Herbicide Selection and Management Practices on Corn (Minnesota)

Herbicide Selection and Management
Practices Associated with Minnesota’s
2014 Corn Production
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
USDA, NASS, Minnesota Field Office

September 2016

625 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55155-2538 651-201-6000 1-800-967-AGRI
www.mda.state.mn.us
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this information is available in alternative forms of
communication upon request by calling 651-201-6000. TTY users can call the Minnesota Relay Service at
711. The MDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.

For information regarding this report contact:
Denton Bruening
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division
651-201-6399

Contents
Contents ...........................................................................................................................................1
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................4
2014 Herbicide Use Practices Summary and Highlights .................................................................4
Survey Design and Implementation .................................................................................................5
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................6
Data Collection Process and History ...................................................................................6
Data Reporting and Limitations ...........................................................................................8
Table 1. Summary of respondents and corresponding corn acres by county and PMAs.....9
Statewide Herbicide Applications and Management on Corn .......................................................11
Table 2. Percentage of respondents that used corn herbicides...........................................11
Table 3. “Did you: Apply herbicides yourself? Have herbicides custom applied? Both?”
(Q.3) ..................................................................................................................12
Table 4. “Do you know the active ingredients of the herbicides you used in 2014?”
(Q.4) ..................................................................................................................13
Table 5. “Do you keep herbicide application records on your farm?” (Q.5) .....................14
Table 6. “Do you usually read the label for pesticide products applied on your farm?”
(Q.6) ..................................................................................................................15
Table 7. “Was Atrazine applied on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes included?”
(Q.7) ..................................................................................................................16
Table 8. “Was Atrazine incorporated on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes
included?” (Q.10) ..............................................................................................17
Table 9. “Did you make more than one application of Atrazine to the same corn field in
2014?” (Q.11) ....................................................................................................18
Table 10. “Was Acetochlor applied on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes
included?” (Q.12) ..............................................................................................19
Table 11. “Was Acetochlor incorporated on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes
included?” (Q.15) ..............................................................................................20
Table 12. “Did you make more than one application of Acetochlor to the same corn field
in 2014?” (Q.16) ...............................................................................................21
Herbicide Program Decisions ........................................................................................................22
Table 13. “Who decides what products to apply?” (Q.17) ................................................22
Table 14. “Who decides when to apply the herbicides?” (Q.18) .......................................23
Table 15. “Who scouts your fields?” (Q.19)......................................................................24
Table 16. “Who determines if application setbacks or restrictions are appropriate on your
farm?” (Q.20) ....................................................................................................25
Scouting for Weeds and Related Practices ....................................................................................26
Table 17. “Has someone mapped weed infestations in any of your fields in the last three
years?” (Q.21) ...................................................................................................26
1

Table 18. “Do you choose herbicides based on type of weeds and/or density of weeds?”
(Q.22) ................................................................................................................27
Water Resources and Soil Resources .............................................................................................28
Table 19. “Do you know the soil texture of your farm?” (Q.23) .......................................28
Table 20. “Do you know the organic matter level of your farm soils?” (Q.24) ................29
Table 21. “Do you know the depth to the water table in your field?” (Q.25)....................30
Table 22. “Is the water table at a depth greater than 30 feet?” (Q.26)...............................31
Figure 1. Information sources used to determine water table depth (Q.26a) ....................31
Table 23. “Are any streams, lakes, or other surface waters immediately adjacent to or in
your corn fields?” (Q.27)...................................................................................32
Table 24. “Are there filter strips or vegetative buffers on any of these acres?” (Q.28) ....33
Table 25. “Were they required as part of a conservation program?”(Q.28a) ....................34
Table 26. “Do you irrigate corn?” (Q.29) ..........................................................................35
Table 27. “Do you have an irrigation water management plan?” (Q.29a) ........................35
Figure 2. “What type of tillage did you use before planting on the majority of your corn
aces?” (Q.30) .....................................................................................................36
General Practices for Herbicide Application .................................................................................36
Table 28. “Do you use precision applications for herbicides (variable rate applications)?”
(Q.31) ................................................................................................................36
Table 29. “In general, do you alternate use of herbicide products to keep weeds from
becoming resistant to herbicides?” (Q.32) ........................................................37
Table 30. “Did you reduce from previous applications, the rate per acre of any corn
herbicide?” (Q.33) .............................................................................................38
Table 31. “Did you select an herbicide with a different mode of action to reduce weed
resistance to herbicides?” (Q.34).......................................................................39
Table 32. “Did you choose a particular herbicide to reduce impacts to surface water or
groundwater?” (Q.35) ........................................................................................40
Table 33. “Did you band herbicide applications to reduce use?” (Q.36) ..........................41
Appendix 1. Survey Form ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2

