Tree Damage From Crop Spraying

[TNTreeHugger]

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.

Yeah, I am trying desperately to keep out of panic mode. It's not easy.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

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"......

It's not quite that simple when dealing with neighbors, relatives, and fellow members of the community.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

Oh, and the big tanks are Round-up Powermax3
https://www.cropscience.bayer.us/products/herbicides/roundup-powermax-3
So, there's a mish-mash concoction of at least five different chemicals on that flatbed.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

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.

Exactly why I am feeling rather helpless in the situation.
I did notice today that a small 6' redbud appears to be dead, leafless. It was alive and well last time I weeded that flowerbed weeks ago. I know this for a fact because I cut down all the other volunteers except that one.
Also, I noticed that none of the redbuds budded out this year, I thought it was because of the frost - maybe a casualty of the spray?

I'm telling ya, I know my yard better than I know the back of my hand.

 

[farmer steve]

Oh, and the big tanks are Round-up Powermax3
https://www.cropscience.bayer.us/products/herbicides/roundup-powermax-3
So, there's a mish-mash concoction of at least five different chemicals on that flatbed.

I do see flatbeds like that going by from the local custom spray place near me. Depends on what crop they are spraying. They may be going to several different farms with different crops. Some of the ingredients in the sprays you mentioned are not contact sprays but plant growth inhibitors that affect the weed seed germination. I use both the metribuzin and metolachor for some of the produce I grow. I do also use them for soybeans.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

PREFERENCE®​

ADJUVANT
Surfactant Spreader Sticker
Preference® adjuvant is a non-ionic surfactant plus antifoaming agent that helps reduce surface tension on the leaf and slow the rate of evaporation for better uptake of pesticides. Use Preference whenever a pesticide label allows for the addition of a non-ionic surfactant. Always check pesticide label for specific crop use and application rates.

This??

 

[farmer steve]

PREFERENCE®​

ADJUVANT
Surfactant Spreader Sticker
Preference® adjuvant is a non-ionic surfactant plus antifoaming agent that helps reduce surface tension on the leaf and slow the rate of evaporation for better uptake of pesticides. Use Preference whenever a pesticide label allows for the addition of a non-ionic surfactant. Always check pesticide label for specific crop use and application rates.

This??
View attachment 988437

The spreader/sticker itself does not cause injury. It only increases the performance of the chemical it is added to. It helps with the rainfastness of the pesticide or herbicide also. Just to let you know I think you have a problem and am not sticking up for the applicator that caused your damage. I'm all for responsible use of this stuff.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

The spreader/sticker itself does not cause injury. It only increases the performance of the chemical it is added to. It helps with the rainfastness of the pesticide or herbicide also. Just to let you know I think you have a problem and am not sticking up for the applicator that caused your damage. I'm all for responsible use of this stuff.

I get that about the surfactant, but don't you think that's what could be the glossy area on the leaves I posted?
Idk, just guessing.
And I appreciate your support.

 

[farmer steve]

I get that about the surfactant, but don't you think that's what could be the glossy area on the leaves I posted?
Idk, just guessing.
And I appreciate your support.

It could be. I'm not familiar with that particular surfactant. I only use ones that are labeled for vegetables. I know some herbicide/ pesticide labels specifically say to use a non-ionic surfactant.

 

[pdqdl]

You are wrong on all counts.
We have weather records - also documented daily temps and activity posted here to the forum.
Also, I said he was out there for two long days
The same farmers have been working these fields for generations... not the co-op

I'm gonna quit helping if you don't quit telling me how wrong I am at every turn.

I was referring to the contents of this thread. Not your records, nor the national weather service. "We" being the contributors to your thread, still don't know the weather conditions, nor the date of the sprays.
And that's because you haven't told us.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

I'm gonna quit helping if you don't quit telling me how wrong I am at every turn.

I was referring to the contents of this thread. Not your records, nor the national weather service. "We" being the contributors to your thread, still don't know the weather conditions, nor the date of the sprays.
And that's because you haven't told us.

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.

 

[arathol]

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?

