WESTERN Australian farmers are expressing their frustration at the decision to change the requirements surrounding the use of 2,4-D herbicide products.
In October Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) handed down a number of changes to the rules regarding 2,4-D use in order to minimise the risk of spray drift, which has caused problems for a number of summer croppers in eastern Australia.
Mic Fels, who has farms at both Esperance, in the state’s south-east and near Geraldton, in the northern cropping region, said Western Australian farmers were being unfairly penalised for events on the east coast.
He said a Twitter survey poll he conducted found that just one in 35 WA farmers felt there needed to be changes to the label, compared to much higher rates supporting the changes among eastern farmers.
“I don’t know if we are doing something differently or whether the weather conditions are different but we just don’t have those problems with drift,” Mr Fels said.
“Obviously WA is not a big summer cropping state so we don’t have the economic impact of summer spray drift incidents that are so visible elsewhere but I just don’t think it happens, we would notice trees suffering and things like that if it was.”
“We all know not to spray in an inversion and to do the right thing, we all have that obligation and we all don’t want to waste expensive chemical, so it seems ridiculous we are forced to comply with an onerous condition that has nothing to do with us.”
Mr Fels said the major issue WA farmers had with the changes was in terms of the droplet size.
“It will mean we have to push our water rate way up to get effective cover and given the size of many operations over here it is going to make a big difference to our efficiency.”
“This is not just about cowboy operators wanting to do things however they like, we feel we are doing a good job in terms of stewardship and that the changes are a blanket response to a regional issue.”
“We want to keep this chemistry, 2,4-D is very effective against summer weeds, such as fleabane, that is not controlled well by glyphosate.
“With that, we understand that in order to keep these chemistries we have to do the right thing and that if we drift and damage the environment or other crops we risk it being banned, but this label change is not the answer.”