Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need

News Feed
Wednesday, October 30, 2024

What Our Investigation Revealed Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season. Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it. Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics. Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety. Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans. As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Why It Matters Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans. Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings. Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need. Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests. However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic. Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.” In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists. These findings are significant for a few key reasons. First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed. Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097) Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields. But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.” Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide IndustryRead all the stories in our series: Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans. Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide. Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides? Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use. Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way. At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept. So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.) Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.” No Knowledge, No Choice For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014. A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment. It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market. Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes. Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version) “There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said. Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss. “The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it. With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale. One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.” Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it. For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture. Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data) Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough. “The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.” Illustration by Civil Eats Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.” With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics. Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats. Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong. “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed. That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.” “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.” In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?” Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest. So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses. Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said. If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn. “You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.” One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.” That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop. “When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds. After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.” Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant. However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.” In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields. Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks. For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added. “The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.” The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Farmers can spray […] The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

What Our Investigation Revealed
  • Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season.
  • Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it.
  • Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics.
  • Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety.

Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans.

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture.

Why It Matters
  • Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year.
  • Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans.
  • Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings.
  • Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need.

Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests.

However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic.

Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.”

In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists.

These findings are significant for a few key reasons.

First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed.

Chart showing a rapid rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097

Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097)

Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields.

But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.”

Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry

Read all the stories in our series:

  • Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry
    How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans.
  • Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits
    As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide.
  • Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides?
    Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use.
  • Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need
    Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way.

At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept.

So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.)

Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.”

No Knowledge, No Choice

For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014.

A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment.

It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market.

Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes.

an illustration showing eight of the products that contain the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam - names include Cruiser 5FS, Avicta Duo 250, Seed Shield MAX Beans, and more. (Illustration by Civil Eats)

Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version)

“There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said.

Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss.

“The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it.

With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale.

One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide.

One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide.

Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.”

Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds

Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it.

For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture.

Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. Corn and soybeans are by far the crops with the most thiamethoxam use. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data)

Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings.
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey data)

Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough.

“The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.”

infographic showing how complicated it is to find out what chemicals are included in a treated seed product. (Illustration by Civil Eats)

Illustration by Civil Eats

Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.”

With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics.

Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats.

Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind

For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong.

“Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed.

That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.”

“Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.”

In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?”

Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest.

So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses.

Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said.

If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn.

“You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.”

One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.”

That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop.

“When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds.

After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.”

Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant.

However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check.

“Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.”

In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields.

Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks.

For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added.

“The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.”

The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Project to stop algal blooms on Willamette River seeks $1 million from Legislature

The money would go to Oregon State University to finish designing a channel that would cut through Ross Island. Organizers would need another $8 million to carry out the project.

