Pesticides

How Ohio’s Proposed Pesticide Rules Could Affect Teens Working on Farms

On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks.

Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.

Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:

  1. Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
  2. The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
  3. Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.

The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.

What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties.

Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here.

Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren’t law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), these updates are a forgone conclusion.

To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

Wheat Management for Spring 2025

Today managing your wheat crop requires knowledge of the different growth stages of the plant.  Growth stage identification is critical for scouting and proper timing of fertilizer and pesticide applications.  Each week throughout the rest of the growing season I will discuss the various wheat growth stages I am seeing in our wheat fields and management issues at each stage.  This week I will focus on Feekes 6.  Most of our wheat has progressed to the Feekes 6 growth stage, some fields are approaching Feekes 7 growth stage.

Feekes 6 – First Node Visible. 

Prior to Feekes 6.0, the nodes are all formed but sandwiched together so that they are not readily distinguishable. At 6.0, the first node is swollen and appears above the soil surface. This stage is commonly referred to as “jointing.” Above this node is the head or spike, which is being pushed upwards eventually from the boot. The spike at this stage is fully differentiated, containing future spikelets and florets.

Split wheat stem showing developing spike.

You can remove and carefully examine plants for the first node. It can usually be seen and felt by removing the lower leaves and leaf sheaths from large wheat tillers.  A sharp knife or razor blade is useful to split stems to determine the location of the developing head. The stem is hollow in most wheat varieties behind this node.

 

 

Management.

By Feekes 6.0, essentially all weed-control applications have been made. Do not apply phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-D, Banvel or MCPA after Feekes 6.0, as these materials can be translocated into the developing head, causing sterility or distortion. Sufonyl-urea herbicides are safe at this growth stage, but for practical reasons, weed control should have been completed by now. Small grains can still show good response to N topdressing at this time.

Wheat Management for Spring 2025

Today managing your wheat crop requires knowledge of the different growth stages of the plant.  Growth stage identification is critical for scouting and proper timing of fertilizer and pesticide applications.  Each week throughout the rest of the growing season I will discuss the various wheat growth stages I am seeing in our wheat fields and management issues at each stage.  This week I will focus on Feekes 5.  Most of our wheat has progressed to the Feekes 5 growth stage, some fields are in Feekes 6 growth stage.

Feekes 5 – Leaf sheaths strongly erect. 

 

The beginning of the stem elongation phase.  The pseudo-stem is strongly erect and leaf sheaths are elongated. The developing head reaches the terminal spikelet stage and is pushed up into the pseudo-stem.

Terminal spikelet occurs at Feekes 5. This stage marks the completion of the spikelet initiation phase. At this stage, the number of spikelets per head has been determined.   Stress during this stage can reduce total number of kernels per head.

The first hollow stem stage occurs when there is approximately 0.6 inch of hollow stem below the developing head.  Crop water use is about 0.1 inch per day.

Management.

This is an ideal stage for spring topdress nitrogen application. Weed control efforts should be made prior to or during Feekes 5.0 with 2,4-D and other labeled herbicides. This is also a good stage to begin scouting for foliar diseases.  Tillers developing after this time are not expected to contribute to yield.

Weed Response to “Burndown” Herbicides

In no-till corn and soybean fields, it is essential to apply herbicides with foliar activity before crop emergence to control existing weeds. Depending upon the herbicide approach used in the field for that year, herbicides used to control weeds at planting may include glyphosate or paraquat. Use of herbicide combinations in burndown treatments is justified in most no-till fields, due to the variety of winter annual weeds present. Consider fall herbicide treatments in fields that are heavily infested with such species as chickweed, marestail, dandelion, wild carrot, and poison hemlock.

