Latest / Conservation Stories / Weeds, Herbicides, and the Human Side of Weed Science with Dr. Peter Dotray

Transcript

Weeds, Herbicides, and the Human Side of Weed Science with Dr. Peter Dotray · Conservation Stories

• 0:00
  Speaker A: Foreign. Sims. Back again for another episode of Conservation Stories. We are a Conservation Stories, a podcast sponsored by Sandhill Area Research Association. And pretty much now we've gotten a routine every month. Dr. Baldman from AgriLife A&M extension joins us. Here he is again. And let's see, last month we had Katie Lewis with us. That was super interesting and we talked about all kinds of things and, and since then we've kind of been working on some other projects together and Katie's been helping us continuing with the NASA develop project. She's been super helpful in providing some on ground data for us. So we'll be releasing that pretty soon. Todd and I'm really thankful for your, your help in providing her to us. So I'd like for you to tell colleague here Peter Deltray that you have brought along today.
• 1:03
  Speaker B: Yes ma'. Am. And I will say we're really excited about the interaction that we've developed with you and the opportunity for that interaction with NASA. Hopefully we can get the government back running.
• 1:15
  Speaker A: Yes, it's going to open back up.
• 1:16
  Speaker B: It's going to happen and get back on that. But excited today to have Dr. Peter Dore, I believe as the only faculty in the US that has a three way system appointment. He is partially employed by Texas Tech University as a research and teaching professor there has an appointment with us with AgriLife Extension and also has an appointment with us with AgriLife Research plays well with others very well and has done extremely well with that interesting and unique appointment. And probably the greatest thing is he fulfills all three of those roles excellently. You know, a lot of times you'll have a certain side of that that you'll do best. And he has done and excelled in all three of those roles.
• 2:10
  Speaker A: That's amazing. So Peter, give us a little bit of your, your background. Like where are you from and are you a West Texas boy or are you a somebody who got here as fast as you could?
• 2:23
  Speaker C: So I got here as fast as I could. I made my way to West Texas 30 some years ago. I'm a native Minnesotan. I'm actually a city kid and I spent as much time as I could on my grandfather's farm.
• 2:39
  Speaker A: You couldn't get, could you get more different A Minnesota farm to West Texas farm?
• 2:44
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 2:45
  Speaker A: Wow.
• 2:45
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 2:46
  Speaker C: Detassel and corn working for Green Giant. Whenever I was out in the country, I was a city slicker. And when I was back with my city friends, I was a country bumpkin. And it seemed like I, I didn't really best Advice. Some of the best advice I ever got was from my grandfather who knew that I wanted to be a part of agriculture. And he told me that I really needed to go get an advanced degree because there's no way a banker would ever loan me money because I'm from the city and probably didn't know a whole lot about agriculture. So. So I did that and I quickly learned I sure want to work in agriculture, but maybe I don't want to be a farmer. I don't think I quite have what it takes. And yeah, 30 some years ago had an opportunity to move into the role that I'm still in today. And it was attractive to me back then as it is today because it allows me to teach, to do research, to do outreach and extension activities. And I think those appointments really fit very well together. And the beauty of a three way appointment to me is usually my bosses don't know where I'm at. I can really slide through the cracks. But today one of them does know where I'm at. So I'm going to be on my best behavior.
• 4:03
  Speaker A: You're hard to keep track of. That's funny. That is really fascinating though too because I think one of the biggest problems we have in research is often that it never, it doesn't get to where it needs to go, you know, And I mean I've. I've stumbled across, across some research that was done at Texas tech in the 90s on some things that Lacey Vardaman, our founder, has been working on. And I remember sending her these videos. I was like, would you please like look at these videos? Like tech was doing this research and like, did you even know about this? And so it's hard and it seems like it's harder today because we have too many forms of communication and maybe.
• 4:45
  Speaker C: Fewer people that are doing some of the critical work that you just made reference to. And the old model on the A and M side with the research and extension agencies is the researcher would, would establish the trials and collect the data and essentially pass it on to the extension faculty member who would then deliver the message. And today there's a lot of gray area in between. So it's kind of nice to be doing the work and to be attempting to deliver the message, but also interacting with a producer who always has really good questions and questions that can't be answered or we don't have very good answers to what a great opportunity then to immediately incorporate that into the research programs and subsequent growing.
• 5:29
  Speaker A: Okay, so that's really interesting to me because I have seen in my, the difference in my lifetime from like how things were when I was a child and how things are now. And I mean, like, I've wondered what, what's made that difference. And I guess maybe we're just kind of like as you're trying to keep things funded on the extension side, how, you know, delivering that message maybe is getting the low hanging fruit of what gets caught. Caught, cut maybe on the budget sometimes. But what you're talking about is like it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm doing the research and I'm delivering the message.