Just about every summer in recent years, a stretch of the Willamette River south of downtown Portland at Ross Island turns green from a thick layer of toxin-producing algae that grows rapidly in the hot and stagnant waters of the Ross Island Lagoon.As the thick algal blooms are carried out by winds and tides to the mainstem of the river, it can become, for days on end, unhealthy for humans, pets and aquatic life.There’s an easy fix that’s been years in the making, according to Willie Levenson, founder of the Portland-based nonprofit Human Access Project. Standing in the way is the last $1 million he and river engineers at Oregon State University need to finish designing it. House Bill 3314, sponsored by state Reps. Rob Nosse and Mark Gamba, Democrats from Portland and Milwuakie, would direct about $1 million to Oregon State University to finish designing a channel that would cut through Ross Island.The channel would restore the river’s natural flow through what were multiple islands a century ago and flush out harmful cyanobacteria and algae forming in the lagoon. The bill was scheduled to have its first public hearing Wednesday at the House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources and Water. “This is a small investment that will solve a significant problem,” Levenson said.The Human Access Project, which aims to get people in closer contact with the river, has been working with Oregon State University scientists to collect data and determine solutions for six years.Levenson spent about two years fundraising about $500,000 through grants from nonprofits and local tribal governments, enough for the first 30% of the planning process. The rest of the plan hinges on getting money from the Legislature. “We’re concerned that without the money to finish the planning soon, the momentum to do this will stall out,” Levenson said.Ross Island used to be one of a complex of four islands. In the 1920s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers moved the earth on two of the islands around to create an embankment connecting them to divert water and make a deeper shipping channel in the river, as well as to make it more accessible to industry. The two islands combined created the U-shaped Ross Island, but the new embankment stopped the natural flow of the river between the islands and the lagoon became a “140-acre pond inside a river,” according to Levenson.In 1926, the Ross Island Sand and Gravel Co. established itself on the island and started excavating millions of tons of gravel from the river to make cement, creating a large hole in the river until 2001. The combination of the gravel excavation, the man-made lagoon around it, hot summers and pollution from nearby cities has led to the perfect conditions for cyanobacteria and algal blooms to grow in the area.By cutting through the embankment that the Army Corps built in 1926 and letting the river flow between the islands again, the bacteria and algae will be flushed out of the area, Oregon State scientists found.Once planning is finished in the next two years, Levenson said he and Oregon State will seek up to $8 million to carry it out. He said there are a few different funding streams they’ll pursue, including potentially asking the Legislature to foot some of the bill.The Ross Island Sand and Gravel Co. though no longer operational, is under orders from the Department of State Lands to undertake reclamation work to refill the hole the company left in the river from decades of excavation. As part of that, it’s possible the company could offer to pay for some of the channeling work Randall Steed, general manager of the company, did not respond to a call or email requesting comment. Officials in charge of the billion-dollar Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund, made up of revenue from a 1% tax on large retail businesses in the city, declined to fund project planning and implementation because it was not reducing carbon dioxide emissions, according to Levenson. Annual algal blooms are not just an environmental and public health issue, he said, but an economic issue that will drive people, events and businesses away from Portland in the summer. “If the Willamette keeps turning green every summer, it will be an anchor around the neck of downtown’s recovery,” Levenson said. -- Alex Baumhardt, Oregon Capital ChronicleThe Oregon Capital Chronicle, founded in 2021, is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on Oregon state government, politics and policy.

An uncertain future for agricultural students at Black colleges after Trump cuts: ‘a clear attack’

The 1890 National Scholars program gives full rides to HBCU students in fields like botany, forestry and food safetyDr Marcus Bernard was shocked to learn last week that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had suspended the 1890 National Scholars program that funds undergraduate students’ education in agriculture or related fields at about 20 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).Bernard is dean of the college of agriculture, health and natural resources at one of those institutions, Kentucky State University. At Kentucky State, close to 40 of the scholars have enrolled since the project’s inception in 1992. Nationwide, the program has supported more than 800 students, according to the USDA. Continue reading...

