of large amounts of OR. It seems to run something like this: Glyphosate is used as a dessicant. Therefore use as a dessicant must contribute to residue levels. So far its reasonable, though still OR. Then it proceeds: since use a dessicant contibutes to residue levels it contributes to it being the second most common residue found. That's not valid at all. Even if all use as a dessicant stopped the glyphosate could remain in the number two spot or even increase to number one. Then it goes on to conclude that since use as a dessicant contibutes to the number 2 spot in the UK, we can quote another report which found other glyphosate levels that only me tions dessicant use in passing. This all eems like OR unless we can see aquite of where the source says that use as adessicant contribured significntly to Glyphoste being in the number two spot fir residues. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: There is a thin line between OR and summarising a complicated source for the layman. The source cited makes it clear that residues from use pre-sowing are "extremely unlikely" (p.20) and also that the increasing use of glyphosate pre-harvest coincides with increases in residues: "the increasing occurrence of residues in bread and other products would suggest that premium crops are being treated to protect quality." (p.21). The report also cites this paper which does directly demonstrate that use pre-harvest causes residues to occur. Ref 16 (annoyingly dead for now) also notes that it causes residues. Altogethr, to me this doesn't seem like unacceptable OR to link it all together. I used "contributing" rather than "causing" in the text to express that the sources are not explicit in the link. If you can think of another way of wording it then please do so. @Tryptofish: Not sure if you are watching this or not, but your 2 cents would be appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"residues from use pre-sowing are "extremely unlikely" & premium crops are being treated to protect quality simply acknowledge that glyphosate treatment of the field occured some time after sowing. Inter row spraying for weeds would seem a likely cause. So no, that does not support the claim being made, not even by implication. Your second reference does show that use as a dessicant can lead to residues. But it does not support the contention that use as a dessicant is what leads Glyphosate to be the second most common pesticide residue in British foods. Thats a perfect example of OR. Cessna et al say that use as a dessicant has an effect on residue levels in Canadian wheat. Baxter et al say that 12% of UK wheat is treated with this dessicant. Berry et al say that glyphosate us the second most common residue in UK foods generally. Therefore the use as a dessicant is the reason why Glyphisate gets second place on the residue list of all foods In the British Isles.

