Dicamba

Metabolic Weed Resistance Crisis Builds Across The Heartland

Wed, 06 May 2026 16:50:37 GMT

Waterhemp, Palmer amaranth and some other tough broadleaf weeds and grasses are no longer slipping past just single herbicides. Across the Corn Belt and beyond, they are tolerating entire herbicide programs. Weed scientists say that pattern points to a critical issue more farmers are facing: metabolic resistance.

Unlike traditional target-site resistance, which is often specific to a single herbicide class, metabolic resistance is even worse because it can confer cross-resistance to multiple, unrelated herbicide groups .

Aaron Hager, University of Illinois Extension weed scientist often warns that when a tough weed like waterhemp learns to metabolize one herbicide, it becomes easier for it to “learn” to detoxify others. That ability has helped lead to the 7-way resistance with waterhemp seen in some Illinois counties, according to weed scientist Patrick Tranel, one of Hager’s colleagues.

At least 13 states have reported having some degree of “highly suspected” or confirmed cases of metabolic weed resistance. Here are three of the broadleaf weeds demonstrating metabolic resistance and states where they’re located:

Along with these broadleaf weeds, some common and giant ragweed, marestail/horseweed, annual (Italian) ryegrass and barnyardgrass populations have also demonstrated metabolic resistance.

(Weed Science Society of America, GROW, BASF, Syngenta)

Target-site resistance can be identified through DNA tests. But metabolic resistance is a “guessing game” involving potentially dozens to hundreds of genes working in tandem, making it difficult for scientists and farmers to know which products will still work in their specific fields.

Tommy Butts sees the trend for metabolic resistance taking root in Indiana. He says HPPD resistance in waterhemp is “getting widespread,” and the failures are expanding to other chemistries as well.

“We had more complaints last year about things like mesotrione or Callisto starting to fail, which is really scary in the corn acres,” says Butts, Purdue University Extension weed scientist. “Corn is supposed to be our easy year to control waterhemp, and now, all of a sudden, we start losing Callisto.” He addresses this in detail in the latest Purdue Crop Chat .

The bad news does not stop there.

“You start talking auxins and glufosinate, and we have confirmed resistance in the state to those,” he says. “I wouldn’t say that’s as widespread, but it’s definitely popping up.”

With metabolic resistance chipping away at PPOs, HPPDs, atrazine partners, auxins and glufosinate, the old playbook of “just switch products” no longer works well.

Glufosinate alone 😀⁰Mesotrione alone 😕⁰Glufosinate + mesotrione 🔥😎

That’s the power of effective herbicide tank mixtures.

Deploying synergistic tank mixes with multiple effective sites of action is critical for improving weed control and helping delay herbicide resistance… pic.twitter.com/FggZJrQQ1Q
— Rodrigo Werle (@WiscWeeds) May 6, 2026

“Hammer With Residuals” And Build Effective Combinations

Butts’ first message to corn and soybean farmers is straightforward: no more solo herbicide passes in the field.

“We have to hammer weeds with effective residuals and then mix up our posts as much as possible,” he says.

In his view, that means at least two things for row-crop growers. First, use layered residual programs that keep fields clean as long as possible and reduce the number of emerged weeds that ever see a post pass. Second, use post-emerge applications that combine multiple, truly effective modes of action at full labeled rates.

Cutting rates, he warns, is exactly how growers “train” metabolism-based resistance to take root.

With soybean trait systems, he pushes hard against relying on a single flagship product.

“If we’re growing Enlist soybeans, don’t just rely on Enlist and don’t just rely on Liberty,” Butts advises. “Do the tank mix. The tank mix trumps everything.”

This field shows the result of waterhemp seeds that were spread during harvest by a combine.

(Aaron Hager, University of Illinois)

Pay More Up Front To Avoid Making Expensive “Revenge Sprays”

Metabolic resistance can thrive when weeds are hit with chemistry they can partially tolerate. That is why Butts keeps coming back to strong, early, soil-applied programs.

He hears pushback from farmers every year on using multiple products in the tank.

“A lot of people tell me, ‘Well, it costs way too much up front with $20 for a pre. Corn gets even more expensive,’” he acknowledges.
However, Butts points to work by Purdue University Extension and other states showing those dollars pay off when the entire season is measured.

“If you can get a strong residual program out and get it activated, the whole-season economics of it makes sense,” Butts says. “It’s consistently shown that if you have that strong pre up front, you don’t have what I like to call the revenge sprays in August, where we’re going across the field three different times trying to kill waist-high waterhemp.”

Check out this tool from GROW on how to address waterhemp specifically.

Protect Herbicide Tools To Extend Their Use

As more herbicide modes of action come under pressure, Butts singles out metribuzin as an example of a product that still pulls its weight in soybeans.

“Metribuzin is a big one in soybeans, because we don’t have a lot of resistance to that,” he says.

“I will also put in the plug for AMS in general, across the board,” Butts says. “That always helps with some of those products… when we start getting later in the season, we get more stressed weeds. AMS even tends to help there.”

Butts does caution farmers that AMS is not allowed in dicamba tank mixes for XtendFlex soybeans.

Underlying all of it is a blunt warning about what happens if growers decide to skimp on their weed control efforts.

“If you let it go even one year, now you’ve made yourself a mess for the next five to 10 years,” he says. “You’ve got to try and stay on top of weeds as much as possible.”

5 Practical Recommendations To Address Metabolic Resistance

Because metabolic resistance is so unpredictable, weed scientists have shifted their advice away from “rotating chemicals” toward a “zero-threshold” approach to control. The following metabolic resistance management recommendations have been presented by Aaron Hager, University of Illinois Weed Scientist, and Beck’s agronomists:

1. The primary focus of metabolic resistance management should be on decreasing the weed seed bank. This means that weeds must be eliminated before they ever go to seed.

2. A robust residual herbicide program should be used, not because residuals represent a different herbicide family but because they eliminate weeds at the earliest growth stages – slashing contributions to the weed seed bank.

3. Physically cutting weeds out of the crop must be included in the management plan, because physical elimination of weed escapes further slashes contributions to the weed seed bank.

4. Post-herbicide programs should shift from calendar-based timing to scouting-based timing. Once weeds break through a pre-emerge residual program, they must be eliminated. Such early targeting further slashes contributions to the weed seed bank.

5. Mechanical techniques, field cultivators, etc., should be used where possible to further the cause of decreased seed production.

Late Labels, Updated Restrictions, New Names: Navigate the 2026 Dicamba Landscape

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 22:03:24 GMT

As waterhemp continues to outsmart traditional chemistry, soybean growers are looking for a win in 2026. For Nate Eitzmann, that win starts with a returning tool in the toolbox: dicamba for over-the-top application.

A Certified Crop Advisor for Asmus Farm Supply, Eitzmann says while waterhemp is farmers’ enemy No. 1 in his geographic area—northern Iowa, southern Minnesota, and eastern South Dakota—he readily acknowledges other problematic weeds take the top spot in other regions. But all farmers are united in needing effective weed control options.

Adding to the farmer’s toolbox for 2026, the EPA has reinstated a label for three products for over-the-top (OTT) application of dicamba in soybeans. The 2024 season was the most recent growing year growers had access to OTT dicamba.

What does this mean for soybean growers?

Check your traits: Ensure your XtendFlex beans are ready for the application.
Review state cutoffs: Remember that federal EPA labels are the baseline, but state-specific dates and temperatures still apply.
Plan for ESA: Be prepared for runoff mitigation and buffer requirements that may be stricter than in 2024.

Eitzmann says dicamba is a great tool for broadleaf weed control, especially waterhemp.

“It’s risk versus reward with dicamba. It’s a tool that is great for us to add to our toolbox for waterhemp control. We just have to do our best to spray it responsibly within the label and keep it where we want it to be so it’s a tool we can continue to utilize in the future,” he says.

Acknowledging the volatility risk with dicamba, the EPA labels put in place measures to minimize the potential for off-target movement. Additionally, many states have instituted cutoff dates for application (based on calendar date and/or growth stage) and temperature maximums. Applicator training is also a requirement, as it has been in years past.

“Over the years of spraying this dicamba on soybeans, and even prior to that, using it in corn, the volatility concerns have been addressed and we’ve gotten better at it,” he says. “In addition, we’ve got the ESA compliance, so there are some runoff mitigation points that are also included in this, and a few different buffer requirements.”

Read more about the labels here.

What’s Different About the Dicamba Herbicides Available?

A trio of products is available for over-the-top dicamba application in soybeans and cotton:

Engenia: Newer salt formulation; binds tighter to acid to reduce volatility.
Stryax: The XtendiMax replacement; uses DGA salt + VaporGrip.
Tavium: DGA salt + VaporGrip + residual partner (pre-mix).

“As far as killing weeds, we haven’t seen any difference, and the label states we have to be at a half-pound of dicamba per application. So, that’s a different rate per acre of Engenia versus Tavium versus Stryax, but the active ingredient you’re getting is equivalent,” Eitzmann says.

How Much Dicamba Will Be Sprayed in 2026?

While the label for 2026 didn’t come as a complete surprise to Eitzmann or the industry in general, its timing was unexpected. The EPA label for dicamba arrived in early February, which was too late to affect trait packages already purchased by many farmers. Per Farm Journal research, most farmers are finished buying seed by February.

For his team at AFS, their dicamba-sprayed acres grew quickly after the initial EPA registrations, but they peaked around 2021/2022 as Enlist E3 acres gained market share.

For 2026, because of the timing of the labels, dicamba volumes aren’t expected to reach the same saturation seen in 2024. However, Eitzmann says some farmers are in a position to make the applications because of their seed planning.

“There are people who purchased XtendFlex soybeans and, going into purchasing season, they intended to have dicamba as an option. They maybe purchased herbicides to fill that gap if the registration didn’t happen, but once it did, they’re looking to make a change and add dicamba to their program for 2026,” he says.

As for having the tool, Eitzmann says his team and their farmer customers recognize it’s worth following the application requirements to maintain access to the herbicide.

“Be responsible with it, use it within the labels, use it where it fits, and don’t push those limits. I think as we go forward, it’s not a crutch that we have to lean on, but it’s an extra tool that we can use when it’s applicable,” he says.

Know The Rules For Dicamba Use In Your State

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:50:50 GMT

The EPA has finalized the dicamba label for the next two growing seasons, bringing much-needed clarity to U.S. farmers. But while over-the-top (OTT) use is officially back, it arrives with the most restrictive federal requirements farmers have seen to date for products like Engenia , Tavium , and Bayer’s new XtendiMax replacement, Stryax .

In some cases, states are adopting stronger regulations for dicamba use, especially with regard to temperature and calendar cutoffs:

Temperature Cutoff: The federal label mandates a 95°F forecast high as a hard cutoff. If the National Weather Service forecasts a high above 95°F, you cannot legally spray OTT dicamba that day.
No Federal Calendar Cutoff: Unlike previous labels, the EPA has not set a nationwide calendar deadline.

State-Specific Restrictions In Place

Illinois and Minnesota are two states, so far, that are going with stricter regulations for temperature and application timing cutoffs for dicamba.

Illinois is using an 85°F forecast high as the cutoff for dicamba applications in soybeans.

“If you load your sprayer and it is 78 degrees at 10 a.m. in the morning, but the forecasted high by the National Weather Service is supposed to be 85 or 86, that is a do-not-spray day,” says Kevin Johnson, director of government relations and strategy for the Illinois Soybean Association.

Deadline for application: Plan for a June 20 cutoff for OTT applications, Johnson says.

Minnesota:

Temperature: Minnesota is using an 85°F forecast high cutoff for dicamba applications in soybeans.

Deadline for applications: June 12 cutoff south of I-94; June 30 cutoff north of I-94, according to Dicamba Restrictions Announced for 2026 Growing Season .

Shifting Your Weed Control Strategy

Because of the tighter application timing windows in Illinois, Johnson anticipates there could be a shift in how farmers there use the chemistry. He expects many Illinois farmers to move dicamba to a pre-emergence timing rather than post-emergence, saving OTT dicamba only for “super high weed” pressure situations.

With many seed trait packages now stacking dicamba and glufosinate (Liberty) tolerance, Johnson says to expect “a lot more guys using Liberty on the back end.”

In addition, the EPA is tying dicamba use to mandatory conservation practices. Farmers can find more details on the Bulletins Live! Two Website

“We’re still waiting on a lot of details on what those conservation practices are,” Johnson says. “Bulletins Live! Two is a good website, but it’s, I’ll say clunky… it’s not real easy to just find one thing and find what you need,” he cautions.

Record Keeping: Don’t Risk A $700 Fine

The most immediate hurdle for many farmers interested in using the technology this spring will be the paperwork. In Illinois, the Department of Agriculture uses a 22-question record-keeping sheet specifically for dicamba.

“If I can stress anything in this call, do your record keeping,” Johnson emphasizes. “If you ever get called in on a complaint, the first thing they ask you for is your record keeping. If you do not have all 22 questions filled out, you are going to get a $700 fine. There’s no questions asked.”

To stay ahead of that risk, Johnson advises Illinois farmers to complete records on a timely basis, not “later when things slow down.” He urges them to fill out as much of the form as possible before the season begins, including static information about equipment, farm identifiers, and general practices, then finish the day-specific entries in the cab during or immediately after the job. Some of the information—like wind speed, wind direction, and exact application timing—can only be captured accurately in real time.

For custom applications, the legal burden for record keeping falls on the applicator, Johnson adds, but growers should still ask for copies for their own files and talk openly with retailers about documentation expectations.

All of this points toward one overarching need, Johnson says: have a clear herbicide game plan for 2026, especially if you plan to use dicamba, and build in contingencies. He addresses more of the dicamba requirements specific to Illinois farmers in a recent Field Advisor podcast, available here .

EPA Reinstates Dicamba for 2026 Registration in Cotton and Soybeans

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 23:23:34 GMT

EPA is reinstating dicamba use for farmers in 2026, but it comes with a litany of tight controls and restrictions. It will be the first time since the 2024 season that farmers have had the option to use dicamba over-the-top (OTT) for weed control. It’s now offering approval for the next two seasons in 34 states and then will do additional reviews.

