WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) had logged 143 complaints about dicamba drift as of July 13, according to the office’s pesticide administrator.

 

In 50 of those cases, officials have identified dicamba as a possible cause of crop injury, Dave Scott said. The other complaints are still under investigation and some could later be found to be related to dicamba, he noted.

Some of the injuries have been reported in non-dicamba-tolerant soybeans, Scott said. He didn’t have details on what other crops may have been damaged.

The Indiana Pesticide Review Board approved new formulations of dicamba last year for use beginning with the current growing season. The board opted to follow guidelines set by the U.S. EPA regarding use of dicamba on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton designed to be tolerant to the product.

The pesticide board could have required tougher restrictions for its use.

Indiana is one of several states reporting potential injury due to dicamba drift. On July 7, Arkansas banned the use of dicamba-based products and Missouri issued a temporary Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order for all dicamba products.

The Tennessee Department of Agriculture announced July 12 measures it said would mitigate the risk of drift of herbicides containing dicamba. The new rules include a provision that anyone applying dicamba products must be certified as a private applicator or licensed as a pest control operator in the category of Agricultural Pest Control, and must keep records for the applications.

The reports of possible damage due to dicamba drift are not a surprise to Steve Smith, chair of the Save Our Crops Coalition.

The coalition has said the “widespread use of dicamba is inconsistent with Midwest agriculture” since it was founded in 2012, he said. “There was probably someone who predicted the Titanic would hit an iceberg, but there was no joy when that happened,” he explained. “From a personal satisfaction, you like it when you make a call. But there’s no joy in this. It was so predictable.”

He’s heard reports of drift damage to melons and a vineyard. Smith is also director of agriculture with Elwood, Ind.- based Red Gold but said he wasn’t aware of any dicamba injury to tomatoes grown for the company.

The OISC began receiving complaints about possible dicamba injury in mid- June. Reports became more steady beginning in July, Scott said. It generally takes 10 days to two weeks for symptoms to begin showing. The complaints started a little later than expected, as some farmers may have been delayed in spraying, he noted.

Investigations into the damage and what may have caused it won’t be finalized until later in the year, Scott said. When the EPA approved Monsanto Co.’s dicamba herbicide – XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology – it included restrictions designed to further reduce the potential for spray drift.

Spray from aircraft is prohibited, as is application when the wind speed is greater than 15 mph. Application may only be made with approved nozzles at specified pressures. Weeds must be 4 inches in height or less. An in-field buffer of 110-220 feet, depending on application rate, is required to protect sensitive areas when the wind is blowing toward them.

In opting to follow the EPA’s restrictions, the pesticide board “decided to take a wait and see approach,” said Scott, also the board’s secretary. “Would the EPA’s restrictions be effective or not effective? Now, we’ll wait to see if EPA makes any changes in use.” 

 

The EPA scheduled a conference call for July 13 to gather information from states reporting damage, including Indiana, he said.

In Indiana, the fine for a farmer violating the application restrictions – or for damage – is $100. For a custom or commercial applicator, the fine is $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second and $1,000 for three or more. If the restrictions are blatantly disregarded, licenses could be revoked, Scott said. The penalty maximums are set by the state legislature.

The board is in the process of making dicamba a restricted use pesticide (RUP) in the state. A public comment period on the RUP ends July 31.

The RUP designation would apply to any dicamba-containing pesticide with a concentration greater or equal to 6.5 percent. The designation would require those purchasing or using dicamba to be certified applicators and those who distribute dicamba to be registered pesticide dealers. It would also require sellers and users to keep sales and use records for two years.

“(The RUP) is probably not going to be a huge change for most people,” Scott explained. “Most people already keep records and most applicators who would have a reason to use it are already certified. I think the impact will be relatively insignificant. If farmers go to a farm store to get dicamba, they may be impacted. Some farm stores may elect not to carry it anymore.”

Smith thinks the board sees the RUP as “a reasonable compromise between those wanting more restrictions and those wanting less.”