Let me put it this way. I can show you RS that states that domestic violence is the most common violent crime in the UK. And I can show you RS that shows that people of ethnic group X commit domestic violence. And I can show you RS that the ethnic group X makes up 12% of the UK population. Do you believe that justifies me stating, in a Wikipedia article, that in 2017 ethic group X made up 12% of the Uk population, contributing to domestic violence being the most common violent crime in the UK? Rhetorical question of course. While it may technically be correct, since any single act will contribute to domestic violence figures, it is horrendously misleading because it implies that it is a significant contribution. There's no reason to believe that if the proportion of group X were lower, the rate of domestic violence would decline, it might even increase. And we have exactly the same scenario here. If Glyphosate were not used a a dessicant, it might have no significant effect at all on the ranking as a residue. It is misleading OR to state that it contributes, implying that the contribution is significant. In short, if no RS actually says that A is what causes B to occur at prevalence X, we shouldnt say it in an article. Its that simple. We have no source even remtely claiming that if Glyphosate wasnt used as a dessicant it would be number two on the residue list. As such, any claim to that effect is OR. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. (I put this on my watchlist for the time being.) I'm going to ping, in turn, Kingofaces43, who can probably evaluate what the sources say better than I can. In the mean time, I have a question to help me understand what exactly the issue with possible WP:SYNTH is, and what part of the text might need to be changed. @Mark Marathon: assuming that we are not going to remove the entire section, what specific part of the section would you remove or revise? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the article says that use as a dessicant contributes to Glyphosates ranking as the second most common residue on UK foods. Thatt's not a claim made by any of the sources. It might well be techically true, but the policy is verifiability, not truth. If the RS authors didn't think this connection was important, we can't use OR to fiill in the gaps. The juxtaposition and wording used implies that its a significant contributor to Glyphosates residue ranking. Per my example above, an editor can't make a claim that Buddhists contribute to domestic violence being a coomon crime just because they find two separate sources, one stating that some Buddhists commit domestic violence and another source stating the prevalence of domestic violence. That statement would, of course, be technically true: any group with any incidence of domestic violence will contribute to the total incidence. But its likely misleading because the juxtaposition implies that Buddhists are significant contributors. I have the exact same problem with the wording of this article. There is no data on what contribution use as a dessicant makes to the residue ranking. It may contribute 90%, and if it was stopped Glyphosate would be the 12th most common residue on UK foods. Or it may contribute 0.009% and if it stopped Glyphosate would still remain the second most common residue. The problem at the moment is that the article just plain states that ithis usage contributes to the residue ranking, which strongly implies that the contribution is significant. The contribution may, in fact be negligible. IOW we have one source saying that Glyphosate is the second most common residue, another saying that use as a dessicant contributes to residue levels and then an editor linking those two sources to conclude that use a residue contributes to the second place ranking. That's classic OR. No RS says that there is any contribution to that ranking. At this point I can't see any reason to mention the residue ranking of Glyphosate. It seems at best tangential to this topic, while inclusion implies that use as dessicant is a significant contributor, and that's not supprted by the sources. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation, which makes it very clear to me now. Although I'll still be interested in what KofA might say about this question, I am inclined to agree with you that this at least borders on WP:SYNTH, although it might not be if glyphosate is never used on UK grain crops except as a dessicant, and not used in any other way. When I see content disputes like this one, my first instinct is to see if there is a middle ground that would strictly satisfy policies such as NOR. Here, my inclination is to simply separate any statement about residue levels from statements about how much or how little it is used as a dessicant. I'm going to make an edit to try to accomplish that now. Let's see if that satisfies both of you, and if not please feel free to revert me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that I've seen the ping and seen a little bit of this unfold on my watchlist (it's a crazy busy time during the workweek for us ag folks this time of year). I'll take a gander at things in the morning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I took another look through, and it looks like the major issues were taken care of in Tryptofish's edit. I agree that I really can't find where one could claim the "second most common residue" from the sources, so I'm content as is currently.

I will point out that there's a bit of "woo" making the rounds on the internet lately about glyphosate being used as a "dessicant", being found in everything and giving everyone cancer. I was a little concerned from the NPOV perspective when I first saw this topic coming up here, but we do a pretty good job of saying that this use isn't extremely common, and where it does occur, residues are still well below levels of concern. I had seen some sources explaining the topic pretty well awhile back, so I'll have to see if I can find them again in case they might help out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. I'm not completely happy with the inclusion of residue figures, which seems awfully tangential to article on crop dessication. But I can live with it, so a good compromise. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crop desiccation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150601022730/http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=d9acb467-df4a-4f2c-acf4-c358055cc207 to http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=d9acb467-df4a-4f2c-acf4-c358055cc207
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.hgca.com/publications/documents/cropresearch/RR65_Final_Research_Review.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Major rewrite

This page was in poor shape. It had the outline of organization but the text didn't adhere to what organization there was. It overemphasized glyphosate. And there was a lot of missing information. It couldn't be tinkered into getting better so I had to rewrite the whole page. I didn't delete any more than a couple of sentences, instead the prior content is still there (some in edited form) or moved to a different location. Many of the reference links were dead and of poor quality, e.g. citations to newsletters instead of definitive university or government (agricultural) sources. I updated several, including archived pages, but for those which didn't make good sense and were superseded by a university/government citation I just eliminated them. So one of the banners about needing additional citations for verification was thoroughly addressed, thus I removed the banner. A notice that a section needed expanding was also removed because I did exactly that.

