Pesticides

Soybean Gall Midge Emerges As Top-Tier Threat

Mon, 11 May 2026 20:19:03 GMT

Soybean gall midge is no longer just a curiosity or annoyance for many Midwest farmers. The pest is chewing into yield and profitability for soybean growers across parts of at least seven states – Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Iowa State University Entomologist Erin Hodgson reports the pest’s footprint is significant, present in at least 42% of the 45.4 million acres of soybeans farmers harvested across the seven states in 2025.

“At least 19 million soybean acres are potentially impacted by this pest,” Hodgson says, noting that the pest continues to spread. Eight new counties were confirmed in 2025, with five of those being in Iowa .

According to a recent farmer survey led by University of Nebraska Entomologist Doug Golick, the pest has become a major threat in parts of Nebraska. “In the last year or two, soybean gall midge is approaching as near high of concern as herbicide-resistant weeds for survey respondents,” Golick says.

Since 2018, the soybean gall midge has spread to 185 total counties in seven states, including five new counties in Iowa this past year, according to Erin Hodgson, Iowa State University Extension entomologist and professor.

(Erin Hodgson)

Look For Small Orange Or White Larvae

Damage from the insect starts at the base of the soybean plants, largely out of sight. Adult midges emerge from the ground in May and June, then seek out tiny fissures in young soybean plants near the soil line to lay eggs, according to Thales Rodrigues da Silva, a master’s student at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

The larvae cause severe, localized yield losses from 20% to 100% loss along field edges and 17% to 50% reductions in entire fields average under heavy infestation, according to University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) Extension. The larvae – small, orange worm-like pests – feed inside the base of the stem, causing plants to wither, die, and lodge (break), with damages sometimes extending 100+ feet into fields. Scouting for the pest should occur after the second trifoliate (V2) growth stage, according to the Crop Protection Network.

This damage in a soybean plant at the soil level shows the result of soybean gall midge larvae feeding.

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension)

Because the pest often feeds along field edges, the damage in affected plants is often mistaken for issues caused by compaction or herbicide injury, according to Stine Seed Company .

To confirm the pest’s presence, Stine agronomists recommend digging up compromised soybean plants and splitting open the stem. If white or orange larvae are found feeding within the inner layers, growers should check the Soybean Gall Midge Alert Network tracking system to determine whether the pest has been reported in their area. Next, they should contact their local Extension specialist to help confirm the diagnosis and report the finding if their county is not yet documented in their area.

Cultural Practices Show Promise

Unfortunately, there are few strategies to manage and control soybean gall midge, according to Tony Lenz, Stine technical agronomist.
With no labeled, consistently effective in-season insecticide program and no established treatment threshold, researchers are testing cultural and mechanical tactics that might give farmers at least partial relief.

Tillage ahead of planting — a tough sell in no-till systems — shows some promise in reducing early infestations in current-year soybean fields.

“Turns out that disking alone, at least in (our) study… did reduce infestation,” says Justin McMechan an entomologist and associate professor at UNL.

“There’s a significant reduction as we move from no-till to that… where it’s just disked and planted into, and then disking and hilling (a practice used in growing potatoes), which really is effective, because you’re covering up the infestation site,” McMechan adds.

He notes that even subtle changes in seedbed shape may help by covering fissures or altering microclimates at the stem base.

On planters running row cleaners, McMechan says adjustments at field edges might be one of the more accessible tools.

“There are not huge differences, but they are statistically significant,” he adds.

Field edge management has been another area of experimentation, including mowing or managing dense vegetation next to infested fields. Results are mixed, but McMechan says there are situations where mowing modestly cuts pressure.

“Nebraska saw on occasion where mowing would reduce infestation and lead to marginal yield benefit… we’re talking like 6-bushel differences,” he says, adding that weather and nearby corn canopy can override those gains.

There are no insecticides currently available to control soybean gall midge. A combination of cultural practices and mechanical efforts is likely the best option, for now, to stop or slow the pest.