“This decision responds directly to the strong advocacy of America’s cotton and soybean farmers, particularly growers across the Cotton Belt, who have been clear and consistent about the critical challenges they face without access to this tool for controlling resistant weeds in their growing crops,” said EPA in a release. “This action reflects this administration’s commitment to ensuring farmers have the tools they need to succeed while protecting the environment with the strongest safeguards ever imposed on OTT dicamba use.”

EPA says it conducted a thorough pesticide evaluation, using data and hundreds of publicly available independent, peer-reviewed studies and real-world field results to do a human health and ecological risk assessment.

“To be clear, these studies involved pesticide applicators with decades of intensive exposure, not typical consumers,” EPA said.

The agency used that information to help build in what it calls extra precautions into the registration with a focus on reducing worker contact with the product. When applied according to the new label instructions, EPA’s analysis found no unreasonable risk to human health or the environment from OTT dicamba use. It also recognized the issues with drift and calls them legitimate concerns.

“The ecological risks associated with dicamba drift and volatility are real,” EPA said. “If not carefully mitigated, off-target movement of dicamba can damage sensitive plants and impact neighboring farms and natural ecosystems. These concerns are exactly why the strongest safeguards ever are essential.”

EPA says it designed new label restrictions to directly address them, including cutting the amount of dicamba that can be used annually in half, doubling required safety agents, requiring conservation practices to protect endangered species and restricting applications during high temperatures when exposure and volatility risks increase.

New Dicamba Restrictions for 2026 Registration

EPA says they will continue to track how the chemistry performs in the real world and make adjustments if needed. That said, it’s now requiring a host of new mitigation measures, focused on reducing drift, minimizing volatility and protecting ecosystems.

Maximum application rate cut in half. A maximum of two applications of 0.5 lbs. of dicamba per acre may be made annually, for a maximum of 1.0 lb. of all dicamba products annually. (The 2020 registration permitted up to four applications of 0.5 lb./acre, only two could be over-the-top, for a total of 2 lb. of dicamba annually.) This directly reduces the total amount of dicamba in the environment and limits potential exposure to sensitive species.
Doubled volatility reduction agents. 40 oz./acre of approved Volatility Reduction Agent (VRA) must be added to every application.** This significantly reduces the likelihood that dicamba will volatilize (turn into vapor) after application and drift off-target hours or days later — one of the primary pathways for environmental damage.
Mandatory conservation practices. Growers must achieve three runoff/erosion mitigation points from EPA’s certified conservation practices menu on each treated field to protect endangered and threatened species. In some geographically-specific pesticide use limitation areas (PULAs) where especially vulnerable species require additional safeguards, six points are required. These practices — such as vegetative buffers, contour farming and cover crops — physically prevent dicamba from moving off-field in runoff or eroded soil, protecting waterways and habitats.
Temperature-based application limits. On the day of or the day after applications occurring with a forecasted temperature between 85 and 95°F, a user may only treat up to 50% of their untreated dicamba-tolerant (DT) cotton and soybean acres in a county. Remaining DT cotton and soybean acres may not be treated until at least two days after the initial application. This reduces risk during elevated volatility and drift conditions. No applications may occur if the temperature is forecasted to be at or above 95°F on the day of or the day after a planned application, eliminating applications during the highest-risk conditions.

Legacy Diacamba Restrictions Retained on the 2026 Registration

Restricted Use Pesticide designation. Only certified applicators may use this product, ensuring applications are made by trained professionals who understand the risks.
Annual mandatory training. Certified applicators must complete annual training specific to OTT dicamba use, keeping users informed of label requirements, best practices and environmental protection guidelines.
Personal protective equipment (PPE). Several products require loaders, mixers, handlers and applicators to wear label-approved PPE, directly reducing worker exposure.
24-hour Restricted Entry Interval (REI). No one may re-enter a treated field within 24 hours of application, protecting workers and the public from exposure.
Mandatory Drift Reduction Agent (DRA). An approved DRA must be added to every tank mix, creating larger, heavier droplets that are less likely to drift off-target.
240-ft. downwind spray drift buffer. A substantial physical buffer must be maintained during applications to protect adjacent areas. This distance may be decreased only if additional label-approved mitigations (hooded sprayers, downwind windbreaks, etc.) are used, ensuring protection is maintained. (The distance of downwind spray drift buffers may be decreased if other label-approved mitigations are used.)
Strict application timing restrictions. Applications may not be made during a temperature inversion (when atmospheric conditions trap pesticides near the ground and increase drift risk), within 48 hours ahead of forecasted rainfall (which can wash dicamba off-target), if soil is saturated with water, or within one hour after sunrise or after two hours before sunset (when inversions are most likely). These timing restrictions target the specific weather conditions that have historically led to drift problems.
Proximity restrictions. Applications are prohibited if dicamba-sensitive crops or plants are in downwind areas, preventing direct harm to vulnerable species and neighboring crops. (A list of dicamba-sensitive plants and crops is provided on the label.)
Wind speed requirements. Applications must take place when wind speed is between 3-10 mph—strong enough to prevent inversions but not so strong as to cause excessive drift.
Droplet size requirements. Applications must use coarse or coarser spray droplets, which are heavier and less prone to drift than fine droplets.
Low spray height. Spray release height must be no higher than 2 feet above the ground or crop canopy, minimizing the distance droplets can drift before reaching their target.
Aerial application prohibition. Aerial application is completely prohibited, eliminating a higher-risk application method.
Tank mixing prohibition. Tank mixing with ammonium sulfate-containing products is prohibited because these products can increase volatility.
Mandatory record keeping. Specific records must be kept of every application to ensure consistency with all label requirements and enable enforcement.

New Dicamba Rules Are Not Optional

In its release, EPA says these restrictions are not optional and adds that they are enforceable legal requirements.

“Applicators who fail to follow label directions are subject to significant penalties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), including civil fines and, in cases of knowing violations, criminal prosecution,” it said in the release. “EPA will work with state enforcement to actively monitor compliance, and violations will be met with serious consequences.”

EPA says the temporary approval reflects its commitment to make sure farmers have the tools they need to succeed while protecting the environment.

“Cotton farmers across the southern United States have been particularly vocal about why they need OTT dicamba as herbicide-resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth have become nearly impossible to control with other available tools, threatening crop yields and farm viability,” said EPA. “These “super weeds” can grow 3 inches per day and destroy entire fields. Without effective weed management during the growing season, these producers face devastating economic losses.”

Industry Organizations Say Thank You

The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) sent a letter to the EPA in fall 2025, urging EPA to adopt clear, workable label requirements for dicamba that help growers manage weeds effectively while supporting strong stewardship across the industry.

“ARA applauds EPA’s recent decision that preserves the safe use of OTT dicamba while maintaining workable, label required mitigation measures for commercial applicators,” said Daren Coppock, ARA president and CEO. “ARA members have a strong record of responsibly managing dicamba applications and advancing the implementation of precision ag technologies that help growers control resistant and hard to manage weeds. OTT dicamba remains an essential tool for protecting yields and supporting soil health and environmental sustainability in cotton and soybean production.”

The National Cotton Council (NCC) says cotton growers need timely access to effective tools to protect yields and deliver a high-quality crop.

“EPA’s decision provides growers much-needed clarity as they prepare for the upcoming growing season,” said Patrick Johnson, chairman of the National Cotton Council. “We support label requirements that are workable in the field and backed by a science-based registration process. NCC will continue engaging with the EPA to advocate for practical provisions that enable responsible use.”

NCC encourages applicators and producers to follow all label requirements when using dicamba as part of an integrated weed management program.

The American Soybean Association (ASA) is eager to review the label and continue engaging with EPA to ensure regulatory decisions support both environmental stewardship and the realities of modern agriculture.

“We appreciate EPA moving forward with a new dicamba label and recognize the importance of maintaining access to this tool for soybean farmers,” said Scott Metzger, ASA president and an Ohio soybean grower. “Farmers need clear, workable rules that accurately reflect how we farm. We look forward to reviewing the final label and hope it incorporates the feedback ASA and its state affiliates provided to ensure dicamba remains a practical option within a responsible, science-based weed management system.”

Bayer Announces New Dicamba Product

On Friday, Bayer said the EPA’s decision enabled the company to launch its new dicamba herbicide: Stryax.

“With a federal registration in hand, we’ll begin the process of seeking state approvals,” said Dr. Ty Witten, Bayer’s vice president of commercial stewardship,crop science. “In the coming weeks, we’ll launch applicator training opportunities, and stewardship education to help ensure that growers and applicators have the best experience possible with Stryax herbicide.”

Stryax will be a restricted use pesticide and require the use of a qualified volatility agent and drift reduction agent. The company says the new product was formulated to be an additional herbicide option for in-crop use with XtendFlex soybeans, Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans and cotton with XtendFlex technology.

Four Strategies To Save Money On Herbicides Without Sacrificing Weed Control

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 18:17:53 GMT

If the 2025 season felt like the “same old, same old” for your weed control program — it shouldn’t. When farmers have the mindset that every year is just like the last, it’s easy to fall into the decision paralysis of: “It worked OK last year, so I’ll just do the same thing again.” That approach can leave money on the table and weeds in the field, reports Meaghan Anderson, Iowa State University Extension field agronomist.

She says the ongoing battle with broadleaf weeds and grasses should encourage farmers to re‑evaluate their control program for next season, especially in fields that ended up weedier than expected.

Start With Your Weediest Field
Anderson says a useful exercise right now is to ask yourself: What was my weediest field this year—and why?

“Most corn and soybean growers can point to at least one field that stood out,” she tells Farm Journal. “In many cases, the same herbicide program was used across multiple fields, but it failed in that one.”

Anderson says that’s a clear signal something needs to change in that field for next year—whether that’s:

Using a stiffer preemergence program
Spiking a premix with more active ingredient effective on key weed escapes
Adjusting your application timing or adding layered residuals

“Dollars invested in a strong preemergent herbicide, especially in known problem fields, is almost always an investment that pays for itself,” she adds.

Other key considerations for the 2026 season: If grass weeds were a problem this year, consider whether you could benefit from using products more targeted to specific species. Also, plan to monitor fields ahead of post applications to catch weed escapes early.

Three Specific Issues To Look For Next Season
1. Expect more volunteer corn. Some fields in Iowa and other Midwest states were “carpeted” with dropped ears of corn by harvest time this fall, Anderson says.

Two questions she says farmers who had a lot of ear loss can benefit thinking through are: How much corn hit the ground but didn’t germinate this fall? How much will survive this winter and emerge next spring?

“We’ve seen this movie before — volunteer corn can quickly become a major issue if it’s not addressed,” Anderson says.

2. Winter annuals are prevalent. Anderson notes that winter annuals like henbit, marestail, and pennycress had an excellent start in soybean stubble this fall. Where fields looked green late into the fall, farmers can expect to see them show up again next spring and will want to be proactive early with control measures:

Aim for late March to early April burndown applications (spray even earlier if it’s an unusually warm spring).
Wait until plants are green and actively photosynthesizing, with day and night temperatures warm enough for good herbicide activity.

Timing control measures can be a bit tricky. “By the time winter annuals are flowering in the spring, it’s usually too late for effective control,” Anderson notes.

3. Look for herbicide-resistant weeds. Cross-resistant and multiple-resistant Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, Italian ryegrass, barnyardgrass, and others are on the rise in row crops, researchers report.

Just this month, dicamba-resistant waterhemp was confirmed in Missouri, according to Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri Extension weed scientist.

Where To Spend Money If Margins Are Tight
With the outlook for high input costs and lower commodity prices, the impulse for farmers is to cut their herbicide spend across the board.
Anderson says a better strategy would be to shift investment from products to planning and scouting. She offers four recommendations that can help improve your weed-control ROI next season:

Spend more time scouting and truly understanding which fields are your problem acres.
Do the math on herbicide programs, compare prices, and tailor rates and products to field history and weed spectrum.
Consider using a full residual + strong post program on your worst fields.
Pull back some where fields are consistently clean and not building a weed seed bank.

This approach doesn’t necessarily slash costs per acre dramatically, but it can chip away at your total herbicide program costs without sacrificing control—or future profitability, Anderson says.

She adds that “thoughtful analysis, targeted programs, and timely applications are the real ‘new chemistry’ most farms need” going into the 2026 season.

EPA Opens Public Comment on Dicamba Registration, Gives The Labels Another Look

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 21:53:55 GMT

Today, the EPA opened its 30-day public comment period for a proposed registration of dicamba in over-the-top applications. The federal agency received applications from Bayer, BASF and Syngenta, which have marketed XtendiMax, Engenia, and Tavium plus VaporGrip.

Those products were not labeled for use in 2025 after have their registration were vacated by a U.S. district court in 2024. The ruling was based on EPA violating public input procedures on the three products.

“We’re pleased to see that the EPA has made significant progress and opened a public comment period for low-volatility dicamba herbicides to be used over the top of dicamba tolerant cotton and soybeans. This technology provides tremendous value to soybean and cotton farmers across the U.S.” Bayer officials said in a statement.

BASF provided this reaction in a statement: “BASF remains committed to a science-based decision-making process and working with regulatory authorities and other stakeholders throughout this process to ensure over-the-top uses of dicamba remain an option for farmers in the future.”

With the public comment period, the agency stated it’s particularly interested in hearing how the proposed mitigation measures would be implemented by farmer stakeholders. Those include: temperature-dependent volatility mitigations, percent of field treated restrictions and any science-backed solutions to manage volatility. EPA is proposing the following nine mitigation measures:

A single use maximum application rate of 0.5 lb. acid equivalent (a.e.) dicamba per acre.
No more than two applications allowed with a maximum annual application of 1 lb. a.e. dicamba per acre from all combined dicamba-containing products.
Prohibition of aerial applications.
Maintaining a 240-ft downwind buffer.
The spray solution must include an approved drift reduction agent and pH buffering volatility reduction agent added to the tank in higher percentages as temperatures increase.
Temperature-dependent application restrictions to manage volatility. Users have flexibility to implement temperature-dependent restrictions by reducing the percent of field treated, including by using precision agriculture techniques, or prohibiting certain tank mixes at higher temperatures.No applications at temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Three points of mitigation required based on the runoff/erosion mitigation menu .
Users must access and follow any applicable endangered species bulletin from “ Bulletins Live! Two” web-based system. Six points of runoff/erosion mitigation will be required in some pesticide use limitation areas where pesticide exposures are likely to impact the continued existence of a listed species, which may include a reduction in survival or recovery of the species.
Applicators are required to wear baseline attire along with personal protective equipment including chemical-resistant gloves when handling these products. A NIOSH-approved dust/mist filtering respirator with any R, P, or HE filter is also required for all handlers of the BAPMA-salt-formulated product. There is a restricted entry interval of 24 hours. Use is restricted to a limited number of approved states by certified applicators only. Applicators are required to complete additional dicamba-specific annual training and maintain records of all applications.

