SYMPOSIUM AND WORKSHOP
THE
NEW 2,4-D AND DICAMBA-TOLERANT CROPS:
MANAGING RISKS TO
FARMS AND COMMUNITIES
OCTOBER 31 TO NOVEMBER
1, 2011
NATIONWIDE AND OHIO
FARM BUREAU 4-H CENTER
THE OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY
This symposium and workshop will identify
potential risks and benefits to farms and communities from 2,4-D and dicamba
herbicides through an exploration of the science, perceived risks to
stakeholders, and other uncertainties to the environment, economy, and
communities. The imminent commercial release of field crops with genetically
engineered tolerance to these herbicides is expected to address the short term
needs of row-crop farmers who have experienced increased herbicide-resistant
weeds. Despite the best intentions of farmers, commercial applicators, seed
companies, and the pesticide industry, there is concern that this will
inevitably lead to crop damage because of increased spray drift and movement of
volatiles, some of which may result from changes in application timing that
coincides with more susceptible growth stages of non-target plants.
Presenters and participants will share
current risk assessments, perceived risks, positions and reasoning for them,
and strategies to move beyond traditional risk management. Because of the specific
scope of this event, solutions to the
GM debate are not our goal; the focus will be on how to identify risks, what
those risks are, positions on them, and develop specific plans to analyze those
risks. The main output of this symposium and workshop is the organizing and
submitting of a USDA Specialty Crop Research Initiative Coordinated
Agricultural Project (SCRI-CAP) of international scope. This proposal will
analyze and weigh the risks and benefits and potentially identify solutions for
achieving our long-term goal of facilitating a better model for the
introduction and adoption of agricultural technologies.
Day 1: Monday October 31
1:00 PM…………….. Welcome & Introduction
Doug Doohan & Joe Heimlich, Ohio
State University
1:20 PM…………….. What is Risk?
Robyn Wilson, Ohio State University
1:40 PM…………….. Setting the Stage
Doug Doohan, Ohio State University
1:50 PM…………….. The Roundup Ready Story
(According to Me)
Mike Owen, Iowa State University
2:20 PM…………….. The need for new weed control
in grain
Fred Yoder, Ohio Farmer
2:35 PM…………….. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth devastates agronomic crops, new technology is desperately needed Stanley Culpepper, University of Georgia
2:50 PM…………….. Academic perspective on 2,4-D tolerant crops
Mark Loux, Ohio State University
3:20 PM……………
20 Minute Break
3:40 PM…………….. Dicamba Tolerant Soybean –
Benefits and Risks
Peter Sikkema, University of Guelph
4:10 PM…………….. An Integrated Stewardship Plan for Dow
AgroSciences’ Enlist Weed
Control System
Brian Olson, Dow AgroSciences LLC
4:50 PM…………….. Advancements and Stewardship of Dicamba in a Dicamba Tolerant Cropping
System
Steve Bowe, BASF, and Doug Rushing,
Monsanto Company
5:30 PM……………
Dinner
6:30 PM…………….. Are the new technologies needed?
David Mortensen, Penn State University
7:00 PM…………….. Working Group Session 1
Joe Heimlich, Ohio State University
8:00
PM……………. End of Day 1 Program
Day 2:
Tuesday, November 1
8:00 AM…………….. Introduction to Day 2
Joe Heimlich, Ohio State University
8:10 AM.................... How Should We Make Decisions about
Risk?