(Justin McMechan)

Scientists Evaluate ‘Out-Of-The-Box’ Practices

Other work by researchers is pushing even further outside the box to find control measures. At UNL, graduate research assistant Kristin Heinrichs Stark is testing whether a biodegradable surface barrier called BioWrap can physically trap larvae in the soil and prevent emergence.

The work is early-stage and raises reasonable questions about cost and field-scale application rates, but it points to the kind of layered, non-chemical tactics Extension researchers say will likely be needed to address the pest.

Even as these cultural and physical strategies are developed, Hodgson reminds farmers that the ag industry still lacks any clear control option once larvae are inside the soybean stem.

“We really don’t have a treatment threshold, or a rescue treatment option at this time,” she says. “We know that the soybean gall midge certainly can cause yield losses, plant death, and that directly relates to yield. But we don’t really have great answers on like, how many plants does it take? How many larvae per plant (causes yield loss)?”

For now, farmers dealing with soybean gall midge are being asked to combine careful field scouting, crop rotation, and targeted cultural tactics to address the pest as the research community races to find answers and close those gaps.

Specialists from three Midwest universities provided the latest updates on soybean gall midge (SGM) this spring in a webinar, available at the link below:

House Ag Committee Chairman says farm bill pesticide provisions could cause concern in the Senate

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:55:29 GMT

After a flurry of debate, votes and finally movement, the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2026 passed the U.S. House with a 224-200 vote. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson calls the legislation “transformational,” adding that 96% of GOP members in the House, the most in history, and 14 Democrats supported the bill.

“That’s the most members of the minority party who voted for a House farm bill since 2008. So, [that’s] a strong endorsement in a bipartisan way as this bill winds up in the Senate for consideration,” he says.

Despite his optimism, Thompson expressed concern over a key amendment introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna. The addition stripped the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worry the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

“I have some concerns with the pesticide provision that was added,” Thompson says. “I think it may put farmers’ health at risk and certainly drive up affordability and open the door for foreign-manufactured pesticides to flood into our country.

“I have significant concerns that the amendment that was put forward is going to create chaos [in the Senate],” he later added.

Thompson says he’s supportive of year-round E15, but because it falls under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it will likely be taken up for a vote mid-May.

Moving Forward

Thompson says, overall, he thinks farm bill conversations in the Senate are positive. The chairman says he’s kept Sen. John Boozman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, well informed about the bill over the last year.

“I kind of pictured my good friend, John Boozma, with a catcher’s mitt, ready to receive the Farm Food and National Security Act,” Thompson says. “He’ll have to make some modifications, and I think he’s hoping to do that mid- to late May. He knows how ... our farmers need this bill today, not tomorrow or not next year.”

New Legislation Impacting H-2A Reform

Thompson says in three to four weeks, he will likely release draft language for public discussion that would make reforms to the H-2A program. After the draft, he’ll be introducing a bill with bipartisan support, he says.

“We’ve already had some very positive discussions with our [House] Judiciary [Committee] Chairman Jim Jordan — so, [I’m] looking forward to breaking that 45-, almost 50-year gridlock of really not doing anything in this space. I think we have a great opportunity to provide certainty to agriculture workforce, which quite frankly is necessary for both food security and ultimately national security.”

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.

'Losing Glyphosate Would Be A Disastrous Blow For Farmers'

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:29:17 GMT

Farmers warn that access to cornerstone herbicides like glyphosate is not just a policy debate but a make-or-break factor for conservation, food prices and the future of U.S. agriculture.

On a media call hosted by the Modern Ag Alliance on Friday, three veteran Midwest farmers say they are farming through some of the tightest margins of their careers while shouldering growing uncertainty over crop-protection tools. They argue that science-based regulation, consistent labeling and a predictable legal environment are essential if they are to keep adopting conservation practices and stay competitive globally.

“We depend on crop-protection tools every single day that we’re raising a crop,” says northwest Missouri farmer Blake Hurst, who grows corn and soybeans. “Losing access to crop protection chemicals like glyphosate would be a terrible blow, a disastrous blow for farmers, as we’re facing these tough times.”