Abstract
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is responsible for the development and
promotion of herbicide Best Management Practices (BMPs) which optimize production and
profitability while protecting the state’s water resources. The MDA is also responsible for
monitoring pesticide use and for promoting the adoption of associated BMPs. This survey was
designed and conducted in partnership with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
to specifically assess the status of BMP awareness and adoption in relation to the use of corn
herbicides.
In Minnesota, the corn herbicide active ingredients atrazine and acetochlor (and their breakdown
products) are detected frequently in groundwater and surface water resources. Atrazine has not
exceeded the applicable drinking water standards in groundwater. However, in 2001 and 2005,
acetochlor concentrations exceeded surface water quality standards to protect aquatic life in two
southern Minnesota watersheds1. The MDA has invested considerable staff time in water
monitoring, development of BMP education programs, and BMP assessment. Atrazine and
acetochlor are the main focus of this survey. Phone enumerators located at NASS contacted over
4,000 producers in early 2015. From this pool, approximately 2,100 farmers who raised corn
during the 2014 growing season shared valuable information on herbicide selection and
management.
The general purpose of this survey was to ask farmers about fundamental herbicide use practices
such as record keeping, reading the label, scouting, responsibility for making decisions on
product selection and timing, and knowledge about physical characteristics (soil texture, depth to
groundwater, use of buffer strips, etc.). More specific questions related to atrazine and acetochlor
included the use of split applications, reduced rates, and incorporation.
These types of surveys help MDA understand regulatory compliance, adoption of voluntary
practices, need for additional information, and opportunities for future technical assistance.
Every other year, the MDA has partnered with NASS to produce a detailed report on pesticide
use and rates used on the state’s four major crops. Readers are encouraged to visit the most
recent report, “2013 Pesticide Usage on Four Major Minnesota Crops” at
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/pesticideuse.aspx

“Monitoring & Assessment for Agricultural Chemicals in the Environment” found on
MDAWebsite at:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/monitoring
1

3

Acknowledgements
This survey was a cooperative effort by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), and the NASS Field Offices in Minnesota. The detailed information about herbicide use
practices could not have been collected without the cooperation of the thousands of farmers who
voluntarily responded to the survey in the midst of their busy lives, and for this we are extremely
grateful. Similarly, the assistance of agricultural chemical dealer and cooperatives is much
appreciated. Special thanks go to Dan Lofthus, Director of the NASS Minnesota Field Office
and his respective staff for assistance with survey design, data collection and processing. The
MDA is ultimately responsible for the representations of data provided in this report and for the
design of the survey mechanism used to collect that data. Excellent participation and good record
keeping practices by Minnesota farmers and agricultural chemical dealerships played a vital part
in providing complete and detailed herbicide information.
2014 Herbicide Use Practices Summary and Highlights
This report summarizes survey results for a number of important practices associated with
herbicide use on Minnesota’s 2014 corn acres. Over 2,100 producers participated in the
telephone survey and herbicide information was collected for 542,570 corn acres, representing 7
percent of Minnesota’s 8,200,000 corn acres. Survey questions focused on the 95 percent of the
respondents that used herbicides for weed control. The survey targeted a variety of practices
including herbicide selection and associated management practices (e.g., MDA’s herbicide
BMPs). This is the fifth herbicide survey performed by the MDA and NASS to collect
information on herbicide management practices on Minnesota corn acres.

4

Survey Design and Implementation
Ten Pesticide Monitoring Areas (noted as “PMA” throughout the report), were previously
developed by MDA staff. Counties were clustered based on similarities in geology, soils, and
crops. These areas also define the general boundaries of the monitoring regions used by the
MDA water resource monitoring program. More information about PMA designations can be
found at
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/~/media/Files/chemicals/2009gwmnetdesign.a
shx Regional pesticide use information is used to help design and implement specific water
quality monitoring and pesticide educational programs.

NASS developed a sampling population of 7,000 farms by randomly drawing from its entire
database of all corn growers in Minnesota. There were 2,103 farmers that raised corn in 2014 and
that completed the survey. The definition of “corn” for purposes of this report includes both
grain and silage and excludes sweet corn and popcorn. All growers were asked four basic
questions regarding herbicide selection and management. The remaining questions were for
those farmers who used atrazine or acetochlor.
Due to the low intensity of row crop agriculture in portions of northern Minnesota, survey results
for PMA 2 and PMA 3 were not reported or included in this analysis.

5

Introduction
Data Collection Process and History
The MDA is required by state law to monitor pesticide use on a biennial basis. Minn. Stat. §
18B.064. In pursuit of fulfilling that responsibility, the MDA began exploring the possibility of
using the existing framework of the NASS to enhance and broaden pesticide use monitoring
efforts. NASS has a long history of providing statewide crop and production statistics. Over the
last decade, NASS has also become an important information source for pesticide and fertilizer
use. Several joint pilot projects evolved with the financial assistance from Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and were conducted from 2001-2003. These pilots were essential to
the final methodology used in this report.
The first pilot2 was conducted in 2001 by expanding the existing Agricultural Resource
Management Study (ARMS) developed by NASS. The normal number of participating
Minnesota corn farms in an ARMS survey is about 150. The pilot increased the number of
personal interviews to approximately 600 and most of the enhancements were focused on the
southern third of the state. The pilot provided reliable regionally-enhanced data on pesticide
product choices and application rates. Additionally, useful information on primary sources of
pesticide management information, scouting, timing, and other pesticide management related
information was obtained.
A second pilot3 was developed with the goal of expanding to a statewide scale while reducing
costs. In neighboring North Dakota, the USDA, NASS, the North Dakota Field Office, and North
Dakota State University Extension had already established a strong tradition in collecting
statewide pesticide use by using NASS telephone enumerators. MDA and NASS used many
techniques from the North Dakota program, but decided to expand the level of detail by
including pesticide application rates. Historically, most mail or telephone style surveys have
been unsuccessful at quantifying pesticide rates. Due to the numerous formulations, different
application rates and units of measure (i.e. Active Ingredient [a.i.] can be expressed in pounds,
ounces, pints or quarts), complications can quickly develop. Another major complicating factor
may result due to the farmer using the services of a commercial pesticide applicator. If the
farmer did not apply the product, the likelihood that the farmer would be familiar with the
product and corresponding rate decreases significantly.