The public comment period is scheduled to close on Aug. 22, 2025. The next step will be EPA’s review of the registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Next is a biological evaluation, and then an Endangered Species Act consultation.

“We believe the EPA will benefit from hearing from those closest to the technology. This will help to ensure any decisions regarding the registration of dicamba are fully informed by those who rely on this important tool. Even a simple comment explaining the important role dicamba plays on a particular farm can be impactful and useful for the EPA,” Bayer’s statement continued.

It’s estimated the process could provide a timeline where dicamba could be available for the 2026 application season.

“We know how important this technology is for so many growers, and we will continue working diligently to help ensure these low-volatility dicamba herbicides remain available for over-the-top use in 2026 and beyond,” the Bayer statement said.

Ag Retailers Association CEO and President Daren Coppock said, “This is a win for ag retailers and farmers who rely on safe, effective tools like over-the-top dicamba to protect their crops. The EPA’s risk-based assessment process remains the gold standard for pesticide regulation, and we applaud the agency for reaffirming its commitment to sound science. Ensuring continued access to these products is critical for a productive, sustainable food supply.”

EPA Issues Existing Stocks Order For Dicamba Products

Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:07:34 GMT

On February 14, the EPA issued an existing stocks order for dicamba products previously registered for over-the-top use.

This order addresses use of the dicamba products effected by the Arizona federal court decision vacating their registrations earlier this month. It authorizes limited sale and distribution of existing stocks that are already in the possession of persons other than the registrant. The existing stocks provision applies to stocks of previously registered pesticide products (Engenia, Tavium and XtendiMax) currently in the U.S and packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to February 6, 2024.

Read the full existing stocks order here

EPA stated: “The issuance of this existing stocks order will help to ensure that growers who have already purchased dicamba-tolerant seeds and thus are reliant on the availability of dicamba for the 2024 growing season:

apply dicamba formulations designed for use over the top of dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton, rather than misusing more volatile dicamba formulations which could lead to greater offsite movement (and thus potential damage to non-dicamba tolerant crops and other plants); and
apply these dicamba products consistent with restrictions intended to reduce offsite movement and protect human health and the environment.”

In its announcement, EPA cited letters from the Agricultural Retailers Association, the American Soybean Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Cotton Council.

EPA said its primary concerns were:

“In the absence of any action by EPA, the court’s vacatur of these registrations would render all sale or distribution of the formerly-registered dicamba products unlawful under FIFRA….as of February 6, 2024, FIFRA would prohibit downstream distributors from even returning previously purchased product to the manufacturer for relabeling or shipment by any actor to disposal or export facilities. Among other things, an existing stocks order can permit those in possession of these products to distribute them for return to the manufacturer, export, or disposal.”
“Because the effect of the court’s order resulted in these products becoming unregistered, EPA is issuing this order to ensure that users apply dicamba following the restrictions on the previously approved labeling (including instructions intended to protect human health and the environment). By doing so, any use inconsistent with the previously approved labeling is prohibited, reducing the potential for harm to the environment from unrestricted use. The below provisions for the disposition of existing stocks address these concerns. Further, allowing the limited sale, distribution, and use of existing stocks will reduce the potential for offsite movement and protect human health and environment during the 2024 growing season by encouraging growers to apply the formerly-registered lower volatility dicamba formulations designed for use over the top of dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton—rather than applying other dicamba products not registered for over-the-top use.”
“As described in numerous stakeholder letters received by the Agency from across the country, growers have purchased dicamba-tolerant seed in the period between the completion of briefing in the District of Arizona case and the issuance of the court’s order and judgment vacating these dicamba registrations, therefore making them reliant on the availability of dicamba for over-the-top use... Additionally, distributors and end-users may have possession of stocks of XtendiMax, Engenia, and/or Tavium purchased in good faith after EPA issued the registrations permitting sale and distribution of the products in commerce and establishing conditions pertaining to the use of the products.”

Read the full existing stocks order here

Here is the table in the EPA document timeframes and end dates for sale and use.

Over-The-Top Dicamba Cutoff Dates For 2023 Are Set

Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:58:58 GMT

With two recent announcements the EPA has approved labels for over-the-top dicamba applications (XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium herbicides) in 2023 in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota.

There are key changes for 2023 applications compared to previous years:

In Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, June 12 is application cutoff date. Also there is a growth stage cutoff of V4 for soybeans in Illinois, Indiana and Iowa.
In South Dakota, June 20 is the application cutoff date
In Minnesota, south of Interstate 94 the cutoff date is June 12 and north of Interstate 94 the cutoff date is June 30; and applications are not permitted when the air temperature is over 85 degrees at the time of application or if the forecasted high temperature of the nearest available location exceeds 85 degrees

Dr. Aaron Hager, Associate Professor of Weed Science at University of Illinois shared some concerns about the change in Illinois applications from a June 20 to June 12 cutoff date. Hear from him in this farmdoc article and audio interview.

The Illinois Department of Agriculture has three additional restrictions for OTT dicamba applications:

A pesticide containing dicamba shall not be applied on soybeans if the air temperature at the field at the time of application is over 85 degrees Fahrenheit or if the National Weather Service’s forecasted high temperature for the nearest available location for the day of application exceeds 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Local National Weather Service forecasts are available at https://www.weather.gov.
Before applying a pesticide containing dicamba on soybeans, the applicator shall consult the FieldWatch sensitive crop registry (https://www.fieldwatch.com) and comply with all associated recordkeeping and label requirements.
Application on soybeans of a pesticide containing dicamba shall not be made if the wind is blowing toward: any Illinois Nature Preserves Commission site that is adjacent to the field of application; or an adjacent residential area.

One requirement for all XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium applications that continues for 2023 applications is the mandatory pre-season training. Bayer reports more than 4,000 growers and applicators have completed its company-led training so far in 2023, which outpaces previous years.

Growers and applicators are required to check online versions of the label within 7 days before application in case there are any newly applied state or federal updates.

Here are links to the landing pages for each herbicide product with its label and application requirements.

Bayer Anticipates Dicamba Label Decision Soon

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:04:01 GMT

The world’s largest agribusiness expects the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to announce a renewal and an updated label for the herbicide dicamba in the coming weeks.

“The expectation is that there will be a decision in the very near future,” says Liam Condon, President for the new Crop Science division of Bayer. “The EPA said they want to make the decision before the next growing season so that that growers have certainty.”

The weed system was authorized initially for two years by EPA. That authorization runs out in November. The agency must decide whether to extend its use and whether to make changes to how and when it can be used.

Following high drift and volatility complains in 2017, Bayer claims those numbers are lower this season thanks to mandatory training and spraying restrictions.

“We knew that training was key,” says Bob Reiter, new head of Research and Development for the Crop Science division of Bayer. “Helping growers to use the product in the right way makes all the difference in the world.”

Bayer says dicamba tolerant crops covered 50 million acres in the U.S. this season. Calling it a success, they anticipate the number to continue climbing in 2019.

According to Bayer, by August this season there were 13 complaints per million acres of seed. That compares to 99 per million acres last year.

According to Dr. Kevin Bradley, professor of plant sciences at the University of Missouri, state departments of agriculture were investigating 605 reports of dicamba-related injury as of mid-July . That compares to 1,411 complaints at the same time last year. University researchers estimate the 2018 complaints involve 1.1 million acres.

“I think the EPA has said all along that they clearly see the importance of our product,” says Condon. “Probably the discussion is more about how to use this and we’re expecting this decision imminently like in the next few weeks.”

Not all of agriculture is rallying behind the technology. Beck’s Hybrids has recently taken the position that dicamba should only be allowed as a pre-plant application. It says the controversy has the potential to do more harm than good.

“First, we’re concerned if drift and volatilization continues, farmers will say ‘I can’t use any other technology [besides Roundup Ready 2 Xtend] because dicamba could drift onto my field and crinkle leaves—potentially reducing yield,’” says Kevin Cavanaugh, Beck’s director of research. “Therefore it forces them to one technology, and when we force them to one technology we get really concerned about weed resistance.”

But Reiter says farmers are demanding dicamba for weed management and to fight resistance.

“We have 97% of our growers telling us they had excellent weed control,” says Reiter. “The demand and need for the system is clear and we’re going to see more growth for the system next year.”

While Bayer executives say 2018 should speak for itself in terms results, ultimately the decision will be made in Washington.

“You never want to preempt the regulatory decision or be in a position that you’re putting words in regulators’ mouth,” says Condon. “Of course, we as the owner have an expectation but that in all honesty is irrelevant in the process. The EPA is the one who makes the decision.”

EPA Approves Dicamba Usage in 2022

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:03:46 GMT

Dicamba formulations have been considered controversial for several years as various crops have suffered drift and volatility resulting from the herbicide.

In October 2020, the Trump Administration issued their approval for dicamba-related product use over the course of the next five years.

After previous administrations environmental protection agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler shared farmers have the certainty of dicamba use in the 2021 growing season, he said it was far from a sporadic decision.

“After reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders we have reached a resolution that is good for our farmers and our environment,” said Wheeler.

Current environmental protection agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan explains the agency continues to research the effects of dicamba and cautions farmers as they purchase the chemical for the coming growing season.

“The EPA is extremely concerned about these reports and is taking steps to better understand the nature and severity of these incidents in order to assess the sufficiency in the 2020 decision,” says Regan.

While the EPA advances their investigation into dicamba products, individual state departments of agriculture count their own reports.

Illinois Department of Agriculture staff (IDA), for example, have received 348 pesticide misuse complaints in 2021, with 319 agriculture-related complaints. Of the 319, 178 of the complaints are in relation to dicamba.

As growers anxiously await the research verdict, National Association of State Departments (NASDA) President Ryan Quarles shared his expectations as the EPA continues to evaluate dicamba.

“Whether it is dicamba-related products or not, we’ve got to make sure crop technology is adopted through proper regulatory frameworks and not the court system.”

The EPA is expected to issue a final report for the dicamba products registered for use on soybeans by the end of October 2021.

Cotton Climbs in Kansas With 2,4-D Boost

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:16:57 GMT

Cotton isn’t king in Kansas, but it’s a fine prince for many Jayhawk growers.

When Kent Dunn first planted cotton seed in his Moscow, Kan., sandy loam soil in 2002, 2-bale cotton at loan was $500 per acre, yet 200-bushel corn at $2.50 per bushel was $500 per acre. Fast forward 15 years to 2017: 70-plus cents on 1,200 lb. per acre cotton beats 200-bushel corn under $4 per bushel. Tack on the arrival of 2,4-D-tolerant varieties in a state with perennial drift issues, and cotton is all the more enticing for Kansas growers.

Kansas is often the forgotten son of the Cotton Belt, battling the past decade with a one-two punch of drought and drift, dodging one to get hit by the other, and planting roughly 50,000 acres per year. However, 2017 Kansas cotton acreage jumped to 85,000 acres and 2018 could feature another significant acreage increase.

Dunn, 57, grows alfalfa, corn, cotton, grain sorghum, sunflowers, and wheat in the southwest corner of the state. From 2011 to 2016, he averaged 500 to 1,000 acres of cotton, but planted 1,800 acres in 2017. The acreage increase isn’t due solely to the commodity market: Dunn says the 2,4-D cavalry has arrived.

The degree of drift damage varies between years, but Dunn deals with telltale crowfoot 2,4-D injury on an annual basis. In a forgotten age of glyphosate efficacy, growers could smoke kochia and Palmer amaranth, but over the past decade weed resistance has pushed Kansas farmers toward 2,4-D and dicamba . Kansas has no mandatory cutoff date and the incessant drift problems from sprays on summer-fallowed ground have been partially responsible for keeping a lid on Kansas cotton acreage.

The availability of the 2,4-D-tolerant Enlist system is a game-changer, according to Dunn. “The constant 2,4-D drift problems are behind us,” he says. “Dicamba-tolerant cotton has been around here two years, but it also suffers from 2,4-D damage. In my area, we’re mostly planted with Enlist. The lower middle of Kansas is mostly Xtend cotton. The southeast seems to be split between Xtend and Enlist.”

Despite Dunn’s enthusiasm over Enlist, he says availability is a limiting factor: “We’ve got two short-season varieties to choose from right now, but we’re hoping for five or six by 2018.”

Dunn typically rotates cotton and plants into corn stalk residue or wheat stubble, aiming for 1,100-1,200 lb. per acre in yield. Irrigation blankets 90% of Dunn’s cotton ground. Kansas cotton is a rough 50-50 split between dryland and irrigated acreage. Western Kansas cotton is usually irrigated with dryland on field corners. In south-central Kansas, and certainly further east, greater precipitation allows for dryland success.

Kansas dryland growers often target 500-600 pounds of cotton per acre; and irrigated growers shoot for 2 to 2.5 bales, according to Zach Hrencher, secretary/treasurer of the Kansas Cotton Association ( KCA ) and member communications area manager for Plains Cotton Cooperative Association . “We definitely expect higher target goals in the future. We’ve been dinged by 2,4-D and dicamba so hard that we don’t know our own potential. The new varieties are packed with yield promise, but at the same time, we have to be able to get more access to those short-season varieties.”

Hrencher says a learning curve is the biggest challenge for new cotton growers. “We don’t want to grow trees; we want short top plants with loads of bolls. Cotton is high management and you can’t stop in early August and think you’ve spent enough on a crop and then coast. You’ve got to spend and finish right or it’s a recipe for disaster.”

