cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Contributor

Dicamba injury

All,

I posted this story yesterday afternoon. Have you heard of any dicamba going off-target in your area?

 

 

https://www.agriculture.com/crops/soybeans/dicamba-injury-is-back-in-2018

 

Best,

Gil Gullickson

Crops Technology Editor

Successful Farming

0 Kudos
9 Replies
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

111   cases  are  still  being  investigated -  REAL interesting if  that's  backlogged from 2017  - - -

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

I have not heard of any cases in east-central Iowa.

 

If dicamba damage to soybeans is being mitigated by farmers who don't use dicamba planting a dicamba tolerant soybean in "self defense" that may cut down on the big acres that are reported as damaged.

 

On the other hand, my sense is that if trees are getting implicated that is going to have a significant effect on how herbicide practices are viewed by the non-farm public.  State lawmakers will find it very much more difficult to oppose a group of garden clubs who complain that their favorite tree is damaged by dicamba or glyphosate or any other crop, and we're going to get laws or at least discussions that are not favorable to farmers.

 

Sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.  Bayer may wish they'd kept the Monsanto name as a Judas goat before the dicamba issue is resolved.  Dicamba-tolerance could be the most damaging GMO trait every pushed.  Of course, some scientists predicted that the first atomic bomb would blow up the atmosphere.  Maybe I'm being chicken little.

0 Kudos
Senior Contributor

Re: Dicamba injury

Here is some new info from SF  I agree with the temp restrictions needed and other points.

FF-TARGET DICAMBA OCCURRENCE STILL UNACCEPTABLE, SAY UNIVERSITY WEED SCIENTISTS

IOWA FARMERS ARE HAPPY WITH WEED CONTROL. OFF-TARGET MOVEMENT? NOT SO MUCH.
By Iowa State University
8/17/2018

Wondering how dicamba is doing on a weed control and off-target movement basis this season? Here’s the take from Bob Hartzler, Iowa State University Extension weed specialist, about the situation in Iowa and elsewhere.

I have been reluctant to provide estimates of soybean acres damaged from dicamba applied to Xtend soybean, due to the difficulty in developing a realistic number of affected acres.

While there has been a significant number of acres damaged by dicamba, I am sure it is less than 5% of Iowa’s nearly 10 million soybean acres. Due to this relatively small number of acres affected (in relation to total soybean acres), dicamba injury will not significantly impact Iowa’s productivity in 2018. However, if you are a farmer whose crop has been damaged by dicamba, the fact that the majority of soybeans in the state were not affected is of little consolation.

To get a better handle on the extent of dicamba injury across the state, I asked Iowa State University (ISU) Extension and Outreach field agronomists to complete a brief on-line survey. Half of the agronomists stated the number of soybean acres damaged by dicamba was similar to 2017, whereas the remainder were split between fewer acres and more acres damaged in 2018 than 2017. When I’ve asked commercial agronomists the same question, the range of responses was similar to those of my Extension colleagues.

Here are the highlights:

More than 75% of ISU Extension and Outreach agronomists felt volatility was involved in at least 25% of the drift cases they investigated. And 25% thought movement following application played a role in over 50% of the incidences they investigated.
Complaints to state regulatory agencies is one measure that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider in its upcoming decision regarding future use of dicamba on Xtend soybeans. We know the reported incidences represent a very small fraction of total drift cases, as farmers are reluctant to involve regulatory agencies. The majority of ISU Extension and Outreach agronomists reported that Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) was contacted in less than 25% of the dicamba cases, and nobody reported IDALS was contacted in the majority of cases.
The majority of growers using the Xtend system are happy with the increased performance in weed control obtained with dicamba compared with alternatives. However, one ISU Extension and Outreach agronomist stated that farmers planting non-dicamba-resistant soybeans “are really upset with the continued off-target movement of dicamba.” It is my opinion that the new label restrictions placed following the 2017 growing season, and the training required for applicators of the new dicamba products, has failed to reduce off-target problems to an acceptable level.
OFF-TARGET DICAMBA MOVEMENT IS STILL UNACCEPTABLE

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently held two teleconferences with academic weed scientists from states where the new dicamba products are registered. There was near unanimous agreement that the level of off-target injury observed in 2018 is unacceptable. The EPA asked for suggestions on label modifications that could reduce problems in the future. Following are ideas that were put forward:

All products containing dicamba should be restricted use products.
Volatility is viewed as a contributing factor to off-target damage. Thus, some sort of temperature restriction should be implemented.
Date restrictions are viewed as more ‘workable’ than the current growth stage restriction, but they would need to be state-specific.
There needs to be better clarification of sensitive/susceptible crops.
Buffers need to be 360° rather than downwind.
The EPA stated it plans to announce its decision in the near future so that people will know the status of the technology before making 2019 seed purchases. Off-target movement of dicamba is complex. There is no simple solution. Whatever action the EPA takes will not make everyone happy.