2
3

“Expanded Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Pesticide Use Data”, 2003, by NASS and MDA.
Unpublished data. From the September 20, 2003 EPA Report.
6

The second pilot survey was conducted in 2003 to test two methods of collecting pesticide rate
information. “Method One” was conducted in Douglas County with 150 randomly selected farm
operators. Operators were interviewed over the phone by the NASS enumerators. If the operator
did not know the pesticides and/or rates, no additional follow-up work was conducted and the
data was limited to information that was provided. “Method Two” was used in neighboring
Grant County, where another 150 farm operators were contacted, and when farm records were
incomplete, follow-up calls were made to the pesticide dealer to complete the survey. The
number of surveys with complete data sets significantly increased with the additional assistance
from the dealerships. Eighty-three percent of the surveys were complete in Grant County, where
dealer follow-up calls were made, compared to forty-six percent in Douglas County. Equally
impressive was the overall support by the local dealerships.
Subsequently, statewide surveys are conducted using “Method Two” from the pilot project
conducted in Douglas and Grant Counties.
Farmers are interviewed over the phone in February. These are “cold calls,” meaning that the
farmers did not get any type of notification about the survey prior to the contact. Consequently,
all information collected using this approach is based upon either the participant’s memory or
information readily available during the interview. The interviews typically last from five to ten
minutes.
Survey questions can be found in Appendix 1. Corresponding question numbers (noted as “Q”
followed by the survey question number) are incorporated throughout the report and also in the
table captions. The reader is encouraged to reference the survey to help interpret the results.
Questions are grouped into four categories including:
1. General information. Who applied the product, label and active ingredients, and recordkeeping;
2. Scouting for weeds and related practices. Scouting, mapping, weed type, density, and
herbicide resistant corn varieties;
3. Water resources. Physical distances from groundwater, surface water and buffers, and
irrigation management plans; and
4. General practices. Herbicide rotations and dealer involvement in herbicide management.
After obtaining some very general NASS information, participants were then asked if they grew
corn during the 2014 cropping season (Q.1). The interview process ended if they had not
produced field or silage corn. Participants were then asked to identify the number of corn acres
planted (Q.2). Table 1 includes the number of respondents and associated corn acres by county
and Pesticide Monitoring Area. Also, included in Table 1 is the NASS total corn acres for
Minnesota (2014) and the percentage of acres surveyed.

7

Data Reporting and Limitations
The primary purpose of this survey was to obtain an understanding of basic herbicide
management practices associated with corn production. Participants were asked to identify the
herbicides used in very generic terms. Some knowledge of the herbicides used (i.e. soil applied,
post-emergent, etc.) is essential to understand the current management strategies associated with
them. It is important to note that the MDA and its partners provide a highly detailed herbicide
use and application rate report on a biennial basis4.
Due to the simplified method used to collect what is typically considered complex data, it is
imperative that the reader understand the limitations of the data sets. Many surveys conducted by
NASS employ advanced sampling strategies which are designed to statistically represent a nonhomogenous population, thus “weighting” the data to account for sample size, county size, and
crop acreage, etc. Such strategies can be very expensive and are not without their own
limitations.5 This survey did not employ such strategies; rather, corn farmers were randomly
selected from across Minnesota. Therefore, weighting across areas or counties was not
performed. The MDA can be contacted to further discuss interpretation of the survey data.

“2013 Pesticide Usage on Four Major Minnesota Crops” found on the MDA website at:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/pesticideuse.aspx
5
For an explanation of survey methods and data quality associated with annual county-level
data, visit the NASS “Quick Stats” Frequently Asked Questions website at:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Screens/faqs.htm
8
4

Table 1. Summary of respondents and corresponding corn acres by county and
PMAs.

County
Clay
Grant
Kittson
Mahnomen
Marshall
Norman
Pennington
Polk
Red Lake
Roseau
Traverse
Wilkin

Pesticide
Monitoring
Area (PMA)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Number of
Respondents
19
9
**
**
6
10
**
13
**
**
14
15

2014 Planted
Corn Acres§
110,000
115,500
**
**
28,300
77,200
**
69,200
**
**
133,000
95,500

Surveyed
Corn Acres
9,174
3,932
**
**
1,091
4,808
**
3,133
**
**
6,904
6,616

Percentage
of Acres
Surveyed
8
3
**
**
4
6
**
5
**
**
5
7

Totals

1

107

665,500

38,142

6

Becker
Benton
Cass
Crow Wing
Douglas
Hubbard
Kandiyohi
Morrison
Otter Tail
Pope
Sherburne
Stearns
Todd
Wadena

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

11
25
**
**
34
**
28
76
71
29
8
114
49
13

54,800
70,100
**
**
57,500
**
163,000
97,500
164,000
111,000
21,800
208,000
66,100
22,100

