|
Leesburg, Ohio | If you mean "following the label if you hope to have success with the program", then yes, that is the way for all to go.
If you mean "since it works for a bunch of guys in Ohio and several other states, therefore all MUST use this technology" then no, of course not.
If you mean "I am scared that I might someday have some risk of crinkled leaves, and therefore none in the land should be allowed to use this product", then no, that is certainly NOT what should happen.
This is exactly the point I am trying to make...so many want to take it to extremes, ban it all, ban it forever, lets don't even try to figure out what really happened, lets go off half-cocked and take extreme and permanent action before we even have a chance to confirm anything. This is in large part what is wrong with America.
Would it not be better for all involved to at least try to confirm how this problem is occurring, and see if there might be a less extreme solution, while at the same time giving those with damage a chance to be either compensated by whoever sprayed the product, or a chance to see how much yield loss really occurred? You surely don't think every case will be the same, and that losses will all be 100%. How much will the loss be? You want to pick a number? you're not going to pick mine! | |
|
When the dicamba controversy settles out...