Again, apples and oranges.....As there appears to be legal action pending already, the owner of the property would have been served along with the people responsible for running the farm. If so, the owner is aware of what is going on and has taken no action, so yes the owner can be held responsible.
It also seems that the owner does come around regularly, so its a good bet he has some knowledge of what the farmer is doing.

If you have the permission to cut trees on a farm and the owner is aware of your intent, yes, it should be partly on him to make sure you aren't going to burn the place down by being negligent, ie have the proper training and equipment to work safely without creating a hazard for others. However, its his property, so if he allows you work in a manner that causes damage, ie a fire, he can have you charged with negligence. When you set the place on fire and somebody else gets hurt is when the owner can also be charged because he allowed you to do what you were doing.

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.

And this is exactly why the focus needs to be on the legal stuff, not what was sprayed or if the farmer followed the directions. Negligence covers a broad spectrum that is not part of what the AG station has jurisdiction over. The don't even need to be involved except to confirm that the damage was herbicide related from the farm. This is a simple matter of a farmer spraying on a bad day and doing collateral damage to his neighbors property, not a fight over which herbicide does what or anything else related to farming regulations. Spraying herbicides into the wind so they carry onto adjoining properties and cause damage on those properties is simply negligent. I don't think there are negligence exemptions in the AG regulations, even in TN.....
That being said, it may take a good deal of time for the final outcome of this to be revealed. Its very important to document everything. Changes in the foliage over time, which plants and trees are effected and the extent of the effect etc. Try to keep a log, with lots of pictures, dates and times, have the inspectors return on a regular basis to monitor the damage and get written reports. Get weather reports from the NWS for the time period when the spraying occurred and onward. Most importantly, don't try to change or fix anything or do anything that could alter the appearance of culpability on the part of the farmer. In other words, let nature take its course here......there is probably little that you can do to stop whats happening anyhow......

 

[TNTreeHugger]

Again, apples and oranges.....As there appears to be legal action pending already, the owner of the property would have been served along with the people responsible for running the farm. If so, the owner is aware of what is going on and has taken no action, so yes the owner can be held responsible.
It also seems that the owner does come around regularly, so its a good bet he has some knowledge of what the farmer is doing.

If you have the permission to cut trees on a farm and the owner is aware of your intent, yes, it should be partly on him to make sure you aren't going to burn the place down by being negligent, ie have the proper training and equipment to work safely without creating a hazard for others. However, its his property, so if he allows you work in a manner that causes damage, ie a fire, he can have you charged with negligence. When you set the place on fire and somebody else gets hurt is when the owner can also be charged because he allowed you to do what you were doing.


And this is exactly why the focus needs to be on the legal stuff, not what was sprayed or if the farmer followed the directions. Negligence covers a broad spectrum that is not part of what the AG station has jurisdiction over. The don't even need to be involved except to confirm that the damage was herbicide related from the farm. This is a simple matter of a farmer spraying on a bad day and doing collateral damage to his neighbors property, not a fight over which herbicide does what or anything else related to farming regulations. Spraying herbicides into the wind so they carry onto adjoining properties and cause damage on those properties is simply negligent. I don't think there are negligence exemptions in the AG regulations, even in TN.....
That being said, it may take a good deal of time for the final outcome of this to be revealed. Its very important to document everything. Changes in the foliage over time, which plants and trees are effected and the extent of the effect etc. Try to keep a log, with lots of pictures, dates and times, have the inspectors return on a regular basis to monitor the damage and get written reports. Get weather reports from the NWS for the time period when the spraying occurred and onward. Most importantly, don't try to change or fix anything or do anything that could alter the appearance of culpability on the part of the farmer. In other words, let nature take its course here......there is probably little that you can do to stop whats happening anyhow......

Thank you.

Let me clarify something I said earlier about the law suits... the guy I talked to told me he knew of law suits regarding spray/drift/damage happening in the past - not that there are any current ongoing law suits.
None that I know of anyway. Something I think I need to find out though.
Sorry for the confusion.

 

[TNTreeHugger]

Funk’s Grove, about 10 miles south of Bloomington, Illinois, is one of just 654 undisturbed natural areas in the state of Illinois. The 25-acre forest is famed for its sugar maples and the syrup they produce. The nature preserve, a popular destination along the famed Route 66, is also home to oak trees hundreds of years old.

