Crop Insurance Today Second Quarter 2020 - 38

C r o p I n s u r a n c e

today

VisitWebsite
ag-risk.org

What's Growing On?
By Dr. James Houx, NCIS

In this and upcoming issues of Crop Insurance TODAY®, my colleague Dr. Mark Zarnstorff and I will be contributing articles on
current topics in agriculture research and technology. The content will focus on issues that are
garnering attention among researchers, producers, and the crop insurance industry. Hopefully,
you will find them interesting and informative.
This inaugural article covers a topic first introduced in the November 2014 issue of TODAY®.
Although this seems like a long time ago, it has
been a very hot topic since then, and here's why.
The article What to Watch for in New Herbicides discussed the upcoming arrival of dicamba and 2, 4-D tolerant cropping systems that
were introduced in the 2017 crop year. The
cropping systems included both the herbicide
tolerant crop and new "low volatility" herbicide
formulations and guidelines for use that were
designed to greatly reduce volatilization and
drift damage that is common with these two
herbicides. Herbicide tolerant crop seed was
available to cotton producers in 2015 and soybean producers in 2016-before the new her-

bicide formulations were available in 2017. The
original article stated that most experts were
concerned that releasing the genetic segment
of this technology before the new herbicide formulations were available would lead to off-label
use of the older formulations-a use that is illegal under Federal law. Unfortunately, off-label
use of older formulations was rampant. Producers could not resist the urge to use a tool that,
up until then, was unavailable. And as expected,
it led to thousands of drift complaints.
Because these issues were not due to the
cropping system per se, the seed biotech companies and producers alike projected that once
the new herbicide formulations and guidelines
for use were in effect for 2017 the problems
would largely be eliminated. However, 2017
was problematic from the start and finished
with 2,708 dicamba-related injury complaints
affecting more than 3.6 million acres across 22
states. Even with the new "low-volatility" formulations, it appeared that the products were
not performing as advertised. Experts pointed
to many factors that were responsible for the

large number of complaints, but volatilization
and drift were the primary causes of damage in
most instances.
Complaints continued in 2018. For many
states, results were similar to 2017. During this
time, multiple states implemented their own
rules to address problems through a process
outlined in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 24(c)
Special Local Need labeling. The Section 24(c)
process can be used by states to further allow
(or restrict) use that differs from the original
label. In most cases, states requested additional
label restrictions that were focused on the herbicide application window by restricting herbicide use after a certain calendar date.
From 2016-2018, crop insurance adjusters
were on the front lines and witnessed the damage firsthand. Some farmers were looking for
compensation through crop insurance; however, the damage is not an insurable cause of
loss, so indemnities were not paid. Farmers did
get some relief, though. Production loss from
an uninsurable cause of loss due to third par-

http://ag-risk.org

Crop Insurance Today Second Quarter 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Crop Insurance Today Second Quarter 2020