Kansas has no mandatory cutoff date and the incessant drift problems from sprays on summer-fallowed ground have been partially responsible for keeping a lid on Kansas cotton acreage.

© Chris Benentt

Steady growth is a top goal of KCA, according to Hrencher. Acreage spikes and fluctuations place a strain on gin infrastructure and logistics. KCA wants Kansas to be a top 10 cotton state. “That means we need to start producing 400,000 to 450,000 bales per year,” Hrencher notes. “It’s crucial for us to build a desire to grow cotton through research, promotion and education. We want our Kansas farmers to have the opportunity to grow cotton and succeed.”

Dunn, vice president of KCA, expects heavy fiber in 2017, courtesy of superior technology and timely rainfall. He put several inches of water on his cotton early to get the crop up, and a wet summer kept in-season irrigation requirements at a minimum. “I’m expecting some nice yield with this seed technology. In other years, we’ve been hit so many times with 2,4-D drift and it takes the cotton an entire week to recover. This year we haven’t been slowed down with those drift issues ,” he explains.

Dunn farms in Stevens County in a heavy corn-growing area dotted with feed yards. Directly to the northeast, Haskell County is the largest county per capita in the U.S. for cattle on feed. Feedlots, dairies and ethanol plants drive massive grain production in the region. However, Dunn says 2,4-D tolerant seed and the dismal price of grain is driving new grower interest in cotton. His gin ( Northwest Cotton Growers Co-op Gin ) will process 30,000 acres in 2017, and Dunn says the facility’s ginning acreage number may triple in 2018.

Whether due to prices or variety advances, many Kansas growers are eyeing cotton with a change in mind, according to Dunn: “It’s true that cotton takes more management and vigilance. It also cash flows better than any crop in our area and there’s a lot of farming neighbors watching and wondering about cotton.”

Dicamba Questions Cloud 2017 Horizon

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:16:57 GMT

A dicamba cloud rolled across U.S. agriculture in 2016 and turned the crop season into a high-stakes waiting game as producers wondered whose soybean crop would cup and when more symptoms would appear. Illegal use of dicamba in 2016 begs the question: With Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeling approvals on new dicamba formulations, how might the off-target scenario play out in 2017?

In April and May of 2016, as producers drove away from supply stores hauling totes of dicamba, no laws were broken. Oddly-timed purchases got tongues wagging, but were not illegal. By the end of June 2016, the Dicamba volatility and drift incident rate was too fast to track.

The epicenter was in Arkansas and Missouri, but complaints were lodged from North Carolina to Texas to Minnesota. As harvest progressed, a tense farming atmosphere heavy with off-target fallout, ag meetings and threats of legal action was punctuated with the October death of Arkansas producer Mike Wallace in a dicamba related-shooting. Less than a month later, on Nov. 23, Missouri producer Bill Bader filed a multi-million-dollar suit against Monsanto, seeking compensation for peach orchard damage caused by dicamba in 2015 and 2016. In the midst of it all, on Nov. 9, Monsanto announced EPA approval of XtendiMax , a dicamba herbicide, for the 2017 crop season.

The tangled web grew even tighter in December as Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson began wrestling with a glaring question: Accept the Arkansas State Plant Board ’s (ASPB) unanimous recommendation and place restrictions on dicamba use or punch the green light of approval? The end of 2016’s long legal chain arrived Dec. 21, when BASF announced EPA approval of Engenia herbicide, another new dicamba-based formulation. Hutchinson’s verdict came Jan. 4, 2017, essentially blocking the use of XtendiMax in Arkansas (see “The Details of the Arkansas Verdict”).

Volatility and Drift Top Weed Control Concerns

Tom Barber, Extension weed scientist with the University of Arkansas (UA), has often heard blame for the dicamba off-target injuries of 2016 attributed to old formulations. However, he’s quick to knock down the inference that new formulations and reductions in volatility will end problems. This past year, in addition to acreage affected by volatility, Barber also walked crop fields injured by old-school, physical dicamba drift: Grapes, peaches, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans, tomatoes and watermelons are all highly susceptible. “Some people have an impression that new formulations will be a silver bullet,” he says. “If an applicator sprays too far above the canopy in a 15 mph wind, we’re heading for serious physical drift regardless of volatility.”

Despite the off-target troubles of 2016, Ty Witten, North America Crop Protection Systems lead for Monsanto, says XtendiMax will keep drift incidents at a minimum: “If a grower follows the label, goes through appropriate training and revisits what’s important for off-target applications, they’re going to have great success in 2017,” he says.

Review the entire XtendiMax Label here

Review the entire Engenia Label here

EPA is in the process of adding tank mix extensions, according to Witten, but he’s unsure if multiple modes of action will be legally permissible prior to the 2017 planting season.

Regarding the ramifications of Hutchinson’s decision, Witten is disappointed with what he describes as a “denial of grower choice,” but says Monsanto recognizes state authority and best management practices. “We don’t know how other states will react, but we’ve provided strong data for our registration. This is a product with multiple years of testing by third parties and evaluation from federal agencies.”

The Details of the Arkansas Verdict

In early 2017, Arkansas governor Gov. Asa Hutchinson essentially blocked the use of XtendiMax in that state. More specifically, Arkansas farmers can’t use dicamba DMA salts except on pastureland a mile or farther away from susceptible crops. However, XtendiMax is a DGA salt; DGAs are prohibited from use April to September except on pasture a mile or farther away from crops. Banvel is a DMA and Clarity is a DGA—both of which fall under the ban. Engenia is allowed for two reasons: It was given to public researchers for volatility testing several years ago (as opposed to XtendiMax, which had no public testing) and Engenia is a new salt formulation called BAPMA.

Old or new, all dicamba is dicamba. The difference centers on volatility factors, Barber says. XtendiMax is essentially the same make-up as Clarity, he explains. The difference? XtendiMax has VaporGrip technology to reduce volatility. Barber and other Extension personnel haven’t had the opportunity to test XtendiMax for reduction of volatility. Monsanto allowed land-grant universities to test XtendiMax weed control efficacy but not volatility.

BASF’s Engenia is a new dicamba salt with inherently less volatility. The University of Arkansas was given access to Engenia to test volatility for three years. The volatility reduction in Engenia is indeed a big improvement compared with Clarity, and an even greater improvement over Banvel, according to Barber.

He says the dicamba debacle in 2016 pulled down morale in the Mid-South to the lowest point of his career: “When Mike Wallace got killed, we all had to step back. Last year, money was tight with commodities tanking and feelings were on edge, but that dynamic doesn’t appear to be changing. I dread 2017 more than I’ve ever dreaded any season,” Barber says.

Even with major improvements in volatility, application diligence is paramount. “Boom height, wind, surrounding fields and more variables stay in play. Even with chemical improvements, I don’t know what will happen in 2017,” he adds. “That’s the problem; no one else knows either.”

Jason Norsworthy , also an Extension weed scientist with UA, echoes Barber’s concerns. “The dicamba situation was bad in 2015 and worse in 2016. Lots of people are worried about a big dicamba collision in 2017,”
Norsworthy says.

The labels for XtendiMax and Engenia don’t allow for tank mixes, a major resistance red flag for Norsworthy. When a sprayer rolls across a field with the boom releasing dicamba and no other chemical partner, the scenario is ripe for herbicide resistance. “Weed control requires multiple effective modes of action. The sole use of any chemical, regardless of its potency, leaves the gate wide open for resistance development,” he says.

The 2016 off-target dicamba epicenter was in the Mid-South, but growers recorded incidents in a wide belt of states, including soybean damage in Indiana.

© Steve Smith

In greenhouse testing during 2014 and 2015, Norsworthy exposed three consecutive generations of Palmer amaranth to sub-lethal doses of dicamba. By the third generation, the Palmer was resistant to a full-blown, commercially labeled dicamba rate. “Resistance is always waiting for a window, and it doesn’t care what chemical a farmer sprays,” he says.

Soybeans hit by dicamba during reproductive stages (particularly R3, R4 and R5) basically ingest and hold the chemical in the seed sink. The following year, those same seeds will fail to germinate or suffer reduced vigor. Essentially, the debilitating potency of dicamba is passed to the next generation. “If a producer getting a seed premium gets a drift event, his quality is finished,” Norsworthy says.

Right or wrong, as 2017 unfolds, Arkansas is the unenviable bell cow of dicamba policy. In addition to dicamba use restrictions, ASPB proposed increasing the maximum $1,000 civil penalty cap to $25,000, to be applied in “egregious” use cases. “My personal definition of egregious use is deliberately and knowingly applying a pesticide in an unlabeled manner that injures your neighbor’s crop, but it will be up to the entire board to decide on the definition,” explains Otis Howe, chairman of ASPB.

If the Arkansas legislature approves the $25,000 penalty, the proposal would go back to ASPB for committee work to define the penalty matrix. If the full ASPB board approves the committee work, the proposed penalty guidelines would be subject to public comment for 30 days, and then shift back to ASPB, eventually subject to gubernatorial and legislative council approvals. I appreciate the governor for his support of the plant board,” Howe says, “but getting a bigger monetary penalty in place for 2017 has to go through the whole legislature, and I’m not sure how long it may take.”

Monsanto and BASF place heavy emphasis for success in 2017 on grower education and instruction. Monsanto has given XtendiMax application training courses to more than 8,000 producers and industry professionals. BASF has trained 13,000 farmers and applicators since 2012, according to Chad Asmus, BASF technical marketing manager. “Engenia’s innovative formulation and our continuous opportunities to educate growers and applicators on stewardship will help to minimize drift issues,” he says.

Monsanto expects 15 million soybean acres and 3 million cotton acres for the Xtend crop system in 2017. BASF projects 10 to 15 million crop acres in the Engenia crop system. The herbicide genie is out of the bottle and whether viewed with dread or hope, all eyes are fixed on dicamba in 2017.

One Man’s View: We’re Headed for Trouble

Steve Smith, chairman of the Save Our Crops Coalition (SOCC), says education and instruction won’t stop off-label applications. “Going off-label is not a concern to some farmers, particularly when fines are low enough to be meaningless,” he explains. “What about contamination? Dicamba is notorious for hanging around in tanks.”

His concerns over dicamba injury to row and specialty crops have increased, particularly with the advent of new labels. Smith, who also serves as director of agriculture for Red Gold, a canned tomato processor in Elwood, Ind., believes some producers will tank mix to reduce spray passes. A label might expressly forbid mixing with AMS, but who will be watching when a producer pours in other chemicals?

And buffers? Whether 110' or 220', Smith says the distance is irrelevant to specialty crops. Wind speed? At 15 mph, buffers, direction, distance and vehicle speed make for a cauldron of error.

Additionally, if weeds are supposed to be sprayed at 4" or less, a single incoming rain event could force applicators to push wind limits. Spray in winds before a rain or wait and watch weeds jump well above 4"?

Despite the rash of off-target incidents, Monsanto acknowledges no grower licenses were pulled due to illegal applications of dicamba in 2016. “I was hopeful off-label use would be met by the cancellation of the technical use agreement,” Smith says. “How many technical use agreements were cancelled in 2016, even with thousands of acres damaged by dicamba? Zero.”

When the dicamba dye was cast in 2016, every farm became its own island, protected by little more than token fines. Smith remains wary of the coming crop season and fearful about new label ramifications. “Some growers think they hear the cavalry coming around the bend in 2017,” he adds, “but I’m very afraid it could be the sound of a train wreck.”

Early Adopters Put Dicamba-Tolerant Soybeans to the Test

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:16:57 GMT

Don’t try to tell Mikey Taylor forbidden fruit tastes best. Farm sins are one ill wind away from exposure, at least when transgressions involve dicamba. In the spring of 2016, Taylor ripped open a chain of sacks filled with dicamba-tolerant soybeans and punched the load into his southeast Arkansas ground. When Taylor broke the century mark, yielding over 100 bu. per acre, he did so in straight-laced fashion, in direct contrast to the dicamba debacle of 2016.

Asgrow 47X6 churned out a fine yield on a silt loam field rotated from corn for Taylor in the Arkansas Soybean Association’s Grow for the Green Contest. Producers across the United States, particularly in Arkansas, Mississippi and the Missouri Bootheel , planted large tracts of dicamba-tolerant soybeans in 2016, yet many gave in to temptation, illegally hammering stands with volatile chemicals that blistered the crops of adjoining neighbors.

Taylor drew a clear line in his dirt, a boundary of demarcation between right and wrong. He never made any oddly timed May or June purchase of dicamba, and when Palmer stormed particular fields, as he knew it inevitably would, he gritted his teeth and looked toward the next year, hopeful of a label. “The worst part of this dicamba mess is watching my friends get hammered,” Taylor says. “The farmers spraying dicamba illegally aren’t hiding it. They know we’ll find out and just don’t care.”

With EPA’s November approval of XtendiMax (essentially a new dicamba formula), an additional chemical tool is knocking on the door of the 2017 season. How might the new weed weapon affect Taylor’s soybean production?

Taylor is an early adopter, well ahead of the curve on soil fertility and management techniques.

© Chris Benentt

Taylor is an early adopter, well ahead of the curve on soil fertility and management techniques. As one of the first growers in Arkansas to use a cover-cattle rotation , he is also likely the first in the state to break 100 bu. per acre after planting into a cover crop. (The Arkansas Soybean Association reports Taylor is thought to be the first.)

“Howard Buffett believes a 1% increase in organic matter could bring a 10% increase in yield,” Taylor says. “If I can leave my kids with significantly higher organic matter through cover crops, this ground will be so much better when it’s time for them to farm.”

True no-till is Taylor’s eventual destination, and his subsoilers are gathering rust, one retired to the shop and the other sitting by the road wearing a sale sign. His contest soybeans were planted on beds, but next season he plans on 100% flats across his farm. He cuts a 5” trench on 60” centers and furrow irrigates alternate rows.

“I’ll drill through the cover and run a plow to streak it,” he says. “Next spring I’ll run the planter and run the plow again, and drop a residual behind the planter.”

He treated seed with Cruiser and planted at a 145,000 population on 30” rows April 9, punching into a cover of cereal rye, radish and black oats killed two weeks prior with Sharpen. With an odd July, Taylor got 9” of moisture spread across multiple rains in the middle of summer, and only needed to irrigate the soybeans three times.

