Either way you are at fault there, I'm just agreeing with you that you are at fault....
Tree Damage From Crop Spraying
- Thread starter TNTreeHugger
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
More from that paperHere's something I hadn't thought of about the drift... I was picturing A drift of the chemical moving into my yard, NOT multiple drifts with every pass of the sprayer!
Even though only a small portion of the applied herbicide drifts, some non-target areas can receive high doses. Herbicide drift can accumulate on the downwind side of a field, in a shelterbelt at the edge of a field, or in a portion of an adjacent field. In some cases, herbicide accumulated in downwind areas can exceed the rate applied to the field, with a small portion from each pass of the sprayer drifting to the non-target area.
https://www.mssoy.org/uploads/files/ndsu-ext-a-657.pdf
"Wind direction. Herbicides should not be applied when the wind is blowing toward an adjoining susceptible crop or a crop in a vulnerable stage of growth. The wind should be blowing away from the susceptible crop or perhaps the field should not be treated, if weed problems are minor. All feasible drift control techniques should be used if herbicide must be applied while the wind is blowing toward a susceptible crop.
Wind velocity. The amount of herbicide lost from the target area and the distance the herbicide moves will increase as wind velocity increases, so greater wind velocity generally will cause more drift. However, severe crop injury from drift can occur with low wind velocities, especially under conditions that result in vertically stable air.
Air stability. Horizontal air movement (wind) is generally recognized as an important factor affecting drift, but vertical air movement often is overlooked. Normally, air near the soil surface is warmer than higher air. Warm air will rise while cooler air will sink which provides vertical mixing of air. Small spray droplets suspended in the warm air near the soil surface will be carried aloft and away from susceptible plants by the vertical air movement. Vertically stable air (temperature inversion) occurs when air near the soil surface is cooler or similar in temperature to higher air. Small spray droplets can be suspended in stable air, move laterally in a light wind and impact plants two miles or more downwind. Vertically stable air is most common near sunrise and generally is associated with low wind and clear skies. Three times more spray was detected 100 to 200 feet downwind and 10 times more was detected 1,000 to 2,000 feet downwind with vertically stable air as compared to normal conditions with a given wind speed (2). Spray drift in vertically stable air can be reduced by increasing spray droplet size. Herbicides should not be applied near susceptible crops when vertically stable air conditions are present. Vertically stable air can often be identified by observing smoke bombs or dust from a gravel road. Also, fog is an indication of vertically stable air and dew formation generally indicates vertically stable air."
Try reading post #1
As I said, if that is the case, the property owners should have been served legal notice of any suit. That notice should have alerted the owners as to the problem with the spraying and once that notification was made the owners should have been in contact with the farmer. Allowing the farmer to continue spraying would put the owners right at the head of the line. This is why I suggested finding out more about the lawsuits mentioned and how they might be relevant to the OPs situation.
I see what you mean and while I don't know who the farmer and property owners were in past law suits, if they were farms in this area, it's likely to be the same farmer. I'm sure there are other farmers working in other areas of the county.
Now that I think of it, there was another farmer doing row crops for a while. Not sure what happened to him, maybe got sued out of business.
I did an online search for law suits in the area and haven't found anything yet.
I reread post #1 to see if I inadvertently assigned guilt to this farmer and these property owners regarding previous law suits.
"there have been law suits about that kind of tree damage" does not implicate those involved now.
I do not know if this farmer, or these property owners have ever been sued in the past for chemical drift damage.
Bill G
ArboristSite King
I did , did you?
Bill G
ArboristSite King
No, Using YOUR logic the landowner is negligent also. Read your own posts.
Bill G
ArboristSite King
Here is post #1 Where does it contain your claims? Did you read it OR jump to a conclusion
As I said, if somebody told you there had been lawsuits in the past, this is something you really need to investigate. If the farm has had problems in the past thats really going to work in your favor. The land owners name is a matter of public record so that can be easily researched. You might also be able to find the name of the farmer also. If you have names it should then be pretty easy to find any lawsuits, either pending or past, using your states Judicial System website. This should also be a matter of public record.
You are solely at fault if the owner had no idea there was a problem. If you did not inform the landowner, and you knew the fence was not serviceable yet you allowed cows in the pasture, thats entirely on you.......Even if the land owner knew, you knew the fence wasn't serviceable. The standards for negligence is that you did something that you should have known could have resulted in damage or injury, and allowing a cow into a pasture with a broken fence is just that.....whether or not the owner knew about it. The owner is only negligent if he knew and took no action....in which case both of you are negligent.....either way it doesn't apply to anything in this thread............
Selective comprehension........
You are solely at fault if the owner had no idea there was a problem. If you did not inform the landowner, and you knew the fence was not serviceable yet you allowed cows in the pasture, thats entirely on you.......Even if the land owner knew, you knew the fence wasn't serviceable. The standards for negligence is that you did something that you should have known could have resulted in damage or injury, and allowing a cow into a pasture with a broken fence is just that.....whether or not the owner knew about it. The owner is only negligent if he knew and took no action....in which case both of you are negligent.....either way it doesn't apply to anything in this thread............
I know their names.
No legal results found.
I did just find where they've received over 300k in USDA subsidies over the past 25 years.
His neighbor made over 800k in subsidies.
I believe I did earlier on in the thread -
It was windy as hell, and according to my posts in The Weather Thread, it was likely either the 4th or the 14th of April.
I only told you you were wrong one time.