2,736
2,186
**
**
6,147
**
10,145
9,413
9,605
9,509
2,998
18,022
4,785
739

5
3
**
**
11
**
6
10
6
9
14
9
7
3

Totals

4

473

1,035,900

77,859

8

Chisago
Isanti
Kanabec
Mille Lacs
Pine

5
5
5
5
5

12
14
11
11
18

22,300
25,400
10,300
14,600
14,500

984
3,039
830
1,257
1,892

4
12
8
9
13

Totals

5

66

87,100

8,002

9

Big Stone
Chippewa
Lac qui Parle
Stevens
Swift
Yellow Medicine

6
6
6
6
6
6

11
28
28
26
25
30

102,000
150,500
180,000
149,000
198,000
199,000

3,775
10,161
9,099
11,176
11,505
14,155

4
7
5
8
6
7

Totals

6

148

978,500

59,871

6

9

County
Lincoln
Lyon
Murray
Nobles
Pipestone
Rock

§

Pesticide
Monitoring
Area (PMA)
7
7
7
7
7
7

Number of
Respondents
19
29
35
52
24
23

2014 Planted
Corn Acres§
123,000
190,500
187,000
221,000
117,000
148,500

Surveyed
Corn Acres
5,804
7,486
11,649
13,397
7,526
6,480

Percentage
of Acres
Surveyed
5
4
6
6
6
4

Totals

7

182

987,000

52,342

5

Blue Earth
Brown
Cottonwood
Faribault
Freeborn
Jackson
Le Sueur
Martin
McLeod
Meeker
Nicollet
Redwood
Renville
Rice
Sibley
Steele
Waseca
Watonwan
Wright

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

46
51
34
32
47
45
27
34
32
30
33
61
46
33
39
28
28
26
32

194,000
169,500
180,000
222,000
213,500
191,500
102,000
235,500
91,600
116,000
123,500
245,500
275,500
92,000
152,000
129,000
121,000
140,000
63,600

16,662
11,555
11,272
13,185
15,081
17,264
4,356
12,387
8,089
9,045
12,494
18,011
18,675
8,123
8,625
11,283
8,519
9,508
4,388

9
7
6
6
7
9
4
5
9
8
10
7
7
9
6
9
7
7
7

Totals

8

704

3,057,700

218,522

7

Dodge
Fillmore
Goodhue
Houston
Mower
Olmsted
Wabasha
Winona

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

20
54
62
33
30
40
42
54

141,000
194,000
161,000
61,100
225,500
133,000
99,700
85,500

5,436
12,902
14,531
3,762
11,560
7,798
8,022
7,875

4
7
9
6
5
6
8
9

Totals

9

335

1,100,800

71,886

7

Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Scott
Washington

10
10
10
10
10
10

**
26
23
**
18
12

**
47,800
94,200
**
34,900
21,400

**
2,461
6,857
**
3,228
2,104

**
5
7
**
9
10

Totals
10
88
215,200
State
All
2,103
8,127,700
Note: USDA/NASS Minnesota Corn Acreage Planted

10

15,361
7
542,570
7
** Not reported by NASS

Statewide Herbicide Applications and Management on Corn
Ninety five percent (95%) of the respondents reported using herbicides and those respondents
managed 98% of the corn acres reported in this survey (Table 2). As previously stated, if
herbicides were not used, the respondent’s survey was then concluded.
Tables 3 through 33 contain information from all corn producers that used herbicides. Because,
not all farmers answered every question, the sum of total acres and the sum of total respondents
are sometimes less than the statewide averages.
Participants were then asked who made the application (Q. 3). Forty-one percent (41%) of the
respondents reported self-applied, 47% of the respondents reported custom applied and 12% of
the respondents reported both self-applied and custom applied. Table 3 summarizes who applied
the application and the responses are grouped by PMAs.
Farmers who applied their own herbicides averaged 340 acres of corn while farmers who had
pesticides custom applied averaged 165 acres of corn. Farmers who both self-applied and custom
applied herbicides raised an average of 421 acres of corn.
Table 2. Percentage of respondents that used corn herbicides.

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro

Do You Use Herbicides?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Statewide
Statewide

Yes
No

11

Percent of All
Respondents
92
8
93
7
86
14
97
3
98
2
97
3
93
7
93
7
95
5

Table 3. “Did you: Apply herbicides yourself? Have herbicides custom applied?
Both?” (Q.3)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Application Type
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both
Self-Applied
Custom Applied
Both

Percent of
Respondents
60
27
13
43
52
5
47
53
0
38
44
18
48
37
15
40
44
16
30
62
8
44
44
12
41
47
12

Average
Corn Acres per
Respondent
403
218
610
238
119
164
168
106
0
538
236
548
335
199
375
418
174
459
274
181
387
209
134
248
340
165
421

Farmers were asked, “Do you know the active ingredients (a.i.) of the herbicides you used in
2014?” (Q.4). Based upon previous surveys, most farmers identified the product name (i.e.
“Roundup”, etc.), but identifying the AI (i.e. glyphosate) was considerably more challenging. Of
all statewide respondents (self-applicators and those that hired a custom applicator), 46% stated
they knew the a.i. in their herbicide applications and 9% stated they knew some of the a.i. (Table
4). Fifty-seven percent of the farmers that applied the products themselves6 were able to identify

