Has anybody tried Roundup Custom yet? I found 53.8% for $77 for 2.5 gallons. This seems like a good option, but does anybody have any thoughts or experiences?

Thanks, Al

I have not tried it but would be interested in hearing really world applications of it. I understand its works in water.

From Monsanto "Excellent fit for all aquatic, forestry, right-of-way, industrial, turf, ornamental and habitat-restoration use sites, especially where weeds and water meet"

Al the highest % glyphosate I see around here is 42% - yours sounds significantly stronger, which should equate into using less herbicide, which is always a bonus. However - due to the recent negative press on this chemical I've been wondering what the Hell I may be doing, unintentionally, to the Earth. Still didn't prevent me from doing my Spring rounds on the cattails, willows, cottonwoods and cedars on the dam and around the pond and thistles in the pasture yesterday. I'm not a hypocrite yet, as I haven't seen any rock solid evidence G is causing autism, etc. - just some theories [from very educated scientists]. Hard to know if these camps are pressing an alternative agenda of if there's real reason for concern. Alternatively, I certainly don't trust big chemical companies who assert it's benign enough to drink straight from the bottle! Laughable.

I wonder - would a strong vinegar based solution yield any results? I know many green folks advocate it as a weed killer for home use - maybe I'll mix some up and see what happens. Something tells me my stubborn brush would laugh at me...

They would. We've tried the vinegar deal, and while it burned the tops off of plants, it didn't seem to kill them completely so repeated applications were necessary.

TJ, I'm right there with you on various chemical claims and theories, but even at state levels things get confusing. Here in TX, 24D is sold over the counter in quart sizes. A gallon bottle requires an applicator's license. I've got no clue why volume requires a permit, but buying 40 quart bottles doesn't. Maybe that's just at TSC, but I haven't seen it anywhere else in larger sizes either.

What I think R Custom would let me do is use less by volume, and store fewer herbicides here at the casa. Jugs of Rodeo may sit here a while, and at what point do they go bad? Maybe this could work as an all in one solution.

ROUNDUP CUSTOM is simply Monsanto's renaming of AQUAMASTER, both are a 53.8% glyphosate and lack an integrated surfactant, so an aquatic-labeled surfactant must be added to the tank-mixture.
I was rather disappointed when Monsanto decided to adopt this new name (reportedly for better brand-recognition), since it confuses a 20+yr campaign of advising folks not to use "Roundup" in aquatic sites due to the tallow-amine surfactant that is integrated in Monsanto's terrestrial formulations of "Roundup". IMO, there are too many variations of "Roundup" in the marketplace already, and now there's one more to further confuse the masses.
ROUNDUP CUSTOM is likely one of the most economical aquatic glyphosate formulations at present due to its high concentration and subsequent dilution-ratio. This is the predominant aquatic glyphosate brand that we sell into the commercial and gov't market, often in 250-gal totes for large scale aerial-applications.

Regarding glyphosate's health and environmental concerns: Always remember that the chemical industry isn't the only profit-motivated player in the game.
When I read something negative about anything, my first thought is to consider the source and analyze the antagonist's motivations.

Never forget that organic farming (which is the perfect business-model in my book) represents BIG MONEY too. This growing market-segment commands a steep premium over conventionally produced foods and fibers. What better way to stimulate and perpetuate demand for a higher priced "commodity" than to use unsubstantiated/unproven assertions to create fear. To me, this is the antithesis of the chemical industry, but both share the same ulterior motive; except that the chemical industry is obligated to prove - through the peer-review process - that their products are reasonably fit and safe for labeled uses, after spending literally multi-millions of dollars in lab and field research to identify any potential health and environmental repercussions on each compound that actually reaches the marketplace (roughly estimated at 1 in every 5,000 that is studied).

Organic and non-GMO food-stuffs are all the rage these days and will continue to grow as long as the market remains convinced that the "perceived safety" they offer is worth their extra expense.

Fires: 2,4-D may be purchased in TX in 1-qt containers or smaller without an applicators license. This was a long-ago TDA concession to the home-owner who wants to treat his lawn; but the pricing and concentrations of such products render them cost-prohibitive for any large-scale applications. Interestingly enough, many (if not most) 2,4-D drift-complaints are attributed directly to the untrained use of the small-package formulations. Seems rather counterproductive to me, considering that a quart of 2,4-D from a small bottle can do just as much off-target damage as a quart from a 30-gal drum.

Kelly has a unique professional perspective important for me to keep in mind when measuring the claims against herbicides. The MIT professor's hypothesis about Glyphosate is really too grim for me to contemplate, anyhow.

TJ, I also have a strong suspicion of "research scientists" (aka professors). Once again, it's a "follow-the-money" game of questioning the motives behind unproven, yet media-released assertions (aka "theories") that involve any number of controversial topics; be it pesticides, global warming, etc.

When an interested entity (usually with a commercial, "non-profit"(yeah, right!) or political affiliation) approaches a podium-comfortable research scientist with a potential grant to "$tudy" a pet theory that X causes Y, what is the likelihood that said entity will actually commit the grant to someone who isn't $omewhat inclined to lean the parameters of the $tudy toward the desired outcome?

I enjoyed my upper-level Statistics courses SO MUCH that I was obliged to take one of them twice - along with many of my classmates; but that's another story. The point is this: Statistics is a fascinating tool of inference that can be crafted to support virtually any theory if the parameters of the study are appropriately designed and "interpreted".

Something else to think about: IF a substance is purported to cause abnormalities of some sort or another in laboratory animals, yet the minimum dosage required to induce such results is 10,000 times any feasible exposure that might be encountered in the normal course of deploying the substance in commercial use, does the substance actually represent a danger?

Thanks for the info.

My mother has always been a classic pour what comes out of the jug weed manager. We have had a few discussions about that, and so far I've gotten no where with her.

Kelly, re Statistics classes for Business majors.

I remember a Stat Prof telling us that he didn't understand why we all waited until our last semester to take the 2nd Stat class. It just kept most of us from graduating. He was right.

It scared me so much that I took signed up for 2 classes during my last summer semester. One during the day and the other at night. Day classes were 4 days per week for 6 weeks. The night class was twice per week for 12 weeks. I got to hear every lecture twice and take every class twice. The same Prof taught both and noticed about 2 weeks into the summer what I was doing. I told him that I would drop the day class which would be my lowest grade before the end of the first term but might enroll for it again during the 2nd day semester. I did that and became, to the Prof's knowledge, the only student to take the class 3 times in one semester. I think I either made a high C or a low B.

Later, in Grad school, I had to do a lot Geometry in Finance/Economics classes. That's tough for a guy who has an absolute mental block re basic algebra.