Read more about Soybeans
Facebook
Pinterest
Twitter
Email
Print
MORE SOYBEANS

 

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

There needs to be a mechanism for reporting incidents to state depts of ag WITHOUT pre-supposing an ensuing "investigation", simply a phone verification with affected parties, for those working with each other -- otherwise, there are likely more unreported incidents than there are reported incidents.

 

I will admit that I do not know what all is requested/involved/required on my state dept of ag website -- I went to the website, but all personal info, etc, is required to progress to next page of reporting mechanism, therefore one cannot see what all will be requested/required BEFORE entering info.  I did not want to make the situation worse by starting an "investigation" that seemed unnecessary.

 

If not already an option -- It would help if the spray operators were required to report (to state ag dept) incidents they have identified or that are reported to them, with them then being able to initially opt-out of investigative actions. The recipient of the damage could then also have the same option to opt-in or out of investigative actions.  That way either party could opt-out OR begin the investigative process, and more actual incidents would be reported.  If either party opts-in, then investigate, otherwise just verify the incident info with a phone call or two.

 

Obviously, I still believe this to be true -- OFF-TARGET DICAMBA MOVEMENT IS STILL UNACCEPTABLE

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

https://www.missouriruralist.com/crop-protection/better-year-dicamba

 

The article tone is that of Dept of Ag basically patting themselves on the back.  Article does mention the dissenting view that actual incidents are possibly much higher, and many farmers just did not report the damage.  3 out of 4 of the local incidents I am aware of are in this latter category.  The problems with the reporting mechanism -- once reported, it is not just confirmed, but "investigated".  Farmers affected do want the "tool" to be available, if needed, to fight Palmer Amaranth, and therefore are reluctant to report issues that might jeopardize that situation.  Personally, I had enough aggravating circumstances via non-reporting that I will be more likely to report to Dept of Ag next time.

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

Dr. Bob Hartzler of ISU Extension has some rather dim views of dicamba management.

 

https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/blog/bob-hartzler/new-dicamba-restrictions

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

Plus, growth stage of the target crop does nothing to help alleviate the impact of off-target movement.

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

My guess is anyone wanting to target dicamba will go after the tree growers, the ladies with gardens, the truck farmers and so forth, not the big monoculture operators.  I suspect the game is far from over.  Wait till class action lawyers get dicamba in their sights.

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Dicamba injury

Yep, that's probably true, but sucks if they do that.  I have some fruit trees in back yard, borders a field, and a landlord that has the same, part of my decision to stay with LL beans.  Burndown drift from neighbor actually killed my persimmon trees, though really didn't care about them.  Burndown on my own beans killed a few peach trees, a couple of small walnut trees, and maybe a 10-yr old hickory tree (can't tell if it will come back next year or not yet).  Biggest thing for me though was on some other ground a few miles away -- neighbor over there post-sprayed dicamba, and it drifted over my LL field for over 1/4 mile, damages not yet determined, but my beans were R2-R3 at the time he sprayed -- I still think yield impact was minor, yet the guy who sprayed lives right by my field and never called me about it, waited until I saw it and asked him about it, then initially tried to blame it on something the road crews maybe sprayed on roadbanks, tried to blame it on other area farmers, etc., before finally agreeing that it was caused by drift from his field, something that anyone with any sense could readily determine based on location of fields and where most damage was visible.  Neighbors beans were planted later than mine, were smaller, and post-sprayed later, though likely within whatever rules Missouri had for this year.  Am also reasonably certain that the custom-sprayer's records would show everything was fine (perfect spraying conditions).  The other problems with reporting to Dept of Ag (I didn't do that) -- this guy is a life-long friend, though that's a little strained right now, and Dept of Ag not only looks at spray records from the neighbor, but also mine (no problem), and all the other neighboring bean fields within some distance (3 other guys) -- a total pain in the arse with those 3 other guys also getting piissed.

0 Kudos