Roger Carter, who operates the consulting firm Agricultural Management Services in east-central Louisiana, reported in his newsletter today about a meeting earlier in the week with Monsanto representatives that was attended by a number of key consultants and several farmers.
Topics included fee structures that Monsanto is extending for herbicides needed to bolster Roundup applications in an area now dealing with widespread cases of Roundup-resistant weeds.
The meeting also touched on tech fees and bollworm slippage in Bollgard II cotton.
Here is Mr. Carter's report:
Monsanto was prepared with tough hides since “they” are common fodder for many producers woes. Most farmers in attendance have been to one or more of these types of meetings before where Monsanto is searching for ways to help the end users of its technology manage risk. It was noted that Monsanto has helped somewhat in weed resistance management by rebating a small amount ($2.50/ac or so) for each of several herbicides if they are applied. However, it would require that a producer use all five herbicides on the list in order to get a total of $12.50/ac in return.
And there is no consideration for rates. Cotoran and diuron, for instance, must be used at the highest labeled rates for most of our soil types where cotton is grown in our area, yet the same amount of $ is allocated per acre regardless. The $2.50/ac rebate for Cotoran would be less than 20% of the cost of a efficacious rate of that herbicide for many of our acres. We appreciate the thought, but we need more bucks if Monsanto truly wants to help with resistance management in our area.
And there is no help for insect resistance management for bollworms that are “slipping” through Bollgard II cotton and must be treated with pyrethroids that are becoming less effective with each application. We were supposed to have enough control of bollworms with BGII to not have to treat for bollworms.
Jesse Young (a farmer and independent crop consultant) pointed out that the cap had been removed from the top end of what farmers would pay per acre for technology and that if farmers planted the recommended amount of seed (4 seed/row ft on 38” rows) tech and seed costs would be $133/acre. The reason the cap was removed is that few farmers were hitting the cap. The reason they didn’t “cap out” was that the cap was too high and should have been lowered to a total of $75/acre for seed and technology. Laugh if you want, Big M, but this is reality.
Monsanto explained that in order to continue research such as the drought resistant cotton on which they are currently working, it took X number of research dollars and that they could not lower the fees and still conduct the necessary research. Most in the audience agreed that drought tolerant cotton would not help, but actually hurt, the Mid-South and Southeast since it would be of more benefit to drier areas and encourage production there. In other words, it would help our area farmers’ competitors. Monsanto should not try to woo us with talk that “they” are only making these research investments for the American farmer…..it is for Monsanto’s shareholders and no one else.
The good thing: Monsanto took notes. And some of us were encouraged that perhaps they will begin to help us by sharing more of the risk, reducing some tech fees, and encouraging better stewardship of the technology by not selling “canned” packages of technology in areas where certain technology is not needed or wanted, such as areas where resistant pigweed have caused the value of Flex to become nil. Yet the Bt traits may still be wanted and affordable.
Although the meeting was two hours long there was no “name calling” - at least none that we could hear. And we wondered what the four lost souls that were “sacrificed” and sent to make this trek had done wrong to deserve such punishment. Dave Rhylander is a veteran of such gatherings and has become used to wearing body armor. Phil Miller exhibited traits of being a Southern gentleman and appears sincere in his remarks. Regardless, the crowd left them unscathed, but hopefully more educated about what can be done to help us keep cotton in the United States.
We believe that Monsanto is listening. We thank “them” or “it” for aiding us with a contributions towards weed resistance management. We hope that neither they nor us wasted our time. The fish was good, but it wasn’t enough to feed our families for a year nor enough to offset tech fees. And we don’t necessarily feel that a “tech rebate” check is in the mail yet, but we’re getting there.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Glyphosate-Resistance at the Farm and Gin Show
Are you surprised to know that everyone is getting to know the term, glyphosate-resistance weeds? Yeah, you thought it was just big news down on the farm, but even consumer media outlets are giving a nod to the issue. Every farm magazine talks weed resistance, and today's Memphis Commercial Appeal used the item to talk about this weekend's 58th Annual Farm and Gin Show in Memphis, Tennessee.