Click here for Burndown table

Considerations for Soybean Trait Programs in 2025

Herbicide use is likely to increase in complexity in the coming years, due in part to the EPA’s Herbicide Strategy that was finalized and published in August 2024, among other anticipated changes. One thing that has not changed is that the “label is the law”, and off-label herbicide applications come with potential liability and legal implications, along with potential damage to crops and surrounding areas. In most instances, application cutoff dates are imposed due to increased risk of off-target movement or concerns about herbicide residues in the crop when applied after a certain growth stage. Seed suppliers often send letters this time of year reminding growers that they are also legally bound by the terms of the Technology Use Agreement (“TUA”) entered into with the seed supplier. A TUA contains herbicide application restrictions for the seed variety. Growers should familiarize themselves with the TUAs for their seed products and be aware that a TUA also grants the company rights of access to inspect crops and ensure compliance with the herbicide application provisions.

Here are a couple of reminders as we head into the 2025 growing season regarding the application of herbicides POST in the available traited soybean systems.

Enlist

  • Where 2,4-D is applied preplant or preemergence for burndown ahead of planting Enlist soybeans, the application of products that are not labeled for use in the Enlist system must adhere to the labeled plant back interval for the product used.
  • At present, the only 2,4-D products that are labeled for immediate plant back and over-the-top (OTT) application in the Enlist soybean system are Enlist One (2,4-D choline) and Enlist Duo (2,4-D choline + glyphosate).
  • Growers across the state have been receiving “technology use agreement” letters reminding growers of this, and the fact that it is the growers’ responsibility to ensure that only these products are being applied, regardless of who is making the application. In these letters, potential steps were listed in response to not following these parameters. These steps included: investigating reports of misuse, in-person audits during the 2025 growing season, revoking the grower’s access to the trait technology, and reporting violations to the EPA.

Xtend

  • In February 2024, the EPA vacated registration for the three dicamba products labeled for OTT applications in soybean (Xtendimax, Bayer; Engenia, BASF; and Tavium, Syngenta).
  • Shortly after, the EPA issued an existing stocks order for use of these products for the 2024 growing season. The last date for application of these products in Ohio was June 30th, 2024.
  • At present, there are no options for OTT application of dicamba for growers using Xtend or XtendFlex soybeans for the 2025 growing season. Postemergence control of broadleaf weeds is limited to glyphosate and glufosinate in the XtendFlex system. PPO inhibitors (fomesafen, etc.) can be used POST in any soybean system.

Liberty

  • Soybean yields generally benefit from earlier planting dates, and growers in the region have been planting earlier than the historical norm for the state. Depending on the date of planting, this can have implications for time to soybean emergence and maturity and in some cases can lead to earlier soybean flowering dates.
  • As a reminder, glufosinate can be applied to glufosinate-resistant soybeans from emergence up to soybean bloom (R1).

Using Drones for Spray Application – Adoption Trends in US and Worldwide

Traditionally, aerial pesticide spraying worldwide has been done using conventional fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters with a pilot onboard. However, this is changing fast. Small, remotely piloted aircraft are being used to apply pesticides around the world, especially in East Asia (mainly China, Japan, and South Korea). For example, about 2,800 unmanned helicopters were registered as of March 2016 in Japan, spraying more than a third of the country’s rice fields. Although rice is the main crop treated with spray drones in Japan, use of drones to treat other crops such as wheat, oats, soybean, and other crops has been steadily increasing. According to one report, 30% of pesticide spraying in South Korea is done using drones.

Continue reading Using Drones for Spray Application – Adoption Trends in US and Worldwide →

Suspected 2,4-D Resistant Waterhemp Population Discovered

Source:  ICM News, Iowa State University

We know the evolution of resistance in waterhemp populations happens faster than new herbicides are discovered, so the recent report of dicamba resistant waterhemp in Iowa by Bayer was not unexpected. Corteva has now reported the discovery of a suspected 2,4-D resistant waterhemp population in Iowa. These reports emphasize the need to use herbicides wisely and diversify weed management tactics beyond herbicides, especially as more farmers rely on herbicide group (HG) 4-based postemergence weed control in both corn and soybean.