But this year, the leaves on the historic oak trees “cupped” and died, exhibiting clear signs of harm from either 2,4-D or dicamba, which is the most widely used weed killer of this type, Nelms said.

https://investigatemidwest.org/2017...out-weed-killer-dicambas-damage-to-oak-trees/

 

[Bill G]

Again, apples and oranges....

If you have the permission to cut trees on a farm and the owner is aware of your intent, yes, it should be partly on him to make sure you aren't going to burn the place down by being negligent, ie have the proper training and equipment to work safely without creating a hazard for others. However, its his property, so if he allows you work in a manner that causes damage, ie a fire, he can have you charged with negligence. When you set the place on fire and somebody else gets hurt is when the owner can also be charged because he allowed you to do what you were doing.

You are wrong and should probably consult someone more knowledgeable than you or I. I have been through these situations many times and negligence falls on the negligent party or parties. Here is yet another example

We cash rented a pasture along a major highway. The fence was not great but decent. We kept cow-calf pairs in there for years. Well one night the owner called and said there was an accident in front of her house. We went out and found a steer calf had got out and a car hit it. The car was totaled and the calf had to be put down (by an officer). It was a cut and dry case of negligence on our part for not having our animals secured. Now in your reasoning it would have fallen on the landowner because THEY OWN the fence that failed. I can assure you that the law was very clear and there was zero argument. Now if it was a calf-share situation that would be different.

Heck using your logic I have a case against the state of Illinois for crop damage

Alot of folks want to jump the gun with blame when it is misplaced. All that does is clog up the court system

 

[Bill G]

But this year, the leaves on the historic oak trees “cupped” and died, exhibiting clear signs of harm from either 2,4-D or dicamba, which is the most widely used weed killer of this type, Nelms said.

https://investigatemidwest.org/2017...out-weed-killer-dicambas-damage-to-oak-trees/

24D will NOT kill a healthy mature Oak tree plain and simple. It will curl some leaves but that is it. For gosh sakes it is probably the most widely used lawn herbicide in the USA

 

[TNTreeHugger]

Here'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

 

[arathol]

You are wrong and should probably consult someone more knowledgeable than you or I. I have been through these situations many times and negligence falls on the negligent party or parties. Here is yet another example

We cash rented a pasture along a major highway. The fence was not great but decent. We kept cow-calf pairs in there for years. Well one night the owner called and said there was an accident in front of her house. We went out and found a steer calf had got out and a car hit it. The car was totaled and the calf had to be put down (by an officer). It was a cut and dry case of negligence on our part for not having our animals secured. Now in your reasoning it would have fallen on the landowner because THEY OWN the fence that failed. I can assure you that the law was very clear and there was zero argument. Now if it was a calf-share situation that would be different.

Heck using your logic I have a case against the state of Illinois for crop damage

Alot of folks want to jump the gun with blame when it is misplaced. All that does is clog up the court system

Thats why a good lawyer will sue everybody involved and let the courts sort it out...
Again, apples and oranges. If the fence was serviceable, you failed to keep livestock secured, your fault. If the fence wasn't serviceable, and you failed to notify the owner of the land to have it fixed, thats still on you. Anyhow, nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread....

Here'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

Yes, that is what you would expect to happen. Its going to continue to drift for whatever time period they are spraying.

 

[Bill G]

Again, apples and oranges.....As there appears to be legal action pending already, the owner of the property would have been served along with the people responsible for running the farm. If so, the owner is aware of what is going on and has taken no action, so yes the owner can be held responsible.
It also seems that the owner does come around regularly, so its a good bet he has some knowledge of what the farmer is doing.

Where have you learned this as fact as I sure have not seen that anywhere. You obvious have some information that I have not read. Since you say the owner ALREADY has pending legal action against him AND he/she is aware of what is going on and taken no action I would sure like to know where you got that from.

 

[Bill G]

Again, apples and oranges. If the fence was serviceable, you failed to keep livestock secured, your fault. If the fence wasn't serviceable, and you failed to notify the owner of the land to have it fixed, thats still on you. Anyhow, nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread....


Yes, that is what you would expect to happen. Its going to continue to drift for whatever time period they are spraying.

All I can say to that is wow