Resistance

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 Hanel, 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 hundreds of potential enzymes 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 PPO 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.

“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.”

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.

Defend Every Bushel With A Proactive Disease Plan

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:33:53 GMT

Addressing corn disease pressure in-season is rarely a matter of “if” and more likely “when.” Coming off heavy disease pressure from 2025, now is the time to put your plan together for how you’ll address challenges like northern corn leaf blight, tar spot and others this season. Plan your moves with these five recommendations, so you are ready to take action when disease pressure hits:

1. Use A Proactive Scouting Plan.

Success begins with staying ahead of disease, according to high-yield corn grower David Hula. “You have to stay proactive with your scouting and willing to go with earlier fungicide or even multiple applications, depending on what shows up,” he says.

While planning, consider the following:

1. Know your potential threats. Depending on the disease, some pathogens survive the winter on previously infected crop residue (e.g., northern corn leaf blight, tar spot). Other diseases move into northern growing areas on winds from southern locations (e.g., southern corn rust). For a suitable environment, many foliar diseases need warm, humid, and wet conditions to propagate.

2. Have your budget in place. Be ready for at least one in-season fungicide application. Use tools like the Newly Designed Fungicide ROI Calculators to guide your investment in products and applications. By inputting costs, market prices, and disease severity, these calculators provide research-based estimates of net benefits and breakeven probabilities, helping you make a more informed decision.

3. Delegate the scouting job, if necessary. If you cannot scout personally, assign the task to a family member, employee, or employ a professional service.

“Lots of great pest managers work in retail,” says Ken Ferrie, Farm Journal Field Agronomist. “Their success depends on you being successful also.”

2. Leverage Friends, Neighbors And Industry Expertise.

Don’t monitor disease pressure in a vacuum. Stay informed about what’s moving into your neighbors’ fields; track regional pressure by tapping into local agronomists and organizations like the Crop Protection Network.

Randy Dowdy, Hula’s partner in Total Acre, notes that in the Southeast, farmers are constantly receiving feedback from Extension and industry experts regarding southern rust.

Similarly, Elliott Henderson, who farms in Buchanan County, Iowa, has a group of farmers there that he connects with on a regular basis during the growing season.

“It’s a network of dozens of us farmers that call each other, bounce ideas off each other,” he says. “The things we’re talking about are often time-sensitive. It can be a daily thing.”

3. Select The Right Chemistry.

Applying the wrong product in the heat of battle with disease pressure is a common mistake. For aggressive diseases like tar spot or southern rust, Farm Journal Field Agronomist Missy Bauer recommends using “Cadillac” type chemistries — newer technologies that feature multiple modes of action.

To ensure you are using the right tool:

Consult Your Experts. Use the Crop Protection Network’s Fungicide Efficacy tables to see which products perform best against specific diseases.
Match Product to Problem. Ensure the product is labeled for your specific issue and is capable of handling high-pressure scenarios.

4. Optimize Applications for Maximum ROI.

If you need to apply a fungicide, make sure it delivers the results you need.

“It’s all about coverage,” Dowdy says. “Drone applications can be fine, but no matter what you do, if a guy is spraying two to three gallons, and you compare it to a ground rig spraying 15 to 25 gallons, I mean, there’s just no comparison in that coverage.”

Another aspect of coverage, Hula adds, is making sure the fungicide gets into the plant canopy far enough to have the desired effect. That becomes even more critical as the season advances.

“Fungicides have a tendency to work from the leaf they’ve come in contact with and move up,” Hula says. “So, if you’re trying to protect at least that ear leaf – and I like to protect the leaf opposite and below the ear – you’ve got to get penetration with that product.”

Hula says growers might have to spend a couple extra dollars to get sufficient volume for the product to get down below the canopy, if using a drone for application.

“If that’s what needs to be done, let’s do it,” he encourages. “If I’m spending $30 or more an acre, then I want to at least have the success that I’m paying for.”

5. Commit To Protecting Corn Through The Entire Season.

Modern corn genetics have significant “back-end” potential, enabling them to add yield through kernel fill late into the season. Hula and Dowdy advise against walking away from the crop early. They say evaluating fungicide applications during later reproductive stages can often yield a high return on investment.

D hybrids are of particular concern late-season, Ferrie says. These are hybrids that have kernel depth changes, positive or negative, based on populations and environmental conditions during the last 30 days of grain fill.

Missy Bauer, Farm Journal Field Agronomist in Michigan, zeros in on corn growth stage to guide uber-late-season fungicide applications.

“If I had a field that has no fungicide at all on it, and I had fairly heavy disease pressure from something like southern rust or tar spot, and I’m at early R4, I would still apply the fungicide,” she recommends.

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.

Elevated Corn Rootworm Pressure Projected For The Midwest

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 19:51:42 GMT

The “billion-dollar bug” is sharpening its teeth for 2026. Bayer CropScience reports corn rootworm pressure could be significant this year across major corn growing areas.

Based on 2025 beetle capture data from 555 monitored fields, the company projects medium to high rootworm pressure for the upcoming growing season in much of the Midwest:

31% of the corn fields sampled in 2025 had counts exceeding the economic threshold of 2 beetles/trap/day, which was 2% higher than 2024 fields (29%), 22% less than 2023 and 2022 fields (53%), and 7% less than 2021 fields (38%).
46% of the continuous corn fields sampled in 2025 were above the economic threshold, which was up 3% from 2024 (43%), down 25% from 2023 (71%), down 28% from 2022 (74%), and down 6% from 2021 (52%).
17% of the first-year corn fields in 2025 were above the economic threshold, which was 1% higher than 2024 (16%), 3% higher than 2023 (14%), up 7% from 2022 (10%), and equal to 2021 (17%).

On a broad scale, Bayer reports that rootworm larval populations — and consequently the risk potential from all CRW species this season — are likely to be elevated in fields in northern Illinois, south central Illinois, western Iowa, eastern, southeastern, and southwestern Nebraska, eastern and southeastern Wisconsin, and northern Colorado. Read the full report here .

Rootworm larvae feeding on corn roots compromise the plants’ structural integrity and can slice yields in affected fields by as much as 45%.

2026 corn rootworm pressure forecast based on 2025 beetle capture in 555 fields in CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD, WI, and PA.

(Maps: Bayer, Beetle Monitoring Project from 2024 and 2025)

How Two CRW Variants Beat The Corn-Soybean Rotation

“CRW beetles are very, very adaptable to many of the things that we throw at them,” says Ashley Dean, Iowa State University Extension field crop entomologist.

She says CRW is forcing many row-crop growers to rewrite their management playbooks to address the pest better, especially variant populations.

Dean reports that the “variant” label describes two distinct genetic adaptations of corn rootworm:

Northern Corn Rootworm (Extended Diapause): These small green beetles have learned to hit the “snooze” button. Instead of hatching the following spring, their eggs remain dormant in the soil for two or more years—sometimes up to five. This allows larvae to emerge exactly when a field rotates back to corn.
Western Corn Rootworm (The Soybean Variant): These yellow-and-black striped beetles have developed a behavioral shift. Instead of staying in cornfields to lay eggs, females migrate to soybean fields to deposit them. When that field is planted to corn the next season, the larvae are already waiting in the soil. “These variants have essentially lost their fidelity to corn when they’re laying eggs,” Dean notes in a webinar.

These maps give approximate locations for western and northern corn rootworm variants.

(Iowa State University Extension)

A Multi-Pronged Management Strategy

Addressing corn rootworm effectively requires farmers use a localized, field-by-field strategy, says Jim Robinson, chief technology officer for Rob-See-Co. Because geography, soil, and history vary, growers should work with agronomists to tailor traits and stewardship practices to their specific acres rather than relying solely on regional forecasts, he advises.

Here are four additional recommendations Extension and industry advise farmers use in areas with expected high populations of CRW this season:

Make Root Scouting Non-Negotiable: Dig and rate roots in every field—continuous or rotated—to understand your baseline pressure. For assessing damage, use the interactive node-injury scale from Iowa State available here .
Consider Longer Rotations: In areas with heavy Northern corn rootworm extended diapause, adding a third crop like oats can break the cycle, Dean says.
Strategic Use of Bt and Insecticides: While Western corn rootworm has shown resistance to all four Bt traits in some areas, these tools still have a place. However, Iowa State suggests choosing either a Bt hybrid or a soil-applied insecticide rather than using both as “insurance” unless pressure is extreme.

To help farmers make informed decisions, Chris DiFonzo, professor & field crops entomologist at Michigan State University, provides the Handy Bt Trait Table for U.S. Corn Production , a valuable resource that outlines available Bt traits, their targets, and other key information.

Leave a Check Strip: When testing a new transgenic hybrid or insecticide in first-year corn, leave an untreated strip. This is the only way to verify if the treatment provided a return on investment.

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.

4 Biocontrol Strategies To Shrink Your Weed Seed Bank

Wed, 04 Feb 2026 16:27:28 GMT

Mother Nature has a way of balancing the scales, and for farmers looking to manage persistent weed pressure, biological control—or biocontrol—is one testament to that.

Unlike making a traditional herbicide pass with your sprayer, biocontrol isn’t about fast or even total eradication. Instead, it’s usually a long-term strategy designed to tip the scales in your favor, using living organisms to keep weed populations at a “manageable level,” according to William Curran, Penn State emeritus weed scientist.