Robyn Wilson, Ohio State University
8:30 AM……………. Why Risk Analysis is not Enough
Lawrence Busch, Michigan State University
9:00 AM…………….. Summary of Perceived Risks from Ohio Grape Grower Focus Groups - March 2011
Scott Wolfe, Ohio State University
9:10 AM…………….. Risk to processing and fresh vegetables
Steve Weller, Purdue University
9:20 AM…………….. Risks to pollinator communities
Jody Johnson, Pollinator Partnership
9:30 AM…………….. Environmental concerns beyond our borders: maize landraces
and gene flow
Kristen Mercer, Ohio State University
9:40
AM……………. Break
10:00 AM……………. Risk to organic vegetable producers
Ben Sippel, Ohio Farmer
10:20 AM……………. Needles in haystacks
Frank Forcella, USDA-ARS
10:40 AM……………. Active ingredient fingerprinting
Angus Murphy, Purdue University, and
Josh Blakeslee, Ohio State University
11:00 AM……………. GMOs and the social science of technology
Craig Harris, Michigan State University
11:20 AM…………… Working Group
Session 2
Joe Heimlich, Ohio State University
12:20
PM…………. Lunch
1:20 PM……………… Farmer experience with and current status of Roundup Ready crops in
Brazil,
and
the receptivity of regulators and farmers to the new 2,4-D and dicamba
tolerant
crops
Pedro Christofolletti, University of Sao Paulo
1:40 PM……………… Sprayer technology to control application
Mark Hanna, Iowa State University
2:10 PM…………….. Driftwatch.org: Commercial Applicator
Roy Ballard, Purdue University Extension
2:30 PM…………….. Economic concerns with adoption or non-adoption of herbicide-resistant traits for agricultural sectors and rural communities
Allan Lines, Ohio State University
3:00 PM…………….. Reaching the “unreachables”
Interactive Discussion
3:20 PM……………... Pulling it all together presentation
Joe Heimlich, Ohio State University
3:50 PM…………….. Working
Group Session 3
Joe Heimlich, Ohio State University
4:50 PM……………... Final Comments
5:00
PM……………. End of Symposium
Presenter Information:
Roy Ballard, Purdue Extension, Purdue
University, rballard@purdue.edu
DriftWatch
Beekeepers
and producers of specialty crops such as certified organic produce, tomatoes,
grapes and tree fruits are concerned about impacts caused by pesticide drift
from neighboring farm fields. Protecting native and managed pollinators
and their habitats has become a national priority resource concern (H.R. 2913,
2007). Concurrently, market demands for organic produce and specialty crops
have increased and acres under production have expanded seventy-five percent
during the last five years (Indianapolis Star, 2009). Within the traditional
row crop production system, increases in the volume of 2,4-D, fungicide and
insecticide use seem imminent with the introduction of new phenoxy resistant
soybean varieties, the emergence of Asian soybean rust and rising corn acres to
meet biofuel production needs.
In
response to the emerging need, a collaboration of producers of pesticide
sensitive crops, stewards of at-risk habitat and the pesticide applicator community
developed an Indiana Pesticide Sensitive Crops and Habitats Registry website www.driftwatch.org
(formerly BeAware). The
goal of the newly established registry is to allow public, private and
commercial pesticide applicators to access the Google Maps TM based website and
search for pesticide sensitive crops and habitats in their area to facilitate
better informed pesticide use.
Larry Busch Center
for the Study of Standards in Society, Michigan
State University, lbusch@msu.edu
Why Risk Analysis is not
Enough –
For
the last 30 years debates have dragged on about genetic modification of
crops. Intertwined with those debates
are others on the role of intellectual property and research. As a result of decisions made during the
Reagan administration, regulation of GM crops was cobbled together using
existing laws, resulting in the creation of the ‘Coordinated Framework.’ This put the regulatory experts firmly in
charge while ruling out most democratic debate.
Nearly simultaneously, Land Grant universities began to invest in
biotechnology research, largely abandoning conventional plant breeding. Hence, today the research agenda is no longer
set in the public sector. Some research
trajectories (e.g., apomixis) have been abandoned. Although the debate continues, the expert
community insists, backed by the Coordinated Framework, that risk issues are
all that count. Hence, all other issues
are forced through the frame of risk.
Even questions of distribution of risk are rarely discussed. What is needed is a new approach that
recognizes legitimate concerns that go beyond risk and that opens debate to the
public at large.
Lawrence
Busch is University Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Co-Director of the
Center for the Study of Standards in Society at Michigan State University. He has been on the faculty at the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Lancaster University (UK), and what is
now the Institut de Recherche pour le
Développement (IRD). He is
(co)author or (co)editor of twelve books including Plants, Power and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of
the New Biotechnologies (Blackwell, 1991), Toward a New Political Economy of Agriculture (Westview, 1991), From Columbus to Conagra: The Globalization
of Agriculture (University of Kansas Press, 1994), Making Nature, Shaping Culture: Plant Biodiversity in Global Context, (University
of Nebraska Press, 1995), The Eclipse of
Morality: Science, State and Market, (Aldine DeGruyter, 2000), Agricultural Standards: The Shape Of The
Global Food And Fiber System,(Springer, 2006), Universities
in the Age of Corporate Science: The UC Berkeley–Novartis Controversy, (Temple
University Press, 2007), and Standards: Recipes for Reality (MIT Press,
2011). He has also authored or
coauthored more than 150 other publications.
