Monsanto Gives Cash To Use Dicamba

[JimMeade]

Monsanto has a rebate program to give you back some money if you use dicamba.  Is that attractive to you?

https://www.agriculture.com/markets/newswire/rpt-monsanto-offers-cash-to-us-farmers-who-use-controve...

"XtendiMax costs about $11 per acre to buy, and Monsanto is offering $6 per acre in cash back to farmers when they apply it on Xtend soybeans along with other approved herbicides, according to the company."

"Monsanto predicts U.S. farmers will double plantings of Xtend soybeans to about 40 million acres next year despite reports of crop damage this past summer."

What is Monsanto's strategy?  Are they trying to overcome bad publicity and resistance to the price?  Are they trying to get so much dicamba out there that you have to buy dicamba beans in self defense?  Are they trying to swamp the marketplace so they win by default?

Will you be using dicamba on beans this year?

I think I'll pass.

[ECIN]

Monsanto predicts U.S. farmers will double plantings of Xtend soybeans to about 40 million acres next year despite reports of crop damage this past summer."
 
What is Monsanto's strategy? 

Just me thinking out load here is :  They have a ton of money invested in this product - they have to move it  - They - in my book have bet the farm on it .

Are they trying to overcome bad publicity and resistance to the price? I don't think that even crossed they minds  they have been there before when roundup first come out -

Are they trying to get so much dicamba out there that you have to buy dicamba beans in self defense?  Are they trying to swamp the marketplace so they win by default?   I would say you nailed there Jim - I have heard farmers around my area saying - they just might use them to protect themselves - Here's the deal - Monsatin has a bullet proof label on the new chemical - insurance company's are saying that it's a faulty product and they have NO responsibility to pay liability clams on it . Personally - I thought the insurance company - was responsibly to pay and then they would go after who was responsibly - I guess they are afraid of the time and money in legal fees it would cost them to go head to head with Monsatin -  

Now here is how I think this mess should be handled : The EPA has ONLY issued a 2  year registration on the new chemicals - the norm is 20 years - this was because of concern's with a possible drift issue -

I say - lets play by Monsatins rules - lets spray the new dicamba's all season long !!!! Then after a record season of off site issues - thousands of acres damaged - gardens killed - orchards killed  - State chemist's offices over welded -THEN - with any luck - the EPA will pull the registration and game over !

I can say for a fact - that a company very close to me - told me they received a letter from there carrier that they would NOT be covered if they sprayed any of the new products !

As for me - I would never spray any of it ! WHY risk a law suit - hurting your neighbors crops - the bad P.R. - you name it . 

BTW - I will NEVER plant it either - I will NOT be forced to use it - BTW Monsatin - I have already switched my order over to

I think a very good friend of mine - and farmer has a great idea - He said he has already talked to a attorney for the up coming season - He said if he receives any drift on his beans - he will NOT contact the IOSC - he will make a call to the attorney and say to go after them as hard as you can -

I think I'm going to get his attorneys phone number !      
 
Will you be using dicamba on beans this year? -- Nope
 

[WCMO]

I also think Monsanto is banking on many farmers planting dicamba-tolerant beans at least as a defensive strategy, and a supplemental payment is an incentive to do so.  That's not currently my own plan, though my plans can change. 

I have had drift problems from neighbors from other chemicals/applicators in the past, primarily drift from neighbor's RU applications when my crop across the road was not RR, so several years back, but obvious damages.  My own experience in dealing with the drift damages -- in the end, I felt I was treated okay financially by the elevator that actually sprayed the product, but the process to get there really sucked -- getting multiple people and chemical reps coming out to look at fields, all of them clearly trying to minimize the problem and/or shift the blame elsewhere, etc., and all of this taking my time and causing unnecessary frustration with the people, the products, and the process.  So, based on experience, if it happens to me/you, document everything (temp, wind speed and direction, time of day, chemical products, who applied and how), don't wait to take action (call the farmer whose field was sprayed, extension, chemical supplier, applicator, insurance agents), take lots of pictures (immediately if damage is suspected to happen so you have "before" pictures, and more as the damage actually manifests itself), then be able to clearly document your final production (undamaged production compared to damaged production).   It's really not something that anyone wants to deal with, so the potential to plant dicamba-tolerant seed as a defensive strategy is perhaps looking more tolerable.  Dealing with the problems really sucks.  And, yes, the chemical companies should have known better and should assume at least some of the liability.

On multi-peril crop insurance, as you probably know -- chemical damage, regardless of the chemical or how applied, is not actually a covered peril, neither is arson, damage by domestic livestock, obvious failure to attempt to control weeds, etc.  When claims are worked, the adjuster is expected to estimate/determine the amount of damage caused by the uncovered peril, and add that back as "production to count" to offset your claim -- although the amount added back to offset your claim is not supposed to be included in your actual production for future APH purposes.

Example --

Insurance guarantee 40 bu/a.

Actual yield 35 bu/a on 100 acres.

Undamaged 50 acres yield 50 bu/a, either from your records or undamaged beans next door.

Damaged 50 acres yield 20 bu/a, assume all damages from uncovered peril.

'

Insurance claim on crop insurance -- adjuster adds in production-to-count based on yield from undamaged acres which results in zero claim payment because undamaged production (50 bu) would have exceeded guarantee (40 bu).

Insurance APH -- the actual yield was 35 bu/a on 100 acres.

The actual damages not covered by crop insurance were 30 bu/a on 50 acres. 30 * 50 * $9 = $13,500.  This is the minimum crop damage you would be looking to collect from those parties responsible for the damage.  In addition, there was damage to your APH which results in higher insurance premiums and lower guarantees for at least the next 10 years, plus all the probable time, costs, and trouble to collect from those responsible for the damages.

[JimMeade]

WCMO, That's an excellent and much needed recap of the process.  It's easy to see why one would want nothing to do with it if possible.

I don't have crop insurance, but I guess this wouldn't matter.

You've encouraged me to take good weather records every day, even if no one around me is spraying.

It looks to me like every one of us needs to buy an anemometer.

[ECIN]

I think I have figured out why Monsatin cut the price on there beans ! It's to help pay the fines !

Missouri issues first fines over misuse of farm chemical in 2016 
Missouri has issued its first fines over the misuse of a farm chemical in 2016 that went on to be linked in different formulations to widespread U.S. crop damage this year, the state said on Thursday. Authorities fined eight people a total of $145,125 for improperly spraying the chemical known as dicamba, used to kill weeds, in what Missouri called "the first wave of civil penalties issued to applicators," according to a statement.

[oldhorsefarmer]

Going to have to cut the price of bean seed a good deal to offset the cost of the fines.

[basset&co]

Ken, I talked with you a couple weeks ago on this subject, now 3 Monsanto dekalb asgrow salespeople have told me they are only going with

dicamba resistant seed to avoid the hassle...I told all, they just dropped a customer, I dropped pioneer when they insisted I treat seed

with treatments I did NOT need, will do the same again.