While biocontrol methods are common in rangelands and perennial systems, Curran notes they can require more effort to adopt in row-crop settings where tillage and rotations can disrupt the very organisms farmers are trying to put to work.

Curran says if you’re interested in using biocontrol measures as part of a comprehensive weed-control program, there are four primary categories to consider, including:

The Classical Approach: This involves introducing a specific natural enemy into a weed-infested area. The goal is for that organism to establish a permanent home, feeding on the target weeds year after year to naturally suppress their growth and seed development. An example of this would be the use of a Canada thistle rust pathogen .
The Augmentative or Inundative Method: Bio-herbicides are one example of inundative methods. The intent is to overwhelm the weed population quickly. This practice often requires multiple applications to be effective.
Conservation Management: Sometimes, the best helpers are already in your fields. By adjusting your cropping system to be more “predator-friendly,” you can boost the populations of native organisms, like ground beetles, that naturally snack on weed seeds.
Grazing: One of the oldest tools in the shed is still one of the most effective. Utilizing cattle, sheep, or goats to graze down weed-heavy areas can significantly reduce seed banks and keep invasive species in check.

For more information on biocontrol weed control practices, check out a newly updated webpage , authored by Curran and released by the GROW network.

Is Zero Tolerance For Weed Escapes The New Standard?

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 21:08:08 GMT

Across the country, Extension weed scientists are rewriting the rules of acceptable weed pressure in corn and soybeans. For many, tolerance for a few late-season escapes of tough weeds—like Palmer amaranth and waterhemp—is a thing of the past. Increasingly, the Extension community is encouraging farmers to draw some harder lines. One of those is for zero tolerance for weed seed production.

“We have really kind of shifted to this idea largely because of herbicide resistance. That is a huge threat for our crop production systems,” explains Sarah Lancaster, Kansas State University weed management Extension specialist and assistant professor.

Lancaster emphasizes that effective weed control is no longer about picking one or two individual tools to address weeds and prevent seed dispersal. Instead, it is about stacking as many tools as feasible into a single season.

“If you think about this as a multiple-choice answer, it’s not about using A, B, or C. The right answer is D—use all of the above,” she says.
Herbicides, cultural practices, strategic tillage, cover crops, rotations, and sanitation all play a role in stopping weeds.

During a recent episode of The Crop Science Podcast Show, available here , Lancaster addressed specific tools and practices to help farmers work toward the “zero tolerance” goal this season. Here are five for consideration:

1. Herbicides Will Still Be A Core Tool For Weed Control.

Despite the push for diversification, Lancaster believes herbicides remain the central tool for row-crop farmers.

“In our conventional broad-acre ag systems, herbicides are still going to be the most efficient, most economical way to [control weeds]—I’m going to say for the rest of my career,” she says.

However, decisions about product selection, rates, application timing, and application quality are increasingly critical—even more so under stress conditions like heat and drought. In western Kansas, Lancaster sees farmers adjusting their practices to meet these challenges.

“When it gets hot and dry, our farmers are really good at modifying their herbicide applications to make sure they’re still going to be efficacious in those very difficult conditions,” she explains. “They know that if they skimp on the water, they’re wasting their time, so they do a good job of accounting for that, modifying their adjuvants, and knowing when to adjust.”

2. Use Cultural Practices To Make The Crop Competitive.

Lancaster stresses that managing the crop can be just as important as managing the weeds.

“Other things that we talk about would be cultural control practices, looking at planting dates and row spacings,” she says. “How do we manipulate that crop to make it as competitive as possible and maybe support our herbicides a little bit better, so that we have fewer weeds to control?”

For growers, this means considering narrower rows, if suitable for the cropping system, and using optimal planting dates to favor the crop over the weeds.

These tactics don’t replace herbicides, Lancaster adds, but they make every herbicide dollar go further.

3. Consider Using Strategic Tillage In No-Till Systems.

In Kansas, no-till is widely adopted to conserve soil and water, but Lancaster points out that it can reshape the weed spectrum and the tools required to manage it.

“Here in Kansas, no-till is a very important soil conservation practice, but it brings its own set of weed management challenges,” she notes. “The number one reason that tillage is a good thing is to kill weeds. When you remove that, you’re 100% reliant on herbicides.”

She believes there are scenarios in no-till where strategic or occasional tillage has a place. One example is the return of perennial warm-season grasses in long-term no-till fields, such as tumble windmill grass.

“That’s an example of a situation where strategic or occasional tillage is becoming a more accepted, more common idea for managing some of these key weeds,” Lancaster says.

Her bottom-line message is to use tillage strategically whenever tough weeds require it.

4. Technology Can Help Improve Control, Reduce Rates, Cut Costs.

Lancaster sees real promise in camera- or sensor-based systems that spray only where weeds are present, such as “See & Spray” or “Weed-It” systems. She finds the technology is especially beneficial on fallow ground or in stubble.

She notes that in some cases, these tools are what make no-till financially viable. Referencing one farmer she works with, Lancaster sayss they used this technology to stay aggressive on weed control while actually reducing input costs.

“They’ve looked at the economic numbers, and now they know that they can kill the weeds with herbicide applications and drop that herbicide cost below the cost of running a sweep plow,” she says. “It’s allowed them to gain those benefits of conserving moisture.”

5. Prioritize Prevention and Sanitation.

Lancaster urges farmers to lean into prevention and sanitation—two tools she believes are often undervalued. In Kansas, where many farmers also raise cattle, she sees clear risks in how feed and manure are handled.

“Livestock manure is very valuable, but if it’s not been composted well, or if that animal has had a diet that’s full of weed seeds, that’s going to introduce a whole other set of problems,” she warns.

People, vehicles, and animals are potential vectors for weed seeds. Lancaster advises farmers to be intentional about cleaning all equipment—including combines—to prevent spreading seeds from one field to another.

She extends this advice to anyone moving between multiple farms, especially.

“I remind students that if they’re a field scout in the summer, they need to be careful to not make their four-wheeler or their work boots a weed seed dispersal instrument,” she says. “It only takes one instance of seed introduction to have a serious problem for a long time.”

End of an Era? Glufosinate's Tight Grip On Waterhemp Finally Breaks

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 19:55:10 GMT

For many farmers, glufosinate quietly became the last dependable post-emergence option to control tough broadleaf weeds like waterhemp in fields where glyphosate, ALS, PPO, and HPPD herbicides had already slipped in performance. Glufosinate’s “last herbicide standing” status is why what’s happening in Illinois now should grab your full attention.

University of Illinois weed scientist Patrick Tranel and his colleagues announced in December that they have confirmed several glufosinate-resistant waterhemp populations in Carroll County, in northern Illinois.

That confirmation is a big deal. Boiled down, what this means for Illinois farmers is stark: Every post-emergence herbicide available to control waterhemp in the state—seven different herbicide groups—is now compromised to some degree.

Tranel adds that some preemergence chemistries are also declining in efficacy. How that plays out in fields: he says pre herbicides that might once have provided four weeks of residual control now keep weeds in check for only three weeks.

“Let that set in for a moment,” he says. “That means we can’t just go out there and say, ‘Oh, I’m going to use this herbicide to control waterhemp.’ You might not have resistance in your field yet to that particular herbicide, but it’s out there in the state, and if you rely on that single post product, you are going to get resistance.”

Farmers in states outside Illinois aren’t off the hook, either. The problem of glufosinate-resistant waterhemp is suspected in at least six other states including Missouri, Indiana, Iowa , Nebraska, Ohio and Tennessee.

“ Missouri farmers are facing declining control of waterhemp with two of our most common post products—glufosinate and 2,4-D—and that continues going into 2026,” says Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri Extension weed scientist.

Why Waterhemp is a Driver Weed

Waterhemp is considered a “driver weed” for many row crop growers across the Midwest and South due to its ability to severely impact yields.

Yield Losses: Uncontrolled populations can cause extensive yield losses—up to 74% in corn and 56% in soybeans—according to research by Larry Steckel, University of Tennessee Extension weed scientist.
Dominance: In the 2025 Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) broadleaf crops weed survey, waterhemp surpassed Palmer amaranth (pigweed) as the most problematic weed.
Biological Challenge: The reasons for waterhemp’s dominance include prolific seed production (up to 1 million seeds/plant), season-long germination, rapid growth, dioecious nature (male/female plants for high genetic diversity), and widespread resistance to multiple herbicide sites of action (SOA).

One Of The Challenges: Subtle Resistance and Regrowth

Tranel calls what Illinois researchers are seeing the early stages of resistance evolution. Critically, what they observe isn’t the obvious kind of resistance where the herbicide does nothing. This low-level resistance makes it difficult to detect in the field.

“It looks the same as what the symptomology looks like on a glufosinate-sensitive plant, except not as severe… you’re going to see that burning, but you’re not going to see the continued progression of that control,” Tranel says. “You’re going to start seeing regrowth.”

In Illinois field trials, resistant plants were sprayed small, with full rates, under near-perfect conditions (hot, humid, sunny, with ample soil moisture), and still, some waterhemp survived.

