XtendiMax® herbicide with VaporGrip® Technology, a restricted use pesticide, Bayer’s low-volatility dicamba herbicide has acquired a new 5-year registration from the EPA. At the same time, it has made a significant change in its label to better serve the needs of the growers and the industry. What is the rationale behind this move? Joining Todd Steinacher to explain this is Mark Dostal, the Bayer Agronomic Systems Manager. For more than 23 years, Mark has been part of the team behind the development of tools and strategies that make up a significant part of the international weed management repertoire. Using this experience, he discusses the evolution of weed management, specifically in soybean cultivation, and the important role of XtendiMax herbicide as a new, vigorous addition to its growing strategy toolbox.
Listen to the podcast here:
The XtendiMax® Herbicide Label: Expanding The Toolbox For Soybean Management With Mark Dostal
I had the pleasure of talking with Mark Dostal. He’s an Agronomic Technical Partner who works for Bayer Crop Science. Mark, it’s a pleasure to have you.
Mark, I do appreciate your time on our episode. We want to take a deeper dive into the world of soybeans and the traits that we’ve had in the past, and maybe the traits that we have moving forward. As we sit here looking in the 2021 growing season, it’s important to take some time and reflect on the traits that we have, and the journey that we’ve led to this point as we start to embark on the XtendFlex® [soybean] system. If you could take a little bit of time and tell us about the journey the soybeans have gone, that growers have experienced.
What a journey it’s been, Todd. I’ve been in the seed industry for well over twenty-plus years here. It’s been amazing to look at where we’ve started. I remember the days of going out through unconventional soybeans. Ever since then, it’s been evolving into not only better and higher germplasm into genetics, but different ways to manage these products. I remember when we’re looking at conventional beans, that if you had a soybean cyst nematode problem, you took a severe beating on it. From a breeding standpoint, we have improved not only from a genetic and germplasm, but how to protect that from potential biotic and antibiotic diseases out there. From that aspect, it’s continued to evolve, looking at Roundup Ready® Technology. That’s probably been one of the biggest advancements in soybean production. How do we manage weeds in these fields there?
It started at basic as Roundup Ready®. From there, we’ve seen it continue to evolve. We’ve seen other trait platforms out there, whether it’s been Roundup Ready, LibertyLink®. We started to see some of the different technologies coming in from a group for herbicides standpoint. Now we’re seeing combinations of those different herbicide platforms all coming together. That’s where we’re getting to a point right now where we’re able to make advancements in breeding technology, and couple that with how do we manage and protect yield. In this case, we’re looking at how do we continue to advance our weed control.
I think if you have a conversation with growers out there raising soybeans, they’re going to tell you probably their number 1 or 2. Their number one is probably soybean cyst nematode, but from something that is visual out there, it’s going to be weed management. How do we continue to look at using additional modes of action to help protect soybean technology? The evolution has been from conventional platforms to a Roundup-only single mode of action products out there, to now seeing stacks of Roundup Ready Xtend® platforms. We’re seeing Roundup XtendFlex platform, and even looking farther into the future, which is going to be incredibly important and fascinating in my opinion.
I don’t quite have the seasonedness that you have in the seed industry, but coming out of college in 2006, Roundup soybeans have already been on the market for quite some time. That evolution of seeing the different traits come now and maybe one day, I’ll be sitting in your shoes to reflect back on twenty years of the soybean industry. Coming out of college, working with a lot of growers at the retail level, experiencing the evolution of some of these weeds is challenging. To me, there used to be a time where weeds were somewhat easier to kill and control. Now we’re having to add residuals and start mixing up our modes of action, and watching what species are out there, and weed height and how that’s going to interact with the water, and the time of day. Weed management is a bigger piece than it probably ever has been. Would you agree to that?
Yes. Going back again, pre-Roundup Ready technology, you had to be sharp. People that have lived through that evolution there, the commonality or the comments being made were Roundup Ready technology made a lot of marginal growers good because it was a one size fits all. We’ve watched and ridden that wave over time so that we’ve gotten to the point where that’s no longer going to get us to where we need to be. We’ve looked at what has happened when we’ve been reliant upon a single mode of action technology here. That’s exactly what we’re seeing right now is that we can no longer rest on our laurels to take that blanket approach for soybean management.
