For us it all depends on what category your certification's are for and what the chemical is.
Tree Damage From Crop Spraying
- Thread starter TNTreeHugger
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
What's the DEC?
edit: Thanks LW.
Welcome anytime.
Just got off the phone with the friend who mentioned the law suits... he likes to talk - a lot - so I brought up the subject and off he went. 
Got the names of those involved in the suit, it was quite a while ago, but I know the one who got the damage and I'm going to call her tomorrow.
Also found out that's likely not the tractor/sprayer I saw spraying. He said that field is worked by another farmer and the one I saw was likely a yellow one. But, we're still talking about the same farmer, and he pretty much confirmed that.
Also, they own their own equipment. He said years ago, they didn't, but now they do.
He didn't think it was a big deal, until I started crying, then I think he got how bad it really is... said it sounds like I'd been nuked.
He told me about similar damage that had been done to his place years ago, same farmer, where an inversion dropped the stuff on a section of his poplar woods. Also fried the farmers garden 1/4 mile away.
An attorney returned my call, but she said they only handle issues with insurance companies and if I had a problem with the farmers insurance to call her back.
That's all I know.
Got the names of those involved in the suit, it was quite a while ago, but I know the one who got the damage and I'm going to call her tomorrow.
Also found out that's likely not the tractor/sprayer I saw spraying. He said that field is worked by another farmer and the one I saw was likely a yellow one. But, we're still talking about the same farmer, and he pretty much confirmed that.
Also, they own their own equipment. He said years ago, they didn't, but now they do.
He didn't think it was a big deal, until I started crying, then I think he got how bad it really is... said it sounds like I'd been nuked.
He told me about similar damage that had been done to his place years ago, same farmer, where an inversion dropped the stuff on a section of his poplar woods. Also fried the farmers garden 1/4 mile away.
An attorney returned my call, but she said they only handle issues with insurance companies and if I had a problem with the farmers insurance to call her back.
That's all I know.
Probably ought to refrigerate those samples.
Oh, my, this is a gem of a website!
Sent them an email... instant (auto) email reply. That's encouraging.
That's what I thought too.
Just talked to the friend who works at the sod farm. He mentioned the dicamba to his boss and they don't use it anymore because it's so bad. He also said when he and his buddy drove past the house on his way home, they could see the damage from the road.
That actually made me feel worse.
I looked at one of the oaks and while it's putting on new leaves, the bigger they get the more droopy and limp they get. I'll have to wait and see if they improve, or fall off.
That actually made me feel worse.
I looked at one of the oaks and while it's putting on new leaves, the bigger they get the more droopy and limp they get. I'll have to wait and see if they improve, or fall off.
Thank you all for the info, advice, and concern - I really appreciate it.
I'm going to continue to post here, kind of as a log of events as they happen, so I have a record.
I'm going to continue to post here, kind of as a log of events as they happen, so I have a record.
Silly me. I figured that was how you got a hold of the Dept of Ag guy. That's how your find 'em in Missouri.
No, I went right to the source - DoA website.
Doing research on the interwebs using a keyboard really is a marvelous thing - if you know how.
Your samples are junk in a court of law, no chain of custody.
If so, then paying $485 to have them analyzed would be a colossal waste of money.
If you want"your own samples" have a 3rd party take them.
Columbia can not only test for the herbicide, but metabolites - it tells if the plant responded to a growth regulator herbicide...even after the herbicide is gone.
BUT, be aware, that won't be a "final" answer. I worked with a case where we sent samples. They came back with #xyz. I asked what that meant...not surprising to find glyphosate residue when surrounded but literally thousands of acres of RoundUp ready corn and beans. "Do those numbers represent damaging levels?" They couldn't offer details...just that it was there. Extension or the State University couldn't help. I called Bayer. After a few weeks and a follow-up call all I could get was "that is not an insignificant level." Does that mean it is enough to have killed the tree? No further info available... I supptif it goes to court some of that might be discovered with a subpoena. But may be protected trade secrets???
Columbia can not only test for the herbicide, but metabolites - it tells if the plant responded to a growth regulator herbicide...even after the herbicide is gone.
BUT, be aware, that won't be a "final" answer. I worked with a case where we sent samples. They came back with #xyz. I asked what that meant...not surprising to find glyphosate residue when surrounded but literally thousands of acres of RoundUp ready corn and beans. "Do those numbers represent damaging levels?" They couldn't offer details...just that it was there. Extension or the State University couldn't help. I called Bayer. After a few weeks and a follow-up call all I could get was "that is not an insignificant level." Does that mean it is enough to have killed the tree? No further info available... I supptif it goes to court some of that might be discovered with a subpoena. But may be protected trade secrets???