Tranel’s research suggests some resistant plants may be able to detoxify glufosinate faster at higher temperatures:

“We saw actually worse control of the resistant population under higher temperatures… we think that’s because the resistant population is able to metabolize or detoxify the glufosinate, and at higher temperature it’s able to do that faster,” he says.

Bradley agrees, reporting similar scenarios in Missouri. This low-level resistance can be easily confused with application issues, which makes confirmation difficult. Farmers often report poor glufosinate control due to weeds that were too big, poor spray coverage under a canopy, or less-than-ideal temperature and humidity.

“It can be difficult to distinguish between, ‘Do I really have a resistant population, or was my application not quite right?'" Tranel explains.

The Harsh Reality: No Chemical Safety Net Left

The urgent message for farmers is that they can no longer rely on any single product to deliver control of waterhemp and other tough weeds. Furthermore, the old rule of simply rotating sites of action is no longer sufficient.

“Fifteen years ago, almost all our resistance was due to target site change,” Tranel explains. “All the new mechanisms we’ve discovered in the last 15 years have been due to mechanisms other than a target site change.”

This shift in the plant’s biology means that merely switching group numbers will not keep growers ahead of waterhemp for long.

“You can’t manage chemical resistance with chemicals,” Tranel says. “We cannot exclusively rely on herbicides like we have been able to do in past decades.”

Strategies for the Long Haul: Don’t Cut Weed Control Rates

Farmers face going into the 2026 season with paper-thin margins. During a recent farmer panel discussion, Kevin Bradley asked several high-yield Missouri growers what keeps them up at night.

“Every single one of them said input prices,” he recalls. “Many of our growers are just doing what they believe they have to do to be able to stay on their land and farm. The problem is we are just seeing more performance failures with our post herbicide products that we rely on now,” he adds.

Bradley and Tranel are concerned about farmers choosing to trim herbicide programs. They both strongly recommend that farmers use full rates of herbicides, especially in fields with tough weed issues. Cutting herbicide rates will save few if any dollars.

“With glufosinate, we’re talking pennies between lower and full rates. It’s not going to be a whole lot of money to get better control of weeds and prevent them going to seed,” Bradley says.

Diversify and Aim for Zero Seed

Glufosinate must be treated like a valuable resource. The weed scientists encourage farmers to protect it by making every application as effective as possible and reducing the number of weeds it has to kill. Key practices they recommend include:

Use Multiple Products: Tranel advises against leaning on a single post-emergence herbicide. Instead, “use two or more, either tank mixed or in sequence,” and use an overlapping residual.
Integrate Non-Chemical Tools: Practices like using cover crops that produce significant biomass can suppress waterhemp and other weeds, reducing the number of weeds that ever see a spray pass. New technologies such as weed zappers, harvest weed-seed management products, and weed flamers are also gaining traction. As these options prove viable, they give producers additional tools to the current chemical options for weed control, notes Matthew Woolard, WSSA Science Policy Fellow and Texas Tech University graduate assistant.
Have a ‘Zero-Seed’ Goal: The ultimate long-term strategy is to deplete the soil seed bank. “At the end of the growing season, if you don’t have a weed going to seed, you’re not going to get evolution of resistance,” Tranel says. Achieving this goal will reduce pressure on your herbicide program.

Tranel says he sometimes ponders where the farming community would be today with regard to weeds if glyphosate had been stewarded better. It’s a lesson he hopes row crop growers take to heart.

“Glufosinate might be the best thing we have for the next 10 years. How can we make sure we can keep using it for the next 10 years?” Tranel says.

The answer is not more glufosinate use on its own. Better systems—using multiple SOA products, more crop diversity, more scouting, and allowing fewer escapes to go to seed—can help keep the chemistry in play.

Bottom line: The clock on glufosinate is already ticking down, and how fast it runs out is now largely in farmers’ hands.

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.

Artificial Intelligence Joins The Fight Against Weeds, Insects And Disease

Thu, 07 Aug 2025 19:43:03 GMT

The crop protection industry needs a reboot, according to Tony Klemm.

As CEO of Enko, a crop-protection startup, he says the company is taking a different approach to solving one of agriculture’s biggest problems – developing safe, effective and sustainable crop protection products that can be brought to the marketplace faster and more economically.

Traditional discovery pipelines for herbicides, fungicides, insecticides are not keeping pace with real challenges farmers face, such as resistance issues, he told Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk on Thursday.

A 2024 study funded by Crop Life International reports the costs associated with bringing a new active ingredient to major U.S. and European markets now top $300 million. In addition, the survey says the average lead time between the first synthesis of a new crop protection molecule and its subsequent commercial introduction is now over 12 years.

Part of the long development time required is related to regulatory hurdles. “There’s just increasing demand for meeting environmental safety needs, rightfully so,” Klemm says.

A Paradigm Shift
Enko, based in Mystic, Conn., is using artificial intelligence (AI) and a machine learning discovery platform to guide the company’s research and development efforts. Klemm describes the strategy as a paradigm shift from the current industry practices for how small molecule crop protection discovery has been done.

“We use DNA-encoded libraries, and these libraries allow our scientists to explore this massive, diverse chemical space in a very targeted, automated and expansive way,” he says.

The technology allows Enko scientists to look at billions of molecules and screen them for safety and efficacy and, in the process, develop them faster and more economically.

“We still have to take the regulatory journey that, right now, no one’s figured out a way to expedite,” he notes. “But getting to that regulatory queue faster and better on the front side is really what’s bringing us that cost savings, that efficacy and is going to allow for more products to be put into the regulatory queue in a faster manner.”

Progress To Date
So far, Klemm says Enko has delivered about 50 active programs that cover all facets of weeds, insects and disease. Many use novel or new modes of action that Klemm believes will help farmers fight resistance issues, such as herbicide resistance in Palmer amaranth and pigweed.

“We’re really working on how we can bring new modes of action to farmers, give them fresh tools to win that fight. And our chemistries work using fewer active ingredients, from perspective of the load on the acre, so we’re designing safer chemistry for the future,” he says.

Specifically, Klemm says Enko recently announced a new grass herbicide is in the pipeline for the European cereals market for control of black grass. The company also has conducted field trials for corn and soybean products in the U.S. that he anticipates are five to 10 years away from market launch, depending on how long they take to move through regulatory channels.

Your next read: Bayer Affirms Support of Glyphosate, Optimistic for a Future with Over the Top Dicamba Labels

Farmers Facing Tough Weeds In Soybeans Are Pushing The Herbicide Envelope

Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:51:28 GMT

Weeds like waterhemp, marestail and Palmer amaranth are a worrisome problem in soybean fields this summer. But as the calendar turns to August, beware of tackling weeds too late for labeled herbicide applications and, in the process, cutting your soybean yield potential, advises Isaac Ferrie, Crop-Tech Consulting field agronomist in central Illinois.

He wants to remind growers that the number of herbicides available to address weeds in soybeans rapidly drops off as the crop advances into early reproductive stages.

“There are more labeled herbicide options to control weeds in soybeans that are in the R1 and R2 growth stages, and there’s usually still adequate time for beans to recover from stress and flower abortion,” Ferrie says. “Once we get into R3, we need to hold onto as many pods as possible to protect yield potential, and that can create some complications for any herbicide use.”

In most cases, herbicide use once soybeans reach R3 is discouraged by agronomists and, equally important, not labelled and provide reduced control outcomes at best.

Here are some brief guidelines for herbicide application timing in soybeans for three of the main chemistries in the marketplace. Bear in mind some of these products can be used only on specific seed technologies.

1. Liberty herbicide (glufosinate) – It can be sprayed on LibertyLink soybeans from emergence up to the R1 growth stage (first bloom). Learn more via the label .

“That means once 50% of those plants out there have one flower on them, we can’t spray Liberty,” Ferrie says.

2. Enlist One and Enlist Duo – They can be applied through the R1 growth stage and up to the R2 growth stage. Learn more here about application timing.

“So, as soon as we have a flower in the top two nodes, we can’t be spraying Enlist,” Ferrie says.

3. Roundup (glyphosate) – It can be applied up to R3 in soybeans. The R3 growth stage starts when one of the four uppermost nodes with a fully developed trifoliate leaf on the main stem has a pod that is 3/16 inches long. According to this definition, glyphosate can be applied through the R2 growth stage, but applications after the R3 stage begins will be off-label, notes Christy Sprague, with Michigan State University Extension .

Ferrie offers some great insights on the pros and cons of late-season soybean herbicide applications in a brief video, available here .

For more insights on late-season herbicide applications and options in soybeans, check out this resource written by Extension educators at the University of Minnesota:
Updated soybean growth stage cutoffs for postemergence herbicide application.

Stop Seeds From Going Into The Bank
Weeds that are popping through the soybean canopy are hard to ignore and are worth pulling out of the field by hand. Pulling weeds can help reduce weed seed banks and their impact on future crops.

University of Minnesota research shows over 50% of lambsquarters seeds can be viable in 12 years. For waterhemp, 50% of the viable seeds will be degraded in three years. Giant ragweed seeds are degraded relatively quickly, with over 95% of the weed seeds being degraded in two years (Goplen et al. 2017).