The discussion on Friday morning came about as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in the Monsanto v. Durnell case scheduled for Monday, April 27. At the same time, Congress continues work on the farm bill, which contains provisions that could shape how crop-protection products are regulated.

Modern Ag Alliance Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson says the organization sees the Supreme Court case and farm bill development as landmarks.

“At the end of the day, I think the crux of the question is, if we cannot get the clarity or consistency around labeling, what does that mean big picture?” Burns-Thompson says.

She argues that without clear, uniform federal rules on what constitutes a sufficient label, companies may pull back on manufacturing or innovation, particularly inside the United States.

The Economic Reality Of Crop Protection

Hurst says farmers already operate on “margins that are negative,” forcing them to stretch machinery life, cut back on inputs and take on more debt just to stay in business. If a widely used and relatively affordable herbicide like glyphosate becomes unavailable or more difficult to access, he says the resulting cost increases will ripple from the farm field to the supermarket.

“That eventually shows up on food prices and grocery store shelves,” Hurst says. “We don’t have the margins to absorb major increases in costs, so we will pass those costs along eventually.”

Mark Jackson, who farms with his son southeast of Des Moines, says glyphosate is tightly linked to the conservation systems he has spent decades building. Jackson, a fifth-generation Iowa grower describes a lifetime of watching soil erosion give way to the use of more sustainable practices.

He says his farm has been in no-till for at least 25 years, a shift he also sees is taking root across much of Iowa.

“Roughly 40% or better of Iowa is in no-till conservation status, which is a tremendous mindset and a cultural mindset,” Jackson says. “When you talk about glyphosate leading the charge in conservation, I think we also need to remind people that we don’t use chemicals just willy-nilly.”

Relying On Science-Based Regulation

Jackson points to multiple federal agencies involved in approving and reviewing pesticides as evidence that farmers are using tools vetted by science and regulation.

“They have been approved by the EPA, the FDA, the USDA — you might say all the A’s in the government have gone through the pipelines to allow these chemicals to be used, and then they are reviewed at regular intervals,” he says. “So, I think we need to have confidence in what our government is there for, which is to maintain quality. We still do have the best and most consistent food supply in the world.”

Jackson also cites long-running health research involving farmers as pesticide applicators. Referring to a large North American study that monitored tens of thousands of farmers, including on his own farm, he says the findings in the study do not match public fears about glyphosate.

“Let’s not let emotion drive the conversation, but let’s follow the science,” he says.

Current Agronomic Tools Are Invaluable

For Bill Couser, a central Iowa corn and cattle producer who is “very heavily involved” in the ethanol industry, access to reliable herbicides is part of a larger system that includes livestock feed and low-carbon fuel markets. He says any disruption in tool availability quickly translates into higher input costs and lost opportunity.

“When I grow the feed, I have to make sure I have the lowest cost feedstuffs I can going into my farming operation, and also the safest feedstuffs that we can,” Couser says.

He ties herbicide use to carbon intensity scores that increasingly shape ethanol markets. No-till practices and efficient weed control, he says, help farmers lower carbon intensity levels, which in turn benefits both farmers and ethanol plants.

“When you look at just the state of Iowa and the 43 [ethanol] plants here, why, the way we bring this to our plants and to our livestock operations is huge,” Couser says.

Couser, who serves on an EPA Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities advisory committee, says having farmers at the table with regulators is essential.

“It gives the farmer a seat at the table, and we’re not on the menu,” he says. “We have to make sure that we sit with these industry leaders and make sure that we help them understand and educate them about the science and the products that we need to be able to use to be able to stay profitable in this industry.”

Stifling Innovation And The Path Forward

The farmers on the call said they accept that some older products have been removed from the market for safety reasons. Much of their concern now is that litigation and regulatory uncertainty could chill innovation and push companies to avoid introducing new technologies in the U.S. altogether.