• 6:15
  Speaker C: And then I have an opportunity to also see how the message is being received, information is applicable and if it can fit into the systems that are already in place or if there really needs to be some additional pieces gathered and then again a great opportunity the next year to.
• 6:33
  Speaker A: So I don't know if, if Todd's told you any about NASA Acres, the project that we, this group that we'll be hosting when the government reopens, but their whole, what you're talking about is exactly what their approach is. It is that we don't want, we want applied science with a researcher who can actually have that conversation with the producer. And I have said like, I feel like it's, to me is like what extension was what I remember as a child, you know what I mean? It's kind of a going back to that idea of how do we make sure that the researcher can have that relationship. And I think it's a credit to you because a lot of times researchers don't necessarily want to or even have the kind of capacity to, to have that communication with farmers. They just want to stay in the lab because that's what they like. And I don't blame them. Yeah, I mean, that's what you like to do.
• 7:39
  Speaker C: And, and for folks that find a lot of value in, in that part of their job, and if they don't really want to be the deliverer, then, then maybe they should be staying in the lab and, and hopefully an extension colleague who can help deliver that message.
• 7:53
  Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. That's, that's one of the things that, you know, as we've worked with NASA's, you know, for me to be able to tell researchers, hey, if you don't feel comfortable, I'll go with you. You know, and maybe that's a skill that that person just needs to acquire in order to expand their career too, you know, and it's just something that maybe doesn't come naturally, but I think it says a lot about, about you personally that you have that flexibility to be able to kind of cross over both worlds. It's pretty unique, I think.
• 8:24
  Speaker C: And then I would just, I guess like to add to that. And then the classroom part, the formal classroom teaching, to me also with the questions that the students are asking and maybe the first opportunity to kind of practice some of the, trying to describe the data we're collecting and maybe what we think it means and then to be challenged by some of the students and then maybe change the approach. And then, you know, when the clientele or the receiver, the information is now the grower, the delivery needs to be a little bit different than what happens in the classroom. So anyway, I find the three parts to fit together very nicely and it's a little bit easy for me because I truly do work for three different agencies. And I'll, I guess I'll brag on my colleague and friend over here, Dr. Bauman, who for much of his career was a pure extension person, but also saw the value in the research and then when you moved into more of a, of a research role, certainly continued to see the value of extension. So there's some folks that maybe are primarily funded by one or the other, but when they see the value in needing to do both, they go ahead and incorporate both of those into their day to day job activities.
• 9:38
  Speaker A: That's the, that's, that's what I remember. That's, you know, that's the kind of interaction I can remember having with that. There was never a question that you, you, you couldn't answer. You can find a question that somebody couldn't answer at Extension, you know, and that's just, you know, and I, I hope that the, the value of that continues to be that we can continue to prioritize it and maybe even prioritize it more so that we don't lose any funding for there, in fact that we can increase. Because I think it is important not just for our small communities to have extension there and available. But I had a conversation this week about the county fair and I was doing my granny. You know, I do, I do needlepoint. So I'm sitting there and I'm cross generation. So I've got the generation before me on one side and then generation behind me on the next side. And so the ladies before me are talking about taking in, you know, stuff for the fair. And I said, I bet you girls. Do y' all know what this is? No. And, and they had no idea the extent of the exhibits, you know, And I'm like, you just finish that up and take that to the fair next year, girl. You know, So I think that's part of, like, I hope that's part of like, what our vision is to help. You know, there are some things that you just, we need to work hard to keep, keep a hold of. And you know, you don't, don't throw it out. Just let it conform to the needs of today.
• 11:19
  Speaker B: No, and I know we've had this discussion before, but, you know, that, that is still the uniqueness I'd say to the United States is, and fortunate that our forefathers were bright enough to think about the land grant system that they developed. And you know, and it's, it's what's kept agriculture, you know, in the United States as, as a leading industry and the leading agriculture industry in the world because of, of we were lucky enough that our forefathers saw that as an important part and that all three parts were important. As Pete mentioned, teaching the next generation, doing the research that can benefit our industry and then getting that information out there. And, and you know, for me, and I think Pete's been the same way, you know, that grower input has always been critical because, you know, you know, you'll think, oh man, I came up with the greatest solution in the world. And you talk to a grower about it, and he gives you the three reasons why that won't work. You know, it either cost too much, I can't get it done in a timely fashion, or whatever that is.