“That was God’s blessing. Let’s be clear: I didn’t make those big yields by myself,” he says.

After pod set the stand was erect, had no lodging problems, and appeared promising to crop consultant Ed Whatley. “Mikey got planting in early and matched seed to soil,” Whatley describes. “You throw in his phenomenal fertility, timeliness and emphasis on inputs, and it was the total yield package.”

“When you fool with another man’s livelihood, terrible things happen and we’ve seen that with dicamba this year,” Taylor says.

© Chris Benentt

Just before harvest, Taylor salted the soybeans with a gallon per acre, and began cutting Sept. 15. The yields were outstanding: 101.319 bu. per acre. Considering the fine performance of the dicamba-tolerant soybeans, how much might a new label boost production?

“No question, a label would have given me better beans across the board,” Taylor says. “The very worst pigweed field I had on my farm was in dicamba beans and it was so bad we almost didn’t harvest. I’d have gotten major savings if I could have cleaned up those beans.”

In 2016, Taylor grew 435 acres of dicamba-tolerant soybeans, but plans on boosting the coverage in 2017 to 100% of his acreage. “When you fool with another man’s livelihood, terrible things happen and we’ve seen that with dicamba this year. I’m just looking forward to the legal technology next season and doing things the right way.”

EPA: Despite Stricter Rules, Thousands of Complaints of Dicamba Damage

Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:04:27 GMT

In draft risk assessments , the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that “despite the new control measures,” it received nearly 3,500 incident reports in 2021 of damage to crops that were not genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical and to “non-target plants in non-crop areas.”

EPA compiled the draft risk assessments as part of a review of the pesticide required by law every 15 years.

The agency said there was little risk to most people from exposure to dicamba, though it identified six additional instances in which workers handling the herbicide should wear a respirator along with the required outfit of long pants, a long-sleeved shirt, socks, shoes, chemical-resistant gloves, and protective eyewear.

“We believe the decision today will be protective of other farmers’ crops,” said EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler, announcing the new rules and the approval of dicamba through 2025 at a farm in Georgia.

According to the federal notice, comment submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide’s registration review.

The Agency said public comment on the documents would be accepted through Oct. 17, 2022. To share your comments, click here .

More on inputs:
3 Changes to Dicamba Label in Iowa and Minnesota
Syngenta and Atticus Settle Azoxystrobin Lawsuit
Bayer Weighs Glyphosate Alternatives

Sprayer Hose Type Can Impact Herbicide Carryover

Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:14:40 GMT

Herbicide residue has a way of hiding in hoses, some more so than others. Of the hoses tested (pictured above) at Mississippi State University, the VersiGard synthetic rubber hose showed the greatest carryover herbicide damage, while PMA 4086-08, an ethylene-centered hose, had better cleanout.

“The other hoses have microscopic breaks in the interior lining where the herbicide could sequester and rejoin the solution later,” explains Dan Reynolds, Mississippi State professor of weed science. “Farmers are especially likely to see herbicides rejoin the solution when using herbicides with good solvent and surfactant loads that tend to bring residues from tanks into the solution.”

The worst yield loss when using rubber hoses was 20%; the areas where the ethylene hose were used lost only 8%—neither had any kind of rinse or clean out in the test.

The ethylene hose can be ordered through Currytech or John Deere. And yes, they’re the most costly.

Triple Rinse to Avoid Damage

Just 0.000488 lb. of dicamba per acre can lead to a 10% yield loss in sensitive soybeans—and a half-pound rate can drop yields 97%, according the University of Arkansas. If 2,4-D hits sensitive cotton 30 days after planting, 0.025 lb. of active ingredient per acre can cause up to 100% yield loss, according to Oklahoma State University.

Cleanout is essential. Dicamba manufacturers provide guidelines:

Immediately drain the sprayer after use—don’t allow the chemical to sit overnight prior to flushing.
Flush tank, hoses, boom and nozzles with clean water. Open boom ends while flushing.
Inspect and clean strainers, screens and filters.
Mix a cleaning solution with detergent or sprayer cleaner.
Wash all parts of tank, agitate sprayer and recirculate cleaning solution for at least 15 minutes and remove visible deposits.
Flush hoses, spray lines and nozzles with cleaning solution for at least one minute.
Drain pump, filter and lines (Engenia label); repeat the above six steps two more times (XtendiMax and FeXapan labels).
Rinse complete spraying system with clean water (Engenia label); after completing above procedures remove nozzles, screens and strainers and clean separately in cleaning solution (XtendiMax and FeXapan labels).
Clean and rinse exterior of sprayer (Engenia label); dispose of rinsate as specified by laws (XtendiMax and FeXapan labels).
Dispose of all rinsate in compliance with requirements (Engenia labels); drain sump, filter and lines (XtendiMax and FeXapan labels).
Rinse the complete spraying system with clean water
(XtendiMax and FeXapan labels).

Dicamba Lawsuits Mounting

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:10:31 GMT

The dicamba lawsuit line begins with Bill Bader and his claims of extensive crop damage, but take a number because the queue is growing longer as more farmers file complaints against BASF and Monsanto.

As the first producer to file suit against Monsanto related to dicamba damage across his operation, Bader is the bell cow of drift litigation. However, farmers in at least 10 states are involved in lawsuits claiming various levels of loss and damage due to dicamba-tolerant technology and the number of suits is climbing. How the cases will play out in court remains a matter of conjecture, but one fact is clear: Dicamba-related litigation has only just begun.

A common thread in the dicamba-related lawsuits relates to the allegation that newer formulations of dicamba are incapable of being routinely and safely applied to cotton and soybeans, says Todd Janzen, Janzen Agricultural Law LLC , in Indianapolis, Ind. “Unlike a traditional product liability suit, the legal hurdle for the farmers in these cases is they didn’t buy the dicamba and apply it to their own fields. In most cases, they have no contractual relationship with Monsanto or BASF. Instead, they allege they were victims of Monsanto and BASF placing a pesticide on the market that is unsafe,” Janzen notes.

As fallout over drift damage continues through the 2017 harvest, more suits are surfacing in multiple states.

© Chris Benentt

As an illustration, Janzen cites product liability suits against car manufacturers that sell defective brakes: “If you purchased the car and the brakes failed, you have a good product liability suit against the car manufacturer. But, if as a result of the defect, you also injure a pedestrian, does the pedestrian have a claim against the car manufacturer? I don’t think that is a stretch, especially if the car manufacturer had some reason to know the brakes were defective.”

Bader Farms

In 2015, after Monsanto rolled out its dicamba-resistant Xtend crop system in an initial cotton-only debut, Bader’s orchards in Campbell, Mo., were severely damaged by off-target movement. A lawsuit ( Bader Farms, Inc., et al v. Monsanto Company ) filed by Randles & Splittgerber on behalf of Bader in November 2016, alleges $1.5 million in dicamba damage across 7,000 affected peach trees.

Bader’s 2016 damage estimates are even more alarming: 30,000 trees and a multi-million dollar financial hit. Bader’s suit claims when Monsanto released the Xtend system prior to an EPA label, the company was fully aware the technology would be abused. Bader’s attorneys have submitted an amended complaint to include BASF as a defendant and broadened the allegations to include Bader’s damages in 2017 and beyond.

Attorney Bev Randles says Monsanto knew the Xtend system would cause significant drift problems even before 2015: “As we get into discovery, we’ll be able to push back the date of Monsanto’s knowledge about dicamba abuse and damage.”

“Bill Bader tried to get Monsanto to do the right thing, but they pushed him off and told him they didn’t have the resources to send someone to look at his farm in southeast Missouri. They also said they were recording his conversations and refused to do anything,” Randles notes.

Scott Partridge, vice president of Global Strategy for Monsanto, says Bader’s accusations have no merit. “In Bader’s case, the product that caused him damage wasn’t Xtendimax with VaporGrip technology, it was someone else’s herbicide. The product that was applied and moved, according to Bader, belonged to someone else.”

Landers Plus Nine

In late January 2017, a second dicamba suit (Steven W. Landers, et al. v. Monsanto Company) was filed against Monsanto, again by Randles & Splittgerber, spearheaded by Missouri producers Steven and Dee Landers, but including farmers from nine other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Echoing the Bader suit, the Landers’ claims center on Monsanto’s release of Xtend technology prior to labeling. The Landers suit will be amended to include BASF, according to Randles.

“This involves producers in 10 total states who have suffered dicamba damage on everything from row crops to specialty crops,” Randles explains.

“We absolutely did not release dicamba before we had a label in place,” Partridge says.

Bruce Farms

Originating in Arkansas, a state in the epicenter of dicamba controversy, a third case was filed in July 2017 ( Bruce Farms Partnership, et al. v. Monsanto Company, BASF SE, BASF Corporation ), targeting Monsanto and BASF. Six east Arkansas farming operations repeat many of the claims made in the Missouri-based suits, but with a highly significant addition: Dicamba can’t be applied safely during in-season agriculture use, period.

As stated in Section 230 of the filing: “… dicamba-containing products cannot be applied with reasonable safety in agricultural areas using any typical or reasonably practical application techniques and conditions of use limitations. Given the well-recognized nature and patterns of cultivation in these (and other) regions, the proximity of other non-Xtend crops and plants, and the foreseeable weather patterns and timing of likely application, damage to nontarget crops and plants was inevitable and known to Defendants.”

“The evidence we have on hand is Monsanto’s public pronouncement that new dicamba formulations would be safe and less volatile,” says attorney Paul Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm. “This hasn’t been borne out in everyone’s field experiences. How could Monsanto not know? How did they test and where did they test?”

Robert Goodson, Phillips County Extension Agent with the University of Arkansas, examines dicamba-damaged soybean leaves.

© Chris Benentt

“The great irony here for farmers is the increase in dicamba-tolerant acreage,” Byrd adds. “More damage means a greater increase in dicamba-tolerant crops. I’ve got clients that bought this technology under duress just to protect themselves.”

Partridge says Monsanto has recorded “wonderful results” for almost 99% of Xtendimax applications in 2017. According to Partridge, Monsanto has investigated over 1,000 cases of off-target movement reported directly by growers or applicators: “They told us that across the farm belt, the label wasn’t followed correctly in 77% of instances with off-target movement. In Iowa, for example, 90% of the instances involving off-target dicamba movement, as reported to us by those who applied it, had a primary cause of improper buffer, wrong nozzles or wrong boom height. Again, 99% of our customers had no off-target movement and 77% of those cases with off-target movement were a function of not following the label.”

The Bruce suit accuses Monsanto and BASF of a “scheme and overall conspiracy to control the dicamba crop system while concealing, omitting and suppressing material facts of the dangers of its product to Plaintiffs, resulted in harm, which Defendants knew would result to the unsafe, dangerous and volatile nature inherent with its product.”

BASF officials say the charge is baseless: “We deny that BASF has in anyway conspired with Monsanto or anyone else. BASF has more than 50 years of technical experience with dicamba, and Engenia herbicide was brought to the market after years of research, farm trials and reviews by universities and regulatory authorities.”

Smokey Alley

On the heels of Arkansas’ Bruce lawsuit, another class action was filed on behalf of a group of farmers on July 19, 2017, once again in Missouri ( Smokey Alley Farm Partnership et al. v. Monsanto Company et al. ). The suit claims BASF, Dupont and Monsanto are involved in anti-trust activity through the widespread introduction of new dicamba technology and products, essentially forcing farmers to plant dicamba-tolerant acreage as a means of protection. (The suit also includes claims of drift damage.)

Attorney Paul Lesko says new dicamba formulations do not work as claimed by BASF and Monsanto: “We’re bringing claims of product liability because farmers are in a quandary. They want to plant seeds of their choice, but due to damage potential, have to consider buying dicamba-tolerant soybeans from a defensive position.”

“We also have anti-trust issues. As discovery is ongoing, we believe the evidence will show Monsanto and BASF knew more dicamba damage would lead to increased sales,” he adds.

“We don’t read the complaint as asserting antitrust claims against BASF and we deny that BASF has in any way conspired with Monsanto or anyone else to violate anti-trust laws,” responds a BASF official.

“We don’t violate laws and any suggestion of a conspiracy is ridiculous,” Partridge emphasizes.

B&L Farms

A day after the Smokey Alley suit, 14 east Arkansas producers filed a class action suit against Monsanto and BASF on July 20: B&L Farms Partnership et al v. Monsanto Company et al . The B&L suit contains a litany of charges related to irresponsible marketing, product liability, breach of implied warranty, deceptive trade practices and more allegations.

Fallout

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet , an Extension agricultural law specialist at Texas A&M University, says whichever case wraps up first could set precedent for the rest of the pack. “Even if the first case to conclude doesn’t set binding precedent, it could still serve as persuasive authority. The remaining cases will likely pivot according to the initial outcome,” she explains.

Lashmet also says the bulk of the suits could be dropped into one court for discovery purposes and potentially for bellwether trials if class certification is granted, in the same manner recent lawsuits against Syngenta (related to commercialization of Viptera and Duricade corn) were consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL).

“There’s no way to predict the outcome of these dicamba cases, particularly with so many jurisdictions and varying state laws in play. I don’t see any settlements coming soon, but if the plaintiffs found success early, then we could see settlements in other cases down the road,” Lashmet adds.

As the fallout over drift damage continues through the 2017 harvest, more suits are surfacing in multiple states. “People are waiting to see how things develop,” Byrd concludes. “When harvest is over, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more legal complaints over yield loss.”

Emergency Dicamba Ban Nears

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:10:02 GMT

After a disastrous dicamba year in 2016, which saw hundreds of thousands of acres of U.S. farmland affected by off-target movement, 2017 was touted as a year of labels and precision application. However, early reports of dicamba drift pouring in across Arkansas and Mississippi make the echoes of 2016 difficult to ignore.

Reacting to the current number of alleged dicamba misuse complaints, Arkansas’ Pesticide Committee, a special committee of the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB), passed a motion June 16 to recommend adoption of an emergency regulation to immediately ban in-crop dicamba product use at a scheduled meeting on June 20. If passed by the full ASPB, the measure will need approval from Gov. Hutchinson, according to Adriane Barnes, communications director for the Arkansas Agriculture Department ( AAD ).