Based on my limited Gin Show experience, the estimated crowd of 20,000 includes plenty of folks in the agricultural business, but the non-farm attendance is far greater. Everyone from kids going through to pick up the free rulers and candy to farmers eyeing the latest combines or cotton pickers will probably get a whiff of the increasing panic over glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed, more commonly known as mare's tail.
For those who are looking for more than free rulers, four weed experts from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee will be giving a seminar, and I'm sure answering many questions throughout the day.
Based on my limited Gin Show experience, the estimated crowd of 20,000 includes plenty of folks in the agricultural business, but the non-farm attendance is far greater. Everyone from kids going through to pick up the free rulers and candy to farmers eyeing the latest combines or cotton pickers will probably get a whiff of the increasing panic over glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed, more commonly known as mare's tail.
For those who are looking for more than free rulers, four weed experts from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee will be giving a seminar, and I'm sure answering many questions throughout the day.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Roundup and Roundup Resistance Turns Out To Be Too Much Of A Good Thing, Says Texas Economist
Too much of a good thing might be a bad thing when it comes to controlling weeds, a Texas AgriLife Extension Service specialist said.
Prior to herbicide-resistant crops, producers used a variety of methods to control weeds, including herbicides, cultivation and hoeing crews, said Dr. Peter Dotray, an agronomist with AgriLife Extension and Texas AgriLife Research in Lubbock.
Dotray, speaking at the Texas High Plains Grain Elevator Workshop in Amarillo recently, told the crowd, “As we’ve changed the things we plant, we’ve changed the way we try to control weeds.”
Across the U.S., he said, agriculture as a whole is controlling weeds differently using some of this “very good technology.” For example, 90 percent of the cotton planted last year had resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) in it.
That has resulted in some areas of resistant weeds, especially in the states where the technology was adopted the quickest, Dotray said.
There are many benefits to Roundup Ready systems, including broad-spectrum control, convenience and simplification of weed control, he said.
Dotray said another study looked at conventional tillage, no-till and strip-till systems, along with 16 different pre-plant treatments and a variety of different application timings of residual herbicides. It showed that while tillage is a very effective tool to control weeds in conjunction with herbicides, the Roundup-only system had effective control without the use of residual herbicides.
“And the Roundup system was as profitable as any,” he said.
In another study, he worked with three growers who planted 60 acres of dryland cotton each and controlled the weeds with a Roundup Ready system. A side-by-side comparison was made on each farm which had conventional fields on which cultivation and hand-hoeing crews were used to control weeds.
“Roundup Ready was every bit as good, if not better, and the inputs were the same or less, so it was more profitable,” Dotray said. “That’s why the technology is being adopted.”
But this intense focus on one herbicide means less plowing, less cultivation, bigger application equipment and less use of herbicides with different modes of action, he said.
“We are relying more on one herbicide and we are starting to see resistant weeds developing and population shifts,” Dotray said. “Weeds that prefer less tillage are becoming more problematic. It doesn’t mean they’ve developed resistance, but it tells me we are doing something different in controlling weeds.”
Resistance in weeds is not a new concern, but it is a big concern because many thought this herbicide was the answer – a silver bullet of sorts, Dotray said.
He said there are more than 340 different resistant biotypes of weeds found in more than 300,000 fields on a worldwide basis, so this is a problem worldwide. The resistance to Roundup began developing in 1998, first in rigid ryegrass and then in 2000 in marestail and later ragweeds and Palmer amaranth.
“The problem was most apparent in states that had put the cultivator away and had early adoption of Roundup,” Dotray said.
“So what’s next?” he asked. “We have to try to make sure producers are aware so that they know the problem is real.”
To determine if weed resistance is becoming a problem, Dotray advised producers to look at the weed patch of concern and see if there is a whole spectrum of weeds that was not controlled, or just one type of weed.
“I like to collect seed and do my own tests,” he said. “We want to make sure we have thorough coverage on that area and that it wasn’t a result of poor coverage or some other operator error.”
Dotray said some strategies producers with resistant weeds are already using are more cover crops, deep tillage, herbicides at planting and other technologies like Liberty Link cotton.