Your next read: Spray Drone Season Hits Full Throttle: 3 Service Providers Flying Acres and Boosting Yields

Why U.S. Agriculture Needs More AI Investment to Stay Ahead in Global Crop Innovation Race

Tue, 20 May 2025 18:15:48 GMT

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a key tool in accelerating the discovery, development and manufacturing of new crop protection molecules to fight yield-robbing weeds, pests, and diseases in U.S. farm fields.

The technology helps researchers shorten the discovery window and find new and novel active-ingredient molecules that are much more difficult and expensive to uncover using traditional research methods.

That was among the talking points that emerged from Tuesday’s congressional hearing on AI in farming, held in front of the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee in Washington, D.C.

Related: The New Space Race: Why America Must Focus On AI

At the hearing, key agricultural stakeholders advocated for increasing government investment in AI technology and infrastructure. The group warned Congress that America’s status as a world leader in AI has been usurped by Japan and China, while other rival countries are also gunning for top positions.

Testifying on behalf of U.S. agriculture was Corteva Vice President of Agricultural Solutions Brian Lutz, University of Florida associate professor Chris Swale and University of Illinois assistant professor Boris Camiletti.

“AI is without a doubt one of the most profound technologies ever to be invented,” Lutz said. “We believe there is tremendous opportunity for our government to support and incentivize advanced innovation — including by leveraging the benefits of AI — to benefit American farmers. If we want to win, we need to move smarter and faster than our competition. Corteva believes with the support of our government, we will do exactly that.”

Lutz said researchers at Corteva recently used AI to model how 10,000 different molecules might be used in crop protection, all within a matter of weeks. The Corteva model was able to identify dozens of new potential crop protection molecules that its overworked chemists could not have found otherwise. He said the company is currently testing a handful of these molecules and AI will also play a role in moving the testing phase along more quickly than traditional lab-based methods.

Lutz also told Congress how Corteva scientists have deployed AI technology in its fermentation processes, which the company uses to create what he called “molecules of interest” for evaluation. Over the past few years, Corteva has used AI modeling to engineer various bacterial strains that drive fermentation reactions and optimize reaction conditions, allowing the company to run a manufacturing operation that is as efficient as possible. This application of AI helps Corteva maintain a strong U.S. manufacturing base in the Midwest, Lutz said.

“This is the new face of ag innovation,” he added. “We can accelerate discovery of new classes of crop protection products, like biologicals — nature-based solutions that help farmers grow more food by working alongside traditional crop protection products. With AI, we can begin to predict the incredible diversity of biomolecules and metabolites that are produced by microbes and other organisms, with the goal of unlocking the secrets within plant biology to develop the next generation of safe, highly targeted, nature-inspired products.”

Swale testified to AI’s role in helping researchers on his team find and develop biological-based treatments to combat Asian citrus psyllid, an invasive pest that has left the Florida citrus industry — valued at almost $10 billion just five years ago — teetering on the brink of collapse. Effective synthetic chemicals to manage the Asian citrus psyllid exist, but the regulatory hurdles to get those products onto the market are too high, he said

“We have turned to using AI to help discover chemicals of the natural world because the registration requirements are significantly lower when compared to synthetic insecticides,” Swale said.

Camiletti leads a team of researchers combining plant pathology, remote sensing and AI to help U.S. soybean farmers overcome red crown rot, a soil-borne disease first detected in Illinois soybean fields in 2018.

Illinois has been hit the hardest by the yield-robbing disease, Camiletti said, and the pathogen is spreading rapidly to Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri. The disease is difficult to detect visually, he added, and once symptoms appear it’s often too late for successful remediation.

“My team uses satellite imagery and machine learning to identify red crown rot hot spots, and we train the models with high resolution multi-spectral data to near-infrared bands and use ground observations to teach the algorithm what diseased plants look like,” Camiletti said. “This technology has real on-farm impact. We are building tools that generate prescription maps so instead of applying fungicides across entire fields farmers can target only the affected areas.”

After key witness testimony concluded, the committee opened the floor to questions from members of Congress. Watch the full hearing via the video embedded below:

Your Next Read: Decode MAHA’s Potential Effect on the Agriculture Sector

Cover Crops Gain Acceptance From Farmers When Their Agronomic Advisers Already Use Them

Wed, 23 Apr 2025 15:32:03 GMT

Agronomic advisers are increasingly recommending the use of cover crops to their farmer customers and helping them find success – especially when they have experience with cover crops on their own ground.

That’s just one of the key findings in a new survey from the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), and the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA). A report on the survey was released by the three groups on Wednesday.

Specifically, 22.3% of the advisers who said they use cover crops themselves reported between 25% and 50% of their clients are using covers, compared to a 9.1% rate of adoption among clients of advisers who did not personally use cover crops.

“Advisers play a key role in informing farmers about cover crops and providing technical assistance to help them succeed with covers,” says Rob Myers, director of the University of Missouri Center for Regenerative and regional director of extension programs for North Central Region SARE, in a prepared statement. “Understanding their attitudes toward cover crops, how they get their information, and how they perceive cover crop benefits will help guide efforts to support those advisers.”

More than 650 farm advisers from across the U.S. participated in the survey. Among the key findings:

The farm advisers surveyed used a wide range of information sources to learn about cover crops. Advisers who reported that they learned about cover crops on the job rather than through formal academic or training channels preferred training sessions (63.9%) and webinars (57.4%) for learning new cover crop insights, but they also liked learning from farmers one-on-one (58.3%) and by visiting field trials (30.6%).

A Valuable Weed-Management Tool

How to use cover crops as a weed management tool is one of the best key learnings Byron Hendrix says he’s gained from helping farmers adopt their use in Illinois corn and soybeans.

“Because herbicide resistance is becoming such an issue, we’ve seen cover crops come in, and they’ve helped tremendously at out-competing these resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth (pigweed) and common waterhemp, says Hendrix, a certified crop adviser and owner of Agronomy 1^st LLC and an Illinois Soy Envoy . “Once we kill that cover crop off successfully, we have a very clean looking field to plant into. So that’s a great tool that’s come about, and we’re getting better at using cover crops. That’s the key, right?”

Hendrix says he recalls when cover crops were initially adopted by farmers in his area, they were unsure of how to use them effectively. “We didn’t know exactly, are they for weed resistance? Or, are we utilizing them for more of a nitrogen benefit in the soil, you know, that type of thing?”

That same uncertainty was an issue for agronomic advisers, and it became less of an issue once advisers understood how to make cover crops work effectively, says Ryan Heiniger, executive director for the CTIC.

“This survey opened a window into how cover crops fit into crop consulting businesses and other advisory services,” says Heiniger, in a prepared statement. “We also observed that seeing is believing, which is borne out by the fact that approximately 70% of the respondents who farm themselves use cover crops on their own operations, and those cover crop users are more inclined to advise their clients on the practice.”

Higher Adoption Rates Are Expected

In addition, a majority of the farm advisers (56.9%) who participated in the survey said they expect to see cover crop acreage continue to increase. That’s true for Hendrix and his retail business.

“We’ve got multiple great things happening with cover crops now, and more and more people are actually implementing those practices,” Hendrix says.

Looking to the future, survey participants said they expect farmers to continue increasing use of cover crop mixes (46.7%) and trying ways of combining other soil health practices with cover crops (52.9%). The advisers said they expect a moderate amount of interest in newer cover crop topics like planting green (29.2%), grazing cover crops (32.2%) and others.

For more information on the CTIC/SARE/ASTA National Cover Crop Survey Report 2024-2025, visit SARE’s website .

Your next read: Ferrie: Elevate Your Corn Planting Game Instantly With 7 Proven Tips

Soybean Farmer Fine-Tunes Seeding Rates For Higher Profits

Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:57:30 GMT

How low can you go with soybean seeding rates and still harvest high yields?

Perhaps a better question Brian Scott set out to answer five years ago was, how low could he go with populations and still produce the most profitable soybean crop possible on his northwest Indiana farm?

In 2024, the answer was 100,000 seeds per acre – a rate that penciled out to an investment of $53 per acre in seed. Yield results at harvest averaged 76 bu. per acre.

“We had really good results and set a lot of yield records in our fields last year,” says Scott, who farms 2,500 acres of corn, soybeans, popcorn and wheat with his dad near Monticello, Ind. The field shown below was split between two populations of the same variety in 2024: 100K on the left and 40K on the right.

“Driving by, you’d never know there was a difference,” he says.

Brian Scott says growing conditions were ideal in 2024 and yield results were strong across the board, regardless of seeding rate. He points out that the field shown here was split between two populations: 100,000 plants on the left and 40,000 on the right. “You can’t hardly tell the difference other than a little height on the higher population. Driving by you’d never know there was a difference,” he told Farm Journal.

(Brian Scott)

Scott says the family’s ongoing objective for evaluating seeding rates each year is to find that fine line between cutting seed costs and growing the most profitable soybean crop.

Lower Rates Are A National Trend
The move to lower seeding rates has been a national trend for more than two decades, according to USDA-ERS.

Average seeding rates for U.S. soybeans declined nearly 22% between 1997 and 2018, according to the agency’s May 2024 oil crops outlook.

Key contributors to the downward trend include improved genetics, seed treatments and a widespread shift toward planting in conventional rows instead of drilling or broadcasting soybeans, USDA reports.

Highly productive areas are where you can usually trim soybean populations, according to Matt Duesterhaus, Crop-Tech Consulting field agronomist in Illinois.