Dr Marcus Bernard was shocked to learn last week that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had suspended the 1890 National Scholars program that funds undergraduate students’ education in agriculture or related fields at about 20 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).Bernard is dean of the college of agriculture, health and natural resources at one of those institutions, Kentucky State University. At Kentucky State, close to 40 of the scholars have enrolled since the project’s inception in 1992. Nationwide, the program has supported more than 800 students, according to the USDA.The 1890 scholarships have created a pipeline for rural and underrepresented students to pursue studies in fields such as animal science, botany, horticulture, nutrition and forestry. Upon graduation, they’re placed in USDA positions around the nation.The news of the program’s suspension – explained in a single sentence that briefly sat atop the program’s USDA page – sparked a flurry of inquiries at Kentucky State. Bernard said the university had been notified that incoming fall 2025 scholarship selectees would not be funded. Without the federal funds, Kentucky State couldn’t pay for those students’ education or continue current students’ scholarships.Bernard, anxious students and families got some small relief late Monday when the program reopened – a change noted on the website. It said that applications for the scholarship, which gives full rides to the institutions created from federal lands, would be accepted until 15 March.However, the future of the scholarship remains unclear as much of the funding that supports the students’ research and fieldwork has been halted.The reopening of the scholarship program also does not necessarily mean it will be funded, said a USDA representative who requested anonymity. The newly reopened application period was “probably something to appease the public from all the fires that have been lit in the last week”, the official said.The North Carolina representative Alma Adams attends a US House hearing in Washington DC on 5 February 2025. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty ImagesThe move to suspend the scholarships drew criticism from various sources, including the 1890 Foundation, the Association of 1890 Research Directors and the Association of Public Land-Grant Universities. In a statement, the representative Alma Adams of North Carolina called the suspension “a clear attack on an invaluable program that makes higher education accessible for everybody, and provides opportunities for students to work at USDA, especially in the critical fields of food safety, agriculture, and natural resources that Americans rely on every single day. This program is a correction to a long history of racial discrimination within the land-grant system, not an example of it. I demand USDA immediately rescind this targeted and mean-spirited suspension and reinstate the 1890 Scholars Program.”The participating universities had been founded as part of the second Morrill Act that in 1890 gave federal lands to establish historically Black colleges that specialized in agricultural and vocational education.Alumni speak outAlvin Lumpkin was an 1890 South Carolina State University scholar who graduated in 2012. He started as an education major but switched during his sophomore year to study family and consumer studies under the department of agriculture and environmental sciences. He then became eligible to participate in the 1890 program.While he had various experiences as a scholar, one of his most memorable experiences was being a student firefighter. The 1890 Land Grant Institution Wildland Fire Consortium convened students from across the land-grant universities to obtain basic firefighting training skills and were placed in small towns across the south. “It was students from Alcorn [State University], Fort Valley [State University], South Carolina [State University], and we all went down to [Florida A&M University]. And it was just a beautiful thing to have people from all different fields of study come together and train together,” said Lumpkin.Lumpkin worked for a month with the National Forest Service in Mount Rogers national recreation area. He gained skills in water sampling and treatment; rescue efforts; and strategic field burns, an Indigenous practice of controlled, intentional fire. “We were on four-wheelers and torched sides of the mountain to burn vegetation so that when lightning strikes, it would not cause a fire,” said Lumpkin.For Kermit Shockley, being an 1890 scholar at Florida A&M broadened his understanding of what was possible for him. As an engineering major, he prepared trails and bridges across the Appalachian Trail during his summers. Alongside Lumpkin, he learned how to lay gravel, clear paths, administer first aid and patrol the forest to act as the first eyes for law enforcement.Lumpkin and Shockley responded to natural disasters such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest accidental marine-based spill in history. “It was not a ‘stand back and watch’ moment. It was a ‘let me show you, make your mistakes, and let me teach you,’” said Shockley. With the recent mass termination of thousands of National Forest Service and National Park Service workers, 1890 scholars may be relied upon again to help fill the gaps.Both men went into public-service careers. After graduation, Shockley went to work for the Department of Defense at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, decommissioning buildings used to enrich uranium during the second world war. Lumpkin’s exposure to law enforcement as an 1890 scholar led him to become an officer with the South Carolina department of juvenile justice. He is now an assistant principal in the Sumter, South Carolina, school district.A ripple effectLumpkin stressed that the impact on the larger 1890 ecosystem will be profound. “There’s so many programs that are going to be affected by not having 1890 scholars doing research in these communities,” he said.Other education programs have been affected by cuts. Across the 19 land-grant universities, agricultural research and urban agriculture grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and workforce training funding from the USDA’s Next Generation of Agriculturalists (NextGen) program have been paused. “All of this is going to be affected until grants have been unfrozen or until we know whether the grants will be cut completely,” said the USDA official.Aside from the scholarship program, Kentucky State is grappling with another huge loss. Last month, the university was awarded a $1.2m research grant from the 1890 Foundation with funding through the National Forest Service to launch a comprehensive project to increase the tree canopy across Louisville to reduce the impacts of urban heat stress. The funding also prompted the university to launch a robust urban-forestry program. Last week, the university was officially notified that the grant had been terminated.Defunding the 1890 National Scholars program stands to hurt Kentucky and the larger southern region, where most land-grant universities are located, said Bernard: “We are in communities across the state doing programs that are helping farmers, helping our rural communities, and providing assistance to disaster victims and more.”