We need to start getting back to some of those basics, some of those holistic IPM strategies, and weed management. If we look at the technology that we have in front of us and if we utilize the same mentality and thought process that goes into what we had done from a weed management perspective there, we are going to burn out these brand new platforms and herbicide technologies in no time. That’s why it’s still incredibly important that we continue to look at a holistic approach to weed management. Look at the amount and the numbers of glyphosate-resistant weed species that are impacting soybean growers across the US, and look at the yield those guys have taken when we’re not able to protect that yield potential. Looking at Roundup Xtend soybeans, if a grower says, “I know I can control weeds with Roundup and dicamba,” you will pick up a clean field. You’ll pick up grasses and broadleaf weeds.
Those are the only two technologies that you’re going to use on that acre. We are destined to repeat history here by having additional resistance showing up because we do not want to follow our footsteps from the glyphosate era where we live. If a quart was good and as you said, Todd, we used to have excellent control with a quart of Roundup. We’re no longer in that world. We need to start adding and bumping up, increasing levels there. I don’t want to see that happen with dicamba and our other technologies here. That’s why it’s incredibly important for growers to start thinking more holistically. I need that residual. I need to start clean and I need to keep that field clean. When you’re looking at it from an agronomic perspective here, that weed-free period is important because we need to make sure we’re staying on top of weeds when they’re small.
I still remember going through some weed science courses in my training here. It became clear and obvious that we can kill many more weeds pre-emergence and early post-emergence versus waiting until they get above that labeled recommendation. Those weed heights are important to follow. We need to make sure that when that weed height is hitting in that less than 4 inches, that we get out there. Todd, you and I have been in the field long enough. You get wind, rain, multiple acres and a grower simply isn’t able to get across all of those fields. That’s why it’s important to make sure that you’re thinking through strategically, how do we do our best job to make sure we’re managing the available tools we have. I don’t know if we need to or can burn down every single acre, but we need residuals in our soybean fields. That helps buy us additional time to make sure that we do have that window to get back out there in that post-emergence application.
It’s common knowledge that one-pass system. I think growers need to look at realistically implementing a two-pass program. The days of planting, followed by a sprayer, and the next time in that field is with the combine. Unfortunately, those days are gone. We need to manage this crop because the potential is there. We have the potential to maximize yields by managing it like we do and have been doing with our corn acres. To answer your question, we have seen a true evolution in weed management, but we need to also start thinking about implementing some of those practices that have gotten us here so that we don’t repeat history by creating more of a resistance mess out there than what we have now.
A lot of times I have conversations with growers, middle of the season, towards the end of the season. They say, “That residual I use didn’t work. I had all these weed problems out there still.” I sit back and say, “Tell me what type of weed problems did you have.” They start explaining them and I say, “Tell me the product they utilized.” They tell me and we start looking at the label. Those weeds weren’t even on that label. In a grower’s mind, maybe they say “residuals” don’t work, but realistically it does if we use the right residual for the right weed pressures that we have. It’s so important to know not only the weed pressure history of given fields and farms but understanding what products we’re using here. Not every residual is created equal. It’s important to do your homework and understanding what modes of actions are in these tank-mix products, but also what weeds are they going to go after, and which ones are we not going to go after. From an educational standpoint, moving forward, you referenced strategic thinking. I think it’s time to start thinking that the next layer of what products can support our needs.
We need to continue to educate growers, and that’s where folks like you and your colleagues out there with AgriGold are such a key element of that production system there. You can look at it from an unbiased standpoint because of the sheer volume of acres that you guys walk in the season to be able to go ahead and say, “Here’s a product or a system that I’ve seen that has been working.” You can then start to generate that idea of, “We know we have to start clean, whether that’s through tillage or a combination of herbicides in a burndown situation followed by.” It’s important to recognize that we need to start thinking outside of that one size fits all. “Joe down the road has been doing this and that, and he’s been having good luck.” He may or may not have the same weed spectrum, weed pressure tillage practices, soil types, all of those other things that come into play here.
That’s why we are trying to get back to a field by field description to hopefully create a weed system that fits that grower’s operation. You and I both know that it’s not feasible for a grower to say, “This field over here, I’m going to treat it this way with this tank mix, and this system over here with this tank mix.” We need to be practical. We need to think through what is a grower going to do and try to make some of those things. As we start looking to the future, I’m sure you’ve heard that XtendiMax Dicamba has received EPA approval. This is a huge milestone and it didn’t get here overnight.