“Higher fertility and adequate soil moisture will promote more growth and height in the soybean plants, as well as more branches to make up for fewer plants,” he says. “We see this in fields with a manure history as well.”

In those fields or parts of fields that are producing shorter soybeans (or in fields with tough clays or sand) that’s when farmers need higher populations to reach canopy quickly, Duesterhaus adds.

Base Decisions On Multiple Years Of Experience
Plant height is a positive only to a point. The family started reducing seeding rates 10 years ago as they found plants were getting too tall and lodging. At the time they were planting a rate of 165,000 seeds per acre.

“The beans were getting chest high in August, especially if we got some rain. And we were like, oh, that’s not good, so we dropped to 140,000 an acre which took care of the lodging issues,” Scott recalls.

Since then, they have evaluated planting populations as low as 40,000 seeds per acre.

The plants shown here are in order by population, from left to right: 40K, 80K, 100K and 160K. “This was the same variety planted in the same field,” Scott says.

(Brian Scott)

“We planted a block last year at 40,000 that averaged 69 bushels at harvest,” Scott says. “They were massive plants; the stalks were as big around as my thumb at the soil’s surface.”

Those results (shown in the photo above at populations ranging from 40K at the far left to 160K at the far right) were just the opposite of his experience the year before, in 2023.

“We got some heavy rains, and at that 40,000 rate the beans struggled to break through the crust. It was a really thin stand, and we had maybe 25,000 plants at harvest,” Scott recalls.

Today, he says 100,000 seeds per acre is the average planting rate for soybeans across the family’s farm.

“We grow mostly seed beans, and I kind of had to convince the company that it would work,” Scott says. “I joke about it a little bit with our seed salesman that they’ll be able to sell us more seed when we buy another 80 acres with the money we save.”

To maximize yield results in most environments , Purdue Extension adds that “growers should have no less than 100,000 uniformly standing plants per acre in 7.5" and 15" rows and no less than 80,000 uniformly standing plants per acre in 30" rows.”

As you head to the field, check out this soybean seeding rate example. A few simple calculations can provide some helpful insights for your farm.

(Purdue Extension)

Your Farm, Your Results
Scott is a proponent of on-farm field tests and routinely shares what he learns with other farmers and general consumers via his blog “The Farmer’s Life” on YouTube and Facebook. Check out this link to learn more about his work in 2024 to evaluate planting populations.

When testing lower soybean populations, he would encourage other growers to consider these three factors:

1. Variety Selection
While yield is always the primary factor when selecting a variety, he’s found bushy varieties are usually the best choice for wide rows.

“You have to seek out bean varieties that branch well and can compensate for lower plant populations,” Scott says, noting he plants bushy varieties at 1.5” deep in 30” rows. His family plants 30” rows because they own one planter, using it for both corn and soybeans.

2. Seed Treatments
Scott routinely use seed treatments with fungicide and insecticide to protect seed, which is especially important when going with lower populations and planting early or in challenging conditions.

3. Weed Control
Scott maintains a robust weed-control program using pre-emergence and postemergence herbicides featuring residual control. Given the operation’s 30” rows, he says preventing weeds from emerging is particularly important as the crop is often slower to canopy than if they planted in narrow rows.

“We do a burndown treatment with a residual right before planting,” Scott says. “We’ve had really good luck coming back in our first post pass with putting down another residual in the last few years – that seems to be helping quite a bit. Then, we usually come back a second time with a post application during the summer.”

Duesterhaus says weed pressure is his No. 1 consideration for whether soybean planting populations can be reduced, given the struggle many growers have today with herbicide-resistant waterhemp, pigweed and ragweed species.

“If you’re growing organic soybeans or in a constant battle with weeds, lower soybean populations are out of the equation,” Duesterhaus says. “High populations and quick canopy coverage are a crucial and effective part of your weed management in those scenarios.”

‘Go Slow, But Give It A Try’
Scott encourages other farmers to try cutting seeding rates on a small scale and evaluate how the various rates perform.

He typically puts in a 120’ strip of each seeding population, which gives him three passes at harvest with the combine to evaluate.

“Just put a block out in the field somewhere and either keep track of it on your monitor or throw some survey flags out, and pick it out at harvest,” he advises. “Try it on a small scale, and then go from there the next year.”

Your next read: With Soybean Planting Populations, How Low Can You Go?

New Chemistry Promises To Give Barnyardgrass The Boot In Rice

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:49:58 GMT

As rice growers know only too well, barnyardgrass doesn’t stay in the barn yard. It likes wet and moist areas and thrives in road ditches, irrigated crop fields, pastures and – much to farmers’ dismay – in their rice fields.

Yield losses of 30% or more are common in many rice growing regions. Losses have been amplified with the increase of herbicide-resistant barnyardgrass, which can often withstand applications of products with glyphosate, propanil and ALS chemistries.

“In terms of the spectrum of control, barnyardgrass is our number-one weed, and we need help,” says Connor Webster, assistant professor and rice Extension weed specialist at Louisiana State University (LSU), in an industry press release.

New Technology On The Way
Webster and several other weed scientists have conducted research on a promising chemistry, tetflupyrolimet, designed to help farmers manage herbicide-resistant barnyardgrass biotypes, sprangletop (Amazon and bearded) and other grass species.

Earlier this week, FMC U.S. announced it plans to introduce two new herbicides based on tetflupyrolimet, which FMC has branded as Dodhylex active. The products have been named Keenali Complete and Keenali GR.

The company anticipates introducing Keenali Complete herbicide in 2027 for the Mid-South rice growing region and Keenali GR herbicide in 2028 for the California rice growing region, reports Darren Dillenbeck, vice president and president of FMC North America.

The Dodhylex (tetflupyrolimet) technology has been classified by the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee and the Weed Science Society of America as a Group 28 herbicide, making it the first new herbicide mode of action globally in nearly 40 years.

“We have spent more than a decade at our Stine Research Center and in fields across the world researching, developing and testing these herbicides,” Dillenbeck says in the release.
Dillenbeck anticipates Keenali Complete herbicide will be a co-pack offering, combining Dodhylex active with Command3ME microencapsulated herbicide, to harness their complementary spectrum while providing built-in herbicide resistance stewardship for both active ingredients. This use of multiple modes of action in a co-pack is a proactive step by FMC to protect the new Dodhylex active and provide technology better able to withstand resistance development.

Residual Control With Crop Safety
Keenali Complete herbicide will give rice growers two modes of action to use at the preemergence application stage. This solution will be commercialized and marketed to the Mid-South rice growing region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. Rigorously tested in all rice herbicide platforms, Keenali Complete herbicide will provide additional residual grass control and demonstrated crop safety, as well as fit with a variety of cultural practices, including direct- and water-seeded rice production, FMC reports.

Webster says research at LSU shows tetflupyrolimet tends to have a little longer residual. “Now, when paired with Command herbicide, the two together show synergistic interaction to control barnyardgrass, which we’ve seen consistently over the past four years of research. That’s a big positive. Having the two together is better than either one of them separate, plus you get that little bit longer window of residual control. That can potentially buy you some time when you have to make a postemergent application, and being able to buy time is critical,” he says in the release.

Jason Norsworthy, distinguished professor and weed scientist for the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, says he is excited by the extended residual control of barnyardgrass and sprangletops the new chemistry offers.
“Also, based on carryover and drift research with Dodhylex active, I think rice growers will be pleasantly surprised to see how well it can be applied without fear of injuring nearby crops,” Norsworthy adds.

Flexible Use Options For California Growers
Work at the University of California-Davis has shown the herbicide can address a wide range of herbicide-resistant grass weeds. Some species of grass weeds there are resistant to all currently registered herbicides in the state, according to Kassim Al-Khatib, the Melvin D. Androus endowed professor for weed science at the university.

“We have tested tetflupyrolimet (Dodhylex active) on more than 50 grass populations of resistant grass weeds and we controlled all of them. This herbicide is also effective on bearded sprangletop where we do not have many alternatives,” Al-Khatib says. “Also, this herbicide fits in many programs — tank mixed or sequential application — to control weeds.”

Your next read: Proof of Concept: Regenerative Technology Reduces Methane Emission in Rice Production

Exclusive: Herbicide Synergy Gives "Trojan Horse" Attack on Resistant Weeds

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 21:29:14 GMT

Herbidcide resistance in weeds isn’t going away, but researchers are still looking for ways to slow down the phenomenon. With new research, Vipan Kumar, associate professor of weed science at Cornell, documented a synergistic effect for greater control of kochia resistant to multiple herbicide classes.

“There aren’t many new herbicide modes of action coming into the market,” he says. “We need to rethink weed control strategies and plans, especially for herbicide-resistant biotypes, differently.”

Kochia populations resistant to up to five different herbicide sites of action (groups 2, 4, 5, 9 and 14) have expanded to cause a weed management challenge for growers in the Great Plains and Midwest states.

With assistance from Belchim USA, Kumar oversaw studies when he was previously at Kansas State University that paired pyridate (group 6) with atrazine (5), glyphosate (9), dicamba (4) or fluroxypyr (4).

Adding pyridate (Tough 5EC) to the tank mix had a synergistic interaction for greater control of kochia with mulitple resistance to glyphosate, atrazine and dicamba.

