Label v’s agronomist

[nonemouse]

one for the TFF collective to think on.

Spraying for a customer today,
Large amount of one of Bayer’s black grass herbicides to spray.
The customers agronomist has done a recommendation sheet (and sent chemical) using a none Bayer adjuvant.
Now I dare say the product sent would probably work, BUT the label on the herbicide says it must be used with Bayer’s Biopower.

Now the label on an agro chemical is effectively a legal document, as the sprayer operator the buck stops with me, and if there was crop damage the first question my insurer would ask, no doubt would be did I follow label instructions.

Do you spray as per recommendation sheet or as the label?

 

[Bury the Trash]

there is always a disclaimer on the recommendation sheet which is blinkin annoying actually …..so I would go with the label.

 

[Robm 1959]

As contractor, definitely label

 

[B'o'B]

As you say the label gives the legal requirements for the chemical to be used, no agronomist can over rule that. As a contractor it does put you in an awkward position, the agronomist is being a bit daft as its not as if this is not a known issue with the Atlantis label and there are now off patent Atlantis look-a-like products that could have been sent to be used if he really didn't want to use Bio-power. I hope the farmer was/is understanding of your predicament.

 

[rob1]

A couple of years ago I had a rec sent to me to spray a customers field that couldnt be done in the autumn because his ground was still wet, he still wanted it done in the spring although the cut of date was end of dec, I refused and luckily the farmer backed me up, it was from one of the "big" name companies not an independant I should add

 

[Brisel]

one for the TFF collective to think on.

Spraying for a customer today,
Large amount of one of Bayer’s black grass herbicides to spray.
The customers agronomist has done a recommendation sheet (and sent chemical) using a none Bayer adjuvant.
Now I dare say the product sent would probably work, BUT the label on the herbicide says it must be used with Bayer’s Biopower.

Now the label on an agro chemical is effectively a legal document, as the sprayer operator the buck stops with me, and if there was crop damage the first question my insurer would ask, no doubt would be did I follow label instructions.

Do you spray as per recommendation sheet or as the label?

Rock and a hard place. Legally, you follow the label. In reality, you ring the farmer and agronomist and tell them what is wrong, then act on your customer's say so. Record the conversation. Odds are, they will say spray it anyway.

Out of interest, what other adjuvant did they send?

 

[Woodlander]

Some parts of the label are statutory, some are not. Wether or not it is a legal requirement to use Bio-power will depend where it is mentioned on the label. It may be the case that it is not a statutory requirement, and therefore you can use an alternative adjuvant, but don't expect manufacturer backup, the application would be at the growers risk.

 

[Wombat]

Some parts of the label are statutory, some are not. Wether or not it is a legal requirement to use Bio-power will depend where it is mentioned on the label. It may be the case that it is not a statutory requirement, and therefore you can use an alternative adjuvant, but don't expect manufacturer backup, the application would be at the growers risk.

So it’s in the direction for use, crop specific information part.

 

[ollie989898]

Do what you like just dont expected the manufacturers back up whatsoever if it doesnt work.

What about the foolish sorts who applied a product without using any of the obligatory adjuvant...? Or those foolish folks using biopower but with someone elses herbicide?
As the contractor you should probably inform the customer if you believe an error has been made. Dont get into an argument with anyone, in particular the agronomist if you can help it.

I always assumed that if the contractor torched someones crop after following my instructions the onus would be on me and my rec sheet, assuming there were no complications like a contaminated sprayer etc and of course he put the right chemical in. Its the reason everyone has insurance after all.

 

[Bogweevil]

This is really interesting - take Atlantis - no mention of adjuvant on the approval notice on CRD website. But insisted on on the label, but is it the part of the label with legal force? I would say a recommendation without a legal requirement...

 

[Woodlander]

So it’s in the direction for use, crop specific information part.

It's no longer easy to see which parts of the label are statutory or not. Until 2000 there was the 'Statutory box' which was replaced by the 'Statutory Area' CRD (PSD in those days) took this away, with the belief that operators were only reading the statutory parts of the label. By spreading the statutory bits throughout the label operators need to read the 'whole' label.