“If we get a negative ruling [on Monday], that is going to make it easier to sue over not only glyphosate, but the other products we use, that means we won’t have new products introduced, because what company will take that risk?” Hurst says, referencing billions of dollars in legal costs tied to glyphosate litigation.

What worries him, he adds, is not just losing glyphosate, but the outlook for future products and continued innovation.

“The question that has to be asked and never is, is what next?” Hurst says. “We’re not going to go back to farming like we did in 1990. We don’t have the labor, we don’t have the diesel, we don’t have the people, and people won’t want to pay what food costs will be if we don’t have these products. So, what next? We’re going to use other chemicals that are more expensive, increasing feed costs, that are more dangerous.”

The farmers describe a common expectation of federal oversight and a shared belief that existing science supports continued use of glyphosate under current labels. Burns-Thompson says that is exactly why the Alliance is pushing for national clarity on labeling standards.

“By having shades of gray state-by-state, as to how that is ultimately satisfied, [it] creates a patchwork of confusion,” she says. “At the end of the day, the product doesn’t change from state-to-state. So neither should the safety warnings.”

For these farmers, what they say they want from policymakers and courts is not a free pass, but a stable, science-led framework that lets them plan years ahead — and keep farming with the next generation.

“We know this thing is changing again,” Couser says, noting that his sons are now the fifth generation on the family operation. “How do we make sure we continue that legacy to make sure they can farm in the future?”

Farmers Emphasize Demand, Not Payments, Is The ‘Bridge To Better Times' For Agriculture

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:25:36 GMT

Two Midwest farmers are pinning their hopes for the future on stronger demand for corn and soybeans — especially the latter — as they navigate tight margins, high input costs, and an uncertain price outlook.

Northern Illinois farmer Steve Pitstick and south-central Iowa farmer Dennis Bogaards say they have exhausted most cost-cutting options for this season. They believe future profitability now rests on whether demand for both crops — particularly from domestic soybean crush and fuel markets — expands enough to support higher prices.

One silver lining currently, Pitstick says, is his relatively strong position on fertilizer heading into the 2026 planting season.

“We will do pretty much the dry spread program we always do,” he says. “We cut the rates a little bit on the phosphates just because of price. We booked our 32% in September, something we traditionally do. We have all the nitrogen bought, so I feel good about 2026 from that aspect.”

While he believes additional fertilizer is available, he notes it will likely be priced at a premium.

“I believe I can get more if I need it. I may not like the price, but I can get more,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory during the weekly Farmer Forum segment.

Little To No Expansion On The Horizon

As the season begins, both farmers emphasize that the coming years will have farmers focusing on survival and strategic adjustments rather than acreage expansion.

One adjustment Bogaards is making is front-loading some of his nitrogen needs this season while leaving a portion open in case prices break.

“We booked anhydrous early on for this year, back in early fall, and got an OK price,” Bogaards says. “I have a little bit of sidedress that we do. We book about half of that, and I sit open on the rest of it. I’ll wait and see where it goes.”

Bogaards remains committed to sidedressing as long as product is available and prices do not continue ratcheting up. “If I can get it, I’ll put it on, unless it is a crazy, crazy price,” he says.

Like many U.S. growers, both Bogaards and Pitstick say there is virtually no room left to cut fertilizer use without risking yields.

“There is no place to cut back. We are being as efficient as we can be,” Pitstick says.

Bogaards agrees, noting that nitrogen is not the place to skimp. “Maybe a year or so, you can cut back on the P and K a little bit, but you do not want to get caught in three or four years of that.”

He also remains reluctant to drop fungicides. “Fungicides really pay off,” he says. “In the past, we did not use them, but the last few years they really paid, and I would hate to not spray them.”

Uncertainty About The 2027 Crop Mix

While the 2026 crop is largely “business as usual,” both farmers told Flory that 2027 brings real uncertainty—especially regarding nitrogen supplies. Pitstick is concerned about how global demand could impact costs for U.S. producers.