Compared with separate applications of glyphosate or atrazine, resistant kochia control was increased from 26% to 90% with the application of glyphosate plus pyridate (Tough) and 28% to 95% with atrazine plus pyridate.

“We are getting limited on post-applied herbicide options for kochia control. This idea of synergy brings something new. It could be a solution for some of the resistant biotypes by adding a different site of action,” Kumar says. “This can play an important component of integrated weed management.”

Kumar’s research shows Tough truly synergizes other classes of herbicides (groups 5, 6, 9 and 4) along with the HPPDs (Group 27).

Dennis Long, national technical service and development manager at Belchim USA, says, “Years ago, we discovered the low use rate, synergistic impact of Tough on the HPPD herbicides. This is well-documented and is why we invested millions toward re-registration.”

Long says adding Tough to the tank costs $10 to $12 per acre. Tough is labeled for field corn, seed corn, popcorn, chickpeas, lentils and mint.

He describes how Tough acts like a Trojan horse. He says it is chemically engineered as a proherbicide to penetrate the leaf. Once inside the plant, it is broken down into the herbicidally active molecule and “carries in” other chemistries faster.

“There’s economic value in resistance management in achieving a higher level of weed control as well as reducing the number of seeds going into the seed bank. Especially with weed escapes, you’ve selected for the ones that are resistant, so we have to head that off,” Long says.

Kumar sees future research to include different synergistic use rates of pyridate for Palmer amaranth, horseweed and waterhemp.

“These are unexplored mechanisms for weed control. We need to understand the biochemical interactions of the molecules at the plant level and cellular level,” he says.

Read the full published research as it appears in the latest issue of Weed Technology Journal.

EPA Approves Next Generation of Glufosinate-Based Herbicide for Use in Multiple Crops

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:49:13 GMT

Liberty Ultra herbicide, powered by Glu-L Technology has received U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration and is now approved for use, subject to state approvals.

Liberty Ultra herbicide, containing the active ingredient glufosinate-P-ammonium, also referred to as L-glufosinate ammonium, is the next generation of Liberty herbicide from BASF.

This new post knockdown solution is effective on both broadleaves and grasses and is available for use on glufosinate-enabled soybean, cotton, corn and canola acres.

In research trials, Liberty Ultra herbicide has demonstrated 20% superior weed control and won nine out of 10 head-to-head comparisons against generics the company reports.¹

“As farmers increasingly rely on glufosinate in their weed management programs, the demand for enhanced efficacy and efficiency of this herbicide is more apparent than ever,” says Matt Malone, product manager for BASF Agricultural Solutions.

“With a narrowing number of effective knockdown tools in the U.S., BASF’s latest innovation, Liberty Ultra herbicide, will offer American farmers a post knockdown tool that delivers improved performance and convenience thanks to the new Liberty Lock formulation and BASF’s patented Glu-L Technology,” he adds.

This combination gives farmers better weed control on grasses and tough broadleaf weeds like palmer amaranth, waterhemp, giant ragweed and kochia, resulting in more bushels at the end of the season.

Glu-L Technology, the patented synthesis process that refines the glufosinate-ammonium active ingredient to its most herbicidally active component, allows every gallon of Liberty Ultra to cover 33% more acres than generics.

Liberty Ultra herbicide packs the power of 32 fluid ounces of Liberty herbicide into a convenient 24 fluid ounces standard use rate. In addition to its lower standard use rate, BASF’s Liberty Lock formulation locks more herbicide onto leaves and into weeds. This custom formulation is designed to adhere more droplets onto weed leaves for better coverage with every pass.

Liberty Ultra herbicide is the first resolved isomer, trait-enabled knockdown herbicide, paving the way for several Glu-L Technology-based premix herbicides to come from BASF within this decade.

¹ DEV-H-2023-US-DR2, MKD-H-2022-US-D43B, MKD-H-2022-US-D43A, MKD-H-2023-US-D41, MKD-H-2023-US-F41. MKD-H-2023-US-D42. Locations (52); Crops: soybean, corn, cotton and canola; Weed Species (173): GPA: 15-20 gal/acre; AMS or no AMS included depending on protocol.

Cover Crops to the Rescue

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 18:04:21 GMT

When Don Morse began growing cover crops, one of his main goals was to tackle the growing populations of marestail (horseweed) and waterhemp that defied traditional control measures.

“I can give you a half dozen reasons to plant cover crops now, but weed control was a big reason I started using them at the time,” recalls Morse, who farms 90 miles north of Detroit, Mich.

Application Practices

Today, he uses cereal rye across 3,100 acres of corn and soybeans.

Between Labor Day and Oct. 1, Morse aerially seeds cereal rye into no-till corn and soybeans. That timing allows for good stand establishment before winter.

He prefers aerial seeding over the use of a ground rig. “We have a really good aerial applicator with a great skill set, and I think that’s what makes it work so well,” he says.

For seeding, he uses 75 lb. of cereal rye per acre. The seed runs about $12.50 an acre, and the aerial application costs about $16 per acre. He adds that for a ground rig, the seeding cost runs about $12 an acre.

In the spring, he no-tills soybeans into actively-growing cereal rye. In no-till corn, the cover crop is terminated prior to planting.

“I don’t want the rye to get any higher than my knees on corn ground, or we start getting a nitrogen penalty,” he says. “If you haven’t used cover crops before, I’d start with them in soybeans as there are fewer potential concerns.”

Iowa State Extension encourages farmers to evaluate the length of their growing season before planting rye. Longer is better for weed management.

Reduced Herbicide Use

Lance Dobson, who farms near Lexington, Mo., says he is using cover crops, primarily, cereal rye, across 100% of his acres now.

“We saw an opportunity with the cover crops to take advantage of some of that forage through cattle,” he says. “It’s also helping increase the nutrient cycling and soil health along the way, and helping us build another cash crop through the cattle.”

He expects additional benefits with cover crops from a reduction in inputs, going forward.

“We’re reducing our synthetic fertilizer use with cover crops and building organic matter,” he says. “We’re (also) able to do a one-pass herbicide on our soybean rotation — a $20 herbicide pass, excluding application costs. So that’s what we’re kind of moving towards.”

Cereal rye is helping Morse pull back on herbicide rates as well.

This past spring, on 400 acres of no-till soybeans, he left metribuzin out of his preemergence application, though that wasn’t his original plan. Wet conditions kept him out of the field until just before the soybeans emerged.

He did opt to make a post-herbicide application in the field, though few broadleaf weeds were present.

“Probably only half of that field really needed the post application,” he says. “I was tempted to not apply anything, but I wasn’t that courageous.”

Based on the positive results this year, he anticipates using less metribuzin on his 2025 soybean ground.

In a similar vein for corn, Morse says he has cut 4 oz. of mesotrione out of his herbicide program and has seen no negative consequences.

“We’ve been getting improved weed control, and now it looks like we’re going to be able to cut some herbicide use, so this is making financial sense,” he says. “We’ll keep watching and evaluating our weed control to see how far we can go with it.”

Your Next Read: How To Boost Your Sustainability Efforts By Aerially Applicating Cover Crops

Herbicide Resistance Battle: Weed Seed Destroyer Gets New Distribution

Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:54:05 GMT

In a collaboration aiming to bring weed seed destroying technology to the market, Global Neighbor Inc. (GNI) has teamed up with Redekop.

GNI is a pioneering startup using its patented Directed Energy Flora Control (DEFC) technology for its Weed Seed Destroyer (WSD). The light neutralizes weed seeds collected during harvest, preventing their spread and reducing future weed issues. GNI sees a market fit for the DEFC system to battle herbicide resistance and organic farming.

“We are thrilled to collaborate with Redekop, a global leader in harvest technologies that enhance farm efficiency and profitability,” said Jon Jackson, Founder and President of GNI. “Redekop’s extensive experience and operational strength will expedite the commercialization of our Weed Seed Destroyer (WSD), a complementary product to their existing offering.”

GNI and Redekop will adapt the WSD for various combine models starting in 2025, and the companies say its low-power usage and price point are well suited for class 7 combines or below. As a co-branded product, WSD will be marketed and installed by Redekop’s dealer network.

“The WSD is perfect for combines that we are not currently targeting, while our SCU will remain a fit for larger harvest equipment,” said Trevor Thiessen, President of Redekop. “Together, we can provide a full range of products to meet diverse farming needs around the world”

“Our close working relationship over the past two years has highlighted the synergy between Redekop’s engineering expertise and GNI’s technology,” said Dean Mayerle, Chief Technology Officer of Redekop. “We are excited to deepen our collaboration with this agreement.”

About the companies:

GNI, based in Dayton, OH area, is dedicated to reducing chemical use in home and farm environments. Supported by the US Air Force and the USDA Small Business Innovation Research programs, their Directed Energy technology was first commercialized as a handheld weed destroyer for home and garden use. Now, GNI is focused on tackling herbicide-resistant weeds and lowering labor costs in agriculture. Partnering with AgLaunch, a national agtech entrepreneurial support organization, GNI conducted two years of farm trials through the AgLaunch Farmer Network, proving the concept and refining their product.

