Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
loisredden

poisonivy

Lois Redden
18 years ago

I have been looking for a method to kill - eradicate poison ive. There has been a suggestion of using a mixture of salt and vinegar with a little detergent. Now someone says the salt is more damaging to the enviornment than the usual weed killers (Round-up or Brush be gone.) What thoughts do any of you have concerning this issue? Thanx

Comments (10)

  • lindac
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    You won't grow much in the soil after you put on enough salt or vinegar to kill poision ivy....
    In spite of what some say....roundup is better....it DOES eventually bio degrade....salt and vinegar has to just wash away.
    There are stump killers.....thay will kill the ivy if you just put a few drops on a fresh cut stem. Not sure of the impact....but it needs so little I can't believe it would be too bad.
    Linda C

  • maine_gardener
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    There is Round Up just for poision ivy. I used it and it worked very well.

  • meldy_nva
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The only way to actually get rid of poison ivy is by removing the root from the soil.

    Defoliants are often used because they do kill back the leaf - and if the plant is young, it *might* kill the whole plant. The catch with using any defoliant is that the substance is best used early in the spring on tender new leaves. Read the directions on those bottles! And it may be in fine print, but they will say that re-application may be needed. You can almost guarantee re-application if the PI is a mature plant. In effect, you are going to slowly kill the plant by removing its source of nourishment (aka leaves), and you will likely have to continue re-applying at intervals until the plant weakens.

    Salt is a big no-no. No way, no how, for no reason do you want to use add salt to soil. (Chemists: back off please, I am referring to the table, kosher, or pickling salt which seem to be recommended in the homestyle salt-vinegar concoction.)

    Vinegar in 5% (or stronger) works on most weeds and does NOT damage the soil, in either short- or long-term. Up close, it does have noxious fumes - surprisingly, this is one defoliant it's better to use (while standing upwind) when there is a very gentle breeze. In my experience with 5%, only the straight liquid is harmful to neighboring plants, and then only if it touches the leaves - apparently the fumes dissipate too rapidly to cause harm. I find 5% vinegar too mild for other than very limited use, and 15%/20% should be used just like RU or other commercial poisons: while wearing gloves, goggles, respirator, and protective clothing. The difference is that vinegar dilutes rapidly in the soil, and in a short time is no more harmful than water.

    There have been many scientific (published and acknowledged as valid) studies showing that RU and similar glyphosate-surfactant solutions are not lacking in enviromental concerns ranging from genetic mutations to contaminated water killing tadpoles and frogs. There have also been scientific reports showing that glyphosate-surfactant solutions do not 'biodegrade' and identifiable residues have been found in soil more than a decade after use; actually, I think it was something like 14 years after use, but that type of study can be difficult to verify since RU and similar formulations are so pervasive. If you wish to learn more, be careful to always check the date the study was completed - the research and studies reported within the past 5 years are far more definitive than older studies (although those who wish to imply harmlessness often seem to refer to reports published 20+ years ago and/or to the manufacturer's advertisements); science has come a long way just in the past decade.

    If you wish to apply a defoliant to poison ivy, you might wish to consider a clove oil product. Clove oil seems to be the least environmentally harmful substance available -- although as with ALL defoliants, physical removal of the roots is recommended.

  • JAYK
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It's fine to choose not to use any product, but it does no one a service to misinform people seeking accurate information. Unfortunately, misinformation about Roundup continues to be copied and repeated. There have been hundreds of high quality studies published throughout the existence of Roundup, and it is completely false to state that only studies within the last 5 years have value, or that current opinions about Roundup are based only 20 year-old studies. All of the available information needs to be considered.

    Roundup is used by responsible environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy on some of the most sensitive wildlife habitats in the world. Of course the surfactant in Roundup will affect frogs in high enough concentrations, but if this is a reference of Relyea's study, it merely showed what was known all along from many other studies. Roundup with it surfactant applied directly to water will affect aquatic life, as any soap or detergent will. As long as it is not applied directly to water, this will not cause a problem. That is why it is not legal for aquatic use.

    I would appreciate the source for the claim that Roundup does not biodegrade for 'something like 14 years after use". That time estimate is absurd and is not supported by the evidence. Unless the ground is frozen, soil organisms break Roundup and its surfactant down completely into natural substances over weeks and months, not years. There are many studies that have documented the pathways and the timelines under various conditions, and it's not difficult to verify whatsoever. Take a look at Giesy, Dobson and Solomon's "Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup Herbicide" in the Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology for sources.

    Roundup has been classified as non-mutagenic by regulatory bodies throughout the world. Note the abstract from the study below by Williams, Kroes and Munro.

    And recommending clove oil as a defoliant is fine, but you might also want to pass along that the active ingredient in those products is eugenol. Do a google of "eugenol" and "carcinogen" and you might be surprised. Unlike eugenol, and half the substances in the world, Roundup is considered to show evidence of non-carcinogenicity.

    As for the statement "The only way to actually get rid of poison ivy is by removing the root from the soil." This is demonstrably false, as this plant is successfully controlled without removal of roots all of the time, typically through the use of systemic herbicides, such as Roundup.

    Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its
    Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans
    Williams, Kroesb, Munroc

    Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands, Cantox Health Sciences International, Canada

    Abstract
    Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health
    concern. Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It includes assessments of
    glyphosate, its major breakdown product [aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports. The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in
    acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime
    feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate.
    Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals.
    For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans. Author Keywords: glyphosate; Roundup; herbicide; human exposure; risk assessment

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPT-45C0WDC-1&_co
    verDate=04%2F30%2F2000&_alid=298743316&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi
    =6999&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0amp;_userid=10&md
    5=594cbda7bc2a7b552d49202d9131d703

  • chuckr30
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The only success I have had is by using Round Up Brush Killer once every week, and spray every leaf on the plant. And yes, this process might take 8 weeks. Adding 3 drops of dish soap per gallon of water also seemed to help. (I was using the concentrate which I mixed myself to 150% recommended strength.)