As of June 20, the AAD had received 135 dicamba misuse complaints across 17 counties. (Arkansas already banned Monsanto’s Xtendimax dicamba formulations on Jan. 4, 2017, but gave a green light to BASF’s Engenia product line.) “Our plant board is very busy right now and they are getting many field reports and working a lot of extra hours to handle a higher than normal volume of calls,” says Barnes.

For more detail, see Dicamba Drift Blowing Farm Trouble Again in 2017

Dicamba Ban Hangs in Limbo

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:10:02 GMT

On the doorstep of an immediate in-crop use dicamba ban, the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) appeared to vote down an emergency rule motion proposed by the state Pesticide Committee (a special committee of the ASPB). However, questions over voting tallies at the June 20 meeting negated the vote and placed the dicamba issue back in question.

Despite eight ASPB members voting for the ban and six ASPB members voting against the ban, uncertainty ruled the day when a requirement of nine yea votes in favor of the dicamba ban was assumed. The proposed ban seemed to be a single vote short, yet the entire proceeding is now in limbo. “Due to a procedural error, the vote to consider a ban on in-crop use of dicamba by the Arkansas State Plant Board will be re-voted on at a later time. The ASPB is working to schedule a special called board meeting as soon as possible,” says Adriane Barnes, communications director for the Arkansas Agriculture Department.

Essentially, the ASPB will re-vote. Against a backdrop of divided growers, heavy drift in 2016 and a flurry of current complaints in 2017, Arkansas has arguably become dicamba’s bellwether state.

With ASPB approval, the motion detailing a dicamba ban would have awaited the signature of Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Arkansas already banned Monsanto’s Xtendimax dicamba formulations on Jan. 4, 2017, but gave a green light to BASF’s Engenia product line for the 2017 crop season. As of June 21, the Arkansas Agriculture Department (AAD) had received 207 dicamba misuse complaints across 19 counties.

For more detail, see Dicamba Drift Blowing Farm Trouble Again in 2017

Dicamba Ban Passes, Heads to Gov.'s Desk

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:10:02 GMT

A rollercoaster dicamba ride passed a major benchmark on Friday, as the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) voted to recommend an emergency dicamba ban. The recommendation applies to Engenia products for the remainder of the 2017 crop season. (Xtendimax dicamba technology was already banned in Arkansas in January 2017.)

After an 8-6 vote in favor of a dicamba ban was negated by procedural error on June 20, the ASPB upheld the original 8-6 vote in favor of a 120-day emergency order requiring the cessation of in-crop dicamba use. As of June 28, the Arkansas Agriculture Department (AAD) had received 420 dicamba misuse complaints spread across 20 counties.

The path to a dicamba ban (with rangeland and pasture exemptions) next requires the signature of Gov. Asa Hutchinson. If Hutchinson signs the recommendation, the proposed ban then travels to the Executive Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council for another vote. Boiled down, a dicamba ban in Arkansas will require a green light from Hutchinson and the council subcommittee. Hutchinson and the council subcommittee are expected to act within days.

The dicamba controversy has produced howls of protest from all players involved and triggered a wide spectrum of grower response. On both sides of the issue, Arkansas growers are forced to walk a high-wire in a farming atmosphere fraught with fears, threats and entrenched opinions.

In opposition to a ban, Woodruff County producer Perry Galloway says dicamba technology is desperately needed across Arkansas agriculture.

“I’m opposed to any kind of ban because this dicamba technology works, even though there certainly are issues to be resolved. I believe it’s no different than when glyphosate-tolerant crops entered the market or when Quinclorac became available for grass control in rice. Those technologies once made our fields cleaner than they’d been in years.”

Galloway is clear that Palmer amaranth has flipped the weed equation on its head: “We have run out of options due to pigweed. On top of that, PPO resistance is for real and is spreading to other states. How can we ban a tool to fight our biggest problems?”

He also warns that a return to the disaster of 2016 is a possibility. “"I estimate that in 2018, 70% to 80% of seed available for planting will contain the Xtend technology. If seed is available without the proper dicamba products to apply, I’m worried many farmers will turn to other chemical markets for less safe formulations out of desperation,” he explains. “This would a repeat of the same huge dicamba drift scenario we saw in 2016.”

Regarding the possibility of additional application restrictions requiring hooded sprayers and a 1-mile downwind buffer, Galloway says such restrictions are a “kneejerk” reaction: “Every farmer who does not have a hooded sprayer will have to spend potentially $18,000 to $20,000 for a sprayer if he can maintain the buffer zone. The comments I’ve heard on this measure center around treating ‘dicamba and soybeans’ like ‘2,4-D and cotton.’ There is a lot more to 2,4-D/cotton restrictions than a 1 mile buffer zone. I feel this needs to be readdressed if this is the direction the plant board would like to go because it’s a kneejerk reaction.”

(Additional hooded sprayer restrictions were rescinded at the June 23 meeting.)

“There is a lot of anxiety about this dicamba ban in agriculture because ultimately the finances for farmers and farm-related businesses are at stake,” Galloway concludes.

In support of a dicamba ban, Phillips County producer Reed Storey, alongside his father, Curtis, has dealt with dicamba drift in successive years. “After a deliberate illegal application of dicamba did 400-600 acres worth of damage on our farms in 2016, my daddy and I planted Xtend beans where we felt like there would be a problem of dicamba drift from Engenia applications in 2017, otherwise we wouldn’t have planted the first Xtend seed,” Reed explains.

Curtis’ 2017 soybean acreage is 90% Xtend; Reed’s 2017 soybean acreage is 48% Xtend. “The remainder of our bean mix was Roundup Ready. It turns out we should have planted 100% of our bean crop in Xtend because of some sort of dicamba drift hit us again,” Reed says. “About 52% or 180 acres of my daddy’s Roundup beans have dicamba symptomology and 72% or 320 acres of my Roundup beans have damage.”

“While I am certain 50 acres were ‘egregious’, I am not certain the remaining acres were from a deliberate off-label application,” Reed continues. “Where we planted our non-Xtend beans, we have some of the best neighbors in the farming community which is why we chose those locations and we have never had a drift issue.”

“I understand the need for new ‘tools’, but this tool will only work if every farmer plants Xtend beans,” Reed warns. “It is my opinion that if any product has to have perfect conditions to apply, then it shouldn’t be labeled for in-crop use. I am for banning the sale and use of any dicamba product for in-crop use until a formula that is less likely to move is available.”

With a haze of colliding factors swirling over drift, inversion, volatility, labels, management, Engenia, Xtend, 2018, surrounding states, and culpability, only one outcome remains clear: No winners will rise from either side of the dicamba chaos.

For more detail, see Dicamba Drift Blowing Farm Trouble Again in 2017

Dicamba Drift Blowing Farm Trouble Again in 2017

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:10:02 GMT

Easing alongside his farmland on the afternoon of June 7, Charles Johnson slammed his brakes and jolted his truck into park when he saw the dicamba cobra heads. Even from his cab and across the turn row, he could see the telltale hooded cupping of stretched soybean leaves indicative of dicamba presence. Johnson was surrounded by the aftereffects of off-target movement: “I’ve got roughly 500 acres of dicamba damage, but I’m not alone by any means. This is popping up everywhere. Everywhere.”

After a disastrous 2016, which saw hundreds of thousands of acres of U.S. farmland affected by off-target dicamba movement, 2017 was touted as a year of labels, best management and spot-on application. Yet, early reports of dicamba drift pouring in across Arkansas and Mississippi starting in May and continuing through mid-June make the echoes of 2016 difficult to ignore.

Despite an absence of concrete data on affected acreage, the concerns of producers and weed scientists are mounting. Pared down, the damage is alarming and there are plenty of passes left in the spray season. Reacting to the current number of alleged dicamba misuse complaints, Arkansas’ Pesticide Committee, a special committee of the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB), passed a motion June 16 to recommend adoption of an emergency regulation to immediately ban in-crop dicamba product use at a scheduled meeting on June 20. If passed by the full ASPB, the measure will need approval from Gov. Hutchinson, according to Adriane Barnes, communications director for the Arkansas Agriculture Department ( AAD ).

One County, 20,000 Acres

Tom Barber waded through a sea of soybean fields hammered by dicamba incidents in 2016, and the University of Arkansas (UA) weed scientist shouldered heavy off-target concerns prior to 2017. “I’ve had numerous calls over the last two weeks and the volume of incidents has already surpassed 2016,” he says. “However, we’ve got millions of acres to spray this year and that has something to do with it. Most producers are trying their best to be careful, but soybeans are incredibly sensitive and it doesn’t take much to cup the leaves.”

As of June 28, the Arkansas Agriculture Department (AAD) had received 420 dicamba misuse complaints across 19 counties. (Arkansas banned Monsanto’s Xtendimax dicamba formulations for the 2017 crop year, but gave a green light to BASF’s Engenia product line.) “Our plant board is very busy right now and they are getting many field reports and working a lot of extra hours to handle a higher than normal volume of calls, says Barnes.

Early reports of dicamba damage pouring in across Arkansas and Mississippi starting in May and continuing through mid-June make the echoes of 2016 difficult to ignore.

© Chris Benentt

Phillips County rubs against the Mississippi River in eastern Arkansas and is an early season epicenter of off-target dicamba movement, evidenced by 20,000 acres hit with drift or volatility, according to Robert Goodson , UA Extension agent. Goodson’ cell phone has rung with calls from worried growers since May, and the pace of reports has quickened. (Phillips County farmland affected by off-target dicamba movement in 2016 tallied roughly 2,000 acres for the entire crop year.)

The affected ground in Phillips County ranges from 40-acre plots to a 2,000-acre expanse blanketing four separate farming operations. Ominously, Goodson insists many of the countywide drift incidents involve applications with strict adherence to label specifications: spraying done right. “Some guys are doing it absolutely right by the label and management and still ending up with dicamba on a neighbor’s crops through volatility,” he says.

Widening Footprint

Across the river from Phillips County, Johnson farms in Lula, Miss., and believes inversion was the dicamba vehicle of delivery on his acreage. Johnson says the application source was relatively distant. “The dicamba must have gotten up and moved. The guy who sprayed left a good buffer of three-quarters of a mile in one spot and 1.5 miles in another spot,” Johnson explains. “I’m not against the technology because I’ve seen how it knocks out pigweed. Next year, I may have to go with a dicamba-tolerant soybean.”

Regarding yield issues, Johnson is forced to play a guessing game because most of his affected acres were in the reproductive stage and subject to significant yield loss. (120 acres were newly planted and not highly susceptible to yield loss.) “I don’t know what’s going to happen because I don’t know the rate that got on my beans. Yield loss is coming, but I don’t know how much,” he explains.

As of June 6, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce is investigating 26 complaints of suspected off-target movement of dicamba, compared with 13 cases in 2016, according to Paige Manning, director of marketing and public relations for the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce.

In 2016, Mississippi escaped the intensity of off-target dicamba movement that occurred in Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee. However, Jason Bond , a weed scientist with Mississippi State University, has been fielding calls regarding dicamba issues in 2017 since late May, and he has recorded drift and volatility on a broad scale. (In 2016, he didn’t see any significant injury from dicamba in Mississippi until June 29.)

“Some guys are doing it absolutely right by label and management and still ending up with dicamba on a neighbor’s crops through volatility,” Goodson says.

© Chris Benentt

The Mississippi Delta is a mix of Xtend and Engenia technologies (cotton and soybeans) in the heart of the Palmer amaranth war. Bond says affected acreage is adding up quickly as the scale grows: “We know Arkansas has 20,000-plus acres hit in one county. It’s likely a couple of Mississippi counties have affected acres in that same ballpark, and we’ve had whole farms hit. With affected acres on that scale, this is a really big deal.”

Bond has seen examples of straight line drift, but he’s also noted instances of injury due to movement during times conducive for temperature inversions. In particular, one 120-acre field in the central Delta was bordered by trees on all four sides, yet was entirely blanketed with dicamba damage. “The only way it could get there was from straight up,” he explains. “With that pattern, it is likely a temperature inversion was responsible for the off-target movement.”

Bond is increasingly frustrated due to correct procedures followed in many of the errant applications. He acknowledges there are likely some illegal applications of dicamba in 2017, but says he’s recording damage in cases where all rules and regulations were followed. “Some of it is bizarre. There are growers who managed applications entirely by the book and still hurt a neighbor’s soybeans,” Bond notes.

“Sometimes I can’t offer a grower any explanation. I’m seeing growers who wanted to do it right and so they followed every line of the label. It still got away from them,” he says.

Shoulder to shoulder with Bond, Mississippi State University rice specialist and soil fertility agronomist Bobby Golden has walked dicamba-damaged Delta fields this year. From Yazoo City to Tunica to the bluff hills at Greenwood, Golden says the off-target incidents are numerous: “I’ve never been involved with anything of this scale. From physical drift to inversion, dicamba-injured soybeans are showing up in so many places.”

In agreement with Bond, Golden says many growers are making applications correctly, yet off-target incidents are occurring. “There’s always a learning curve with a new technology, but in a lot of these cases, there was nothing a farmer could have done differently,” he says. “From talking with producers, the application was on the money, but it went off the crop.”

“What’s really scary, considering soybean sensitivity to dicamba? If you’re the guy making an application properly and your neighbor still gets drifted on, I’m not even certain it was from you. It could have been another farmer down the road that wasn’t following procedure,” Golden explains.

Safety in Mizzou, Tennessee?

Despite widespread damage in 2016, Missouri has fared well so far this crop season. However, Kevin Bradley , a University of Missouri weed scientist, is withholding judgement and remains cautious because Arkansas and Mississippi are weeks ahead in crop stage. In 2016, Bradley’s first dicamba-related call didn’t come until June 22, and it triggered a daily flood of calls that didn’t stop until the end of July.

“Right now I’m just glad we’re not winning the dicamba race this year,” he says. “We don’t have the problem yet that I’m hearing about in neighboring states. It’s just too early to be certain about anything.”

Larry Steckel , a weed scientist with the University of Tennessee, says the Tennessee Department of Agriculture has only received a handful of dicamba-related complaints in 2017. “Growers are working hard to spray the right way. Things may blow up, but I haven’t seen anything significant yet,” he says. “I’ve only gotten a few phone calls so far, but last year they just started rolling in all at once.”