• 12:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 12:23
  Speaker B: And then you go back, you know, and are thinking, okay, so I've got this part, I've got address. He's told me why this won't work, how do I figure out how to change that and make it work? And that's just, you know, and that to me is, is the embodiment of our mission. And as I said when I, when I took this role that I currently have is to make sure that part of the mission remained important.
• 12:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think it is. So tell us what you're researching.
• 12:55
  Speaker C: So I am a weed scientist by training. My primary focus is agronomic weeds, weeds that we find in, in our row crops in this region. Of course, cotton is king. Much of my work is looking at effective and sustainable weed management programs that we can use in a system that involves cotton and then rotational crops that are grown in, you know, within that system are critically important. Also have an opportunity to work in some other crops. Peanuts would be another one grain, sorghum, you know, opportunities to Work in sesame once in a while. So, so, so I'm a weed scientist by training. I would say, you know, some of the key things that we're, we're working on now and we've worked on for a number of years. First maybe has to do with understanding the changes in our wheat populations over time. Effective weed management systems often will leave opportunities for other weed species to come in.
• 14:06
  Speaker A: To come in.
• 14:09
  Speaker C: Maybe over reliance on certain technologies can lead to a shift not necessarily in a new species, but inherent changes within those species that now respond differently to some of the herbicides that we, they're resistant. So I spent a lot of time on surveying and understanding the development of herbicide resistant weeds. And also what's to me, you know, equally as fascinating is trying to better understand the internal mechanisms within those weeds as to why they're no longer controlled by herbicides that used to control them. And there are some things that we don't mind seeing as far as internal changes or some things that we, you really would rather not see because some of those changes may render those plants to not be resistant to other herbicides that have never been used in those fields. What if metabolism is involved in that plant's ability to withstand a herbicide that's been used for years, then the herbicide that hasn't even been discovered yet that might be used in those areas 10 years from now, there's an opportunity that that weed will be resistant to that chemistry as well. So that, that's a little bit frightening, but. So I spent a lot of time on understanding herbicide resistant weeds A and B, trying to develop effective and sustainable systems that will help us manage those new populations.
• 15:37
  Speaker A: Okay, so I know just enough about things to be dangerous. Do weeds serve a purpose in the ecosystem like the soil ecosystem?
• 15:53
  Speaker C: So first I would respond to that. There's lots of definitions of what is a weed. Yes. Yeah, I like the definition. A plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.
• 16:07
  Speaker A: Oh, I love that. That's what, that's, that's awesome.
• 16:10
  Speaker C: As the best definition, you know, plant, how to plan place. And there's other, there's other things. So, so, so that one's great. So to your question, I think there's lots of benefits of weeds. I think weeds provide, you know, wildlife cover. I think they provide wildlife feed. They can provide some, maybe wind erosion, stability of the soil. They can provide some nutrients back to the soil. I think they can provide a genetic source, source of information for things that we might want to use within our future crop plants.
• 16:48
  Speaker A: Okay, so this Is a GMO question now, can do plants in nature cross species on their own? Does that make sense? Like, would 1, 1, 1 weed pick up a trait from another weed in nature? Like what I guess what I'm getting at is when I think about like what people are afraid of, of GMOs, which is like you're taking something from another source and putting it in. It's like you're, you're putting a foreign source of DNA into this, this plant. But what I guess I'm asking is in nature, if you're saying that that plant evolves, is some of that happening?
• 17:44
  Speaker C: So as I'm thinking about the development of herbicide resistant weeds, some of the changes that I'm thinking of are changes that I think can occur without even the existence of the herbicide. But the herbicide is allowing us to, to almost select for that change and allow now future populations to have maybe more of a percentage of that change. I'll also comment on your question and Todd can correct me. Certainly there's plants out there, some that we call weeds and some that we call crops that are close together in their development that they can, can cross and share information. You know, sorghum with Johnson grass.
• 18:34
  Speaker A: Right.
• 18:34
  Speaker C: Wheat with jointed goat grass. There are some weedy relatives of cotton that can cross with cotton. So I think in those examples there's definitely opportunities for some genetic information exchange. You know, the opportunities with some of the current biotechnology machinery and mechanisms that we have now, we can take two very, very different types of species. In fact, sometimes it isn't one plant sharing information to another plant. It may be a microorganism or it could be some other organism. And if we understand what we would like our crop plant to have, we might be able to use some of the, of those, I guess, banks of genetic information and go get that gene of interest. Move it over. I guess if your question was more on the, on the GMO side, you know, there's, you know, opportunities through mutagenesis, there's opportunities through tissue culture. So, so we can force changes. And then it's just trying to understand the changes that have been made and which ones would we like to utilize in our crops.