Farmers that applied pesticides themselves, referred to as “self-applicators,” includes farmers
that self-apply and farmers that self-apply and custom apply (both), but not farmers who only
had herbicides custom applied.
12
6

the a.i. It must be emphasized that farmers were asked these questions “on the spot” and were not
given the opportunity to check their records during the telephone interview.
Table 4. “Do you know the active ingredients of the herbicides you used in
2014?” (Q.4)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Knew the Active
Ingredients
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some

13

Percent of All
Respondents
69
23
8
47
45
8
60
33
7
43
49
8
43
45
12
44
45
11
42
48
10
44
50
6

Percent of “SelfApplicators”
75
17
8
57
36
7
78
19
3
50
37
13
54
37
9
54
35
11
59
34
7
50
44
6

46
45
9

57
34
9

Producers were asked if they kept pesticide application records on the farm (Q.5). Sixty-eight
percent of all statewide respondents kept all their herbicide records on the farm and 3% kept
some records on the farm (Table 5). Eighty-four percent of the farmers that applied their own
herbicides kept records on the farm.
Table 5. “Do you keep herbicide application records on your farm?” (Q.5)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Kept “On Farm”
Pesticide Records
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some
Yes
No
Some

Percent of All
Respondents
79
17
4
60
37
3
61
35
4
73
25
2
76
22
2
74
23
3
59
39
2
62
34
4
68
29
3

14

Percent of SelfApplicators
85
12
3
74
24
2
78
22
0
83
13
4
91
8
1
90
8
2
84
13
3
73
19
8
84
14
2

Participants were asked about the practice of reading the label (Q.6) and the results are provided
in Table 6. Eighty-seven percent of all statewide respondents who applied herbicide themselves
usually read the label. This percentage drops to 64% for all farmers.
Table 6. “Do you usually read the label for pesticide products applied on your
farm?” (Q.6)

Pesticide Management Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Response to
“Reading the
Label”
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Percent of All
Respondents
79
21
57
43
60
40
66
34
74
26
66
34
58
42
62
38

Yes
No

64
36

15

Percent of SelfApplicators
86
14
85
15
89
11
91
9
88
12
88
12
88
12
75
25
87
13

Participants were asked if they applied atrazine to their corn acres. A “Yes” response means they
did use atrazine on at least some of their corn acres. A “No” response means they did not use
atrazine on any of their corn acres. Table 7 details the responses to the question of whether
atrazine was used and the percentage of farmers who knew if they applied atrazine (answered yes
or no). Statewide, thirteen percent of the respondents applied atrazine on some of their acres.
Table 7. “Was Atrazine applied on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes
included?” (Q.7)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro

Atrazine Applied
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know

Percent of All
Respondents
10
86
4
9
82
9
25
61
14
8
87
5
15
78
7
15
76
9
23
66
11
15
75
10

Percent of
Respondents
who Knew§
11
89
9
91
29
71
9
91
16
84
16
84
26
74
16
84

Statewide
Yes
13
16
Statewide
No
78
84
Statewide
Don’t Know
9
§ Percent was calculated using only those respondents who answered yes or no to the question.

16

Nine percent (173 farmers) of the producers were not aware whether their herbicide package
included atrazine (as an AI). Of this subgroup, 34% (or 59 farmers) knew the product(s) in their
package. Of the farmers that knew the product name(s), it was determined that 22% (or 13
farmers) did apply a product within their herbicide package that contained atrazine.
Tables 8-9 pertain to the farmers applying atrazine. Included are those farmers who answered,
“Yes”, to the question: “Was atrazine applied on any of your corn acres?” Farmers who
answered, “I don’t know”, were included if they were later determined to have applied atrazine
through identification of the product name. These farmers were classified through Q.7, Q.8, and
Q.9.
Table 8. “Was Atrazine incorporated on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes
included?” (Q.10)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Was Atrazine
Incorporated
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

17

Percent of
Respondents
50
50
38
62
31
69
27
73
22
78
34
66
28
72
33
67
32
68

Table 9. “Did you make more than one application of Atrazine to the same corn
field in 2014?” 7 (Q.11)
Was Atrazine
Applied More
Pesticide Monitoring Area Than Once
1 – Northwest Red River
Yes
1 – Northwest Red River
No
4 – Central Sands
Yes
4 – Central Sands
No
5 – East Central
Yes
5 – East Central
No
6 – West Central
Yes
6 – West Central
No
7 – Southwest
Yes
7 – Southwest
No
8 – South Central
Yes
8 – South Central
No
9 – Southeast
Yes
9 – Southeast
No
10 – Metro
Yes
10 – Metro
No
Statewide
Statewide

Yes
No

Percent of
Respondents
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
5
95
3
97
0
100
2
98

In previous surveys this question was worded as “Did you make a split application of Atrazine
on this field?” Because farmers were answering the question as yes when there was more than
one application, but more than one application did not include Atrazine the question was
changed to the current status. As a result very few farmers apply more than one application of
Atrazine to a field as opposed to the former question of split applying Atrazine.
18
7

Participants were asked if they applied acetochlor to their corn acres. A “Yes” response means
they did use acetochlor on at least some of their corn acres. A “No” response means they did not
use acetochlor on any of their corn acres. Table 10 details the responses to the question of
whether acetochlor was used and the percentage of farmers who knew if they applied acetochlor
(answered yes or no). Statewide, nine percent of the respondents applied acetochlor on some of
their acres.
Table 10. “Was Acetochlor applied on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes
included?” (Q.12)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro

Acetochlor Applied
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know

Percent of All
Respondents
6
84
10
5
71
24
2
70
28
9
70
21
15
64
21
11
63
26
13
57
30
4
74
22

Statewide
Yes
Statewide
No
Statewide
Don’t Know
§ Percent was calculated using only those respondents who answered

19

Percent of
Respondents
who Knew§
7
93
7
93
2
98
12
88
19
81
14
86
18
82
5
95

9
12
66
88
25
yes or no to the question.