“I am worried about the price of the nitrogen,” he says. “It may not be an issue in the United States from a supply standpoint, but the rest of the world… could export our product because of opportunity cost, and that drives the price up. It is a total wait and see.”

Flory underscored how global trade flows directly shape what American farmers pay, noting that some fertilizer shipments originally destined for the U.S. were recently rerouted.

“Some boats are diverted from the U.S. to other countries,” Flory says. “If you want your share, you have to beat the next guy in line with the price.”

If nitrogen prices soar while corn prices stagnate, Pitstick says his rotation could shift. “That might change how we do things in 2027. We may have to go to more soybeans,” he says.

Bogaards also expects to alter his corn–soybean mix, given the potential demand from domestic crush and renewable fuels.

“In the past, we were probably 60% to 65% corn,” he says. “We have been backing off of that. I still do a little bit of corn-on-corn, but I might try to go to a 50–50 rotation.”

Flory believes this shift could help rebalance supplies and improve price prospects. “If we can pull some acres away from corn and get this thing rebalanced, maybe that is our bridge to a better time,” Flory says. “Our bridge to a better time is more demand across the board and crops competing for acres — not another payment.”

Bogaards says the shifting economics are already evident. “A couple of years ago, people said soybeans are a drag on our financial statements. It looks like almost the opposite right now.”

Even so, Bogaards is cautious about making long-term decisions based on short-term signals. “I can change acres right now, but by next fall, it might be the worst decision. I think you have to go with your rotation and stick with it.”

Pitstick links his long-term outlook to fuel sector growth, noting that both corn and soybeans increasingly function as energy crops.

“Some of the most profitable years of my career were when we had high fuel prices because we were also a fuel crop,” he says. “I have some optimism that these high fuel prices will cause some demand and increase our crop prices.”

For now, both farmers say their immediate job is to manage through 2026 while keeping their options open. With high costs for fertilizer, fuel, and machinery, they see expanded demand as the only realistic path forward.

“It is just survival at this point,” Bogaards says. “We just have to make sure we can survive and keep plugging through it.”

You can listen to the complete discussion between Bogaards, Pitstick and Flory on AgriTalk at the link below:

From Compliance to Liability: How Court Decisions Threaten America’s Agricultural Supply Chain

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:34:27 GMT

By Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association President & CEO

Pesticide labels are not suggestions. Under federal law, they are binding rules.

For decades, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has governed the review, labeling, and use of pesticides in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops and approves pesticide labels. Once approved, those labels dictate how products may be sold, handled, and applied nationwide. Deviating from them is illegal, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) strongly supports following labeling requirements.

A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, threatens to unravel that system. If state tort claims are allowed to impose additional warning requirements beyond those approved by EPA, businesses that comply fully with federal law could still be held liable under state law. The result would be immediate disruption across the agricultural supply chain—higher costs, reduced access to vital tools, and increased uncertainty for the farmers who depend on them.

Why Uniform Labels Matter

FIFRA does not just regulate manufacturers; it imposes strict legal requirements throughout the supply chain. Agricultural retailers are prohibited from altering or supplementing pesticide labels, and professional applicators must apply products exactly as directed by the label. Any violation can bring substantial civil penalties.

Uniform labeling makes compliance possible; without it, federal law becomes a guessing game.

National uniformity is needed because retailers serve customers across multiple states. Insurers underwrite coverage based on predictable compliance rules, and farmers rely on timely access to lawfully labeled products during narrow planting and pest-control windows.

An Impossible Legal Conflict

State-law “failure to warn” claims argue that an EPA-approved label should have included additional warnings. But this contradicts FIFRA, which states that pesticide labels cannot be changed unilaterally.

Allowing state tort claims to impose different warning requirements creates an impossible bind: obey federal law and face state liability, or attempt to satisfy state law by breaking federal law. Congress did not intend for compliance itself to become grounds for punishment.

