PS as I was walking through that field of tall cut grass, pretty sure I noticed uniform cut marks in the soil, like I saw in the soybean rows, possibly made with the planter?
Tree Damage From Crop Spraying
- Thread starter TNTreeHugger
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
And after looking at that photo of the red tractor, I'm 99.9% sure that's the same one I saw spraying.
Cousin's damage
Pretty sure this is an oak, hard to tell the leaves are so deformed, it's huge. At first I thought it was a holly.
entire tree damaged
Here's his grapevine
his maple
and his oak
Pretty sure this is an oak, hard to tell the leaves are so deformed, it's huge. At first I thought it was a holly.
entire tree damagedHere's his grapevine
his maple
and his oak
You need to stop focusing on the product or the means of application here.....and you need to look at the bigger picture, outside the scope of manufacturer recommendations or any other pesticide regulations. What was sprayed or the means of application is irrelevant except to the point of identifying that some form of herbicide did the damage. What is relevant is that the farmer applied some form of herbicide when there was considerable wind and that herbicide now has contaminated more then one private property adjoining the farm, causing significant damage to the vegetation on those properties. The farmer should have known better if he is a licensed applicator. If the product is Dicambra, given the number of problems with that toxin he absolutely should have known better. If there are other lawsuits as implied earlier, he did know better and should have waited for a better day to minimize drift. To prove negligence all you need to do is show that the farmer did something that he knew could cause others harm in some way. The element of intent is not necessary to prove negligence either. Look at it this way - If he set a burn pile on fire on a windy day and burned down a house on the adjoining property, he would be charged with negligence because he should have known better. It doesn't matter how the damage is done, poison, fire, car crash etc, as long as the defendant can be proven to have acted in a reckless manner that he should have known was dangerous and could cause damage to persons or property, he can absolutely be held responsible in a court of law.
As for suing everybody, thats how it works.....The lawyer will file suit against anybody involved then see where it goes. If you have a whole list of defendants you have a better chance of a judgment in your favor by getting one to turn on the other.....and you never know what might turn up when the questions start being asked. The more people who are required to be deposed the better chance you have of getting further information. Disgruntled employees on the low end of the roster will most likely be happy to roll over on the higher ups or even the owners to receive some consideration if it comes down to having a judgment imposed against them...Just the threat of a lawsuit is often enough to get people talking.
Typical of a no-til planter.
- Unspecified toxics: Surfactants in herbicide formulations can be more toxic to animals than the active ingredients (Folmar et al. 1979, Diamond and Durkin 1997). The toxicity of Roundup®, which increased with elevated pH, was attributed to the surfactant, rather than the active ingredient, glyphosate (Folmar et al. 1979). This result is reinforced by findings that more alkaline pH decreases glyphosate toxicity but increases surfactant toxicity (Diamond and Durkin 1997).
- https://www.epa.gov/caddis-vol2/herbicides
My cousin said he's seen this damage before but the new growth, after the damaged growth, does okay.
Maybe not so much. Wonder if this is why all the mature oaks on his property are dying - he thought it had to do with "drought." We don't have drought's here - some serious dry spells, but haven't seen a drought in the 29 years I've been here. But, I'm not a farmer, I mostly pay attention to how things in my yard are doing and I've yet to have a tree die from anything, let alone drought. (not counting the ones blown down in storms)
Bill G
ArboristSite King
I am not going to get into a pissing match here that is not correct. The landowner is responsible for their negligence NOT the tenants. In a cash rent situation the "tenant" has care of the land and is responsible for their OWN actions and negligence. If the person is working as an employee that is a different situation. If the landowner is negligent in this case what specifically did he or she do? I have been a landlord my entire adult life and a renter as well. I have seen many cases and they all end the same. Lets take a simple example. I rent a house to a individual that invites some friends over. They all get to indulging in activities and an argument ensues. They are on a 12ft high deck and a scuffle breaks out. The tenant hits the guy and he falls down the stairs of the deck. In the fall he dies. Now he is negligent? Is it the landowner? From reading your post It appears you might say yes. This did occur and of course the negligent party was NOT the landlord. Now if it was the situation was different and the person was leaning against a railing that gave way causing his death one could effectively argue the property owner could be at fault for renting a property in disrepair.
Here is another. I rent an adjoining fam and have for about 35 years. I spent a good portion of the winter cleaning fencerows and cutting wood there. If I would have been injured while doing so would the landowner be at fault? How about the fact that I let a fire get away from me there and had to call the fire department. Is that also the landowner fault?