Twenty five percent (495 farmers) of the producers were not aware whether their herbicide
package included acetochlor (as an AI). Of this subgroup, 56% (or 278 farmers) knew the
product(s) in their package. Of the farmers that knew the product name(s), it was determined that
60% (or 165 farmers) did apply a product within their herbicide package that contained
acetochlor.
Tables 11-12 pertain to the farmers applying acetochlor. Included are those farmers who
answered, “Yes”, to the question: “Was acetochlor applied on any of your corn acres?” Farmers
who answered, “I don’t know”, were included if they were later determined to have applied
atrazine through identification of the product name. These farmers were classified through Q.12,
Q.13, and Q.14.
Table 11. “Was Acetochlor incorporated on any of your corn acres in 2014,
premixes included?” (Q.15)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Was Acetochlor
Incorporated
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

20

Percent of
Respondents
67
33
30
70
33
67
52
48
48
52
57
43
43
57
75
25
49
51

Table 12. “Did you make more than one application of Acetochlor to the same
corn field in 2014?” 8 (Q.16)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Was Acetochlor Applied
More Than Once
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Percent of
Respondents
0
100
6
94
0
100
7
93
2
98
4
96
9
91
20
80
5
95

In previous surveys this question was worded as “Did you make a split application of
Acetochlor on this field?” Because farmers were answering the question as yes when there was
more than one application, but more than one application did not include Acetochlor the question
was changed to the current status. As a result very few farmers apply more than one application
of Acetochlor to a field as opposed to the former question of split applying Acetochlor.
21
8

Herbicide Program Decisions
Questions 17-20 were related to herbicide decisions. Only farmers who applied atrazine or
acetochlor answered these questions. Of the 2,103 farmers surveyed, 560 (27%) applied either
atrazine or acetochlor. The following questions were answered by those 560 farmers who applied
atrazine or acetochlor. Not all 560 farmers chose to answer each question.
Table 13. “Who decides what products to apply?” (Q.17)
Who Decides What
Pesticide Monitoring Area Product to Apply
1 – Northwest Red River
Farmer
1 – Northwest Red River
Dealer/Consultant
1 – Northwest Red River
Both
4 – Central Sands
Farmer
4 – Central Sands
Dealer/Consultant
4 – Central Sands
Both
5 – East Central
Farmer
5 – East Central
Dealer/Consultant
5 – East Central
Both
6 – West Central
Farmer
6 – West Central
Dealer/Consultant
6 – West Central
Both
7 – Southwest
Farmer
7 – Southwest
Dealer/Consultant
7 – Southwest
Both
8 – South Central
Farmer
8 – South Central
Dealer/Consultant
8 – South Central
Both
9 – Southeast
Farmer
9 – Southeast
Dealer/Consultant
9 – Southeast
Both
10 – Metro
Farmer
10 – Metro
Dealer/Consultant
10 – Metro
Both
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both

22

Percent of All
Respondents
50
17
33
30
30
40
44
17
39
29
16
55
35
13
52
32
13
55
21
27
52
13
50
37
30
20
50

Table 14. “Who decides when to apply the herbicides?” (Q.18)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Who Decides When to
Apply Herbicides
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both

23

Percent of All
Respondents
61
11
28
42
31
27
67
11
22
42
26
32
58
7
35
54
10
36
45
20
35
38
37
25
51
16
33

Table 15. “Who scouts your fields?” (Q.19)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Who Scouts
Your Fields
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Field Not Scouted

24

Percent of All
Respondents
56
17
22
5
48
35
15
2
56
11
33
0
45
34
21
0
54
16
29
1
49
19
32
0
50
19
31
0
56
19
25
0
50
22
27
1

Table 16. “Who determines if application setbacks or restrictions are appropriate
on your farm?” (Q.20)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide

Who Determines
Setbacks
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither
Farmer
Dealer/Consultant
Both
Neither

25

Percent of All
Respondents
50
28
22
0
41
38
20
1
56
22
17
5
34
37
26
3
49
23
27
1
48
24
27
1
40
34
22
4
38
31
31
0
45
28
25
2

Scouting for Weeds and Related Practices
Table 17. “Has someone mapped weed infestations in any of your fields in the
last three years?” (Q.21)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Weed Infestations
Mapped Last 3 Years
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

26

Percent of
Respondents
17
83
26
74
6
94
26
74
28
72
19
81
17
83
13
87
21
79

Table 18. “Do you choose herbicides based on type of weeds and/or density of
weeds?” (Q.22)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Herbicide Choice
Based on Weeds
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