• 19:48
  Speaker A: Well, and I think, I think for me this is trying to help people understand that we're not doing something that nature doesn't do on its own. We are just speeding up the process and maybe being more selective, which is actually what we have always done. And there are, right, like all kinds of species of things, even that we eat that were Never around until we spent decades or you know me trying to get this Tomatoes I think is one of the broccoli I think is another. Like there's just things like that that, if you know what I'm saying though.
• 20:25
  Speaker B: Oh yeah, I think, I think there's a lot of different ways to look at that question, you know. You know, the first thing I think about is, you know, Palmer amaranth or Palmer pigweed, careless weed. That is the number one weed weed in not only this region, but a lot of our regions. You know the reason, part of the reason for the resistance issue is it has the ability to hybridize in nature. So it's passing genetic information much more readily than some of our other species. And so that, that resistance can spread quicker because of that hybridization. The other thing I think about is, you know, we, we've already had man made crosses, I think of say a mule or even, or even triticale. You know, a lot of people use triticale for forage or for cover crops. Well, that's a man made cross that wouldn't naturally occur in nature that we never even think about as an issue because we don't call it a gmo. And it wasn't done in the lab. The last one that I was involved with when I was at Vernon was, and Pete mentioned joining goat grass. At the time when I was in Vernon, the primary mechanism of leaf rust resistance in wheat in the southern Great Plains came from jointed goat grass cross. They basically crossed wheat with jointed goat grass to get that resistance gene and then back across it back to get the jointed goat grass characteristics out and the wheat in, but the, to leave that resistance gene in. So like you were saying, we've been doing this for a long time. We just weren't doing it in a lab, but we were introducing foreign genetic material.
• 22:05
  Speaker A: Right. So for those of us and folks that are listening that maybe don't really understand when you talk about we're crossing these things, what does that look like? But like pre gmo you're still doing this out like in the field. What does that look like?
• 22:23
  Speaker B: So, so it's, so it's, it's kind of an interesting process and it does vary by crop species.
• 22:29
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 22:30
  Speaker B: Specifically, and in fact, Jane Deaver.
• 22:33
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 22:34
  Speaker B: Our former cotton breeder here at the center at Lubbock was in yesterday and her and I were having some conversations about, you know, so we basically self fertilizers in a day or two.
• 22:49
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 22:51
  Speaker B: And so basically what, what you do, I'll just Use wheat to start with. You go in and you clip those glooms where you can have access to the anthers, the pollen sac, and you actually pull those out before they burst.
• 23:08
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 23:08
  Speaker B: And so basically you have a female plant.
• 23:11
  Speaker A: So you're clipping it by hand.
• 23:12
  Speaker B: By hand and pulling the little tiny anthers. If a grower's ever seen the little yellow flowers that stick out of a wheat head, they have to be removed individually.
• 23:22
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 23:23
  Speaker B: And then you basically take a, another wheat head and tie them together and then that one pollinates that female part of that. So that's how it works in wheat. But that happens in say a day or two cotton as if you think about, you know, it starts blooming in say July and blooms tail, it frost. So you each one of those individual flowers are like an individual wheat head.
• 23:48
  Speaker A: Oh my goodness. Okay. Yeah.
• 23:50
  Speaker B: And so you've got to say remove all of those and basically, you know, and again remove the answers from that flower and then, and then provide that pollen source from another thing. And most of these plants, when we think about crop plants, you know, wheat and cotton, most of them are self fertilized. So again, even though that's not say, what is referred to as foreign DNA.
• 24:14
  Speaker A: Right, right.
• 24:15
  Speaker B: You're still forcing that cross to happen.
• 24:18
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. So I, I just think this is important for people because I think that the more knowledge that people have and understand that there's so much just innate fear around GMOs and I think it's just good for us to understand the whole perspective of, you know, the where we are today and that it's kind of a speeding up of and expanding of the capacities to do that. So here's another. I don't know much question. I know enough to be dangerous. So Sarah Burnett, that you, you all met a few minutes ago, she and I discussed on a podcast earlier about microorganisms like communicating with each other in this. Is that how like for one, one plant to know I. You have something that I need. Like who I see you have. I mean like, I'm just trying to like wrap my mind around how that communication is working.
• 25:27
  Speaker C: So I'm aware of folks that are actually doing some of those kinds of testing and, and as plants are, you know, receiving photons of light and, and reflecting certain wavelengths, that certainly is a possible mechanism of communication for one plant to know the presence of other plants based on the different wavelengths of light.
• 25:51
  Speaker A: Like we're doing for remote sensing.
• 25:54
  Speaker C: Yes, exactly. So, you know, that's not an area that I'm.