Redekop Manufacturing Ltd. is an award-winning developer and distributor of innovative agricultural equipment technologies that reduce labor and improve farm profitability. Redekop partners with equipment manufacturers to develop value-focused residue management and crop production technologies. In the company’s 42,000 square foot manufacturing plant outside of Saskatoon, SK, they use state-of-the-art manufacturing technologies to design and produce high-quality, dependable products for customers worldwide.

Top Advice For Pest Management in 2024: Spray Earlier

Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:45:25 GMT

Harlan Asmus, co-owner of Asmus Farm Supply headquartered in Rake, Iowa, shares their ag retail business is offering growers 13 new crop protection products in 2024. However, some products are perhaps more “new” than others.

“There are a lot of new products based on previous chemistries. For herbicides, the last new chemistry was Mesotrione, which has been sold since 2001 and is now off patent,” Asmus says.

For 2024, a new insecticide chemistry is found in Nurizma from BASF, which got complete registration in 2023 with limited volumes and is now in full launch and availability in 2024.

“Many of the other new products are based on chemistries already existing but being experienced differently—kind of like a new make/model of a car compared to the previous year,” Asmus says.

He emphasizes there is a long lead time for new chemistries and it is imperative farmers manage for resistance proactively.

“When products don’t perform, it leads to farmers asking a lot of questions,” he says. “My biggest concern is weed control for the long term. The typical thing we’re hearing these days is ‘my waterhemp isn’t dying,’” he says.

In 2023, he notes farmers in the AFS network starting reporting problems the first week of June citing waterhemp not dying from applications of HPPD chemistry (group 27) pre or post applications.

“We can’t farm without the HPPD class of chemistry,” he says. “But we have to think about how to continue to extract the value we can out of those products.”

Asmus references 26 herbicides on the market today include HPPD chemistry, and since 2019, the problem has grown to seven resistant sites of action in waterhemp.

“We’re living in a world where it’s just a matter of time,” he says referencing the development of resistance.

“20 years is the benchmark where we are burning things out as an industry. It’s good for farmers in their management practices for managing weeds, insects and disease to keep things complicated,” Asmus says.

He advises to switch out chemistries. Be intentional to vary the tools used.

“Don’t relax into management practices that are easy for you or predictable to use. Let’s keep things complicated,” he says.

One product type he’s asking farmers to pay close attention to are the three-way products—most notably herbicides and fungicides that are formulated with a combination of three chemistries.

“If we are using these new twists on old things we’ve already been using, we have to recognize what is going in the tank with each active ingredient and what group they represent,” he says.

As just one example, Asmus highlights how Corteva Kyro and Valent Maverick are both combinations of groups 15, 27 and 4.

“Take note as there is a lot of repetition in the three-ways being brought into corn,” he says.

As for a further look ahead, Asmus isn’t optimistic for faster developments from the current pipelines and the regulatory approval.

“There aren’t a lot of herbicides coming when we look at the major pipelines,” he says. “And it takes an average of 11 years to get regulatory approval, with now another year or two added because of Endangered Species Act provisions.”

As such he has one big takeaway for the 2024 growing season: spray earlier.

“We’re going to have enough challenges to have the current lineup of products in our portfolio working for the next 20 years,” he says. “Farmers need to spray smaller weeds, spray when no weeds are present, and keep pre emerge rates at maximum so we’re fighting less things post emerge.”

New Gene Discovery Will Help Combat Soybean Cyst Nematode

Thu, 07 Dec 2023 21:37:34 GMT

For the past four years, a team of researchers at the University of Georgia (UGA), the University of Missouri and USDA have committed their time to the discovery of the GmSNAP02 gene in soybeans. What does this mean for farmers? As the costliest pest in the U.S. for soybeans, this breakthrough means there will finally be options to develop new soybean varieties with enhanced SCN resistance. The overuse of known resistance genes and limited control options have amplified SCN-related losses to the tune of billions of dollars every year.

The team of researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology to detect resistance to SCN in edited plants.

“Here we used CRISPR-Cas9 technology as a more precise way to confirm GmSNAP02 function in soybean resistance to SCN,” says Vinavi Gamage, a doctoral candidate at UGA’s Institute of Plant Breeding, Genetics and Genomics (IPBGG) and co-first author of the study, in a press release from the University of Georgia. “What’s exciting is that our discovery has not only identified a new resistance gene but a gene editing-amenable resistance gene, opening the door for CRISPR-Cas9 technology that may make it easier and potentially faster for breeders to develop soybean cultivars with enhanced resistance to SCN.”

This gene has also given researchers new insight into how SCN overcomes genetic resistance.

“A better understanding of how SCN circumvents the soybean plant’s resistance response is necessary for enhancing the durability of resistance genes by providing soybean farmers with more prescriptive management approaches,” says Melissa Mitchum, professor in the department of plant pathology and IPBGG at UGA’s College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.

The research team was led by Mitchum and Andrew Scaboo, assistant professor in the division of plant science and technology at the University of Missouri.

Want to read more about soybean cyst nematode?

New Profit Calculator Reveals How Much Soybean Cyst Nematode Costs You By Field

A Perfect Storm for Increased Insect Pressure in Corn

Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:06:40 GMT

The combination of a mild winter and spring windstorms coupled with farmers’ cultural practices are creating the potential for increased insect pressure in corn this season.

Though no alarms are sounding, enough factors are in place that agronomists and entomologists are raising the caution flag.

Topping the list of concerns is the outlook for western and northern corn rootworm pressure. High numbers of beetles were trapped last year in fields monitored by the Corn Rootworm IPM Regional Working Group, composed of university, industry and government personnel across the U.S. and Canada.

“The most pressing concern is the ongoing development of resistance in both western and northern corn rootworm to pyramided Bt trait packages,” says Nick Seiter, research entomologist at the University of Illinois. “Presumably, the recent increase in the population of these species in these areas is due to their increasing ability to overcome Bt corn.”

Fields Most At Risk
The areas Seiter references are parts of Iowa, northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Nebraska where growing continuous corn has been an ongoing practice.

The corn rootworm beetle counts that were conducted in 562 corn and soybean field locations by Bayer Crop Science in 2022 also correspond to Seiter’s references.

“Not surprisingly, resistance is most intense in those same areas,” he says.

That doesn’t mean every corn grower in those areas will see damaging rootworm pressure.

“The information can seem a bit inconsistent sometimes, depending on where we’re talking about,” Seiter says. “If you’re in DeKalb County, you’re going to agree with us that corn rootworm is a significant problem, but if you’re in Champaign County you might say, ‘What are you talking about, man? I haven’t worried about corn rootworm in years.’”

For that latter group of farmers, Ken Ferrie cautions that he is seeing an uptick of corn rootworm in fields planted to non-Bt hybrids. He says the best action to take now is to conduct root digs and evaluate feeding. Severe pruning of a single root node can contribute up to 15% yield loss.

“Take pictures of the roots and put them in a file, so you can make comparisons the next couple of seasons to see if the feeding gets worse,” Ferrie says. “If there is a lot of feeding, that’s a warning shot for farmers planting traited corn that they’re experiencing some resistance and need to change up what they’re doing.”

Black Cutworm Concerns
Windstorms moving north from Southern states carried large numbers of black cutworm (BCW) moths into the Midwest this spring. Ferrie says corn growers who had cover crops, heavy residue or early-season weed pressure need to be vigilant.

“Be checking those fields that had green vegetation,” he advises. “Once black cutworm eggs are laid, they’re going to hatch and be a problem (even if we cleaned up our cover crops or addressed the weeds) and especially if you planted a week or two later than usual.”

University of Missouri Extension recommends using a rescue insecticide treatment for BCW when 2% to 4% of corn seedlings in a field are cut below ground and/or when 6% to 8% of plants are fed upon or cut above ground.

Ferrie encourages farmers to scout for BCW and be ready to take action until corn passes the four-leaf stage.

True Armyworm Advances
True armyworm larvae are voracious feeders and can quickly move through a cornfield.

For treatment, Erin Hodgson and Adam Sisson, Iowa State University Extension specialists, recommend using foliar insecticide when 10% or more of plants (VE to V2) are injured and larvae are less than ¾" long.

When corn is at V7 to V8, they suggest treatment only if larvae are ¾" long with more than eight per plant and when 25% of the leaf has been removed. At this size, larvae are expected to feed for another week and might cause more injury and warrant a rescue insecticide treatment.

If you planted corn with Bt traits, don’t assume they will provide adequate protection against true armyworm, cautions Brent Tharp, technical product manager for Wyffels Hybrids.

“Nearly all Bt corn hybrids either control or suppress fall armyworm, but not true armyworm,” Tharp says, noting these are two different insects.

“True armyworm is a pest of late spring and summer, while fall armyworm is typically present late summer or fall,” he says.

Be The Early Bird
Bryan Jensen, University of Wisconsin-Madison entomologist, put together a practical chart of eight early-season insects to help corn growers troubleshoot potential injury issues now (see above).

He has listed classic symptoms for each species and cautions that each insect can have multiple symptoms.

Along with that, he has listed the typical distribution for each insect, which can be altered based on field conditions and/or crop history.

As always, he adds, when troubleshooting insect damage, walk a representative part of the field, stay unbiased and look at several plants before reaching a diagnosis.