As a matter of fact, when I visit with some of our internal folks here at Bayer, they’re telling me that conversations with the EPA began last February 2020. For those of you that are aware and understand that the old XtendiMax herbicide label was set to expire on December 20th of 2020. We knew we were going to have to go through reregistration here. Those early conversations were well ahead of even if you think about last June, Ninth Circuit Court, we were even ahead of that, trying to identify what could happen and what might happen. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks outside of ag that aren’t in favor of any pesticides. Atrazine is now being targeted for additional lawsuits and litigation. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world that we live in.
When we’re looking at XtendiMax herbicide and the label that we’ve got, is it perfect? No, but it’s important that if you look at and think through the lens of people that are going to be scrutinizing, the XtendiMax herbicide label starts to become clear as you drive through some of the details on it. One, we wanted to put together a label here where growers could look at a system, feel extremely comfortable and competent that this system is here, and it’s here to last. That’s why we’re happy to say that we’ve got a five-year herbicide registration with the EPA. That’s like any other herbicide out there. The other thing that you’ll want to know and think through, and it’ll help you understand some of the language within the label here is that we needed to make sure as an industry that the label will be able to stand up in court of law.
We anticipate that it’s going to be challenged, just like other herbicide technologies that are currently available and approved are going to be challenged in the marketplace in the court of law. With that in mind, you can start to see and understand how the label came to be. Beginning back in February with weekly conversations between the industry and the EPA, here’s the label that we’ve got. You’ll see a lot of things that are good for growers, good for the industry, that we’ll be able to defend it in a court of law. Some of those changes are most importantly the simplicity. Look back at the older label and there was a whole host of crops that looked like a cut and paste from other dicamba labels.
If you looked at Clarity or look at anything else, it looked like it was a carbon copy. This new label is unique for XtendiMax herbicide chemistry. One of the things that they did to simplify it is they limit it to dicamba-tolerant soybean and dicamba-tolerant cotton. They removed all of those other applications that if you think back and you look at the old label, there was asparagus, corn, rangeland, and pastures. All of those things are gone. When you took a 40-page document or the old label, we’ve been able to skinny that up to about twenty pages. It has made it much easier to find required and needed documentation in it to hopefully help applicators know where to find different elements to it there. With the old label being vacated, that is like saying it didn’t even exist.
That’s why you will see a new EPA number. With that, gum’s a whole new set. That’s why it did take a little bit longer to pull this through the EPA. It was not a simple reregistration. It was essentially a newly registered product that had to go through all the other regulatory hoops and hurdles that any other new registration would go through. Some of the changes from a grower or from an applicator’s point of view is looking at it’s been simplified. The application window is the same, meaning that we can spray burn down pre-emergence and post-emergence up to R1.
If you think back to the old label, you had the window of opportunity to spray within 45 days after planting. That’s no longer there. What the EPA has done is says, “We want a national cutoff period. We’re going to go to June 30th for soybean, regardless of where those acres are planted in the US, and July 30 for cotton.” Another significant thing that the EPA came out in and wanted to push is uniformity of enforcement to the label. One of the things that we had seen historically was a patchwork of 24(c) state labels. Each state had the ability to go ahead and implement their own products or their own implementation of them.
When you’re talking about the differences or the changes between our new label here and the old labels there. There are some significant changes to it. One of those changes and the information that was required to grant approval from the EPA came from over 65 different studies across the industry, where not only internally were we conducting studies, but also the other dicamba manufacturers were conducting studies, but also academic from about a dozen different land-grant universities. Some of those studies were looking at when an applicator makes these sprays, how do we make sure that we have a minimal amount of off-target movement if any? Some of those things get down into the day of application.
When you look at this label and like any other herbicide label out there, it is still upon the applicator to make sure he is doing everything he can per the label. Common sense has to come into play here as well. We want to make sure that wind gusts, wind changes, and those types of things are real. We need to make sure we’re managing for them. Some of the changes that you need to be aware of here are buffers. While buffers are not new, we want to make sure we’re implementing the buffers according to the label. With that buffer here, we need to make sure from it where it was, 110 feet, we are now looking at 244 sensitive crops downwind. That’s the important part we need to remember here.