27

Percent of
Respondents
89
11
86
14
89
11
95
5
97
3
97
3
90
10
81
19
93
7

Water Resources and Soil Resources
Table 19. “Do you know the soil texture of your farm?” (Q.23)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Soil Texture
Known of Farm
Soils
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

28

Percent of
Respondents
89
11
86
14
100
0
87
13
81
19
83
17
90
10
88
12
86
14

Table 20. “Do you know the organic matter level of your farm soils?” (Q.24)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Organic Matter Known
of Farm Soils
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

29

Percent of
Respondents
89
11
66
34
72
28
74
26
78
22
76
24
70
30
75
25
74
26

Table 21. “Do you know the depth to the water table in your field?” (Q.25)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Knowledge of Depth
to the Water Table
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Percent of
Respondents
44
56
48
52
56
44
39
61
33
67
37
63
33
67
56
44
39
61

Editor’s Note: Respondents that answered, “No” were then asked whether they believed that the
depth to groundwater exceeded 30 feet. Table 22 details those responses.

30

Table 22. “Is the water table at a depth greater than 30 feet?” (Q.26)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
Statewide

“Yes”
Response
Percent of
Respondents
56
49
33
39
47
40
61
50

“No”
Response
Percent of
Respondents
11
28
17
24
30
26
15
31

46

24

Don’t Know
Response Percent
of Respondents
33
23
50
37
23
34
24
19
30

Editor’s Note: Respondents who answered, “Yes”, to question 26 were then asked, “How was
the depth primarily determined?” Figure 1 details their responses.
Figure 1. Information sources used to determine water table depth (Q.26a)

31

Table 23. “Are any streams, lakes, or other surface waters immediately adjacent
to or in your corn fields?” (Q.27)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Surface Water
Adjacent to
or in Field
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

32

Percent of
Respondents
44
56
31
69
28
72
50
50
35
65
49
51
24
76
25
75
38
62

Editor’s Note: Respondents who answered, “Yes” to question 27 were then asked, “Are there
filter strips or vegetative buffers on any of these acres?” Table 24 details their responses.
Table 24. “Are there filter strips or vegetative buffers on any of these acres?”
(Q.28)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Filter Strips
or
Buffers
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

33

Percent of
Respondents
100
0
91
9
80
20
89
11
83
17
88
12
96
4
100
0
90
10

Editor’s Note: Respondents who answered “Yes” to question 28a in regards to having filter strips
or vegetative buffers were then asked, “Were they required as part of a conservation program?”
Table 25 details their responses.
Table 25. “Were they required as part of a conservation program?”(Q.28a)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Response
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

34

Percent of
Respondents
25
75
27
73
25
75
18
82
50
50
33
67
38
62
0
100
32
68

Table 26. “Do you irrigate corn?” (Q.29)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Irrigation
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Percent of
Respondents
6
94
20
80
0
100
11
89
0
100
3
97
3
97
31
69
6
94

Table 27. “Do you have an irrigation water management plan?” (Q.29a)
Irrigation Water
Pesticide Monitoring Area Management Plan
Statewide
Yes
Statewide
No

Percent of
Respondents
80
20

Editor’s Note. Only six percent (or 35) of the farmers used irrigation on corn acres; due to the
small numbers of farmers irrigating, only statewide data is reported. This is 6% of farmers using
atrazine or acetochlor.

35

Figure 2. “What type of tillage did you use before planting on the majority of your
corn aces?” (Q.30)

General Practices for Herbicide Application
Table 28. “Do you use precision applications for herbicides (variable rate
applications)?” (Q.31)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Variable Rate
Applications
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

36

Percent of
Respondents
56
44
35
65
50
50
37
63
49
51
43
57
42
58
50
50
43
57

Table 29. “In general, do you alternate use of herbicide products to keep weeds
from becoming resistant to herbicides?” (Q.32)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Response to Using
Alternative Herbicide
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

37

Percent of
Respondents
89
11
90
10
89
11
95
5
87
13
94
6
88
12
94
6
91
9

Table 30. “Did you reduce from previous applications, the rate per acre of any
corn herbicide?” (Q.33)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Reduced Rate from
Previous Applications
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

38

Percent of
Respondents
44
56
39
61
39
61
26
74
35
65
31
69
42
58
50
50
36
64

Table 31. “Did you select an herbicide with a different mode of action to reduce
weed resistance to herbicides?” (Q.34)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Selected Herbicide with
Different Mode of Action to
Reduce Weed Resistance
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

39

Percent of
Respondents
100
0
80
20
50
50
82
18
81
19
91
9
77
23
75
25
83
17

Table 32. “Did you choose a particular herbicide to reduce impacts to surface
water or groundwater?” (Q.35)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Chose Herbicide
to Reduce Impact
to Surface or
Groundwater
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

40

Percent of
Respondents
33
67
46
54
56
44
39
61
46
54
40
60
46
54
56
44
43
57

Table 33. “Did you band herbicide applications to reduce use?” (Q.36)

Pesticide Monitoring Area
1 – Northwest Red River
1 – Northwest Red River
4 – Central Sands
4 – Central Sands
5 – East Central
5 – East Central
6 – West Central
6 – West Central
7 – Southwest
7 – Southwest
8 – South Central
8 – South Central
9 – Southeast
9 – Southeast
10 – Metro
10 – Metro
Statewide
Statewide

Banded Herbicide
Applications to
Reduce Use
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

41

Percent of
Respondents
6
94
14
86
11
89
8
92
9
91
6
94
12
88
19
81
9
91

Appendix 1. Survey Form
Annual Pesticide Survey: Herbicide Applications and Practices on Corn for the 2014 Growing
Season

1.