• 26:00
  Speaker A: Oh I don't, I don't know either. But I think sometimes about like people who like admit no shading is people that don't eat meat. But I'm just saying like a lot of people are like it's a living thing. But oh my goodness, when you think about the, the potential that there is as much intellectual decision making going on in plants that we are now seeing. Yeah, it's, it's, it's an, it's crazy.
• 26:28
  Speaker C: And I like to use some of those discussions in the classroom and I know folks are extremely interested in, in just animal biology or human biology. And I think, you know, the plant is extremely complex as well in several of the functions that are occurring within animal cells are also recurring within plant cells. So certainly the science, interesting science to me expands far beyond just, you know, animal and human systems.
• 26:56
  Speaker A: That it really is amazing. Well back to some of your, your work in. I mean I've seen. And so we, we farmed for. You know, I grew up on the farm farm. We farmed for years and then we, we went through bankruptcy. And so I haven't been setting out on the farm, but I've kept up with because we still have our land and a fabulous tenant and then just family, you know. So I know some of that resistance was starting to happen when we were getting out of farming. And then I've seen it happen. I mean to the extent that like I. People are quitting, I mean like this chemical doesn't really just even work anymore. And so are you working on the development of new chemicals to replace those old chemicals? Do you foresee something in the future that would be like other ways of dealing with weeds that aren't chemical based.
• 27:58
  Speaker C: So certainly were involved not so much in the development of the next active ingredient or the development of the next cotton germplasm, but working closely with our industry partners, trying to look at what's coming down their pipeline and a chance to see how it may fit in this case on the high plains of Texas. So I thought of this in your previous question when you were talking about GMOs. So a few years ago BASF was coming out with their newest cotton germplasm, which today is called Accent Flex Cotton. It's the first quadruple herbicide tolerant cotton plant that has been developed and before it was released. Thankfully folks like myself and Todd have a chance to just see how it might work in our region. Those projects are highly regulated and for them to hand us some seed and for us to plant some seed and there's seed left over and how we, you know, double package the seed and it's under lock and key and then at harvest time. So. So again, along the lines of, of the concern about gmo, when something new has been developed, there's a lot of rules and regulations in place in order for folks like myself and Todd to do some field trials to examine how it may fit. So. So this technology that I just made reference to, growers have now had an opportunity to plant it for two growing seasons. But not all of the pieces to that quadruple stack are currently in place. The fourth piece, the newest piece to a herbicide, common name called isoxaflutol, is still under really EPA restriction, but before it can be released and available, which, you know, we're hoping for in 2026, but, you know, sometime in the future that fourth piece will be available.
• 30:19
  Speaker A: You're talking about the chemicals has just hasn't gone through the process yet.
• 30:22
  Speaker C: The chemical for the, for use in cotton, it's not a new chemical. We've actually been using it in corn for a number of years, but it'll be new for use in cotton.
• 30:30
  Speaker A: Well, that's interesting for people to note that, like, for every different crop, you're having to get different approvals, EPA approval. So we recently released an episode on that whole process, going through the process of how do you get a pesticide approved?
• 30:51
  Speaker C: Very good.
• 30:52
  Speaker A: You know, and, and the whole methodology behind that. I think one of the things that's important for people to understand about, especially in cotton, that the decrease in the use of pesticides just in my lifetime has been, I'd love to see, I've had, I know that someone released a kind of a bad report of, you know, cotton and how much pesticides we use and stuff. And you know, I mean, I'm just thinking you have like, first of all, where did you get the information? Because it's not pebble available. Like, I don't know anybody that's like, here I'm putting all my data of like every time I spray that, that's not there. You know, are you just coming up with that out of thin air is my guess. And then number two, you have any idea, like what it was like 40 years ago and how many times, like people were going back and forth over the field and the kind of pesticides that my grandparents were using were highly, highly toxic, you know, and so, I mean, we've come a long ways in, in the advancement of using these things. And now I'm not saying that we're perfect. Or that there aren't. There's not going to still be progress in that area, because I think there will be, you know, but, and I.
• 32:16
  Speaker C: Would agree, I feel like from a herbicide standpoint, it was really in the late 70s, early 80s when we transitioned to products that were highly effective at extremely low use rates and very low in mammalian toxicity. And today that, that, that's the bar. That's the standard by which now all new active ingredients that are being discovered need to meet. So, you know, we can categorize our pesticides in various categories. I, I, of course, we all like category four the best. Those that are least toxic and in the majority, if not all of the new compounds coming forward are going to fit within that category or close to it. And also low use rates where we used to use things, you know, pounds on a per acre basis, now we're down to fractions of a tablespoon. And it's not that that first extraction is extremely, you know. Yeah. Toxic to us. It again fits within that, that category.