Bill G
ArboristSite King
Are those actual pictures of the equipment?
My experience with the same damage you have on many of the same trees you have after a Tri-Mec application on a lawn on a hot late spring day (volatilization) resulted in the trees looking like crap for 1 season and bouncing back fully the next.
Your results may vary.
Just letting you know to try and help calm your fears that the trees are doomed. I would be pisses too, but they will most likely be fine next year.
Having the inspector document the damage now will go far if I am wrong and seek compensation for the death of any of your trees in the future.
Your results may vary.
Just letting you know to try and help calm your fears that the trees are doomed. I would be pisses too, but they will most likely be fine next year.
Having the inspector document the damage now will go far if I am wrong and seek compensation for the death of any of your trees in the future.
Bill G
ArboristSite King
Exactly! I will add though that it is a lot more than just retraining. It is near impossible to get good quality "floater operators" Yes more training in this case may have helped but simply finding the folks is a challenge. Sometimes it comes down to sending the more seasoned operator and specific jobs. As for if they care I will assure you they do. Remember these folks live in your community and in many case have for generations. They do not want issues
This has nothing to do with somebody falling down the stairs or anything else. Its about a land owner who is renting a property out to a farmer, and that farmer is acting in a manner that is negligent, irresponsible and causing damage to adjoining properties. It also appears there is already legal action that is ongoing for similar problems. So, the owners must know what is happening, and as the landlords they are now responsible and they should act to stop whatever the farmer is doing. If they don't, they are at the top of the list when it comes to liability.
Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius......or in this case, it should be "sue them all, let the court sort them out"......
Yes.
Bill G
ArboristSite King
It has to do with negligence and who is at fault. Your own statement proves my point
1. a land owner who is renting a property out to a farmer,
2. that farmer is acting in a manner that is negligent, irresponsible and causing damage to adjoining properties.
Where is the owner negligent?
Is the guy who owns the farm I am cutting trees on negligent for my actions that resulted in a fire call?
I'm pretty sure the agreement between the property owner and the farmer is a crop share deal. each gets a percentage of the yield profits.
I know the "farmer" doesn't routinely do any maintenance on the property, or fencerow. My boyfriend who lived there did that and now the owner does it on the weekends.
Bill G
ArboristSite King
Ok well then that is not a tractor/sprayer it is as elf propelled "high boy" with AT least 60 ft booms. There is no way it could have taking them 2 full days to spray 312 acres with that UNLESS they were broke down. As I said it is not relevant though unless it was a commercial applicator which the fact that you also pictured a GN flatbed leads me to think it was not. A commercial operator would have had a tender truck
Bill G
ArboristSite King
Now that is completely different information there. Previously you said they said the owners were not around. If it is a crop share that can have an effect on liability. HUGE difference there
But I wouldn't swear it's the same one that I saw spraying - pretty sure it is though.
All tractors look pretty much the same to me.
I had to go back to see what the other two chemicals were (with boots this time)
Preference
https://www.winfieldunited.com/prod...11PqYLq7RakJRE94HesKQIgt3HILmrBwaAjVKEALw_wcB
and Presidual
https://www.winfieldunited.com/products/herbicides/presidual/841
Been involved in a few herbicide injury cases, mostly as a witness to the injury.
A few take aways from my experience.
Dead plants and trees are winners. Deformed leaves are losers. When it comes to law suits. You need to show that you have suffered loss, minor harm is not worth the attorneys costs. Especially if the trees are going to recover.
With chemical trespass that curls leaves the best outcome is the authorities will levy a fine on the applicator. Unless they are repeat offenders. I live in TN this is not CT the good old boys club is live and well. The county ag station guys are pro farm.
A few take aways from my experience.
Dead plants and trees are winners. Deformed leaves are losers. When it comes to law suits. You need to show that you have suffered loss, minor harm is not worth the attorneys costs. Especially if the trees are going to recover.
With chemical trespass that curls leaves the best outcome is the authorities will levy a fine on the applicator. Unless they are repeat offenders. I live in TN this is not CT the good old boys club is live and well. The county ag station guys are pro farm.
They're not "around." as in not living here.
The relative who owns the one, I never see except at funerals.
The neighbor lives in Nashville and comes up on the weekends to piddle around, kind of like a hobby/tax write-off, I presume.
I think the only participation involved by them is collecting the money.
Similar threads
