Reporter’s notebook: Dicamba - an 'all or nothing' system
Bayer and BASF are defending themselves against charges in a civil lawsuit that they intentionally caused "an ecological disaster" in order to increase their profits on dicamba-related products.
The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting is one of the few media outlets covering each day of the groundbreaking trial as part of an in-depth project on dicamba, its makers and its impact. Your support makes this possible.
Read:
Day 1: Dicamba on trial: Internal docs show Monsanto, BASF prepared for drift complaints prior to dicamba launch
Day 3: Monsanto executive: ‘We anticipated (drift) might happen’
Day 4: Monsanto officials limited testing on its own plots
Day 5: Monsanto officials testified dicamba may drift, but not enough to harm crops
Day 6: Despite assurances to farmers, BASF told pesticide applicators dicamba may cause soybean damage
Day 7: Peach farmer takes the stand in lawsuit against Bayer, BASF
Day 8: In trial against Bayer and BASF, Missouri peach farmer testifies about alleged dicamba damage
Day 9: Weed scientist: With widespread pollution, ‘no way’ to know where drift that harmed peaches came from
Here's a look at day nine of the trial, February 6, 2020.
By Johnthan Hettinger/Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting
Dicamba’s propensity to move off of the crops where it was applied is the major question underlying all of the testimony in the case.
So how does it move off-target and lead to such a high number of drift complaints? Ford Baldwin, a professor emeritus at the University of Arkansas explained how volatility works and why its damage is so widespread in testimony on behalf of Bader Farms on Thursday. I explained his testimony in today’s main story, which is posted on our website.
Monsanto and BASF say that dicamba does not move off-target and lead to “adverse effects” such as yield loss when it applied according to the label. They said it is possible to see some symptomology of drift, such as leaf cupping, but it won’t lead to reductions in plant height.
BASF said that drift, not volatility, is the main issue with dicamba.
So what do all of these terms mean? Basically, there are three main types of off-target movement: drift, volatilization and tank contamination. Drift occurs generally when the problem happens immediately, when the sprayer is still in the field. For example, when a wind blows the weed killer being applied into a neighboring field.
Volatilization generally occurs when the problem happens later, after the sprayer has left the field. This occurs when dicamba applied to the field turns into a gas and moves in the air to other fields.
Tank contamination occurs when dicamba residue left in a spray tank pollutes a later solution of a pesticide, and the sprayer applies the polluted solution to a field. Dicamba is difficult to clean out of sprayers, so this has been an issue, particularly in 2017.
Baldwin weighs in on Monsanto marketing, illegal spraying
Monsanto released the dicamba-tolerant cotton seeds in 2015. At that time, the seed was Monsanto’s first that was resistant to glufosinate and glyphosate, as well as dicamba. LibertyLink had already released glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant seeds onto the market.
Even though farmers were not legally allowed to spray dicamba in 2015, Baldwin said Monsanto’s seeds were a good option because of the glufosinate tool and high yields.
Baldwin said he wishes Monsanto would have marketed it that way because, with the way Monsanto released the seeds prior to an accompanying dicamba, it likely led to illegal spraying.
Baldwin said cotton farmers in 2015 and cotton and soybean farmers in 2016 that had significant problems with glyphosate-resistant weeds, particularly Palmer amaranth, had three options: hand pick weeds, live with the weeds or spray illegally.
Even so, he thinks the damage was worse than farmers expected. Baldwin said he knows some farmers spraying illegally in 2016 were surprised at the level of damage they caused, Baldwin said.
“Auxin herbicides become a completely different animal in the summer than in the traditional uses we’ve had with them,” Baldwin said.
In those years, Baldwin said there was still value in the seeds, especially in areas where resistant weeds are less common.
‘All or nothing’
Dicamba-resistant soybeans are an “all or nothing” system, Baldwin said.
If anyone is spraying dicamba, farmers must either plant Xtend seeds or risk damage.
If no one sprays dicamba, then everyone will likely continue to have issues with resistant weeds and resistance will likely occur faster.
“Both of those scenarios are bad in my opinion,” he said
Today, Baldwin said he still advises some farmers to plant Xtend crops defensively, especially if they know they’re in a Xtend-heavy area. But not everyone wants to plant Xtend seeds, he said.
Still, not everyone has that option, Bader’s attorney Billy Randles pointed out to Baldwin.
“A peach farmer does not,” Baldwin said.
Tensions rise between Bader, lawyers
The 10 minutes of peach farmer Bill Bader’s testimony turned into a few hours, largely focusing on his finances.
On Wednesday, Jan Miller, Monsanto’s attorney, asked Bader if his annual profits are around $109,000, which his tax return says. In a bench conference, Bader’s attorney Bev Randles objected and Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. sustained the objection, as the parties were not supposed to use the profit line from Bader’s tax returns in the trial.
After they returned from the bench, Miller asked Bader what his annual profits were in the early 2010s, and he said around $125,000.
On Thursday, Miller returned to that line of questioning, telling Bader his profits went up to $175,000 in 2015.
“Your profits went up. You don’t have any lost profits,” Miller said.
Bader, who said his 2015 peach harvest was only about 40 percent of what he expected, is also a grain farmer of more than 4,700 acres, he said. His row crops include corn, wheat and soybeans. After that statement, Bader got upset with Miller.
“You were throwing a lot of tricks into your questions to trip me up,” Bader said.
Miller then got upset, telling Bader he wasn’t trying to trick him, he was trying to get information. Randles then objected that Miller was badgering the witness and Limbaugh told him to tone it down.
In questioning a few minutes later, BASF attorney John Mandler was asking Bader follow-up questions about a 2018 crop insurance claim he asked about yesterday. Bader accused Mandler of laughing at him on Wednesday for saying that his peach trees were harmed by dicamba and therefore more susceptible to frost.
Mandler denied laughing at him.
What’s next?
Baldwin will be questioned by BASF and then Randles in the morning.
Dr. Joseph Guenther, an expert on Bader’s $20.9 million in damages, will testify after that, and the plaintiffs will rest their case.
Monsanto will likely wait until Monday to start its case.
Follow our updates on Twitter: #dicambaontrial
Missed an issue?
Reporter's Notebook: Day 1 - Jury pool included those with dicamba complaints
Reporter's Notebook: Day 2 - Monsanto flooded with calls from 'driftees' in 2017
Reporter's Notebook:Day 3 - Monsanto recruited farmer to speak on its behalf at 2016 meeting
Reporter's Notebook:Day 4 - 'We don't threaten customers'
Reporter's Notebook:Day 5 - Most of Monsanto’s 2017 complaints related to drift, not volatility, contractor says
Reporter's Notebook:Day 6- Farmers sprayed illegally near Bader, more on Monsanto testing practices
Reporter's Notebook: Day 7- BASF says dicamba’s volatility issues long overblown
Reporter's Notebook:Day 8 - In 2016, Bader sent neighbors, Monsanto invoices for millions