If national uniformity were to end, insurance premiums could increase, coverage could become harder to secure, and products farmers need could be pulled from shelves, even though they remain fully approved by the EPA. Costs would likely increase as service capacity decreased, and that pressure would flow directly down the supply chain to the farm gate.

Science Versus Jury Verdicts

FIFRA assigns responsibility for evaluating pesticide safety to the EPA, not to state courts. The agency makes those determinations through scientific review, public input, and a weighing of risks and benefits.

Tort litigation bypasses that process and asks juries to second-guess EPA’s scientific judgments years later, without access to the full regulatory record and without the agency itself as a party. If those verdicts can override FIFRA and federal approval, the result is a patchwork system in which legal obligations vary by state and evolve retroactively—requirements that retailers and applicators cannot comply with without violating federal law.

Why Glyphosate Matters Beyond One Case

The Supreme Court case centers on glyphosate, one of the most widely used and reviewed herbicides in American agriculture. EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic when used as directed and has approved its labeling accordingly.

Glyphosate is affordable, effective, and integral to modern farming practices that reduce soil erosion, conserve fuel, and maintain yields. Retailers, applicators, and farmers rely on EPA’s determinations for every pesticide they sell, apply, or use.

If a product that has cleared decades of federal review can still be deemed unlawfully labeled under state law, no product is truly secure.

What’s at Stake

Congress designed FIFRA so pesticide safety decisions would be made prospectively, scientifically, and consistently. Undermining that framework turns compliance into liability—and jeopardizes farmer access to lawful, essential tools.

The Supreme Court’s decision may very well determine whether pesticide regulation remains grounded in science and federal law, or becomes a moving target shaped by courtroom verdicts. For American agriculture, the consequences would be immediate and real.

Preserving uniform federal labeling protects everyone who depends on the food system—and that means all of us.

Boost Your Bottom Line By Keeping Your Soils In Place

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 20:20:39 GMT

Not every cost on the farm shows up on an invoice. In the view of Eric Beckett, some of the most expensive losses corn and soybean growers face this spring will be invisible — soil carried away by winds moving across their fields.

Beckett, an agronomist with Sunrise FS, says a combination of windier springs, tighter margins and volatile fertilizer prices is forcing a reckoning with long-standing tillage and nutrient application habits. The goal for farmers, he contends, shouldn’t be just agronomic performance this season but risk management, as well.

“Anytime we drag a piece of tillage equipment across the field, we are essentially breaking down that soil aggregate into smaller aggregates,” Beckett says. “That makes soil more susceptible to loss.”

While Beckett isn’t calling for an end to tillage, he is urging farmers in Illinois and beyond to consider the “ramifications coming down the road” before making multiple passes to clean up winter annuals or level tile lines.

A Growing Storm in the Midwest

Beckett’s concerns are grounded in shifting weather patterns. Meteorologists like Victor Gensini at Northern Illinois University have noted a rise in the frequency of convective storms and damaging straight-line winds across the Midwest and Southeast.

Likewise, Nutrien principal atmospheric scientist Eric Snodgrass reports that the Midwest is in a rapid transition from La Niña to ENSO-neutral conditions. While this “swift exit” can open planting windows, it also creates erratic atmospheric patterns. High-velocity winds are expected to surge through the Mississippi and Missouri River valleys through early April.

Beckett offers a concerned reminder for farmers tempted to push through windy conditions: “You’ve paid good money for that fertilizer. Why would we go out there when it’s windy and we have no idea where that fertilizer is going to end up, especially if it’s a variable-rate application where we know specific areas of a field need those nutrients?”

Calculating the True Cost of a Pass

Beyond the risk of blowing nutrients, Beckett suggests farmers “crunch the numbers” on the physical cost of every pass. With diesel prices hovering around $5 a gallon currently and tractor leases reaching $300 to $400 per hour, the overhead of extra tillage adds up quickly.

Beyond hard costs, tillage in what are currently dry soils will create additional costs. Beckett describes the ground in his area as “dry as a bone” six to eight feet down.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, this isn’t just an east-central Illinois issue: 41% of the U.S. corn-producing area and 42% of soybean acreage are currently experiencing some degree of drought. In droughty conditions, every unnecessary tillage pass further dries out the seedbed and can impact topsoil.