We have sensitive crops. Whether we have corn, under all situations and circumstances, every application must have an approved buffer distance in it. Let’s also keep in mind what can go into those buffer zones. The easiest one that I can share and think of is corn. If you’ve got a cornfield in the downwind position of your Xtend or XtendFlex beans here, and you’re making an XtendiMax herbicide application, that cornfield is now your buffer, 240 feet into that field. When you think or hear buffer, it’s not like you have to leave 240 feet of untreated soybeans in your field. You’re able to move that buffer into the neighboring cornfield. It’s important that you think through, how do we implement this buffer? We also need to recognize that we still have a whole host of available tools to make sure we’re managing weeds within that buffer. Some other significant things that we also want to make sure we’re recognizing here is that we have the addition of DRA, Drift Reduction Agents.
Whereas on the old label, if the label within the application requirements for extended guidelines calls for it, you need to be adding drift agents with it. In addition to drift agents, every application of XtendiMax herbicide is now going to be requiring a buffering agent. The one that we’re going to be promoting the most is VaporGrip Xtra. It comes in a separate jug. An applicator is going to be dumping in his XtendiMax herbicide. He will then also be dumping in VaporGrip Xtra or a buffering agent. The science behind that is it prevents the volatility to occur by tying up the dicamba and ion. It prevents it from turning into a dicamba acid, which is the volatile component there.
From an application with a logistics standpoint, you will dump in your VaporGrip Xtra first, followed by your XtendiMax herbicide product there. You want to condition that water and a spray solution first before you dump in the XtendiMax herbicide. That’s important that you do it. Every single application will require a VaporGrip Xtra or a buffering agent. You’re going to be seeing a lot of the egg retail space out there. Distributors will be coming up with their own buffering solution. Those are fine as long as you’re able to find them on the approved paint mix label. That is going to be on the website that you will find those types of things. Because this is a newly registered product there, we are going through all of the tank mix testing processes.
We’re doing the compatibility to make sure they don’t have any problems. We’re doing the wind tunnel screenings as well. There’s a whole battery of tests that the EPA has laid out that we are required to follow to make sure that we’re not changing the chemical profile of anything, and we’re not impacting the volatility, spray patterns, or anything like that. You can feel comfortable knowing that we’re doing our due diligence to make sure that any tank-mix products that are listed have gone through those testing. That is why, unfortunately, they’re not listed or pulled up on the website. We are working through the testing. We will make sure that everything is finalized before we go ahead and populate the approved tank mixes. There are some things that I’m happy to say haven’t changed. One of those things is thinking through spray inversions. We know that happens and we have seen them time and time again.
Unfortunately, when we spray in calm conditions, and that’s another thing that hasn’t changed from 3 miles an hour, 10 miles an hour. That is our sweet spot for making those herbicide applications. When you get into those potential areas from 0 to 3 miles an hour, you don’t have any mixing. We know even with an ultra-coarse spray nozzle that we can still have that spray mist, and it doesn’t settle down onto the targeted crops. That’s why during those inversions, we don’t want to speed spraying it all. If you look at other herbicide labels, it tells you the same things, do not apply in an inversion. With that, when new inversions occur, it’s going to occur in the early morning and in the early in the evening, late afternoon timeframe. Our label will go ahead and say do not spray an hour after sunrise or a couple of hours before sunset to avoid those inversion peak times of the day there.
Those are some of the biggest things that I want to make sure that we’re calling out. We want to make sure that we’re paying attention to the buffers, which have changed. They have increased. If you recall my earlier comment on making sure we have a label that’s defensible, that’s a key area to look at right there. That was one area when you go back and dive into the transcripts from the Ninth Circuit Court, that was an area that they called out, especially when it deals with the environmentally sensitive areas. That is where we’ve seen it even increased more because that was a highlight called out during that court litigation. You can start to see and piece together how this label fits in what we’re looking at.
We wanted to make sure it’s defensible. We wanted to make sure that it’s simplified. We want to make sure that this is still an available tool for growers to use, because in our earlier comments, looking at glyphosate resistance, looking at PPO resistance, ALS, any of those other families, we know that this is a valuable tool. I say that because during the registration process, look at all of the supporting groups that stood up and says, “Our growers need this technology.” We haven’t seen that level of support in the past. That’s why as we kicked up the conversation on the evolution of soybean management and technology, we know that this is an extremely valuable tool as we continue to look at how do we continue to aid growers in managing weed resistance. This is one of many tools. Let’s not look at this as the only tool in the toolbox, but it is one of many tools.