USDA Layoffs Are Wasting Public Money and Decimating Popular Programs

This story was originally published by WIRED and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The widespread layoff of Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists has thrown vital research into disarray, according to former and current employees of the agency. Scientists hit by the layoffs were working on projects to improve crops, defend against pests and disease, […]

This story was originally published by WIRED and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The widespread layoff of Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists has thrown vital research into disarray, according to former and current employees of the agency. Scientists hit by the layoffs were working on projects to improve crops, defend against pests and disease, and understand the climate impact of farming practices. The layoffs also threaten to undermine billions of taxpayer dollars paid to farmers to support conservation practices, experts warn. The USDA layoffs are part of the Trump administration’s mass firing of federal employees, mainly targeting people who are in their probationary periods ahead of gaining full-time status, which for USDA scientists can be up to three years. The agency has not released exact firing figures, but they are estimated to include many hundreds of staff at critical scientific subagencies and a reported 3,400 employees in the Forest Service. Employees were told of their firing in a blanket email sent on February 13 and seen by WIRED. “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest,” the email says. “Stopping or hamstringing efforts midway is a huge waste of resources that have already been spent.” One laid-off employee described the weeks preceding the firing as “chaos,” as the USDA paused (in response to orders from the Trump administration) and then unpaused (in response to a court order) work connected to the Inflation Reduction Act—the landmark 2022 law passed under President Joe Biden that set aside large amounts of federal money for climate policies. “It was just pause, unpause, pause, unpause. After four or five business days of that, I’m thinking, I literally can’t get anything done,” says the former employee, who worked on IRA-linked projects and asked to remain anonymous to protect them from retribution. The IRA provided the USDA with $300 million to help with the quantification of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. This money was intended to support the $8.5 billion in farmer subsidies authorized in the IRA to be spent on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program—a plan to encourage farmers to take up practices with potential environmental benefits, such as cover cropping and better waste storage. At least one contracted farming project funded by EQIP has been paused by the Trump administration, Reuters reports. The $300 million was supposed to be used to establish an agricultural greenhouse gas network that could monitor the effectiveness of the kinds of conservation practices funded by EQIP and other multibillion-dollar conservation programs, says Emily Bass, associate director of federal policy, food, and agriculture at the environmental research center the Breakthrough Institute. This work was being carried out in part by the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), two of the scientific sub-agencies hit heavily by the federal layoffs. “That’s a ton of taxpayer dollars, and the quantification work of ARS and NRCS is an essential part of measuring those programs’ actual impacts on emissions reductions,” says Bass. “Stopping or hamstringing efforts midway is a huge waste of resources that have already been spent.” One current ARS scientist, who spoke to WIRED anonymously, as they were not authorized to talk to the press, claims that at their unit almost 40 percent of scientists have been fired along with multiple support staff. Many of their unit’s projects are now in disarray, the scientist says, including work that has been planned out in five-year cycles and requires close monitoring of plant specimens. “In the short term we can keep that material alive, but we can’t necessarily do that indefinitely if we don’t have anybody on that project.” In a press release, the USDA has said its plan is to “optimize its workforce,” with this including “relocating employees out of the National Capital region into our nation’s heartland to allow our rural communities to flourish.” But ARS units are located across the US, each one specializing in crops that are important to local farmers as well as bringing jobs to the region. “We’ve always been very popular in rural areas because the farmers and growers actually want what we’re doing,” says the ARS scientist. The USDA did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment. The hollowing-out of staff capacity will limit the USDA’s ability to implement IRA policies, says Bass, but it is not clear that this was the sole intention of the cuts. “This seems to be a sledgehammer to the workforce in a way that will just roll back the number of folks on payroll,” she says. The purge could also indirectly hit farmers in red states, who are the main beneficiaries of proposals such as EQIP. “It was necessary research to preserve our agricultural lands and fight climate change,” says one ARS employee who was fired last week after serving more than two years of their three-year-long probation. “Compared to the rest of the government, ARS is tiny,” they say. “But we were able to get a lot done with relatively little money.” On her first full day in office, US secretary of agriculture Brooke Rollins told USDA staffers gathered at its headquarters in Washington that she supported the Department of Government Efficiency’s attempt to optimize the USDA workforce. “I welcome DOGE’s efforts at USDA, because we know that its work makes us better, stronger, faster, and more efficient,” she told the gathering. But Bass warns that blanket firing of USDA employees is hardly a pathway toward a more efficient agency. “This approach of wide-swath firings throws the USDA and affiliated agricultural research enterprise into a world of uncertainty,” she says. “Projects that cannot be seen out to the end, cannot result in a peer-reviewed research paper or technical expertise being provided, are a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

High-speed videos show what happens when a droplet splashes into a pool

Findings may help predict how rain and irrigation systems launch particles and pathogens from watery surfaces, with implications for industry, agriculture, and public health.