He is past president of both the Rural Sociological Society and the
Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society, a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, a Chevalier de l’Ordre du Mérite Agricole and an elected member of
the Académie d’Agriculture de France.
He recently received a doctor honoris
causa from the Universidade Técnica
de Lisboa. Dr. Busch's current interests include the use of standards in
public and private policy making, biotechnology and nanotechnology policy,
agricultural science and technology policy, higher education in agriculture,
and public participation in the policy process.
Pedro Christofolletti,
University of Sao
Paulo, College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz”, Department of Crop Science,
Weed Science Area, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
pjchrist@esalq.usp.br
Farmer experience with and current status of Roundup Ready crops
in Brazil, and the receptivity of regulators and farmers to the new 2,4-D and
dicamba tolerant crops.
After 14 years of adoption of Roundup Ready soybean in Brazil, the
technology brought gains to farmers, especially in the production cost, when
compared to conventional crops. However, risk on the adoption of Roundup Ready
technology is related to selection of glyphosate resistant weed biotypes. Five
species have been selected in the country with resistance to glyphosate, being Conyza spp the most frequent selected species. It is
estimated that 3,3 million hectares of the 25 millions of soybean cultivated in
the country has resistant horseweed. The process of registration fo 2,4-D and
dicamba resistant crop is still in the early stages and probably will take at
least 3 to 4 years for approval. However, 2,4-D is officially registered to
several non-resistant crops in Brazil, but it is mainly used for weed control in soybean (burndown
treatment –7 to 10 days pre-planting). It is also used for the crop sugarcane
(post-emergence) and corn (burndown and initial post emergence of the crop).
Despite the fact of being a “old” product it is still being used due to it
broad weed spectrum of control and better cost/benefit when compared to other
products in the market, as well it may be used to control resistant weeds to
ALS inhibitor herbicides and glyphosate. There are two formulations registered
in the country (ester and amine), however only the amine formulation has been
commercialized, in 13 commercial producers. So, risks in the future use of
2,4-D might be related to drift. Drift may represent source of contamination to
non-target crop. Therefore, special recommendations of spray application of the
herbicide must be followed regard to droplet size, sprayer pressure, boom
height, climatic conditions at application, distance of the non target crops
from the sprayed area and wind velocity.
Stanley
Culpepper, Crop and Soil Sciences,
University of Georgia, stanley@uga.edu
Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth Devastates Agronomic Crops,
new Technology is Desperately Needed
Frank
Forcella USDA-ARS, Morris, MN, Forcella@morris.ars.usda.gov
Needles in a Haystack
One in a billion, needles
in haystacks, resistant weeds – all seemed equally rare just a few years ago.
Why then are there so many resistant weeds nowadays, and how might we prevent
even more of them? Explicit answers won’t be forthcoming here. Instead, two
ideas, arguably related, will be explored. Hopefully, each will be at least
entertaining if not informative for the audience. The first topic involves the
human dimensions of resistance prevention and management. In other words, we
know what we must do to prevent resistance, so why don’t we do it? The second
topic centers on the idea that weed resistance to herbicides and dietary habits
of our citizenry may be two faces of the same coin. That is, both possibly are
consequences of the same general phenomenon, which is the extraordinarily
productive food and fiber production system that has evolved in North America
in recent decades. Do the benefits of high productivity outweigh the detriments
associated with weed resistance and, for instance, human obesity?
Mark Hanna, Extension
Ag Engineer, Iowa State University hmhanna@iastate.edu
Managing
risks with sprayer technology
Potential
for application drift is related to droplet size, ambient weather conditions,
sprayer set up and proximity to sensitive crop areas. Application of appropriate spray technology
involves consideration of tradeoffs between drift and efficacy. A knowledgeable applicator with appropriate
technology and good understanding of risks involved should be an objective for
application.
Mike Haley Farmer
Craig Harris, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, harrisc@msu.edu
GMOs and the
Social Science of Technology
Craig Harris is an associate professor of sociology, specializing in the sociology of food and agriculture, and the sociology of the environment. Craig is also appointed in the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (Michigan AgBio Research) and the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center. Craig is one of the principals of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards. Craig has been exploring the social dimensions of agrifood biotechnology for over 25 years. With colleagues he is the author of a chapter on what makes agrifood biotechnology so scary to consumers, two articles on the discourse concerning GM cotton in India, and a forthcoming chapter on agrifood biotechnology decision making in Uganda.