In 2016, Steckel was swamped with dicamba calls that began the last 10 days of June. The related incidents kept him in fields recording off-target acreage damage for the next five weeks. “I looked at 30,000 acres of drift myself last year,” he says. “Certainly, hearing what’s going on in the states below makes me worried.”

Bag of Unknowns?

Back in Mississippi, Golden’s phone rings as he heads to another farm to survey more dicamba damage: “Right now nobody knows exactly what is going on and we aren’t able yet to follow the clues with most cases all presenting different ones,” he says. “However, we do know one thing for sure: There is a lot of dicamba ending up in places it shouldn’t be.”

“This is all a big bag of unknowns,” Johnson echoes. “All I know is you wake up and go out to a field and there it is: Dicamba is on your beans.”

Dicamba Drift Reports Rise in Tennessee

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:10:02 GMT

As of June 26, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) is investigating 27 alleged dicamba-related drift incidents. The number of current Tennessee reports doesn’t bode well for the remainder of the 2017 crop season, particularly when looking a year backward: By June 26, 2016, the TDA had received only three cases of dicamba-related drift.

Tennessee’s off-target dicamba numbers appear relatively mild compared to its southwest/west neighbor. Arkansas reported 420 possible incidents as of June 28, and a proposed blanket emergency dicamba ban currently sits on Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s desk. However, Tennessee is typically slower out of the planting gate and seasonal progression (spray passes) tends to follow a later calendar schedule.

According to Corinne Gould, assistant commissioner for public affairs for TDA, 27 producers in eight West Tennessee counties have filed complaints with TDA regarding possible pesticide drift incidents: Crockett, Dyer, Shelby, Haywood, Lake, Lauderdale, Tipton and Weakley. In 2016, TDA began receiving complaints the third week of June and the reports continued through August.

University of Tennessee weed scientist Larry Steckel is alarmed by the increase of reports and says dicamba drift reports have been the majority source of his phone calls over the past week: “We had 47 official complaints in 2016, and I think we’re going to pass that easily at the rate we’re going. It’s simply not looking good right now.”

Steckel remains unsure whether the increased rate of off-target incidents is a long-term trend or an anomalous spike. “There are some great county agents out there fielding a lot of these calls which in some cases involve farmers who already have some sore feelings against each other,” he notes. “We don’t know how things will turn out as the season unfolds.”

“Our department is placing high priority on investigation of incidents of dicamba drift, including reaching out to private applicators and distributors to remind them of laws and requirements, as well as the companies that manufacture the products. We are also prepared to devote additional resources if necessary,” Gould adds.

For more, see Dicamba Ban Passes, Heads to Gov.’s Desk

First Signs of Dicamba Resistance?

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:09:32 GMT

Greenhouse and field trials have Arkansas weed scientists looking for answers

It only takes three generations for a demon seed to produce a flower of fire. In a greenhouse setting in 2015, Palmer amaranth developed full-blown dicamba resistance. As the herbicide dominoes fall, weed resistance is forever around the corner and strong management requires multiple effective modes of action.

Jason Norsworthy transferred virgin Palmer from a soybean field to a greenhouse and sprayed the first two generations with dicamba at sublethal doses. After he selected the survivors and grew them out, the third generation was resistant to a full label rate of dicamba (0.5 lb. acid equivalent per acre). Even though this resistance was recorded in an artificial environment, the research confirms herbicide resistance can develop in just three years if the same weed population is exposed to sublethal chemical doses.

Norsworthy, an Extension weed scientist with the University of Arkansas, ensured a timely application by spraying a low dose of dicamba on 1.5" to 2" Palmer that provided good but partial control on the first generation. (It killed most of the plants.) The experiment mirrored potential coverage or calibration issues often encountered in the field. The Palmer survivors crossed and produced seed. Norsworthy slightly increased the dicamba dosage for the second generation and once again killed most of the Palmer after a spray application.

The process was repeated once more for the third generation of Palmer, except the application rate was boosted to the commercially labeled field rate. This time a quarter of the plants survived the full dicamba rate.

“Under greenhouse conditions, we shifted the tolerance of pigweed to dicamba about three-fold in only three generations,” Norsworthy says.

The speedy development of resistance isn’t unique to dicamba and can be demonstrated in other herbicides, including 2,4-D. (In 2010, Norsworthy showed basically the same results with glyphosate and Palmer.) However, the third-generation dicamba findings are particularly relevant considering current tank mix and buffer prohibitions on XtendiMax, Engenia and FeXapan.

Dicamba-tolerant crop systems bring a unique resistance dynamic to farmland. After weighing multiple factors, many producers are shifting entire farms to dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton. Questions over boom cleaning, separate spray rigs, drift concerns and overall efficiency boil down to money and time. With a farmer possibly facing thousands of acres in need of attention in a tight window, speed and efficiency become paramount. The bare truth: Monoculture is far simpler.

However, simplicity plays into the waiting hands of weed resistance. Smoking fields with glyphosate was once the ultimate in efficiency, but all silver bullets lose their sheen. Economics and practicality work against weed resistance management.

Norsworthy and weed science colleagues Bob Scott and Tom Barber have trials across Arkansas, and recent results from soybean fields in the northeast part of the state raise questions. Norsworthy and Barber note reduced dicamba efficacy on PPO-resistant Palmer. Generally, dicamba is highly effective against 3" to 4"-tall Palmer, but the PPO-resistant populations are showing a lower level of control. “We’re not saying we have dicamba-resistant pigweed in these fields. We don’t fully understand what we’re seeing and are investigating the data,” Norsworthy says.

Barber was surprised by the diminished level of Palmer control in Marion (Crittenden County), but he hasn’t seen the same results in his research in nearby Marianna and Newport (Lee and Jackson counties), where dicamba efficiency remains strong. However, Marianna and Newport don’t have documented PPO-resistant Palmer.

“We’re not saying this is dicamba resistance in northeast Arkansas, but what we’re seeing is a decrease in overall efficacy of dicamba,” Barber says.

In Marion, the dicamba is affecting Palmer and causing injury, but the plants are able to recover, even after repeat applications. “If we get two years of data saying the same thing, it’ll be an issue of worry,” Barber says.

At the Marion plots in 2016, Barber tested Roundup Ready, LibertyLink and Xtend soybeans. He looked at 27 pre-emergent options to determine the best at-planting combination to control PPO-resistant Palmer. (If plants are PPO resistant, Valor is out of the running.) After each pre-emergent combination, the research team came back 28 days later and sprayed Roundup with Flexstar in the Roundup Ready system, Liberty in the LibertyLink system and dicamba in the Xtend system.

The Roundup Ready system offered minimal control with Palmer already resistant to glyphosate and PPOs. The LibertyLink system was fairly clean after two applications. However, after two dicamba applications, the Xtend system was less effective than the LibertyLink system.

Field research by weed scientists in Arkansas found reduced dicamba efficacy on PPO-resistant Palmer.

I-40 essentially splits Arkansas east to west and serves as the Mason-Dixon of PPO-resistance for weed scientists. Palmer growing north of I-40 has a 50% chance of PPO-resistance, and Barber believes the percentage is set to rise. The northeast Arkansas corridor is a hotbed of PPO-resistance, and if more fields respond to dicamba in the same manner observed in Crittenden County, Barber fears it will translate to more herbicide applications and more potential for off-target movement.

In the general area of PPO resistance (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee), a solid weed control program relies on two pre-emergent residuals to tackle PPO resistant Palmer. Barber recorded optimal results from combinations of Metribuzin and Zidua, or Metribuzin and Dual Magnum.

“Those are our recommendations in 2017. If we’re not robust at planting with pre-emerge herbicides, whether in the Xtend or Liberty system, we’ll be behind the eight ball once pigweeds start to break,” Barber says.

Scott confirms the robust nature of PPO-resistant Palmer in northeast Arkansas and says dicamba, Liberty and 2,4-D choline weren’t entirely effective at three farm trial sites this past year. Yet, at Scott’s research farm in nearby Newport, where Palmer is merely glyphosate-resistant and ALS-resistant, the same chemicals were highly effective.

“I think there will be surprises waiting if growers only use dicamba to kill pigweed in 2017,” he adds.

The absolute necessity of multiple modes of chemical action is very important in 2017, Norsworthy adds. “Choosing two effective modes of action is required, and I emphasize ‘effective.’ Otherwise, a grower is simply not doing enough to mitigate the risks of resistance and the weeds will get worse,” he says.

With an increasingly hostile roster of resistant weeds, crops are under constant waves of assault that necessitate a diversified response. The days of polite recommendations to mix modes of action have given way to outright demand: Multiple, effective modes of chemistry are a farming absolute.

Dicamba Questions Cloud Horizon

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:09:32 GMT

Are new labels and old troubles set to clash in 2017?

A dicamba cloud rolled across U.S. agriculture in 2016 and turned the crop season into a high-stakes waiting game as producers wondered whose soybean crop would cup and when more symptoms would appear. Illegal use of dicamba in 2016 begs the question: With Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeling approvals on new dicamba formulations, how might the off-target scenario play out in 2017?

In April and May of 2016, as producers drove away from supply stores hauling totes of dicamba, no laws were broken. Oddly-timed purchases got tongues wagging, but were not illegal. By the end of June 2016, the dicamba volatility and drift incident rate was too fast to track.

The epicenter was in Arkansas and Missouri, but complaints were lodged from North Carolina to Texas to Minnesota. As harvest progressed, a tense farming atmosphere heavy with off-target fallout, ag meetings and threats of legal action was punctuated with the October death of Arkansas producer Mike Wallace in a dicamba related-shooting. Less than a month later, on Nov. 23, Missouri producer Bill Bader filed a multi-million-dollar suit against Monsanto, seeking compensation for peach orchard damage caused by dicamba in 2015 and 2016. In the midst of it all, on Nov. 9, Monsanto announced EPA approval of XtendiMax, a dicamba herbicide, for the 2017 crop season.

The tangled web grew even tighter in December as Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson began wrestling with a glaring question: Accept the Arkansas State Plant Board’s (ASPB) unanimous recommendation and place restrictions on dicamba use or punch the green light of approval? The end of 2016’s long legal chain arrived Dec. 21, when BASF announced EPA approval of Engenia herbicide, another new dicamba-based formulation. Hutchinson’s verdict came Jan. 4, 2017, essentially blocking the use of XtendiMax in Arkansas (see “The Details of the Arkansas Verdict” below).

Volatility and Drift Top Weed Control Concerns

The 2016 off-target dicamba epicenter was in the Mid-South, but farmers recorded incidents in a wide belt of states, including damage in Indiana.

Despite the off-target troubles of 2016, Ty Witten, North America Crop Protection Systems lead for Monsanto, says XtendiMax will keep drift incidents at a minimum: “If a grower follows the label, goes through appropriate training and revisits what’s important for off-target applications, they’re going to have great success in 2017,” he says.

EPA is in the process of adding tank mix extensions, according to Witten, but he’s unsure if multiple modes of action will be legally permissible prior to the 2017 planting season.

Regarding the ramifications of Hutchinson’s decision, Witten is disappointed with what he describes as a “denial of grower choice,” but says Monsanto recognizes state authority and best management practices. “We don’t know how other states will react, but we’ve provided strong data for our registration. This is a product with multiple years of testing by third parties and evaluation from federal agencies.”

Old or new, all dicamba is dicamba. The difference centers on volatility factors, Barber says. XtendiMax is essentially the same make-up as Clarity, he explains. The difference? XtendiMax has VaporGrip technology to reduce volatility. Barber and other Extension personnel haven’t had the opportunity to test XtendiMax for reduction of volatility. Monsanto allowed land-grant universities to test XtendiMax weed control efficacy but not volatility.

BASF’s Engenia is a new dicamba salt with inherently less volatility. The University of Arkansas was given access to Engenia to test volatility for three years. The volatility reduction in Engenia is indeed a big improvement compared with Clarity, and an even greater improvement over Banvel, according to Barber.

He says the dicamba debacle in 2016 pulled down morale in the Mid-South to the lowest point of his career: “When Mike Wallace got killed, we all had to step back. Last year, money was tight with commodities tanking and feelings were on edge, but that dynamic doesn’t appear to be changing. I dread 2017 more than I’ve ever dreaded any season,” Barber says.

Even with major improvements in volatility, application diligence is paramount. “Boom height, wind, surrounding fields and more variables stay in play. Even with chemical improvements, I don’t know what will happen in 2017,” he adds. “That’s the problem; no one else knows either.”

Jason Norsworthy, also an Extension weed scientist with UA, echoes Barber’s concerns. “The dicamba situation was bad in 2015 and worse in 2016. Lots of people are worried about a big dicamba collision in 2017,” Norsworthy says.

The labels for XtendiMax and Engenia don’t allow for tank mixes, a major resistance red flag for Norsworthy. When a sprayer rolls across a field with the boom releasing dicamba and no other chemical partner, the scenario is ripe for herbicide resistance. “Weed control requires multiple effective modes of action. The sole use of any chemical, regardless of its potency, leaves the gate wide open for resistance development,” he says.

In greenhouse testing during 2014 and 2015, Norsworthy exposed three consecutive generations of Palmer amaranth to sub-lethal doses of dicamba. By the third generation, the Palmer was resistant to a full-blown, commercially labeled dicamba rate. “Resistance is always waiting for a window, and it doesn’t care what chemical a farmer sprays,” he says.

Soybeans hit by dicamba during reproductive stages (particularly R3, R4 and R5) basically ingest and hold the chemical in the seed sink. The following year, those same seeds will fail to germinate or suffer reduced vigor. Essentially, the debilitating potency of dicamba is passed to the next generation. “If a producer getting a seed premium gets a drift event, his quality is finished,” Norsworthy says.

Right or wrong, as 2017 unfolds, Arkansas is the unenviable bell cow of dicamba policy. In addition to dicamba use restrictions, ASPB proposed increasing the maximum $1,000 civil penalty cap to $25,000, to be applied in “egregious” use cases. “My personal definition of egregious use is deliberately and knowingly applying a pesticide in an unlabeled manner that injures your neighbor’s crop, but it will be up to the entire board to decide on the definition,” explains Otis Howe, chairman of ASPB.