Did you grow corn on your operation in 2014?

(Exclude sweet corn and popcorn)
□ Yes
□ No - conclude interview
2. How many corn acres were planted for field corn in 2014?
General Information
3. On your 2014 corn acres, did you:
Apply herbicides yourself
Have herbicides custom applied?
Both?
Don’t use herbicides [conclude interview]

1
2
3
4

4. Do you know the active ingredients of the herbicides you used on corn acres in 2014?
Yes = 1

No = 3

Some = 5

5. Do you keep herbicide application records on your farm?
Yes = 1

No = 3

Some = 5

6. Do you usually read the label for pesticide products applied on your farm?
Yes = 1

No = 3

42

Atrazine Specific Questions
7. Was Atrazine applied on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes included?
Yes = 1 (go to 10)

No = 3 (go to 12)

Don’t Know = 5

8. Do you know the products applied to your corn acres in 2014?
Yes = 1

No = 3

9. Were any of the following products applied on your corn acres in 2014?
**Computer list of products used
Yes = 1

No = 3 (go to 12)

10. Was Atrazine incorporated on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes included?
Yes = 1

I Don’t Know = 5

No = 3

11. Did you make more than one application of Atrazine to the same corn field in 2014?
Yes = 1

No = 3

p

I Don’t Know = 5

Acetochlor Specific Questions
12. Was Acetochlor applied on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes included?
Yes = 1 (go to 15)

No = 3 (go to 17)

Don’t Know = 5

13. Do you know the products applied to your corn acres in 2014?
Yes = 1
No = 3 (go to 17)
14. Were any of the following products applied on your corn acres in 2014?
**Computer list of products used
Yes = 1
No = 3 (go to 17)
15. Was Acetochlor incorporated on any of your corn acres in 2014, premixes included?
Yes = 1

Don’t Know = 5

No = 3

16. Did you make more than one application of Acetochlor to the same corn field in 2014?
Yes = 1

Don’t Know = 5

No = 3

43

The Following Questions Ask About how Decisions are Made Regarding Your Herbicide
Program.
17. Who decides what products to apply?
I do (the farmer)?
Dealer/Crop consultant?
Both together?

1
3
5

Enter Code

18. Who decides when to apply the herbicides?
I do (the farmer)?
Dealer/Crop consultant?
Both together?

1
3
5

Enter Code

19. Who scouts your fields?
I do (the farmer)?
Dealer/Crop consultant?
Both together?
Fields not scouted?

1
2
3
4

Enter Code

20. Setbacks or restrictions are part of many pesticide labels. Who determines if applications
setbacks or restrictions are appropriate on your farm?
I do (the farmer)?
Dealer/Crop consultant?
Both together?
Neither?

1
2
3
4

Enter Code

Scouting for Weeds and Related Practices
21. Has someone mapped weed infestations in any of your corn fields in the last three years?
Yes = 1

No = 3

22. Do you choose herbicides based on type of weeds and/or density of weeds?
Yes = 1

No = 3

44

Soil and Water Resources

23. Do you know the soil texture of your farm?
Yes = 1

No = 3

24. Do you know the organic matter level of your farm’s soils?
Yes = 1

No = 3

25. Do you know the depth to the water table in your fields?
Yes = 1

No = 3

26. Is the water table at a depth greater than 30 feet?
Yes = 1

Don’t Know = 5 (go to 29)

No = 3 (go to 29)

26 a. If yes, how was the depth primarily determined? (Check one)
Well driller for drinking water
Local knowledge
A dealer, consultant or crop advisor
Well log
None of the above

1
2
3
4
5

Enter Code

27. Are any streams, lakes or other surface waters immediately adjacent to or in your corn
fields?
Yes = 1

No = 3

(if no go to 29)

28. Are there filter strips or vegetative buffers on any of these acres?
Yes = 1

No = 3

(if no go to 29)

28 a. If YES, were they required as part of a conservation program?
Yes = 1

No = 3

29. Do you irrigate corn?
Yes = 1

No = 3 (if no go to 32)

If, yes,
29 a. Do you have an irrigation water management plan?
Yes = 1

No = 3
45

30. What type of tillage did you use before planting on the majority of your corn acres? (Fall and Spring)
Conventional < 15 residue
Reduced Tillage 15 – 30?
Conservation Tillage > 30?
Strip Tillage
No Tillage

1
2
3
4
5

Enter Code

General Practices for Corn Acres Only
31. Do you use precision applications for herbicides (variable rate applications)?
Yes = 1
No = 3
32. In general, do you alternate use of herbicide products to keep weeds from becoming resistant
to herbicides?
Yes = 1

No = 3

33. Did you reduce from previous applications, the rate per acre of any corn herbicide?
Yes = 1

No = 3

34. Did you select an herbicide with a different mode of action to reduce weed resistance to
herbicides?
Yes = 1

No = 3

35. Did you choose a particular herbicide to reduce impacts to surface water or groundwater?
Yes = 1

No = 3

36. Did you band herbicide applications to reduce use?
Yes = 1

No = 3

46