In his presentation he will discuss the regulation of biotechnology, the roles of trust in social processes, and decision making under uncertainty.
Josephine
Johnson, Pollinator Partnership, jdjohnso@epi.umaryland.edu
2,4-D, Dicamba, and Pollinators
Herbicides, designed to target plants, affect animals as well.
Pollinators are present in ecosystems as mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects.
Off target doses of herbicides to riparian strips, shelter belts, and roadway
wildflowers may diminish plant biodiversity that, by cascade effect, causes
loss of animal biodiversity. Some pollinators feed on single source pollens or
nectars; others are generalists. Timing issues of plant presences may affect
migrating pollinators, insect development, or hibernation resources. Careful
use of herbicides is mandatory to preserve diverse species that communally
contribute to decomposition, pollination, temperature and moisture control
within microsystems, and recycling.
Allan Lines Professor Emeritus, Agricultural Economics,Ohio State University, lines.1@osu.edu
Economic concerns with adoption or non-adoption of herbicide-resistant traits for agricultural sectors and rural communities
Mark Loux, Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, loux.1@osu.edu
Academic perspectives on 2,4-D tolerant crops
Kristen
Mercer, Horticulture and Crop Science,
Ohio State University, mercer.97@osu.edu
Environmental concerns
beyond our borders: maize landraces and gene flow
The advent of genetically
modified crops spurred an interest in the movement of transgenes into related
wild populations and other crop fields.
Such gene flow into landraces or wild relatives in crop centers of
origin could have implications for their in
situ conservation. For instance, the
world was surprised by the discovery of transgenes in landraces maize grown in
southern Mexico, the center of crop origin for corn, despite the moratorium on
the planting of transgenic varieties.
Thus, we need to consider the ultimate destination of our seeds and
their ecological implications in other countries when developing novel
technologies.
David
Mortensen, Crop and Soil Sciences, Penn State University dmortensen@psu.edu
Are these new technologies needed?
Brian Olson,
Field Scientist, Dow AgroSciences LLC, bdolson@dow.com
An Integrated Stewardship
Plan for Dow AgroSciences’ Enlist Weed Control System
Dow AgroSciences is
developing the Enlist™ Weed Control System to help corn, soybean and cotton
growers manage glyphosate resistant and hard-to-control weeds. The Enlist system confers tolerance to 2,4-D and
quizalofop in corn and to 2,4-D and glufosinate in soybeans and cotton. The Enlist trait technology will be combined
with glyphosate tolerance to enable use of an effective combination of
herbicides on the selected Enlist crops.
Dow AgroSciences also has developed Enlist Duo™ herbicide for use in
Enlist crops. It is a proprietary blend
of glyphosate and new 2,4-D choline.
Enlist Duo features a technology package called Colex-D™ Technology that
will provide growers with an herbicide product with ultra low volatility,
minimized potential for physical drift, decreased odor and improved handling
characteristics. Enlist Duo will provide
exceptional weed control and will help to prevent and manage tough weeds. Dow AgroSciences is committed to stewardship
of this technology in order to promote responsible use and sustain long-term
future performance for growers. Dow
AgroSciences will provide comprehensive guidance for use of the Enlist Weed
Control System through education and training programs, ongoing research and
development efforts, application technology improvements, and in-field
performance testing.
™Enlist, Enlist Duo and
Colex-D are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC.
The Enlist™ Weed Control System and its components have not yet received
regulatory approvals; approvals are pending. The information in this release is
not an offer for sale.
©2011 Dow AgroSciences LLC
Michael D.
K. Owen Associate Chair and Professor of
Agronomy, Iowa State University, mdowen@iastate.edu
The Roundup Ready Story (according to me)
The commercial introduction and subsequent adoption of
glyphosate-resistant crops represents an unprecedented change in global
agriculture. Nothing has ever impacted
the agriculture to the extent that crop systems based on the
glyphosate-resistance trait and glyphosate.