• 33:17
  Speaker B: So, yeah, I think that's two good things. The one thing I think about is, you know, back to our growers and back to what you were talking about. Our growers paid for boll weevil eradication so that they could reduce the amount of insecticides they had to put in the environment to handle the pest. And they paid for that. I mean, I don't think people think about they put their money because that was an important enough issue. The other thing is funny because I saw a podcast this morning, and I don't know who the individual was that the grower had at his farm, but he was showing his sprayer set up and, you know, and the first thing he was, he showed his, his mixing trailer and basically was explaining to them, you know, the way we're set up, we don't touch the pesticide at all anymore. You know, it goes in here through a pump, you know, from, from a load, and then it goes into the sprayer and then we go spray. And then he showed her a water bottle and he said, this is how much chemical we're putting out on an acre. And he said it was funny because the lady looked at him, she goes, oh, my gosh. And of course, he thought he was fixing to get a. I can't believe you're doing that. And she goes, I put more than that on my, my driveway.
• 34:28
  Speaker A: That's such a good. That is that, I mean, that's just a point that I think a lot of people very have heard of like recognize that, you know that really, that if you're talking about levels of pesticide use, what somebody will put Roundup on their weeds out front is like, what is the concentration compared to what we put out per acre? Anybody? I have no idea, but it's significantly higher.
• 34:57
  Speaker C: Yeah, and probably a lot of those folks are nearly spraying to wet.
• 35:00
  Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, Absolutely. Yeah.
• 35:02
  Speaker C: Probably 10 times more than what's.
• 35:04
  Speaker A: I know I'm kind of like really weird about that. Like, I've like, let me have a paintbrush, put it on so I don't get it on anything else.
• 35:13
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, because I think, you know, the new chemistry that Pete's talking about, the, the lead ISO that's going to be available in cotton, you know, that's, that's 2 to 3 ounces per acre, liquid ounces per acre. So even less than that water bottle, significantly.
• 35:28
  Speaker A: So let's, let's touch a touchy subject. False ization. So when you have a chemical like, like for us it was back in the day was 2, 4D and we, you know, thought the wind wasn't, it wasn't windy, but it was just windy enough that we killed the neighbor's trees. And so how do we deal? You have any philosophical thoughts on how to deal with the cultural fallout of some of this? And do you foresee a day when where we will have chemicals, where we can have a diversity of crops that will not be. One crop will not be impacted. So I, what I remember specifically when some of these like Roundup Ready crops came out, you had one brother who planted cotton Roundup Ready and across the road the other one didn't and whammo, you know, we just weren't, I don't think ready for what that was going to do, you know. So do you have any thoughts on that?
• 36:43
  Speaker C: Yes, I have some thoughts. So I guess first I would almost like to clarify that some products can change forms from a liquid state to a gaseous state. So true volatilization, as you made reference to most of our products, cannot volatilize under atmospheric pressure that we have. We can maybe get them to volatilize in a test tube or some chamber. So, so when we think of off target movement there, there's a small number of products you mentioned, 2, 4d I think you're kind of alluding to currently with some of the dicamba issues which we have. And no doubt those two can volatilize. Treflan and Prowl can volatilize most other products off target movement that occurs, you know, the roundup moving across the road that occurred likely due to either wind speed and direction or the presence of a temperature.
• 37:55
  Speaker A: That's what I mean. Referencing. I don't think we were ready those first few years. Like we didn't really understand, I don't think the impact and the things that we're going to. It took some education, I think and.
• 38:08
  Speaker C: I would very much agree. When we started spending a lot of time now making sure that our applicators are certified to apply a push approved Dicamba formulations in Extend Flex cotton or approved two 4D formulations in enlist cotton. We spent time just talking about wind speed, direction, importance of spray boom height, various nozzles that you can use to get that boom closest to the target appropriate tank. Mix part M with those chemistries. And then we talked about temperature inversion. And I'll be the first to admit I had no idea that we have as much temperature inversion conditions. And I think just talking about it and being more aware of what a temperature inversion is, I feel like has been very helpful in improving on target applications.