Another significant part of this label here is in the simplification of it. I like this part because it’s simple, even I can remember. That is no matter when you’re applying it, if grower says, “Todd, what labeled rate should I use in XtendiMax herbicide?” you can easily and blindly answer without question, 22 ounces. Whether you run a burned down situation, a pre-emergent situation, right after planting, or into your early posts, your labeled rate is 22 ounces. Minimum and maximum, it’s 22 ounces. For me, it’s easy. When the grower says, “My weeds are 2 inches tall. My beans have not flowered. I’m not into R1. What labeled rate should I use?” 22 ounces. That is a change from what we were at. We could go, pre-emergence, up to 44 fluid ounces. Now it’s just at 22.
When I think about since the label has been published here, some of the questions that came out from growers or others like you, Todd, “Why didn’t they dump in more VaporGrip® Xtra [Technology] and call it that rather than having a separate jug?” That separate jug is going to cost grower $1.5, maybe $2 an acre. If we can keep that from happening as far as volatility, it’s a good deal. The original point here is that because this was a new registration and because we also recognize speed to the market because growers are making their seed purchase decisions. We did not want to have to delay any additional testing, any additional proof of concept, or any of those things.
From an applicator standpoint, we wanted to keep it simple and keep it clean. We knew that VaporGrip is an incredibly important key component, but we also knew we got to get to the market as quickly as we can because you need to start thinking about all of the logistics. You are going to start pumping out bulk tanks so that you can refill them with the new formulation. We know we have to do that with the package goods and relabel everything. From the simplicity of it, that is why the two products are held separate, even with the addition of VaporGrip Xtra. VaporGrip Xtra is approved for any and all dicamba formulations. You’re going to be seeing some actions on our part from DiFlexx® [Herbicide], Clarity® [Herbicide], and Engenia®[Herbicide]. This technology works with all of those other dicamba formulations. I can see it being recommended in some of those other platforms as well to help get away from the volatility potential because dicamba is still the fifth most used herbicide in corn.
We know that there is still a tremendous amount of dicamba that goes in corn because it’s effective, but also it works in that system taking care of some of those other resistance species out there. We also need to recognize that some of those other dicamba formulations being used in other crops or corn are not the low volatile formulation. If we can start using VaporGrip Xtra or buffering agents in those other situations, we then can get away from the perception that it came off of the XtendFlex soybean acre. We’ve seen an expansion of this technology going out there across the marketplace. I want to make sure we’re all clear. The addition of buffering agents like VaporGrip Xtra still does not allow for the addition of AMS. We still are firm on not allowing AMS into the spray tank.
We have other water conditioners, not AMS based if you do have with hard water situations. That is still something we need to continue to drive awareness and knowledge on. Unfortunately, when you look at the tank makes the additive world, there are a lot of products that may not specifically call out, “This is an AMS containing product.” That’s where we want to make sure that the applicators and growers know what’s going into that tank. One of the things that do not change in addition to those in the training. If you got aggressive and pulled down the master Xtend label as it was first published there, you saw that on Bayer’s XtendiMax herbicide label there that training once it was taken, and it must be taken prior to application, it was allowed to go every other year. We have pulled back and made an amendment to that label and we’ve done so because we want to be consistent across the industry.
If you were to look at the Engenia master label as it came out of the EPA, their requirement was annual training. Rather than having two competing training platforms out there or sequences, we’re going to amend our label to go to every year. From a Bayer perspective, that means no changes whatsoever because we were gearing up for annual training. That was one thing that the industry look at it and said, “Let’s do this.” Rather than have a BASF go out there and fight to get to our label, it was a much easier conversation for Bayer to say, “We’ll go ahead amend our label to be consistent with the industry and promote annual training prior to application.” That is one thing that if you’re looking at a label that came out on October 29, 2020, versus a label that you would find now, that would be a significant change to it.
Let me touch on the state approvals because those are still pending. I believe we had 10 or 12 different states have gone ahead and made their state approvals. One of the things that the EPA wanted to see here is uniform consistency across the industry here. That is one reason that they had promoted and put on the label, the uniform cut updates, June 30 for soybean for example. We don’t want to see that patchwork of different state labels out there for June 20, June 30, and July 10. We wanted to get away from that because of the confusion in the marketplace. When you look at how state 24(c) labels are created, it’s a local special need use that can expand the use of the label beyond what the federal label does.