Navigating the Label and the Law

Wind doesn’t just steal nutrients; it creates significant legal liability. Most herbicide labels cap applications at 10 mph—a limit that is a legally binding mandate for many products, not a suggestion.

“If you are applying outside those windows and something goes wrong, you can be held liable,” Beckett cautions. To navigate these tighter windows, he suggests focusing on three tactical areas:

Carrier Volume: Increasing from 5 or 10 gallons per acre to 15 or 20 gallons can improve coverage and reduce the risk of fine, drift-prone droplets.
The Dust Factor: Even if winds are within legal limits, fine soil particles can “tie up” product and carry it off-target before it even hits the ground.
Drift-Reduction Tools: While not a license to spray in a gale, modern spray tips and drift-reduction agents are underutilized tools that can significantly improve stewardship.

The New Era Of Documentation

As new requirements tied to the Endangered Species Act take hold, Beckett says the burden of proof for compliance falls squarely on the applicator—whether that is the farmer or a custom applicator.

“Each field has got to have its own documentation,” he says. “Even if it’s just a manila folder... fill out what your mitigation practices are, what your setbacks are. Have that established in a file so the applicator can add to it as the season progresses.”

This level of detail is necessary because the industry is “under the microscope.” In an era where every passerby has a smartphone camera, Beckett says an application in a dusty field can end up on social media in minutes.

Ultimately, Beckett is asking farmers to make a deliberate pause to question habits and routine applications.

“I’m not standing here saying that everybody’s got to put cover crops on and turn every field green,” he says. “But if, collectively, everybody took it a little bit more upon themselves, I think we’d be in a lot better shape.”

Beckett addresses the topic of managing tillage and spray applications in unpredictable weather conditions during a recent episode of the Illinois Field Advisor podcast. You can watch the complete podcast here .

Are You Planting Second-Year Soybeans And Skipping Corn?

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 20:26:30 GMT

As input prices and markets fluctuate, many U.S. farmers are considering a shift from corn to soybeans this season. For some, like northwest Missouri farmer Todd Gibson, continuous soybeans aren’t just a one-year pivot—they are a long-term strategy to capture ROI on challenging soils.

Gibson, based near Norborne — a farming community that proudly bills itself as the “Soybean Capital of the World” — keeps a traditional corn-soybean rotation on his Missouri River bottom ground. But most of his fields with tougher, gumbo-type soils haven’t seen a corn planter in two decades.

“Growing corn on some of this heavy ground just doesn’t pay,” Gibson explains. “I’ve got some fields that have been in continuous soybeans for 20-plus years now.”

More Second-Year Soybeans In U.S. Farmers’ Plans

Gibson says he will grow more soybeans this season and on his better ground. “I’m going to cut my corn acres maybe in half. I’ll have more beans on the better dirt this year, mainly because of input prices,” he says.

Other U.S. farmers – many without Gibson’s experience – are looking to grow second-year soybeans. The Allendale Report released March 18 says private acreage estimates point to a shift toward more soybeans this season, notes Rich Nelson, chief analyst. He estimates U.S. corn planted area at 93.678 million acres, down about 5.1 million acres from 2025, while soybean acres are pegged at 85.659 million acres, up roughly 4.4 million acres over last year.

In southern Illinois, farmer and broker Sherman Newlin says the conversations he has with farmers these days are dominated by input costs and fertilizer availability concerns. While some tell him they’re sticking to their corn-bean rotations, others are considering a 100% shift to soybeans. Newlin is keeping his options open.

“I’m not planning on switching, but we’ll see,” he says. “We’ve still got a few weeks to go where we can swap out seed if we need to.”

Iowa Soybean Association Agronomist Lucas DeBruin says the farmers he works with in the state are sticking with their regular rotation and planting corn if that’s what the original plan was for this season.