    Even more effective is spraying during the growing season, which is about April 1 to May 31 when the plant first starts sending out leaves.

  • Ina Plassa_travis
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    pull it up by the roots.

    but there's a trick to it. the best time to pull poison ivy is in the dead of winter- but it looks like half a dozen OTHER things in the dead of winter. so either now, or in the fall when the leaves turn scarlet, hunt them down, drive a stake near ever patch, and mark all the stems with spray paint- I like a 'turn it down' green, or a robin's egg blue- something that will stand out against a winter landscape.

    then, go back in the winter, when wearing a tyvek bodysuit won't cause heat prostration, and pull it all up. dispose of gloves and bodysuit in the same trashbag.

    any re-emergence SHOULD be treated with Roundup- but we're talking about ounces of the stuff, not gallons.

    Despite what Jay likes to copy- my opinion of roundup is this: smells like poison to me, and I've seen it work. there is therefor NOTHING on this planet that can convince me that it's anything less dangerous than gasoline, and should be treated with as much respect.

  • bhcal
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hello all.
    I am a teacher here in socal. My students 5th grade want to see what poision ivy/oak looks like. Can anyone send me a few branches of both/either? Payment of course

    socal55555@aol.com

  • username_5
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Despite what Jay likes to copy- my opinion of roundup is this: smells like poison to me, and I've seen it work. there is therefor NOTHING on this planet that can convince me

    Well, since you have smelled it and that has told you everything you need to know, you don't mind if I don't regard your opinion as very authoritative I hope ;-)

    Sorry, just having some fun with you.

    RoundUp should certainly be treated with respect, but let's face it, it kills real good. When you want something dead, it does the job and so far there are no three headed children being born to folks who use it.

    I have to (well, I don't have to, I just want to) highlight something JAYK said about RoundUp's surfactant. Many of the recent studies claiming problems with RoundUp aren't targeting the active ingredient, but it's surfactant.

    It's soap folks.

    Do you have a fish tank at home? Maybe a goldfish bowl? Here is a fun experiment, but don't let the kids watch. Take a single drop of liquid dish soap and add it to the tank. Now stand back and watch all the fish die within minutes. Soap is highly toxic to aquatic creatures as well as soft bodied insects. That is why the anti chemical sources have started targeting the surfactant in roundup instead of it's active ingredient. The soap is far more toxic than glyphosate. This doesn't stop organic only folks from using insecticidal soaps and it shouldn't prevent anyone from using RoundUp, according to label instructions.

    Here is what the EPA has to say concerning glyphosate in drinking water. First, they say the most common reason it occurs in drinking water is it's misuse(such as a transport spill in a wetland near a drinking water source), but they also say:

    What happens to Glyphosate when it is released to the environment?
    Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to soil, with little potential for leaching to ground water. Microbes in the soil readily and completely degrade it even under low temperature conditions. It tends to adhere to sediments when released to water. Glyphosate does not tend to accumulate in aquatic life.

    Here is another fun fact for the organic only folks. I am not a strictly organic gardener, but about 80% so, more of an IPM guy. This info is also from the EPA: Glyphosate is an organic solid of odorless white crystals.

    That's right folks, glyphosate is organic. I repeat, the active ingredient in RoundUp is organic. If glyphosate were used without anything else in the mix it would qualify for organic gardeners to use and still get the state approved 'organic' label. For those of you who are sold on organics and instinctively abhor 'chemicals', pause on that for awhile.

    Here is a link that might be useful: epa link

  • rhizo_1 (North AL) zone 7
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    There is much misunderstanding about the word 'organic'. To many, if not most, it is a term that (correctly or not )indicates 'natural', non-chemical, safe, etc. Technically speaking, ANY thing that is a carbon based product is organic. Glyphosate is an organophosphate, just like many dangerous pesticides. It has both carbon and phosphorus in its makeup. (This particular organophosphate is not a cholinesterase inhibitor, however).

    No one should use the term 'organic' when referring to RoundUp, though, as that would be quite misleading and very inaccurate as to the intent of the meaning of the word. "Organic" products would then include all of those dangerous insecticides....many of which have been yanked off the market forever. Do we consider DDT organic? It's carbon based.

    To our Teacher: no one in their right mind would send samples of poison ivy and/or oak through the mail to a classroom of young children! I'm still laughing over that one!

  • henry_kuska
    18 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    JAYK gives a year 2000 quote by Williams et.al. and a link for the reference. The link does not work and some of the authors names apparently are mispelled. Here is the National Library of Medicine link for that article:

    Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10854122&dopt=Citation

    If one then enters the pertinent information into Google Scientific, one obtains a link that will lead the reader to the abstracts of 42 scientific papers that cite that particular paper (click on the "Cited by 42" link below the reference):

    Http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Williams+kroes+munro+glyphosate+roundup&btnG=Search

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=link:o4keNOFfJOkJ:scholar.google.com/

    Here is a link that might be useful: 42 papers that cite Williams et al - Google Scholar search

Sponsored
Land & Water Design
Average rating: 4.9 out of 5 stars30 Reviews
VA's Modern & Intentional Outdoor Living Spaces | 16x Best of Houzz