I'd say when dealing with Bayer and Monsanto, you've lost before you even begin.
Nasty entities.
From some of the articles I've read just the past few days, even for important people, it's impossible to prove any kind of damage done is the result of these chemicals... the chemical companies will always make the claim it's the fault of the applicator and not the chemical.
That only deflects liability, not cause.
The fact that dicamba is still in use after an attempt to get it off the market speaks volumes to the power those companies wield.
Big Pharma.
Just thought of someone else I could contact
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd/tennessee
What do you think?
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd/tennessee
What do you think?
The folks i spoke with were very helpful. they just couldn't give much more detail. part of that is they don't have a lot of research on the species of trees impacted. They can't be making definitive statements about things they don't have the documentation to back up.
I'm NOT a fan of dicamba. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize some realities. It has been around for decades. It is still around (and likely here to stay) because:
A) It is effective
B) The newer formulations are supposed to be lower volatility. You described drift in the OP. That IS an applicator problem...not a chemical problem. Yes, the chemicals will damage off target plants when used incorrectly, but is that much different than a driver drifting out of their lane and causing an accident? That is not a manufacture problem...it is a driver problem.
C) Many broadleaf weeds are resistant to glyphosate. Therefore the next generations of soybeans will likely be dicamba resistant because those weeds are effectively killed by dicamba. I don't see this as necessarily good news because of volitilization.
As stated earlier, dicamba (or any other herbicide) is a tool. When used properly it can be very effective and improving crop efficiencies (thereby keeping food prices more affordable). When used improperly, it can cause damage. Just like many other tools.
I guess my point is, don't make moral judgements and assume people or companies are evil. These are legitimate businesses trying to provide a product or service that meets their client's needs.
If the determination is that the herbicide caused damage, recognize that a mistake was made. If that is the case, the responsible party(s) should be held liable and everybody should move on.
I'm NOT a fan of dicamba. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize some realities. It has been around for decades. It is still around (and likely here to stay) because:
A) It is effective
B) The newer formulations are supposed to be lower volatility. You described drift in the OP. That IS an applicator problem...not a chemical problem. Yes, the chemicals will damage off target plants when used incorrectly, but is that much different than a driver drifting out of their lane and causing an accident? That is not a manufacture problem...it is a driver problem.
C) Many broadleaf weeds are resistant to glyphosate. Therefore the next generations of soybeans will likely be dicamba resistant because those weeds are effectively killed by dicamba. I don't see this as necessarily good news because of volitilization.
As stated earlier, dicamba (or any other herbicide) is a tool. When used properly it can be very effective and improving crop efficiencies (thereby keeping food prices more affordable). When used improperly, it can cause damage. Just like many other tools.
I guess my point is, don't make moral judgements and assume people or companies are evil. These are legitimate businesses trying to provide a product or service that meets their client's needs.
If the determination is that the herbicide caused damage, recognize that a mistake was made. If that is the case, the responsible party(s) should be held liable and everybody should move on.
Big Pharma, including Bayer and Monsanto are evil.
But, that's okay, I understand you may do business with those companies and rely on their products to stay in business. May be a necessary evil, but just the same, evil.
You haven't been violated and you aren't watching 2 1/2 acres of mature trees and other vegetation shrivel up and die a slow and agonizing death from a (presumed) direct result of chemical poisoning.
Holding somebody liable will not reverse the damage done to my trees.
Saying "move on" or, "get over it" does not come from a place of sympathy, or compassion.
Hopefully, the damage is only temporary and I will be able to get over it and move on. Only time will tell, but in the meantime it is agonizing to see everything in my yard that I have worked so hard to cultivate for 29 years be completely decimated. And the thought of possibly losing any of it is unbearable.
I don't expect you to know how I feel, and that's okay.
I do appreciate the info you have shared with me.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that is accurate. Chain of custody works like testimony. Hearsay isn't admissable, live witnesses are.
When TNT says I collected these samples, I took this picture... It is admissable. Chain of custody can be followed by "I directly mailed this sample to Columbia labs with USPS ticket # XXXX-XXXX, and they received it on XX-XX-XXXX date... After that testimony, it becomes a matter of witness credibility, not chain of custody.
I think chain of custody doesn't come into play too often until it is a criminal charge and the police are producing the evidence to put someone in jail.
Similar threads