The particulars

In late January 2024, Corteva reported the discovery of a suspected 2,4-D resistant waterhemp population in 2022 in Wright County, Iowa. A Corteva employee collected two samples of waterhemp seed, one from plants in the field and one from plants growing in the ditch adjacent to the field. While greenhouse testing with seed collected from plants in the field did not confirm resistance, plants grown from the ditch population are suspected to be 2,4-D resistant. The communication reported that the ditch had a multi-year history of 2,4-D application to manage broadleaf weeds. Corteva will continue evaluation of the populations in the greenhouse and the field. If resistance is confirmed in this population, it will become at least the fourth report of 2,4-D resistance in waterhemp, joining prior reports from Nebraska in 2009 (Bernards et al. 2012), Illinois in 2016 (Evans et al. 2019), and Missouri in 2018 (Shergill et al. 2018).

Iowa State University screened populations of waterhemp against several herbicides in 2019 at their 1X rates (Table 1). On average, waterhemp exhibited 17% survival to 2,4-D, 5% survival to dicamba, and 4% survival to glufosinate (Hamberg et al. 2023). We are rapidly losing herbicide options for postemergence control of waterhemp.

Best management practices to slow resistance development

Now is the time to evaluate how to improve weed management in fields. While herbicides will remain the primary tactic to manage weeds, farmers can implement several best management practices to slow herbicide resistance evolution and improve control of weeds like waterhemp.

  1. Choose an effective herbicide program for the weed spectrum present on a field-by-field basis.
    1. Use full rates of effective residual herbicides and plant into a weed-free seedbed.
    2. Include overlapping residual herbicides and multiple effective herbicide groups in postemergence applications to provide longer waterhemp control. Consult manufacturers for specific tank-mix recommendations.
    3. Make timely applications and choose appropriate adjuvants, nozzles, application volume, etc.
    4. Scout fields 7-10 days after postemergence herbicide applications to evaluate weed control.
  2. Use a diversity of weed management tactics, including chemical, mechanical, and cultural options. Narrow row spacing, cover crops, more diverse crop rotations, and tillage are effective tactics to suppress waterhemp.
  3. Control weed escapes prior to seed production to reduce future weed populations and prevent resistance from spreading.
  4. Reduce influx of weed seed into crop fields by managing weeds in field edges and cleaning equipment between movement from problematic fields to clean fields. The detection reported here indicates the threat of weeds in field edges.

EPA issues “existing stocks” order for over-the-top dicamba use

By:Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

A federal court decision last week vacated the registrations of dicamba products XtendiMax, Engenia, and Tavium for over-the-top applications on soybean and cotton crops, making the use of the products unlawful (see our February 12, 2024 blog post).  The decision raised immediate questions about whether the U.S. EPA would exercise its authority to allow producers and retailers to use “existing stocks” of dicamba products they had already purchased.  Yesterday, the U.S. EPA answered those questions by issuing an Existing Stocks Order that allows the sale and use of existing stocks of the products that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the federal court decision on February 6, 2024.  For Ohio, the EPA’s order allows the sale and distribution of existing stocks until May 31, 2024 and the use of existing stocks until June 30, 2024.

Here is the EPA’s order:

  1. Pursuant to FIFRA Section 6(a)(1), EPA hereby issues an existing stocks order for XtendiMax® with VaporGrip® Technology (EPA Reg. No. 264-1210), Engenia® Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 7969-472), and A21472 Plus VaporGrip® Technology (Tavium® Plus VaporGrip® Technology) (EPA Reg. No. 100-1623). This order will remain in effect unless or until subsequent action is taken. The issuance of this order did not follow a public hearing. This is a final agency action, judicially reviewable under FIFRA § 16(a) (7 U.S.C. §136n). Any sale, distribution, or use of existing stocks of these products inconsistent with this order is prohibited.
  2. Existing Stocks. For purposes of this order, “existing stocks” means those stocks of previously registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to February 6, 2024 (the effective date of the District of Arizona’s vacatur of the dicamba registrations). Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(a)(1), this order includes the following existing stocks provisions:

Continue reading EPA issues “existing stocks” order for over-the-top dicamba use →