The entire demographics of agriculture reflected the early successes of
this technology; glyphosate-based crop systems were presumed to be economically
rewarding and environmentally friendly. However, growers who became lulled by
the mantra of “simplicity and convenience” did not recognize nor accept the
ecological risks that the selection presume imposed by the use of one herbicide
recurrently represented. Relatively
early in the unprecedented change in agriculture, the inevitable happened;
weeds with evolved resistance to glyphosate were identified. Across US agriculture, the appearance of
populations of some weeds with evolved resistance to glyphosate is increasing
at an increasing rate. The problem,
given the weed species that have evolved resistance, has the potential to
significantly limit the utility, and thus the benefits, of this important
technology. It is questionable whether
or not the issues of glyphosate-resistant weeds can be mitigated without
resorting to technologies whose benefit to risk ratios are may be less
favorable and whose time management considerations likely will negatively
impact the current crop production systems.
Micheal D. K. Owen is a
Professor of Agronomy and Weed Management Extension Specialist at Iowa State
University and Associate Chair of the Agronomy Department. He is also an adjunct Professor in the
Department of Vegetable Protection at Esculea Agricola Panamericana at
Zamorano, Honduras. Dr. Owen received
his B.S. degree in Botany/Plant Physiology in 1974 and M.S. in Botany/Weed
Science in 1975 from Iowa State University.
He received his Ph.D. degree in Agronomy/Weed Science from the
University of Illinois in 1982 while serving as an Extension Agronomist. Prior to joining the faculty at Iowa State
University, he was a faculty member in teaching and extension at the University
of Florida. His research interests
include herbicidal weed management, weed biology and plant stress physiology. Owen was a co-author of the National Research
Council report “The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm
Sustainability in the United States” released in 2010 and is on the steering
committee for the National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide-Resistant
Weeds sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences.
Angus Murphy, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue
University, murphy@purdue.edu, and Josh Blakeslee,
Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, blakeslee.19@osu.edu
Active
Ingredient Fingerprinting
Steve Bowe, BASF, and Douglas Rushing,
Monsanto Company, douglas.w.rushing@monsanto.com
Advancements and Stewardship of Dicamba in a Dicamba Tolerant
Cropping System
Peter
Sikkema, Plant Agriculture, University of
Guelph, psikkema@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Dicamba Tolerant Soybean –
Benefits and Risks
Dicamba
tolerant (DT) soybean is expected to be registered for use by North American
soybean producers in the near future. This technology provides soybean producers
with an additional weed management tool but there are some risks associated
with the use of both glyphosate and dicamba.
There
are a number of benefits with the use of dicamba in DT soybean. Dicamba will
provide control of selected glyphosate resistant broadleaf weed biotypes such
as giant ragweed and Canada fleabane. In research conducted in Ontario, a single application of glyphosate plus
dicamba provided 81-94% control of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed depending
on application timing and dicamba rate. Similarly, glyphosate plus dicamba
provided 70-100% control of glyphosate resistant Canada fleabane depending on
application timing. A sequential application of glyphosate plus dicamba applied
preplant followed by postemergence provided 100% control of glyphosate
resistant giant ragweed and Canada fleabane. For both weed species improved
control was obtained with early applications when the weeds were smaller at the
time of application. In addition, the use of dicamba in DT soybean will provide
improved control of weeds that are naturally tolerant to glyphosate such as
perennial broadleaf weeds and weeds in the Polygonum
family. Dicamba will provide short residual broadleaf weed control
depending on rate. Furthermore, the addition of dicamba to glyphosate will
reduce the selection intensity for additional herbicide resistant weeds.
Finally, DT soybean has excellent tolerance to both glyphosate and dicamba.
Ben Sippel, Sippel Family Farm, Ohio, sippelfamilyfarm@brightchoice.net
Risks to organic vegetable producersWhat are the concerns for producers marketing to the organic, GMO-free, or other specialty consumer niches? And do these technologies make a difference one way or the other for younger producers?"
Stephen
Weller Purdue University, (Greg R.