The EPA has come out and says, “State 24(c) labels are not meant to be more restrictive. We want to make sure that growers are still able to use this holistically across.” What a state 24(c) label would prevent is restricting what the federal label does. State 24(c) labels can expand upon the use. An example would be if you read the label, the XtendiMax herbicide label is approved for dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton. An expansion of that label could say the State of Nebraska, they want to expand that label to include corn. That would be an acceptable use for a state 24(c) label. It’s an expansion of an existing label. You look at the other ways that states have the ability to manage and control how this technology is being utilized in their own state. That is through a state 24(a) label.
If you look at the state of Arkansas, they have implemented a state 24(a). That is more of the rulemaking than a temporary, typically a nine-month, state 24(c) label. A state 24(a) is more permanent and longer-lasting, but it also takes a significant more amount of time, energy, and effort to create. The State of Arkansas has created a state 24(a), and they have a much earlier cut-off period. Other states could do that but bear in mind, it takes generally about a year for a state legislation body, complete with open comment periods in hearing who create those state 24(a). We do not think we will see a patchwork of state regulations like we have in the past when implementing this label.
Mark, I appreciate all the information. It’s always handy to have labels and truly understand what does change from product one or product two. I am happy that this product is a tool for growers to use moving forward, especially that we’re at a stage where we’re making a lot of decisions for 2021. As you said, it’s a great tool for the toolbox. We got to be strategic thinkers. Think about how we can use this in a system in conjunction with good residuals, but at the end of the day, understanding the federal label and understanding from a state standpoint, that state label, to how it’s going to work in your own state so we’re all on the same page and uses technology respectfully. The other takeaway I took was to watch the type of water that we’re using with the XtendiMax Herbicide to make sure we’re not having the volatility issues.
We have the VaporGrip pieces that we can add into it prior to adding in the looks main product to minimize any type of issue. A lot of things are going out there. It’s not as easy as filling a tank up with water, putting some AMS into it, putting some Roundup into it. A system is a little bit more complex, but in the era of production, agriculture things are getting complex as it is. That’s where it’s important to work with good local advisors to make a good, appropriate decisions. With that, Mark, I would like to thank you for your time and all the advice you’ve given to me and all of our readers. Thank you.
I enjoy what I do working with folks like you in the entire AgriGold agronomy group. They’re second to none in my opinion. I want to thank you for your time as well.
Bayer is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship® (ETS). Bayer products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Bayer’s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. Commercialized products have been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship® is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship.
XtendiMax® herbicide with VaporGrip® Technology is part of the Roundup Ready® Xtend Crop System, is a restricted use pesticide and must be used with VaporGrip® Xtra Agent (or an equivalent vapor reducing agent). For approved tank-mix products (including VRAs and DRAs), nozzles and other important label information visit XtendiMaxApplicationRequirements.com.
ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. It is a violation of federal and state law to use any pesticide product other than in accordance with its labeling. NOT ALL formulations of dicamba or glyphosate are approved for in-crop use with Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® soybeans. NOT ALL formulations of dicamba, glyphosate or glufosinate are approved for in-crop use with products with XtendFlex® Technology. ONLY USE FORMULATIONS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LABELED FOR SUCH USES AND APPROVED FOR SUCH USE IN THE STATE OF APPLICATION. Contact the U.S. EPA and your state pesticide regulatory agency with any questions about the approval status of dicamba herbicide products for in-crop use with Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® soybeans or products with XtendFlex® Technology.
Roundup Ready® Technology contains genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate. Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® soybeans contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate and dicamba. Products with XtendFlex® Technology contains genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, glufosinate and dicamba. Glyphosate will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Dicamba will kill crops that are not tolerant to dicamba. Glufosinate will kill crops that are not tolerant to glufosinate. Contact your seed brand dealer or refer to the Bayer Technology Use Guide for recommended weed control programs.
XtendiMax® is a restricted use pesticide. Not all products are registered in all states and may be subject to use restrictions. The distribution, sale, or use of an unregistered pesticide is a violation of federal and/or state law and is strictly prohibited. Check with your local dealer or representative for the product registration status in your state. Bayer, DiFlexx®, Roundup Ready 2 Xtend®, Roundup Ready 2 Yield®, Roundup Ready®, VaporGrip®, XtendFlex® and XtendiMax® are registered trademarks of Bayer Group. LibertyLink® and LibertyLink® and the Water Droplet Design®, Clarity®, and Engenia® are trademarks of BASF Corporation. For additional product information call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.BayerCropScience.us. Bayer CropScience LP, 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63167. ©2021 Bayer Group. All rights reserved.
Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!
Join the Yield Masters Podcast Community today: