Vinegar for weeds ??

What would you use to make sure that nothing grows somewhere, ideally forever? Like for weeds growing between the slabs of a condo patio. There's no lawn anywhere and I just want to stop anything from growing. It's obviously not a large area and physically getting between the slabs isn't really possible.

Beneful1 wrote: ↑ I noticed that the current Round Up Advanced products on sale here in Ontario state Acetic acid , a component of vinegars, as an ingredient.

It literally is vinegar, at 'pickling vinegar' strength. Possibly a bit of surfactant added. Frankly, I'd DIY it, the ingredients are very cheap. It doesn't work nearly as well as the original with glyphosate (visual injury is quick but it doesn't kill roots).

Manatus wrote: ↑ What would you use to make sure that nothing grows somewhere, ideally forever? Like for weeds growing between the slabs of a condo patio. There's no lawn anywhere and I just want to stop anything from growing. It's obviously not a large area and physically getting between the slabs isn't really possible.

There are options (imported) like roundup 365 or Ortho Ground Clear that contain a powerful pre-emergent, so they kill everything then prevent regrowth for about a year.

Manatus wrote: ↑ What would you use to make sure that nothing grows somewhere, ideally forever? Like for weeds growing between the slabs of a condo patio. There's no lawn anywhere and I just want to stop anything from growing. It's obviously not a large area and physically getting between the slabs isn't really possible.

Salt. Lots of it.

mapleleaf6 wrote: ↑ Hows Weed b gon? i used it last week and seems like it killing the weeds? does it kill the roots or just the leafs?

Not more success with WeedBGone here than with my bleach-water recipe

Sometimes I wonder what's the real environment impact of the useless weed-killers vs good ones. The good ones probably only need used 2x a year and you're done. The useless ones last may be 1 week, and you'll just keep buying it again and again. So at the end a lot more chemicals are used, and lots of empty bottles thrown away.
I bought a bottle of the fatty-acids one. Used up the bottle on 2x application on just bunch of tiny spots on driveway. Impact to weeds on driveway after 1 week = zero. And there goes another bottle to landfill, and my money.
I supposed it's actually better business for the companies making/selling these useless weed-killers instead.

boyohboy wrote: ↑ Sometimes I wonder what's the real environment impact of the useless weed-killers vs good ones. The good ones probably only need used 2x a year and you're done. The useless ones last may be 1 week, and you'll just keep buying it again and again. So at the end a lot more chemicals are used, and lots of empty bottles thrown away.
I bought a bottle of the fatty-acids one. Used up the bottle on 2x application on just bunch of tiny spots on driveway. Impact to weeds on driveway after 1 week = zero. And there goes another bottle to landfill, and my money.
I supposed it's actually better business for the companies making/selling these useless weed-killers instead.

You are onto something. However, the bigger issue is the health impact. If someone finds that a high amount of chelated iron has the potential to cause cancer, then you'd have a stronger argument.

clutch31 wrote: ↑ You are onto something. However, the bigger issue is the health impact. If someone finds that a high amount of chelated iron has the potential to cause cancer, then you'd have a stronger argument.

If you do enough studies and torture the data then absolutely anything can cause cancer. If someone wants chelated iron to cause cancer, they can.

clutch31 wrote: ↑ You are onto something. However, the bigger issue is the health impact. If someone finds that a high amount of chelated iron has the potential to cause cancer, then you'd have a stronger argument.

Right. And also how sound is the proof that these non-useless herbicides actually cause cancel to begin with, and at what level of exposure.

boyohboy wrote: ↑Sometimes I wonder what's the real environment impact of the useless weed-killers vs good ones. The good ones probably only need used 2x a year and you're done. The useless ones last may be 1 week, and you'll just keep buying it again and again. So at the end a lot more chemicals are used, and lots of empty bottles thrown away.
I bought a bottle of the fatty-acids one. Used up the bottle on 2x application on just bunch of tiny spots on driveway. Impact to weeds on driveway after 1 week = zero. And there goes another bottle to landfill, and my money.
I supposed it's actually better business for the companies making/selling these useless weed-killers instead.

Depends on how dangerous RoudUp and 2,4,d really are. It could be harmfully cancerous, but that doesn't seem to be definitive.

grumble wrote: ↑ If you do enough studies and torture the data then absolutely anything can cause cancer. If someone wants chelated iron to cause cancer, they can.

How much do you trust mega corps? Maybe it's harmless, but we've seen this before, with cigarettes, oil companies, Teflon, BPA, etc.

engineered wrote: ↑ Depends on how dangerous RoudUp and 2,4,d really are. It could be harmfully cancerous, but that doesn't seem to be definitive.


How much do you trust mega corps? Maybe it's harmless, but we've seen this before, with cigarettes, oil companies, Teflon, BPA, etc.

Honestly I don't trust them much, but I do trust the scientists for the Canadian, American and European regulators, who've all taken a good hard look and deemed it safe. They actually reviewed it after the IARC came out, in some cases with wither third party of separate internal scientist teams and still found it safe. I mean, I've read some of the research directly and do consider myself a little able to evaluate it, but I'm not a scientist in this field, not an expert and ultimately I have to put some faith in the global expert community.

It's also worth remembering that those that may or may not have got cancer from glyphosate are/were all commercial/industrial users of if. They're not talking about homeowners using a few litres a year, but people applying large amounts on farms and as part of their jobs, most using large scale machinery.

To compare to other things that are linked - Silicosis is a real risk for people spending years working around small particles of crystalline silica, but the average homeowner breaking up a path or using with some sand doesn't generally need to consider wearing a respirator because the limited exposure is very low risk.

On the other hand, if you want to play with horticultural strength acetic acid you probably should be taking precautions (protective clothing, goggles) because that stuff can burn on contact and make you blind the first time you use it.