There was another banner and several flags that appeared to complain about a document from Monsanto being repeatedly cited as a reference. Criticizing a document produced by a commercial entity is inappropriate and contrary to NPOV. It is not a sales brochure, rather it is a detailed, comprehensive, technical document that is thoroughly referenced. And even if it was, there is no less validity and/or objectivity to a Monsanto document than there is to a newsletter or blog post written by someone who works for a newspaper -- which is a commercial entity. The fact that it was repeatedly cited reflects the comprehensive nature of that technical document -- it covers a lot of ground. Thus, it remains in the page and no occurrences of it were eliminated. I did provide newer references to go along with it in most cases so that it wasn't the only source. Again, I opted for university and government sources as much as possible. So that banner and those flags do not need to appear anymore and were removed.

I hope others will join in expanding the "Questions over practice" section. Whoever changed it to that from "Controversies" deserves credit. But as to the content, it focuses exclusively on glyphosate residues in food, implying that might be a bad thing (without ever saying it). This is not enough. First, the page previously over emphasized glyphosate and it kind of equated glyphosate with crop desiccation -- it's not -- by having it appear everywhere in the page. Second, the use of glyphosate isn't the only questionable thing; the use of herbicides itself is questionable. The majority of farmers and producers in the US do not employ this method. I ran across some discussion that questioned the economics and return on investment of crop desiccation by herbicides. I don't have the time to track that down again, but that's an interesting question if true. So please go for it if you can. Lapabc (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I just caught up with edits here to a degree, so just an FYI I'll take a look over things too for areas to work on. In short though, I agree there were WP:NPOV issues with undue focus on glyphosate. As for documents by commercial entities, I'd have to see which one is specifically being discussed, but usually the only ones getting use in this topic are for basic things like when a trait was first released that doesn't really need WP:INDEPENDENT coverage or else as a supporting ref for info that is independently sourced. If that's being stuck to, there shouldn't have been a need for flags. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kingofaces43 for your efforts and comments. Regarding your deletion of siccation, I thought about doing that but wanted to leave as much prior content untouched as possible at that time. But I'm glad you did it because it is a very uncommon usage. Only one single Scandinavian group uses this in the ENTIRE scientific literature so it really adds nothing and instead was superfluous and confusing. I had added the link to Wiktionary to improve clarity but it's better to simply delete it as you did. Lapabc (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I added an example of glyphosate and beer raised by a German environmental group to the "Questions over practice" section. The initial report suggests something bad, but the larger context (including a separate scientific report) suggests that it's not a cause for concern. It's a balanced example of what is and isn't questionable but I could find no specific examples of concerns resulting SPECIFICALLY from crop desiccation uses. So apart from this one example I didn't include any other examples because they are more relevant to the WP page on glyphosate not this subsection of crop desiccation, and I would encourage others not to do so either unless they can find something specific to pre-harvest crop desiccation applications.Lapabc (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lapabc: The reuters ref makes no mention that the contamination was caused by desiccation and from the title ilat least it doesn't look like the paper reference does either. Is there a specific mention of it somewhere? If not I don't see why it would belong here. SmartSE (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't and I think I said so in my comment above. I am agnostic whether it should remain or not but still believe it's a useful example. Lapabc (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Herbicide-free desiccation

• Covering what was done before in more detail would be interesting (Leaving stuff to dry pre-harvest, Usina a Swather , etc)
• Covering Novel Methods
  • https://crop.zone/ "Crop Zone" uses essentially a saline mist followed by dragged high voltage electrodes to kill off the plants and allow them to dessicate
• Here is an interesting potential source i found , mostly unrelated to what i wrote in this segment though
  • https://www.manitobapulse.ca/2020/06/successful-desiccation-decisions-in-peas-and-beans/ "DB Harvest, FP Harvest, Mid-season, Pulse Beat Individual Articles, The Bean Report

Successful Desiccation Decisions in Peas and Beans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Lotze (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)