A special project group of the North Central Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Center wants to learn about your concerns and experiences with herbicide drift. The group is surveying growers of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops in the upper Midwest.

To truly understand the frequency, severity, and economic impact of herbicide drift on specialty crops, we need to hear from growers: growers who have experienced drift damage, growers who can share their concerns around this issue, and even growers who have not dealt with drift but who grow sensitive crops in drift-prone regions. Survey responses are needed to establish herbicide drift as a serious economic and regulatory concern in Ohio and across our region.

Please complete the survey at go.osu.edu/drift21.

Who should take this survey?
The study is for commercial growers of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops in IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, or WI. Even if you have never experienced herbicide damage, we would still like to hear from you if you grow specialty crops in one of these states.

Why is this survey necessary?
Dicamba and 2,4-D drift damage has made headlines in recent years, but no study to-date has attempted to quantify the overall impact drift has on the specialty crop industry. While all states have a way for growers to file a drift complaint, the process and requirements are inconsistent and may involve time and information that a grower does not have. In most states, for instance, the source of the drift must be identified. Research has found that dicamba and 2,4-D both have the potential to travel for miles in specific weather conditions, making source identification difficult.

What good will this survey do?
This study is designed to assess the potential and actual frequency of drift damage, along with the severity and economic impact of such damage. The survey includes questions on grower awareness, experience, actions, and decisions related to herbicide drift and drift-risk management. The responses will help establish needs for research on drift mechanisms, prevention, and remediation; and/or the need to review current policy and reporting requirements.

How long will it take?
The survey takes 5-20 minutes to complete, depending on your experience with drift damage.

How will this data be shared?
Summarized survey data will be shared broadly with regulatory agencies, university educators and researchers, agricultural policy makers, grower support organizations, and the general public using news articles, report summaries, and peer-reviewed journal articles. While this study is administered by The Ohio State University, it was planned in partnership with industry experts across the region who will assist with sharing results. Participants may also request a copy of the study summary.

How will my data be used and protected?
Your privacy is important. No individual survey data will be released or shared beyond the limited group of project staff. The survey questions and procedures have been reviewed by the institutional review board at The Ohio State University and are designed to protect your data and identity. Additional details on privacy and confidentiality are provided at the beginning of the survey.

How can I learn more?
The North Central IPM Center’s special project group created a series of fact sheets on herbicide drift especially for specialty crop growers. The series includes: Overview of Dicamba and 2,4-D Drift Issues, Frequently Asked Questions, Preparing for Drift Damage, and Responding to Drift Damage. Fact sheets and more information about our special project group and study are available at go.osu.edu/ipm-drift.

This study is facilitated by The Ohio State University and is funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture through agreement 2018-70006-28884.This study is being conducted in cooperation with regional universities and non-profit grower organizations, including Ohio State Extension.

Installing a stationary high tunnel (HT) is a significant, long-term commitment to the parcel of soil beneath it, especially if the crops will grow directly in that soil. Maintaining, and preferably enhancing, the health, quality, or productivity of that soil for as long as possible should be a high priority beginning at HT installation.

Soils in HTs are less well understood than uncovered soils in “open sky”/open field production. However, the HT farming, extension-research, and industry communities are aware that HT soils are prone to specific issues and require specific care to remain commercially viable. These issues and preventative or reclamation tactics are the subject of much research and extension. Therefore, HT growers are encouraged to stay tuned for more information, including on how they can participate directly in identifying concerns and developing solutions. Examples of concerns and working solutions were summarized in a recent presentation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpUl0IwaDFI). Choosing one concern, in a summary of a presentation given at the 2013 New England Fruit and Vegetable Conference (https://newenglandvfc.org/sites/newenglandvfc.org/files/content/proceedings2013/Hoskins%20High%20Tunnel.pdf), Bruce Hoskins of the University of Maine’s Analytical Lab and Soil Testing Service mentions that the buildup of nutrient salts over time is “one of the most common problems in a continuously covered HT system,” that HT soil management can be similar to “irrigated desert production in the west and southwest,” and that growers familiar with open-field production can “fail to realize this potential problem or take steps to remediate it.” He also mentions that nitrate may carryover from one HT crop cycle to the next more readily than in open field production.

We heard from Bruce Hoskins and John Spargo during recent conversations about HT soil management. They direct soil testing and analytical labs at the University of Maine (https://umaine.edu/soiltestinglab/) and Penn State University (https://agsci.psu.edu/aasl), respectively. Each of these labs receives soil samples from hundreds of HT growers (conventional, organic) each year and have been actively helping improve soil management recommendations and cropping outcomes for HT growers. They have been joined in that work by others, including farmers, across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions for years.

Take-aways from these recent conversations include that routine soil testing is essential, along with accounting for potential nutrient salt buildup when collecting soil samples. Normally, samplers: 1) use a soil probe or spade to retrieve a column of soil about twelve inches deep, 2) drop the soil in a bucket, 3) repeat the process one or more times from other areas, 4) mix the soil in the bucket, and 5) submit a portion of it for analysis. Listening to testing and other experts, the best approach appears to include “stratified” sampling; that is, submitting samples taken from 0-4 inches deep (upper layer of the rooting zone) separately from samples taken from four inches and deeper (lower layer of the rooting zone). Salts tend to accumulate in upper layers, especially if soil is heavy-textured and irrigation is frequent but brief. So, standard “mixed” samples may either: (a) underestimate salt levels in upper layers of soil experienced by roots of transplants and more mature plants or (b) overestimate salt levels if samples include only the upper level. Stratified sampling, mindful that soil characteristics can change with depth, equips growers and others with information to better manage HT soils. Regarding the costs of soil testing, especially of stratified samples, input from soil testing labs suggests that few of the growers they work with mention it as a significant concern. Instead, most growers appear to have done their math and concluded that soil analysis offers a significant return on investment, given that its cost is more than offset by gains in crop yield and quality in the current and subsequent years.