KDD - 7/21/2017 23:26

You can put however much stock in a Monsanto statement as you choose. I do not necessarily take everything they say totally at face value, nor do I think anyone should. Neither do I think that everything that comes from them are lies. Make your own call. The linked statement seems reasonable to me, but we all should expect them to follow through with what they said in that statement. We will see. I will at least give them a chance. That much seems fair....

I took their comment about dicamba sales to be numbers they obtained from other industry/wholesaler sources. I assume the older formulations would have come from other companies more than directly from Monsanto, so the sales figures were probably from wholesalers?

No argument about a substantial increase in dicamba damage CLAIMS. That may turn into an increase in actual damages, but to what extent, we really don't know, yet.

My statement of experience regarding damage and yield is just that: it is what I have actually seen. I made no claim at all about "the percent loss of dicamba damage situations." I simply said that SOME situations did not result in any yield loss. I never claimed that to be the case the majority of the time, or any other percent of the time. I just know it is the case sometimes. I did not say we should not be worried.

I don't know "how much damage was done in AR last year or how much damage S IL has experienced this year?" What is your point? I have plainly said there are legitimate cases of damage, that no case should be ignored, and that damages should be compensated. My point is that we do not know those answers yet for this year, and that jumping to conclusions about each and every case being true as claimed is a bit premature. I suspect the majority will come back as legitimate dicamba damage, but we don't yet know how much damage or by what mechanism. We need to know.

You seem to argue that since there are cases of proven yield damage that have been experienced over the years, that experience automatically cancels out any experience of some cases where yield damage did not occur. How is that mutually exclusive? I say both experiences can be the truth. But you seem to claim only negative experience should be considered. Cannot both occurrences, yield reduction in some cases, no yield reduction in other cases, have happened? Again, I have never said nor inferred that there has not been damage. I have very plainly said, in almost every post I have made on the subject, damages should not be ignored and should be compensated. Are you saying my experience does not count? That only the experiences of those who have had damage should be heard? Kinda one-sided, don't you think?? I am simply saying both experiences should be heard.

I have never seen or heard anyone here or in person say anything like your claim that "many Extend (sic) growers"...are saying... "I didn't see any damage personally so those saying that damage is occurring must be mistaken." That would be a foolish statement, and I don't think any reasonable person would make such a claim.

You infer that I or others are making excuses and denying that there is a problem. I don't know how I could more plainly acknowledge that there is a problem. But I also know that here, for us, the product has worked.

What I am denying, I suppose, is the "drumbeat" that I hear from some that goes like this: Every case is the same, There will always be yield reductions, The user is never at fault, that a total ban of this product would be a good solution for every location, and Monsanto is evil just because I don't like them.

What I am saying is, Some cases are similar, some are not. There will sometimes be yield reductions, sometimes not. The user might sometimes be at fault, other times the product moved. A localized, seasonal ban might be a partial solution. And, I want companies like Monsanto and others big and small to be around to offer me reasonably priced and reasonably safe and reasonably effective tools to use in my business, now and in the future, because without this and similar technology, it will be much harder to be good stewards of the land and make a living while feeding a growing world population. I don't want to be headed back towards "forty acres and a mule".

If that's a "company line", then so be it.