Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Painted Mail Pouch barns going, going, but not gone
Pork exports are up 14%; beef exports are down
Miami County family receives Hoosier Homestead Awards 
OBC culinary studio to enhance impact of beef marketing efforts
Baltimore bridge collapse will have some impact on ag industry
Michigan, Ohio latest states to find HPAI in dairy herds
The USDA’s Farmers.gov local dashboard available nationwide
Urban Acres helpng Peoria residents grow food locally
Illinois dairy farmers were digging into soil health week

Farmers expected to plant less corn, more soybeans, in 2024
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Indiana board votes dicamba into ‘restricted use’ category
By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH
Indiana Correspondent
 
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The Indiana Pesticide Review Board voted unanimously on August 30 to classify dicamba as a restricted use pesticide (RUP) in the state.
 
The rule now goes to Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill Jr. He will review it, making sure the proper legal process was followed in formulating the policy. If approved by him, the rule will head to Gov. Eric Holcomb for his signature. The RUP could take effect by the beginning of next year, said David Scott, board secretary and pesticide administrator for the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC).

“As required by law, all along during this process we’ve posted the rulemaking steps online,” he explained.

“We’ve posted all the documents, all the comments. We’ve kept the Attorney General apprised. There’s no reason to believe the Attorney General would find something we didn’t do correctly.”

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 rule won’t mean a big change for most farmers and applicators, Scott said. “Most people already keep records and most applicators who would have a reason to use it are already certified,” he noted. “If farmers go to a farm store to get dicamba, they may be impacted. Some farm stores may elect not to carry it anymore.”

Monsanto Co.’s dicamba herbicide – XtendiMax with Vapor Grip Technology – was approved by the U.S. EPA in November 2016 for use on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton designed to be tolerant to it. The company said most farmers using the product have had success with on-target applications and good weed control.

“We support the Indiana Pesticide Review Board’s goal of ensuring farmers continue to have access to new, low-volatility dicamba products, such as our XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology,” said Charla Lord, a Monsanto spokesperson. “We support additional training and education efforts, as well as recordkeeping. We continue to hear from many farmers that our training and education efforts helped them use the technology successfully this season.”

Steve Smith, chair of the Save Our Crops Coalition, has described the RUP as “a reasonable compromise between those wanting more restrictions and those wanting less.”

Growers across the country should continue to share information on crop injury with state pesticide boards and regulatory agencies, said Smith, also director of agriculture with Elwood, Ind.-based Red Gold.

“With the risks of crop injury still squarely in front of us and ‘growing’ as the train wreck gets closer and closer, we will need to respond to the agencies and boards that will consider the results of 2017,” he said earlier this year. The OISC had logged 244 drift complaints as of August 25; 119 of those complaints are alleged to involve a dicamba herbicide. The number of complaints for 2017 is a record in a state that normally receives about 100 drift complaints annually, Scott said.

It may be several months before test results are in and investigations complete for all the complaints, he added. Until those results are received, the board can’t determine if anything above and beyond the RUP designation is needed to stop drift damage.

“The board will continue to follow potential problems with dicamba,” Scott said. “Once the investigations are complete, board members will want to figure out what went wrong this year. If they find the problems are from just one or two issues, they can focus training on those.

The discussion (on dicamba) will continue into the next spraying season.”

Problems with dicamba drift have caused friction between neighbors, Smith said.

“How sad to have this thrust upon the industry we so dearly love and support,” he noted. “Our name ‘Save Our Crops’ could not have been more appropriate, as we face the onslaught of a technology program destined and preordained to cause injury and damage to unsuspecting and innocent victims.” 
9/6/2017