If the Arkansas legislature approves the $25,000 penalty, the proposal would go back to ASPB for committee work to define the penalty matrix. If the full ASPB board approves the committee work, the proposed penalty guidelines would be subject to public comment for 30 days, and then shift back to ASPB, eventually subject to gubernatorial and legislative council approvals. I appreciate the governor for his support of the plant board,” Howe says, “but getting a bigger monetary penalty in place for 2017 has to go through the whole legislature, and I’m not sure how long it may take.”

Monsanto and BASF place heavy emphasis for success in 2017 on grower education and instruction. Monsanto has given XtendiMax application training courses to more than 8,000 producers and industry professionals. BASF has trained 13,000 farmers and applicators since 2012, according to Chad Asmus, BASF technical marketing manager. “Engenia’s innovative formulation and our continuous opportunities to educate growers and applicators on stewardship will help to minimize drift issues,” he says.

Monsanto expects 15 million soybean acres and 3 million cotton acres for the Xtend crop system in 2017. BASF projects 10 to 15 million crop acres in the Engenia crop system. The herbicide genie is out of the bottle and whether viewed with dread or hope, all eyes are fixed on dicamba in 2017.

To access the full XtendiMax and Engenia labels, including management recommendations for mixing, spray drift, wind speed, temperature and more, visit www.FarmJournal.com/dicamba

The Details of the Arkansas Verdict

One Man’s View: We’re Headed for Trouble

What Will Dicamba Tolerance Mean?

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:09:32 GMT

Mikey Taylor cracks 100-bu. soybeans, while waiting for label approval

Don’t try to tell Mikey Taylor forbidden fruit tastes best. Herbicide sins are one ill wind away from exposure, at least when transgressions involve dicamba. In the spring of 2016, Taylor ripped open sacks filled with dicamba-tolerant soybeans and punched the load into his southeast Arkansas ground. When Taylor broke the 100-bu.-per-acre mark, he did so in straight-laced fashion, in direct contrast to the dicamba debacle of 2016.

In a silt loam field rotated from corn, Asgrow 47X6 churned out a top yield in the Arkansas Soybean Association’s Grow for the Green contest. Producers across the U.S., particularly in Arkansas, Mississippi and the Missouri Bootheel, planted large tracts of dicamba-tolerant soybeans in 2016, yet many gave in to temptation, illegally hammering stands with volatile chemicals that blistered the crops of adjoining neighbors.

Taylor drew a clear line in his dirt, a boundary of demarcation between right and wrong. He never made any oddly timed May or June purchase of dicamba, and when Palmer stormed particular fields, as he knew it inevitably would, he gritted his teeth and looked toward 2017, hopeful of a label.

“The worst part of this dicamba mess is watching my friends get hammered,” Taylor says. “The farmers spraying dicamba illegally aren’t hiding it. They know we’ll find out and just don’t care.”

With EPA’s November approval of XtendiMax (basically a new dicamba formula), an additional chemical tool is now knocking on the door of the 2017 crop season. How might this new weed weapon affect Taylor’s future soybean production?

Taylor is well ahead of the curve on soil fertility and management techniques. As one of the first growers in Arkansas to use a cover-cattle rotation, he is also likely the first in the state to break 100 bu. per acre after planting into a cover crop.

Mikey Taylor kneels in a cover planted after 100- plus bushel dicamba-tolerant soybeans. He uses cover crops to increase organic matter so the ground will be better for his son, Wells, and daughter, Merrie Leigh, when it’s time for them to farm.

He treated seed with Cruiser and planted at a 145,000 population on 30" rows April 9, drilling into a cover of cereal rye, radish and black oats killed two weeks prior with Sharpen. With an odd July, Taylor got 9" of moisture spread across multiple rains in the middle of summer and only needed to irrigate the soybeans three times. “That was God’s blessing. Let’s be clear: I didn’t make those big yields by myself,” he says.

After pod set, the stand appeared promising to crop consultant Ed Whatley. “Mikey got planting in early and matched seed to soil,” Whatley says. “You throw in his phenomenal fertility, timeliness and emphasis on inputs, and it was the total yield package.”

Before harvest, Taylor salted the soybeans with 1 gal. per acre, and began cutting Sept. 15: 101.32 bu. per acre.

Knowing the finale of the dicamba-tolerant soybeans, how much might a new label boost production? “No question, a label would have given me better beans across the board,” Taylor says. “The very worst pigweed field I had on my farm was in dicamba beans and it was so bad we almost didn’t harvest. I’d have gotten major savings if I could have cleaned up those beans.”

In 2016, Taylor grew 435 acres of dicamba-tolerant soybeans; he plans to go to 100% in 2017. “When you fool with another man’s livelihood, terrible things happen and we’ve seen that with dicamba this year. I’m looking forward to the legal technology and doing things the right way.”

Dicamba Drift Stirs Pot of Farm Trouble

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:09:32 GMT

Bob Griffin was rolling down Highway 49’s carpet of farmland when he saw the damage. Nothing in particular caught his eye, but the initial suspicion compelled him to pull onto a turnrow splitting 100 acres of soybeans outside of Marvell, Ark. Something was just off about the crop. He walked into R3 soybeans, already podded up, and saw cobra-headed damage on leaves tapering across the field. Griffin’s consultant instinct was inescapable: telltale signs of dicamba drift.

In a farming age where the grip of Palmer amaranth intensifies and expands each season, dicamba controversy is exploding beyond fields of Monsanto’s Xtend soybeans in northeast Arkansas and the Missouri Bootheel. Yield loss is merely the bottom rung of concern. Growers fear repercussions could cut off access to desperately needed dicamba-related technology.

Producer Curtis Storey didn’t panic when Griffin brought the dicamba news. Storey sought out a neighboring farmer growing Xtend soybeans and was assured the damage was a one-off. But Griffin’s initial 100-acre report was only the beginning. A week later, 85 additional acres of damage was discovered. Then, tack on 48 more acres. Then 62; 115; 50; 35. Today, almost 500 acres of Storey’s land is affected in varying degrees by dicamba damage, with no guarantee the numbers won’t climb higher.

Storey farms 4,800 acres in Phillips County, Ark., and points to a massive gap between typical drift-related issues and off-label dicamba applications.

“This was illegal spraying and something entirely different. It was also done in repeated applications over time,” he explains. “No farmer, and I mean not a single one, can plead ignorance. Everyone knows not to use dicamba over the top. I’m paying the costs for someone else’s pigweed control.”

When Monsanto debuted Xtend soybean technology in 2016, seed sales were accompanied with concise and clear warnings: Do not apply dicamba yet. Xtend crops are designed to withstand dicamba, but with no label approval for a new formulation, the herbicide tolerance is technically academic. However, a quick look at eastern Arkansas soybean fields suggests “technicality” is trumped by human nature. Placing a pigweed weapon just beyond the legal reach of producers has proved too tempting for some.

“In-crop use of dicamba is still in review by the EPA. The EPA has indicated review will be completed by late summer or fall,” says Kyel Richard, product communications lead with Monsanto. Monsanto has developed low-volatility dicamba formulations containing VaporGrip Technology to help limit the chances of off-target movement, he adds. “Dicamba will be an important part of The Roundup Ready PLUS Crop Management Solutions platform, but until approved, it’s against the law to use dicamba in-crop with Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans or Bollgard ll XtendFlex cotton.”

Dicamba Bomb

“I already know of five farmers affected by dicamba drift just in Phillips County, but we’re talking about a great deal of acreage across parts of Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee. It’s like a dicamba bomb going off,” says Griffin. “Some farmers have blatantly done what they want to do. They think they won’t get caught, but they don’t understand the power of dicamba.”

Whether via physical drift or the vapor of volatilization, soybeans are extremely sensitive to dicamba. “All it takes is about one-and-a-half hundredths of an ounce per acre is to get damage and symptomatology,” Griffin notes.

Growers sometimes inadvertently load the dicamba gun aimed at their own crops. In 2016, one of Griffin’s farmer clients used a mini-bulk container containing Dicamba residue to spray Prefix herbicide across a soybean field after emergence. No drift or volatility was required to hammer 1,000 acres of soybeans.

Robert Goodson, Phillips County Extension row crops agent with the University of Arkansas, echoes Griffin’s concerns on dicamba potency.

“Just three one-hundredths of an ounce can result in a 30% to 40% yield loss,” he says. “Even an incredibly low rate can cause major yield loss at the right stage of production.”

And what will be the overall effect on Storey’s fields? Dicamba’s hormonal chemistry causes tissue to elongate as plants essentially grow themselves to death. Affected leaves take the cupped appearance of a hooded snake head. Soybean growth stage (maximum susceptibility occurs during R1) and dicamba concentration are critical to tallying damage, but Griffin can only estimate probable yield loss.

“I think the bare minimum will be 10%, but that’s absolute minimum,” he says. “It could be far worse at harvest.”

Far worse, indeed. Storey finds himself staring into yield darkness, uncertain about percent damage and even unsure if his affected soybeans will remain below 500 acres. University specialists and industry experts have pegged potential losses in parts of his fields at 50%.

“Money cleaned out of my pocket and pigweed cleaned out of someone’s field,” he says.

As the affected acreage mounted, Storey found himself with few options and contacted the Arkansas State Plant Board.

“I’ve never been involved with class actions suits or any of that mess,” he says. “I didn’t want to do this, but my hand was forced. Even Monsanto told me to report it to the Plant Board.”

And the Plant Board? The maximum penalty is a $1,000 fine; a veritable slap on the wrist. However the Plant Board has formed a civil penalty study group to consider raising the maximum fine. Susie Nichols, agri division manager for the Plant Board, says the organization has received 24 complaints in 2016 regarding dicamba drift in soybeans, peanuts and watermelons: “These cases are still under investigation so I cannot yet confirm dicamba.”

Storey takes no solace in small penalties.

“$1,000 fine? Sure, that’ll stop them,” he says with heavy dismay. “I’ve had people tell me to keep quiet or we may lose the technology. That’s false reasoning to blame me since I’m not the one breaking the law. Multiple people have continued making dicamba applications over the top. This is going on in other counties and states. Everybody knows it.”

No Anomaly

“We’ve got 230,000 acres of soybeans in Phillips County, but there’s nothing unique about our situation,” adds Goodson. “This is no anomaly and we all know it’s happening in lots of places.”

The Missouri Department of Agriculture is conducting investigations into 100-plus dicamba-related complaints in 2016 spread across four southeast counties.

“This is well above the average of 75 general complaints that we typically see statewide,” says Sarah Alsager, public information officer.

Scotty Frasier, a salesman with Famers Supply in Marvell, says the ripple effect could reach beyond affected fields.

“We’re all wondering what the ramifications will be, but one thing is for sure, the noise is getting louder,” he says.

The stakes are extremely high as the 2016 growing season unfolds: dicamba soybean purchases at local grain elevators, international market questions, the prospect of a further tightening of the regulatory noose, or even the loss of dicamba technology. Storey says anyone who claims his concerns are overblown is ignorant of the grain chain: “My ultimate question is the foreign market. The granary will handle my beans mixed with my neighbor’s dicamba beans?”

Storey’s question hangs in the air and requires a great deal of navel gazing. Why? Nobody knows what may crawl out of Pandora’s grain box. When Monsanto released Xtend technology, growers were given explicit instructions on the illegality of dicamba applications. However, the company also released a technology knowing chemicals were only a shelf away. Simple human nature: A small percentage of growers will cheat and other growers will pay the price. Dangle a pigweed killer in front of farmers, and someone will use it, regardless of legality.

“Chemical companies should not put folks on the honor system,” Storey says. “Did Monsanto really believe all farmers would be honest? It’s tough for me to believe they didn’t see this abuse coming.”

What to Know About the New Dicamba Approval

Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:20:00 GMT

EPA approved three dicamba formulations for over-the-top use for five years, 2021 through 2025. The formulations included are BASF’s Engenia, Syngenta’s Tavium and Bayer’s XtendiMax.

This unconditional registration lists these changes to the label:

Downwind buffer of 240' is required, and a buffer of 310' is required where listed endangered species are located.
National application cutoff for soybeans after June 30; July 30 is the cutoff date in cotton.
An approved pH buffering agent is required to lower volatility.
Growers can use hooded sprayers to reduce buffers up to 110', unless spraying in areas with endangered species, where a 240' buffer is required.

Application Implications

Bayer and BASF have each created their own buffering agent to help reduce volatility; they’re required tank-mix additives.

So far, each product has been tested on a small scale, which raises questions about use and success in real-world conditions.

“We’ll have to wait and see how effective volatility reducing agents are,” says Bob Hartzler, Iowa State University Extension weed scientist. “I think it’s hard to ramp up when you start spraying large acreages.”

There are opportunities for states to create local changes to the label, including new national cutoff dates.

“States can further restrict, but they have to work with us and file the requests with EPA,“ says Andrew Wheeler, EPA administrator.

The last big change is to downwind buffer requirements. Previously, EPA required a 110' buffer for 22 oz. rate. The downwind buffer more than doubled in non-sensitive areas to 240' with this new label.

“Let’s give the changes a year or two and see if they’ve minimized problems we saw in the first four years,” Hartzler says. “If we see similar problems to what we saw in 2020, [over-the-top dicamba] needs to be reevaluated. How much can you tweak the label?”

Keep Tools In The Toolbox

Suppliers and some farmers have praised EPA for this decision.

“We need that mode of action out there,” says Nick Ehlers, a farmer from eastern Iowa. “We need a mode of action with residual that pigweeds can’t break through.”

BASF and Bayer each applauded EPA’s decision, commending the agency for its science-based approach to give farmers access to this technology.

What to Know About the New Dicamba Approval

Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:15:37 GMT

Downwind buffer of 240' is required, and a buffer of 310' is required where listed endangered species are located.
National application cutoff for soybeans after June 30; July 30 is the cutoff date in cotton.
An approved pH buffering agent is required to lower volatility.
Growers can use hooded sprayers to reduce buffers up to 110', unless spraying in areas with endangered species, where a 240' buffer is required.