Don't be so sensitive.
That's my job.
And stop being mean to me, I can't handle it at the moment. You'll make me cry.
You might consider that to qualify as telling us, but pesticide application rules don't accept nebulous terms like "windy as hell".
- Wind speeds must be recorded in miles per hour.
- Wind direction must be recorded, too. Especially relevant with respect to the sprayed property and your own.
- Temperatures must be in degrees, not levels of discomfort.
- 4th or the 14th is better than "several weeks ago", but still doesn't count for much when the Dept. of Ag asks you what day you observed the spraying. Most especially if he's inclined to help out the farmer instead of the neighbor.
Now I have learned how touchy you can be about some things, and I try to work around those issues. Consider that I might get offended by being told that I am wrong on all counts, when it is demonstrable that I pretty much hit it on the mark. If your job is being sensitive, consider that it is my job to be provably correct as often as possible, and you are straight up telling me I'm not doing my job.
Now there is an expression that shows some experience. I've not heard that before, but it sure seems to fit the situation.
I have mixed opinions about your shiny leaf. Yes, a surfactant might leave a shiny stain, but not unless it was a very direct hit with the herbicide. If it was that straight a hit to leave a shiny stain, it would surely have killed hell out of that leaf, due to the high concentration of herbicide that it came in contact with. That oak leaf only has a bit of curl, so I think it is unlikely to be surfactant residue.
Keep in mind, too, that surfactants are not likely to be applied at more than one gallon per 100 gallons of water, and your farmer was probably only putting down 10 to 15 gallons per acre. Imagine spreading one gallon of surfactant over 10 acres, and then tell me if you think you could spread it that thin and leave a shiny stain?
Maybe... but probably not.
It will if you try hard enough. You're right, of course, oak trees are pretty safe from a standard lawn application. Most of those lawn applications also include Dicamba!
Just something to think about.
2.77% Dicamba.
I spilled about 150 gallons of spray mix onto a hillside with many oak trees on it long ago. They never even got curly leaves. The dandelions damn sure died in that area, though!
However, if the property was hit by a constant or even intermittent drift over several hours of spraying, the application rates go right out the window, don't they?
If you weren't so eager to contend with what folks say, you might find that they are correct a little more often than you seem to think.
Please spend a bit more time reading my complicated and lengthy posts. I have a whole cadre of folks that patrol my every post looking for mistakes, so that they can even the score. Hence, I am extra careful with nearly everything I post, just 'cause I know guys like you are out there waiting for me. Just ask the author of this thread!
You see, I am infamous for picking on folk's comments, pointing out insignificant facts, and sometimes bickering endlessly about a topic. I'd like to think I have improved myself considerably in that respect, but that doesn't change my history, nor my detractor's sense of retribution due.
Please spend a bit more time reading my complicated and lengthy posts. I have a whole cadre of folks that patrol my every post looking for mistakes, so that they can even the score. Hence, I am extra careful with nearly everything I post, just 'cause I know guys like you are out there waiting for me. Just ask the author of this thread!
You see, I am infamous for picking on folk's comments, pointing out insignificant facts, and sometimes bickering endlessly about a topic. I'd like to think I have improved myself considerably in that respect, but that doesn't change my history, nor my detractor's sense of retribution due.
I'm going to guess you don't have much experience with pesticide surfactants. What's in a surfactant that makes 'em dry shiny, anyway?
Kindly tell me what brand you have used that remains shiny when dry. Particularly when applied at 0.00001224 teaspoons per square inch to an oak leaf.
I wonder how bad that leaf would curl up if hit with a double dose?
Just don't spill any arsenal it will kill any tree it comes in contact with except conifers. It will miagrate in the ground and keep killing. A pesticide application certification for restricted chemicals isn't easy to get and the certification is by category. meaning each category requires certification. My Commercial certification was for (WT) Wood Treatment Commercial, (WDS & WDC) Wood Destroying Organisms Commercial, (REG) Regulatory Commercial, (GRND) Ground Equipment Mode, (FOR) Forest Pest Control Commercial, (AIR) Aerial Mode of Operation.
You had to do 40 hours training, take appropriate exams for each category, maintain 30 points. Pesticide permits are valid for 3 years. Applicators must acquire 30 points in the three year period, 4 hours of training are equal to 10 points for renewal.
The USDA regulates chemical ban list, the state regulates approved chemicals. What may be approved or regulated in one state may be different in another.
I guess it would. It is a soil sterilant.
I use a generic version with roundup, ammonium sulfate, and some SURFACTANT to kill green stuff. It's much more effective than just roundup.
By the way: I've been testing out on the applicator's test once every 3 years since '84. I don't take the training courses, because that costs hundreds of dollars, and takes two days of my time. I go take the test, it costs about $50, and I'm done in a few hours.
I use a generic version with roundup, ammonium sulfate, and some SURFACTANT to kill green stuff. It's much more effective than just roundup.
By the way: I've been testing out on the applicator's test once every 3 years since '84. I don't take the training courses, because that costs hundreds of dollars, and takes two days of my time. I go take the test, it costs about $50, and I'm done in a few hours.
Maybe because it was "spilled" and not sprayed?
It wouldn't have gotten directly on the leaves of the trees, but would have on the smaller weeds close to the ground.
There are articles galore I've seen in just the past two days on how many oaks have been damaged by Dicamba.
And seeing all the damaged oaks in my cousins yard, I believe it to be true.
Similar threads