While Texas was not one of the first states to adopt widespread use of Roundup Ready crops and was not one of the early states to see the resistant weeds, it is beginning to see reduced tillage and less use of dinitroaniline herbicides such as Treflan and Prowl, he said.
Dotray said herbicide resistance can be somewhat predictable. The weeds are generally annuals that produce a lot of seeds and have several germination flushes a year. Also, if there are a lot of different biotypes of that particular weed, it is more likely for one to develop a resistance.
He said it is possible to delay – not prevent – the development of herbicide-resistant weeds by not relying on glyphosate-only systems and incorporating tillage into the system, as well as other modes of action.
“As the trend toward herbicide resistance begins to occur here, I would like to see other means of weed control in our weed-management programs and not just relying on one herbicide during the course of the year or for several years in a row,” Dotray said.
Prior to herbicide-resistant crops, producers used a variety of methods to control weeds, including herbicides, cultivation and hoeing crews, said Dr. Peter Dotray, an agronomist with AgriLife Extension and Texas AgriLife Research in Lubbock.
Dotray, speaking at the Texas High Plains Grain Elevator Workshop in Amarillo recently, told the crowd, “As we’ve changed the things we plant, we’ve changed the way we try to control weeds.”
Across the U.S., he said, agriculture as a whole is controlling weeds differently using some of this “very good technology.” For example, 90 percent of the cotton planted last year had resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) in it.
That has resulted in some areas of resistant weeds, especially in the states where the technology was adopted the quickest, Dotray said.
There are many benefits to Roundup Ready systems, including broad-spectrum control, convenience and simplification of weed control, he said.
Dotray said another study looked at conventional tillage, no-till and strip-till systems, along with 16 different pre-plant treatments and a variety of different application timings of residual herbicides. It showed that while tillage is a very effective tool to control weeds in conjunction with herbicides, the Roundup-only system had effective control without the use of residual herbicides.
“And the Roundup system was as profitable as any,” he said.
In another study, he worked with three growers who planted 60 acres of dryland cotton each and controlled the weeds with a Roundup Ready system. A side-by-side comparison was made on each farm which had conventional fields on which cultivation and hand-hoeing crews were used to control weeds.
“Roundup Ready was every bit as good, if not better, and the inputs were the same or less, so it was more profitable,” Dotray said. “That’s why the technology is being adopted.”
But this intense focus on one herbicide means less plowing, less cultivation, bigger application equipment and less use of herbicides with different modes of action, he said.
“We are relying more on one herbicide and we are starting to see resistant weeds developing and population shifts,” Dotray said. “Weeds that prefer less tillage are becoming more problematic. It doesn’t mean they’ve developed resistance, but it tells me we are doing something different in controlling weeds.”
Resistance in weeds is not a new concern, but it is a big concern because many thought this herbicide was the answer – a silver bullet of sorts, Dotray said.
He said there are more than 340 different resistant biotypes of weeds found in more than 300,000 fields on a worldwide basis, so this is a problem worldwide. The resistance to Roundup began developing in 1998, first in rigid ryegrass and then in 2000 in marestail and later ragweeds and Palmer amaranth.
“The problem was most apparent in states that had put the cultivator away and had early adoption of Roundup,” Dotray said.
“So what’s next?” he asked. “We have to try to make sure producers are aware so that they know the problem is real.”
To determine if weed resistance is becoming a problem, Dotray advised producers to look at the weed patch of concern and see if there is a whole spectrum of weeds that was not controlled, or just one type of weed.
“I like to collect seed and do my own tests,” he said. “We want to make sure we have thorough coverage on that area and that it wasn’t a result of poor coverage or some other operator error.”
Dotray said some strategies producers with resistant weeds are already using are more cover crops, deep tillage, herbicides at planting and other technologies like Liberty Link cotton.
While Texas was not one of the first states to adopt widespread use of Roundup Ready crops and was not one of the early states to see the resistant weeds, it is beginning to see reduced tillage and less use of dinitroaniline herbicides such as Treflan and Prowl, he said.
Dotray said herbicide resistance can be somewhat predictable. The weeds are generally annuals that produce a lot of seeds and have several germination flushes a year. Also, if there are a lot of different biotypes of that particular weed, it is more likely for one to develop a resistance.