• 39:13
  Speaker A: Yeah. Because I don't think that we've seen the damage in the last. Well, we haven't had a cotton. We've had much cotton, you know, so it's hard to know, but it feels like, I guess what, what concerns me the most is the, the cultural ramifications and the things that I've seen happen in my own, you know, you know, people that I know and love, you know, and, and I don't. I think that's something that doesn't always come into play. And if we can actually think of bring those kind of things, we're thinking about the research and the type of things that are next generation coming forward, like how. What are things that are solutions that have the least amount of impact or have. I just don't feel like it's something that gets addressed really. You know what I mean? Because I never I guess would have ever thought about it until it happened, you know, and then you saw this us versus them kind of mentality. And then, you know, it's a difficult and especially in a small community, you know. And so I guess that's what I'm thinking is like as a researcher, is it something that's it that you have like in the back of your mind or if you did have that in the back of your mind when you're thinking about the next generation of solutions?
• 40:34
  Speaker B: I would say twofold. You know, I think I go back to the. You brought up the roundup, you know, what 96 I believe and I look at the things that we're talking about and doing differently now that we didn't even consider when that technology was developed or introduced. We, we, we've made a tremendous improvement in nozzle type packages and even in some cases for specific products that, you know, we didn't even talk about. You know, we started using some air inductions after it was introduced, but we didn't talk about nozzle packages at all when that technology, you know, drift reduction agents. And, and I think we'll can, I think will continue to see improvements in, in that area as that, you know, anytime there's a market, oh absolutely, there's.
• 41:28
  Speaker A: Going to be more resources and more.
• 41:30
  Speaker B: Opportunity to fill that. So I think that will continue to change. I think some of the things I know Pete and I have worked on, you know, with some of this technology, looking at drop nozzles, hooded type sprayers, you know, and even is there, there are some things that we can do that maybe, you know, are rather simple, I guess. And the one I think about, we've been on quite a bit with just drop nozzles and how that can affect. And then Pete mentioned temperature inversions. We might briefly mention that, you know, when I first started, you know, oh, temperature inversions are a potential issue with drift. But that was like one slide where now we may spend five minutes of a presentation, well, specifically talking about that.
• 42:10
  Speaker A: But what you're talking about is exactly why we are where we are is because when I was saying, I just think compared to the amount of chemicals that we've used in the past, we have just become so more targeted and it's really through you don't know what the consequence, you have this consequence of something and then you're directly trying to deal with that consequence and then just kind of a positive impact on that is hey, we're, we're going to be more targeted, we're using less now. We're the size of the, you know, I mean, I think that it all kind of goes together. Which brings us back to what you're doing, which is the human connection side of research. And this is why, I guess like maybe a weird way to ask you, the question that I was trying to ask is just like I feel like that the research and the way that you're researching, really, you may not be consciously thinking how can I cancel this cultural problem, but that's actually what you are doing because you're out there communicating with producers, communicating with the next generation who is going to come in with some Some ideas about what's happening on the farm that may or may not be right. And then you're taking all that back into the lab with you to solve not just the problem of weeds, but it's way more holistic than that. Would you agree? He's like, whatever.
• 43:51
  Speaker C: Yes, I agree. Yes, I agree. And, and a couple of questions ago, I believe you were asking maybe about some alternatives or.
• 44:03
  Speaker A: Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, right. You see us doing something like.
• 44:06
  Speaker C: I just wanted to make sure, I mean there, there is a movement towards, you know, less herbicide use and there's a movement all the way towards the production of some organic crops. And some of the tools that are used in organic crops we can use in conventional crops as well. You know, of course we can talk about tillage and if you had Dr. Lewis in here last week, she, she may talk about the importance of COVID crops and I get it. But, but sometimes when, when we're using cover crops until, and less we are relying more on herbicides. So sometimes those don't necessarily completely fit together, but there may be opportunities, opportunities to use cover crops initially to do some early season weed suppression and then there could be some tillage that occurs. So, so, so tillage and maybe more precision tillage I think is important and will continue to be important. We actually are, are almost resurrecting or trying to get more experience using a flame cultivator which was technology that came out in the 50s and 60s and I just bought a flame or two years ago and we're starting to look at flame cultivation. We're looking at an electrocution machine that is zapping some weeds, both weeds that are growing above the crop canopy and also some inter row electrocution. Attempting also to focus more on the crop germplasm. And if we can at least attempt to evaluate the crops ability through maybe more rapid germination and shading the ground as an important component, not by itself controlling the weeds, but as a part of an overall system. So I have a student right now that's trying to look at different germ plasma, trying to look at opportunities to use cover at different densities and different times that the COVID is being terminated. So, so, so there are non chemical areas, there are certainly chemical areas. And really to me the answer is there's a bunch of tools that we have that we're trying to use to help us manage our weeds. And it really, really isn't just, you know, one size fits all. There's, there's different systems and different tools that might be Most effective in those different systems now.