My understanding is that the following are statutory conditions of use on a label:

Operator protection and training requirements
Environmental protection requirements
Field of use, e.g. agriculture, horticulture etc.
Crops or situations for which treatment is permitted
Maximum individual dose
Maximum number of treatments or maximum total dose
Maximum area or quantity which may be treated
Latest time of application or harvest interval
Any other specific restrictions relating to a particular pesticide

Because there is the 'other specific restrictions' bit it really muddies the water.

The question is really for BAYER. Is the use of Bio-Power a Statutory Condition of Use or not. It's a shame Ian@bayer retired, he was a valuable member on here.

 

[Steevo]

Interesting this has come up for someone else given my comments in the Niantec thread a couple of days ago. Agronomist recommended Drill....I ended up opting for Biopower to be on the safe side after @Brisel did some detective work.

@Ian at Bayer suggested he was going to hand over to Miles and Mike. I could have sworn there was a "mike at bayer" on here that has contributed.

@Chris F might know.

 

[Chris F]

Ian has retired I believe. Mike May have an account on here. I was actually speaking to him today. I’ll let him know by email.

 

[Brisel]

The old Axial label stated "you MUST use Adigor" therefore I considered that a legal requirement. The Atlantis label isn't as forthright. I'm confused!

 

[Steevo]

The old Axial label stated "you MUST use Adigor" therefore I considered that a legal requirement. The Atlantis label isn't as forthright. I'm confused!

Seems like agronomists are just as confused!

As @Clive pointed out though.....is it worth the risk of reduced Atlantis performance given the cost involved. Assuming of course Bayer have chosen Biopower based on performance, rather than via the spiroxamine method.

 

[B'o'B]

What the label says is this:

CROP SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Winter Wheat

..... Always use Atlantis WG in mixture with authorised adjuvant Biopower (ADJ: 0617) at a rate of 1 L/ha......
​

The very next sentence is

Only one application of Atlantis WG should be made to the crop.
​

This is not particularly strongly worded given the incision of the word “should”. I would say, to me this is less strongly worded than the requirements to use Bio-power.

However the the maximum legal number of applications is definitely only 1 as it is stated in the important information box.

This inconsistency of language is not at all helpful to people who really want to do the right thing.

 

[David.]

Just thinking it through, does the generic adj label mention Atlantis?
Perhaps the registration of Atlantis is contingent on the use of only Biopower?

 

[Bogweevil]

Just thinking it through, does the generic adj label mention Atlantis?
Perhaps the registration of Atlantis is contingent on the use of only Biopower?

Nothing about that on the notice of approval on the CRD database...

 

[B'o'B]

Below is from the CRD authorization, which doesn’t get you any conclusive answers as the letter from the HSE referred to is not available and Appendix 3 is confidential and not available to the public:

Label:
The authorisation holder must only sell and supply the product with the agreed label, which is the label submitted with the application on 26 January 2017 (HSE ref.: W001778305) and label amendments as specified in Annex A to HSE’s letter dated 16 March 2017 and labelling requirements according to the Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (EC) No. 1272/2008 (see Appendix 3 of this authorisation).
​

For the sake of all the hassle not using Biopower could cause I really cannot see that any cost savings from using something else could possibly be worth it. If it ever made it as far as a courtroom it would be a hard one to call which way it would go.

 

[Hindsight]

What the label says is this:

CROP SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Winter Wheat

..... Always use Atlantis WG in mixture with authorised adjuvant Biopower (ADJ: 0617) at a rate of 1 L/ha......
​

The very next sentence is

Only one application of Atlantis WG should be made to the crop.
​

This is not particularly strongly worded given the incision of the word “should”. I would say, to me this is less strongly worded than the requirements to use Bio-power.

However the the maximum legal number of applications is definitely only 1 as it is stated in the important information box.

This inconsistency of language is not at all helpful to people who really want to do the right thing.

Hi, interesting comments.

My English Language education ended with a 'O' level. But my understanding of English is the words 'Always' and 'Should' are both objective command words with no ambiguity in interpretation.