He said it is possible to delay – not prevent – the development of herbicide-resistant weeds by not relying on glyphosate-only systems and incorporating tillage into the system, as well as other modes of action.
“As the trend toward herbicide resistance begins to occur here, I would like to see other means of weed control in our weed-management programs and not just relying on one herbicide during the course of the year or for several years in a row,” Dotray said.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Palmer pigweed rescue options in beans, cotton
The following article appeared on our main web site last July:
Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth Rescue Treatments in Soybean.
The calls have been coming in on what to do with Palmer amaranth that has survived high rates of glyphosate or glyphosate plus a PPO herbicide (Flexstar, Cadet, etc). This Palmer amaranth is typically 8 to 12 inches tall.
 16 oz/A Flexstar + 2 oz/A 2,4DB |
 16 oz/A Flexstar |
 Gramoxone + Valor Hooded Application |
Unfortunately, I do not have any silver bullets! I have tried several rescue treatments which include 16 oz/A Flexstar, 8 oz/A Flexstar, 0.6 oz/A Cadet, or 2 oz/A 2,4-DB. None of these treatments alone provided a satisfactory level of control of escaped Palmer amaranth. However, when I tankmixed 16 oz/A Flexstar with either 0.6 oz/A Cadet or 2 oz/A 2,4-DB it appeared 5 days after application that we were able to improve control from 50% to 70% of escaped larger Palmer. We will continue to monitor regrowth of these treatments next week.
I know that having 30% surviving GR Palmer amaranth is way too many in most cases but when GR Palmer amaranth gets some size, we are in a rescue mode.
The goal is having some soybeans to harvest this fall. It is way too late to stop yield loss from competition.
Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth Rescue Treatments in Cotton.
Questions on good hooded or post direct treatments for Palmer amaranth have been common this week. When glyphosate will no longer provide Palmer control the only option is to use some of the very hot hooded applications that were common 10 years ago. The best GR Palmer amaranth hooded application I know of is 32 oz/A of Gramoxone Inteon + 1 oz of Valor + 0.25% crop oil (Picture Right). This is obviously a very hot mixture. Some other options that have worked well on GR Palmer amaranth are listed below:
Direx 32 oz/A + Valor 1.5 to 2 oz/A + MSMA 2.67 pt/A or Glyphosate 0.75 lbs ae/A:
Cotton should have 4” of bark to reduce chances of cotton stem injury.
- Advantages: Good burndown and residual pigweed control. Direx + Valor tankmix can burndown large GR Palmer as well.
- Considerations: MSMA should be the tank-mix of choice with Valor in fields where GR Palmer is present. Sloppy post-direct of Valor will burn cotton leaves.
Layby Pro 1 qt/A – Equivalent to 16 oz/A of Direx + 16 oz/A of Linex.
Add one percent crop oil for better control.
- Advantages: Good control of many grasses and broadleaves including pigweeds and morningglories. This premix will provide some residual pigweed control.
- Considerations: This premix can be weak on grasses. The addition of MSMA 2.67 pt/A of 6L formulation or glyphosate at 0.75 lb ae/A will control grasses. Sloppy post-direct of Linex will burn cotton leaves.
Ignite 280 29 oz/A
Cotton must be at least 6” tall.
- Advantages: Will cause little crop injury if cotton is a WideStrike variety. Ignite can control tall horseweed and giant ragweed. It provides good control of many broadleaf weeds including morninglories and GR Palmer up to 8” tall.
- Considerations: Some regrowth of large Palmer pigweeds can happen. Aim may be tankmixed with Ignite to improve burndown of large pigweeds. Ignite will offer no residual control. Caparol may be tankmixed with Ignite to provide residual pigweed control.
Caparol 32 oz/A + MSMA 2.67 pt/A or Glyphosate 0.75 lbs ae/A
Cotton must be at least 6” tall.
- Advantages: Causes less injury than some other tankmixes and is also economical. The Caparol + MSMA mixture has taken out some GR Palmer in past years if they were smaller than 6”. Caparol will provide good residual control of pigweed and horseweed.
- Considerations: Caparol and MSMA or glyphosate tankmixtures need good agitation to stay in suspension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)