Bayer Says Judge’s Ruling Won’t Affect Roundup Availability for Farmers

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:03:46 GMT

In response to a U.S. judge’s rejection of Bayer’s $2 billion class-action proposal, the company announced a five-point plan late Wednesday to address future claims.

In addition, Bayer addressed concerns of row-crop farmers who use Roundup (glyphosate) for weed control. The company says the decision will have no impact on the agricultural marketplace or Bayer’s commitment to Roundup or Roundup Ready for its farmer and retailer customers.

“We stand behind the availability and safety of glyphosate for farmers, and this won’t affect their ability to purchase or use it,” a Bayer spokesman told Farm Journal Thursday morning.

Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in the U.S., in terms of area treated. About 280 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to an average of 298 million acres of corn, soybeans and cotton annually, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Its relatively low cost and broad-spectrum weed-control benefits have historically made it a mainstay in farmers’ weed-control arsenal.

However, in recent years, ongoing weed resistance issues from overuse have impacted sales of the chemistry and spurred growers to include other technologies and cultural practices on their farm.

Recent lawsuits about the safety of the herbicide have also dogged Roundup/glyphosate. Bayer says studies over many decades have shown that Roundup and its main active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The proposed class-action settlement was aimed at claims by people who said they were exposed to Roundup/glyphosate and then became sick years later.

Bayer says the court’s decision to reject its proposal closes the door on an MDL court-supervised national class solution to manage potential future litigation, which would have “been the fairest, most efficient mechanism for all parties.”

“Still, we have legal and commercial options that together will achieve a similar result in mitigating future litigation risk, and we will pursue them as quickly as possible,” the company said in a news release.

Last week, the EPA filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in which it affirmed once again that glyphosate “poses no human-health risks of concern,” the release said.

The five-point plan Bayer developed includes:

1. Creation and promotion of a new website with scientific studies relevant to Roundup safety, and a request that EPA approves corresponding language on Roundup labels.

2. While the Company will remain in the residential lawn and garden market, it will immediately engage with partners to discuss the future of glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market, as the overwhelming majority of claimants in the Roundup litigation allege that they used Roundup Lawn and Garden products.

3. Future claims settlements and independent science advisory panel. The company will explore alternative solutions aimed at addressing potential future Roundup claims.

4. Ongoing efforts to settle existing claims will be reassessed. The company will continue to be open to settlement discussions, as long as claimants are qualified and resolutions can be reached on appropriate terms.

5. Continuing appeals. While not new actions, the appeals of the Hardeman and Pilliod cases will continue through the legal process and can also help manage future liability risk.

Bayer says it is confident that this new five-point plan of legal and commercial actions provides an effective path for the company to manage and address any risks from potential future Roundup litigation.

U.S. Judge Rejects Bayer’s $2 Bln Deal to Resolve Future Roundup Lawsuits as ‘Unreasonable’

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds $25 Million Roundup Verdict Against Bayer

Bayer Announces “Holistic Solution” For Roundup Case Resolution

Bayer to Pay $80 Million in Second Roundup Trial

Crack the Non-Target-Site Resistance Code

Tue, 28 Sep 2021 14:23:04 GMT

The sun beats down your neck as you walk through your weed-littered bean field. Just weeks ago, you had sprayed herbicide. Yet the weeds have made themselves known, wreaking havoc on yields — not to mention your pride.

Pat Tranel, professor and associate head in the Department of Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois knows the burden of herbicide resistance all too well. Tranel studies non-target-site herbicide resistance in his research of waterhemp.

Tranel’s team has unearthed the genetic code sequencing for the enzymes released in non-target-site herbicides.

“A lot of times, we know a trait is controlled by two genes,” he says. “But does that mean both genes are equally important, or one gene is 90% responsible, and the other gene is 10%? That’s part of what we’re looking at in the genetic architecture of a trait: the number of genes, where they are, and the relative importance of these different genes.”

In his research at the University of Illinois, Tranel explained he hopes to develop an assay farmers can utilize to tell if their waterhemp is resistant to a particular chemical.

“Now we know the genes responsible are somewhere in these two small regions of the genome,” Tranel says. “We’ve come to an intermediary step to eventually developing an assay that growers can use to determine whether or not they should be spraying a certain chemistry. “That’s why we need to unravel this further to come up with better, more informed strategies to mitigate non-target-site resistance.”

Row crop CEOs talk international demand

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:44:29 GMT

This year

is stacking up to be a difficult year for row crop farmers.

For Indiana farmer John Cheesewright, future price forecasts look bleak.

“It’s not a good outlook. They’re telling us it will be two, three, four years before prices come back where they were a year or two years ago,” he said.

That’s why generating more demand is a top priority for grain organizations, according to interviews with top commodity group leaders.

But building demand is a tough battle since the U.S. dollar is so strong.

“I think China’s overall demand for soy has remained relatively strong. Right now we’re facing a bit of headwinds in our exports because of the strong U.S. dollar, which hurts us and the devalued real in Brazil. That means their exports will be more attractive to the Chinese buyers,” said American Soybean Association CEO

Stephen Censky.

While opportunities are in China, the country’s economic growth may be a concern.

“I think they’re going to go through some bumps along the way but good news I think for our industry, soybean farmers, is that the Chinese people want to continue to eat well. That means they want to consume meat, poultry, fish pork, and that’s all good news,” said Censky.

But the relationship with China is complicated, especially when it comes to regulations.

“As we look at challenges, certainly China is relative to their approval of biotech of products has been a major challenge and a major limitation for the U.S. corn industry.

Again, we’re seeing some potential signs that there could be more approvals coming. China has increased the amount of ethanol they’re importing. There’s significant growth there. China is

a large market and certainly a large future market opportunity,” said National Corn Growers Association CEO Chris Novak.

Sorghum producers say renewable fuels are one of their greatest avenues for new sales. That includes the possibility of more growth in Mexico. They’re looking at other markets too.

CEO Tim Lust of National Sorghum Producers sees opportunity for sorghum at a global scale.

“Weekly sales have continued to be extremely strong. When we outside of China, the exciting part is that we have nine other countries who have bought sorghum this year and certainly the last couple of weeks. Pakistan is another country with aggressive purchases,” Lust said.

For NCGA, it’s Cuba. The island nation is not a large market, but an important one.

“Our opportunity (is to) access to that market, provide the grain they need for their livestock industry. While it’s an area for significant growth and development, we do need to find ways to ensure the U.S. is treating Cuba just like any other potential trading partner,” Novak said.

For Censky, it’s India he sees as holding market potential.

“Their demand base is growing. They have a population that’s going to exceed China the next five to 10 years. They are wanting more meat in their diets. A lot of Indians eat poultry and eggs. There’s a lot of opportunity for growth there. I think we can see India emerge significant importer for many years to come,” Censky said.

For the National Association of Wheat Growers, that’s Japan.

“We could always get closer to Japan. There’s opportunity there as well as what I identified earlier as Korea and the Philippines,” said National Association of Wheat Growers CEO, Jim Palmer.

For farmers, the demand picture is still being made for the year. That’s why they’re doing what they can at home, hoping for a profitable year.

For Cheesewright, there’s still little optimism for the year ahead.

“We’re below the cost of production right now. This is going to be a tough year, I’m afraid.”

All of the CEOs say they’re in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And while the ag ministers from each of the 12 countries have signed the trade deal, the legislatures from those individual countries must still adopt it.

Agricultural groups challenge California weed-killer warning

Sun, 15 Nov 2020 18:26:02 GMT

A coalition of a dozen national and Midwestern agricultural groups sued on Wednesday to try to overturn a California decision that could result in labels warning that the popular weed-killer Roundup can cause cancer.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Sacramento, California, seeks an injunction barring the state from enforcing what the suit describes as a “false” and “misleading” warning. It claims California’s decision violates constitutional due-process and free-speech rights and should be superseded by federal regulations.

Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, is not restricted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been used widely since 1974 as a means of killing unwanted weeds while leaving crops and other plants alive.

But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, based in Lyon, France, has classified it as “a probable human carcinogen.” That prompted the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to add glyphosate this summer to a list of chemicals known to cause cancer. The listing could eventually lead to a requirement for warning labels on the product.

The plaintiffs include the national wheat and corn growers associations, state agriculture and business organizations in Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota, and a regional group representing herbicide sellers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. The plaintiffs also include St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., which makes Roundup.

The lawsuit contends that California’s “false warning” has harmed Monsanto’s reputation and its investment of “hundreds of millions of dollars” into the herbicide and its related glyphosate-tolerant seeds.

The suit also alleges a ripple-effect on food production across the country. It says entities that process crops for food products sold in California would have to stop using glyphosate-treated crops, add warning labels that could diminish demand for their products or engage in costly tests to show that any glyphosate residue is at safe levels.

California’s cancer warning “would result in higher food costs, crushing blows to state and agricultural economies and lost revenue up and down the entire supply chain,” Gordon Stoner, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, said in a written statement.

The California attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In March, a California state court judge dismissed a separate lawsuit by Monsanto challenging California’s cancer warning.

Midwestern states and interest groups also have challenged other California agricultural policies.

A federal appeals court panel ruled last year that six states — Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa — lacked the legal right to challenge a California law barring the sale of eggs from chickens not raised in accordance with California’s roomier cage-space requirements. The U.S. Supreme Court declined this year to hear an appeal.