“We use a lot of fall anhydrous here, so most guys are pretty locked into growing corn,” DeBruin says. “A lot of them also need the corn for livestock feed. Sometimes you can still squeeze a little bit more margin out of corn than the soybeans,” he adds, “and guys like growing corn more than soybeans. It’s more fun to pick corn.”

Look Before You Leap: The Ferrie Checklist

For farmers looking to change their seed order, Farm Journal Field Agronomist Ken Ferrie suggests taking a hard look at your balance sheet and your fields first. Here are some of his key recommendations:

Consider What You’ve Invested To Date: If you’ve already applied fall anhydrous or dry fertilizer for a corn crop, the “switch to beans” math doesn’t work. “You can’t afford to go to beans, because you’ve already spent the money,” Ferrie contends.

Account for the Yield Penalty: In a beans-after-beans scenario, Ferrie tells growers to expect a 5-to-7-bushel yield drag due to more stress from potential disease, insect and weed pressure. His question: “If you take 7 bushels off your bean yield, does it still cash flow against your corn APH?”

The Management “Claw Back": You can potentially mitigate some of the yield penalty in second-year soybeans by moving your planting date up from May to April, Ferrie says. Early planting helps the crop get an earlier and longer flowering period which can help recover some of the lost potential.

One morning this past week, Ferrie noted that the market was leaning back toward corn and that the see-saw between crops could continue this spring — another factor to keep in mind.

“Looking at the markets this morning, I think a lot of guys would prefer growing corn at $4.90 than beans at $11.10,” he contends.

The Continuous Soybean Playbook

For Gibson, success with continuous soybeans works based on a disciplined management system he relies on every year:

Fertility is Foundational. Even if you shift from corn to soybeans, Gibson says be aware that the beans could require more nutrients. He monitors his soil fertility closely, noting that continuous beans often require extra sulfur, phosphorus and potassium. He also keeps a close eye on micronutrients to ensure the crop won’t hit a hidden yield ceiling.

Non-Negotiable Seed Treatments: In continuous soybeans, the soil is more likely to become a reservoir for pathogens. Gibson hasn’t put a bare seed in the ground in 20 years. “Seed treatment guarantees me 100% replant,” he says. “It lets you sleep better at night knowing that if you get a heavy rain, you have that insurance to fall back on.”

Row Spacing and Canopy: Gibson plants in 15-inch rows at a rate of roughly 130,000 seeds per acre. The goals are quick emergence and a quick canopy. He believes a fast-closing row is your best defense against weeds and helps preserve soil moisture in the heavy gumbo. Seed treatment use and regular scouting help him feel confident in using narrow rows.

Keep Your Boots In The Field: In a corn-bean rotation, the “break” in the cycle helps farmers manage various diseases, insects and weeds. In continuous soybeans, you lose that advantage.

Gibson compensates by routine scouting and being prepared to address problems. “If you hear your neighbors have bug pressure, assume you will, too,” he says. “Don’t have the attitude that you can ‘get by,’ because you probably won’t.”

He has similar thoughts regarding weed pressure – “be proactive.” His program typically starts with a pre-emergence/burndown or early post application, with residual herbicides used to hold back weeds. If weeds break through, he is prepared to return with a post pass.

“We kind of wish sometimes we didn’t have to worry about weeds so much,” he says. “But if you don’t, then next thing you know, you think, ‘Oh, I wish we would have sprayed.’”

The Genetic Advantage: The final piece of the puzzle for Gibson is the advancement in soybean technology. He recalls the days when he says Williams 82 was his only real option for continuous soybeans. Today, advanced traits have made managing weeds and disease in continuous systems much more manageable, he notes.

On his continuous soybean acres, Gibson consistently sees yields average in the 50-to-60-bushel range. When he factors in the lower input costs compared to growing corn on heavy gumbo ground, he believes the decision to go with continuous soybeans is a good one. For Gibson, it’s not about following a trend— it’s about knowing what his land does best and having the management practices in place to succeed.