• 46:39
  Speaker A: Well, you've probably realized by now I'm a little odd. I'm kind of a nerd. And I do, I do think about things that like, are probably way out there. But I appreciate you allowing me to ask you those kind of questions, you know, especially off the cuff. And I think it's helpful for people to know the more information they have. We're kind of like, hey, we're just like a neutral place. And here's this, here's this side. But I think that as a person who has seen the economics on the farm, you know, the things that you are doing, I don't think, not sure that people that have had to pay those bills understand how impactful it is.
• 47:23
  Speaker C: And that was a whole nother area that we attempted to focus on this past year was reduced input. Weed management.
• 47:29
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 47:29
  Speaker C: So I feel like we can talk about effective weed control programs from start to finish, but economics, we're just not there. So, so which of our inputs are really bringing the most to the table? We may not have a clean field at the end, but it's going to be as clean as possible because the number of inputs that we're using are far less.
• 47:50
  Speaker A: So do you think that's something that that is, is changing? And I will, I know we have to wrap up, but I. Is the perception of a clean, a clean field. I know the story I like to tell is about when my brother was very young and his first like, I think it was like 40 acres that he rented was across the street from my grandmother and he came out one day and she was hoeing his field, you know, not, I mean, you know, that perception of no weeds equals a good farmer. Do you think some of that is shifting to where like culturally it's okay for us to have a little more out there.
• 48:35
  Speaker B: So I mean, my personal thought is it's probably a threefold thing. One and the first one being economics. That's a pretty simple deal. We're, we're being, and we're being squeezed harder today than maybe since the 80s, you could argue.
• 48:50
  Speaker A: I think so.
• 48:52
  Speaker B: You know, so, so economics are easily going to play into that, that thought process simply. I think the other thing is, you know, the size of farms that our farmers are having to, to manage that. Gosh, you know, you know, I think in your example a 40 acre field is a little easier to keep 100% clean than 5,000 acres. Oh yeah, so, so that's, you know, and growers are trying to maximize equipment use over that 5,000 acres.
• 49:18
  Speaker A: Oh my goodness. Right. Well, and that's something else to your point long ago, is that no one talks about the greenhouse gas emissions of going over and over and over a field. So I think it's good for, for us to have these conversations like this where we're talking about, hey, if you know, you're concerned about pesticide use, but you're also concerned about greenhouse gases, so let's talk about which one of these is better. You know, I mean, we're going to impact, we're going to make an impact no matter what we do. And so how, how do we make the least amount of impact and any impact that we do, how can we make that beneficial?
• 49:55
  Speaker B: And I think Dr. Dot Tre would agree with me that, you know, as we talk about soil health, as we talk about microbial populations and then in this area, you know, as we talk about managing wind erosion.
• 50:08
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 50:09
  Speaker B: There is no way that we'll be able to do that without the use of herbicides because if we take the herbicides out, and I think even our organic farmers would tell you, tillage becomes increasingly important to them.
• 50:24
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 50:24
  Speaker B: And so to manage some of these things that we talk about beneficial standpoint, herbicides have to be a part of that.
• 50:30
  Speaker A: Yeah. Well, and I do see a movement towards this, maybe a little more balanced approach, you know, and that some people are seeing as people have become more curious and concerned when they come and they actually see, you know, I think that's super helpful. Really do well. Thanks guys. I appreciate it. I never know who's going to grow.
• 50:54
  Speaker C: This was fun. Thank you for the opportunity. You asked great questions and I don't think we're afraid of those tough questions. Our job is to try to assist the grower and helping him manage his weeds. And we've got products that maybe have some concerns and if we can talk through those concerns too and in improve on target application and hopefully I think so.
• 51:17
  Speaker A: I do. Well, I appreciate what you are doing and I know that the people that are in agriculture in my life still value what you're doing and, and it's important to us, it's important to our area. It's changing quickly. It really is. And so for people that might not, that might be listening or watching, that don't know, we've, it's is just a really tough, it's a tough year for agriculture and I think we don't really know what the ends can look like, you know, and I, I do, I remember very well that the 1980s and, and what it was like to be on the farm then. And I feel a lot of the same I can just sense a lot of the same feelings, you know, around that now. And so people be praying for farmers, you probably know a few, and be praying that, that they'll be able to make it through, you know, and that we can, we can find ways of, of making it where it's not just always pants on fire. Pants on fire. Feeling so. Well, thanks for joining us, and I hope that we will. You'll join us again for another episode of Conservation Stories. And we'll, of course, have Dr. Bauman back with us. Us. And we'll talk about something fun then.
• 52:32
  Speaker B: Yes, ma'.
• 52:33
  Speaker A: Am. Thanks. Thank you.
• 52:34
  Speaker C: Thank you.