Kruger, William G. Johnson, Douglas J. Doohan )weller@purdue.edu, 765-494-1333
Risk to processing and fresh vegetables
Herbicide drift from agronomic fields onto tomato crops is a
concern. Glyphosate is the most commonly
used postemergence herbicide in corn and soybean and if dicamba and 2,4-D
resistance is engineered into these crops, they could become a widely used
postemergence herbicide. This study
determined the impact of simulated glyphosate and dicamba drift on
tomatoes. Dose response studies for dicamaba
and glyphosate herbicides were conducted on two commercial processing tomato
lines at either a vegetative stage or
early bloom stage. Both glyphosate and
dicamba caused higher yield losses when sprayed at the early bloom stage. A 25% yield loss was observed with 8.5 and
7.5 g ae/ha for glyphosate and dicamba, respectively, at bloom stage and 43.9
and 11.9 g ae/ha for glyphosate and dicamba, respectively, at vegetative
stage. Overall, tomatoes were more
sensitive to dicamba than to glyphosate.
Other vegetable crops response to dicamba and 2,4-D will be briefly
discussed.
Robyn Wilson
OSU, wilson.1376@osu.edu, 614-247-6169
What is Risk? (Day 1)
Risk is the likelihood of negative consequences occurring to
something that humans value. It is essentially a social construct created to give
meaning to hazards, activities, technologies, etc that may pose some threat to
humans or the natural environment. Making decisions about risk is difficult
because often the technical assessments of risk diverge from public perceptions
of risk, and this gap in calculated versus perceived risk can cause conflict
and disagreement over the appropriate response. Better understanding how
different individuals and groups perceive risk is necessary to best communicate
about and manage risk.
How Should We Make Decisions about Risk? (Day 2)
Too often, decisions about risk conducted in a typical risk
analysis framework are expert-centered, treating risk as real and objective,
and seeking to identify a standard attainable level of risk. A broader and
perhaps more defensible framework for making complex decisions in the face of
risk and uncertainty can be found in decision analysis. Decision analytic
approaches make the problem and stakeholder values the central concepts, and
risk is identified as both objective and subjective. Such an approach seeks a
context-dependent acceptable level of risk that is based on assessing the
threat to the fundamental values and objectives of everyone involved.
Scott Wolfe, Dave Scurlock, Julia DeNiro, Jason Parker, Doug Doohan, OSU, wolfe.529@osu.edu, 330-202-3555 x2969
Summary of Perceived Risks from Ohio Grape Grower Focus Groups -
March 2011
Today, herbicide use is widespread in agriculture as an integral
weed management tool. With genetically
modified crops, such as RoundUp Ready corn and soybean, herbicides that
normally would have killed a crop can be used for weed control. Over years of use, certain weeds have
developed a resistance to RoundUp and require new management tools. New technologies, including 2,4-D and dicamba
resistant crops, will add the tools needed for corn and soybean farmers to
better manage weeds, however, these herbicides can drift off the target area
and damage sensitive crops, such as grapes, tomatoes, and peppers. Research over the last 30+ years has shown
some of the effects of these herbicides on sensitive crops. With the impending introduction of new
resistance traits in other crops, the use of the herbicides is about to change
and therefore the damage seen on sensitive crops may also change. Grapes are an important crop in Ohio for
table and wine production. The wine
industry also attracts millions of tourists each year. In early 2011, 6 expert one on one interviews
were held to create an expert model of the concerns these new technologies
might pose to the grape industry in Ohio.
Based on those interviews, 4 regional focus groups were held with grape
growers and wine producers throughout the state. These interviews and focus groups told us
that there were some key issues that everyone agreed upon, such as
communication between all farmers and industries, and also some differences in
opinion about the possibly solutions to concerns held by the grape
industry. The ideas and topics brought
up by each focus group and by the experts, will help guide future work by
researchers, the grape industry, corn and soybean farmers, and the companies
involved.
Fred Yoder Ohio Farmer
The Need for New Weed Control in GrainThe grain producer perspective on the needs (or not) for new means of weed control. Yoder sees many advantages in adding varieties with 2,4-D and Dicamba Tolerant crops, but also sees many pitfalls if we don't do this right. Moderator:
Joe Heimlich OSU, heimlich.1@osu.edu,
614-292-8436
Symposium Organizers:
Jason Parker, Ohio State University, parker.294@osu.edu
Doug Doohan, Ohio State University, doohan.1@osu.edu
Roger Downer, Ohio State University, rad1949@gmail.com
Stan Ernst, Ohio State University, ernst.1@osu.edu
Gerri Isaacson, Ohio State University, isaacson.16@osu.edu
Scott Wolfe, Ohio State University, wolfe.529@osu.edu