Rain can freefall at speeds of up to 25 miles per hour. If the droplets land in a puddle or pond, they can form a crown-like splash that, with enough force, can dislodge any surface particles and launch them into the air.Now MIT scientists have taken high-speed videos of droplets splashing into a deep pool, to track how the fluid evolves, above and below the water line, frame by millisecond frame. Their work could help to predict how spashing droplets, such as from rainstorms and irrigation systems, may impact watery surfaces and aerosolize surface particles, such as pollen on puddles or pesticides in agricultural runoff.The team carried out experiments in which they dispensed water droplets of various sizes and from various heights into a pool of water. Using high-speed imaging, they measured how the liquid pool deformed as the impacting droplet hit the pool’s surface.Across all their experiments, they observed a common splash evolution: As a droplet hit the pool, it pushed down below the surface to form a “crater,” or cavity. At nearly the same time, a wall of liquid rose above the surface, forming a crown. Interestingly, the team observed that small, secondary droplets were ejected from the crown before the crown reached its maximum height. This entire evolution happens in a fraction of a second.Scientists have caught snapshots of droplet splashes in the past, such as the famous “Milk Drop Coronet” — a photo of a drop of milk in mid-splash, taken by the late MIT professor Harold “Doc” Edgerton, who invented a photographic technique to capture quickly moving objects.The new work represents the first time scientists have used such high-speed images to model the entire splash dynamics of a droplet in a deep pool, combining what happens both above and below the surface. The team has used the imaging to gather new data central to build a mathematical model that predicts how a droplet’s shape will morph and merge as it hits a pool’s surface. They plan to use the model as a baseline to explore to what extent a splashing droplet might drag up and launch particles from the water pool.“Impacts of drops on liquid layers are ubiquitous,” says study author Lydia Bourouiba, a professor in the MIT departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, and a core member of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES). “Such impacts can produce myriads of secondary droplets that could act as carriers for pathogens, particles, or microbes that are on the surface of impacted pools or contaminated water bodies. This work is key in enabling prediction of droplet size distributions, and potentially also what such drops can carry with them.”Bourouiba and her mentees have published their results in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics. MIT co-authors include former graduate student Raj Dandekar PhD ’22, postdoc (Eric) Naijian Shen, and student mentee Boris Naar.Above and belowAt MIT, Bourouiba heads up the Fluid Dynamics of Disease Transmission Laboratory, part of the Fluids and Health Network, where she and her team explore the fundamental physics of fluids and droplets in a range of environmental, energy, and health contexts, including disease transmission. For their new study, the team looked to better understand how droplets impact a deep pool — a seemingly simple phenomenon that nevertheless has been tricky to precisely capture and characterize.Bourouiba notes that there have been recent breakthroughs in modeling the evolution of a splashing droplet below a pool’s surface. As a droplet hits a pool of water, it breaks through the surface and drags air down through the pool to create a short-lived crater. Until now, scientists have focused on the evolution of this underwater cavity, mainly for applications in energy harvesting. What happens above the water, and how a droplet’s crown-like shape evolves with the cavity below, remained less understood.“The descriptions and understanding of what happens below the surface, and above, have remained very much divorced,” says Bourouiba, who believes such an understanding can help to predict how droplets launch and spread chemicals, particles, and microbes into the air.Splash in 3DTo study the coupled dynamics between a droplet’s cavity and crown, the team set up an experiment to dispense water droplets into a deep pool. For the purposes of their study, the researchers considered a deep pool to be a body of water that is deep enough that a splashing droplet would remain far away from the pool’s bottom. In these terms, they found that a pool with a depth of at least 20 centimeters was sufficient for their experiments.They varied each droplet’s size, with an average diameter of about 5 millimeters. They also dispensed droplets from various heights, causing the droplets to hit the pool’s surface at different speeds, which on average was about 5 meters per second. The overall dynamics, Bourouiba says, should be similar to what occurs on the surface of a puddle or pond during an average rainstorm.“This is capturing the speed at which raindrops fall,” she says. “These wouldn’t be very small, misty drops. This would be rainstorm drops for which one needs an umbrella.”Using high-speed imaging techniques inspired by Edgerton’s pioneering photography, the team captured videos of pool-splashing droplets, at rates of up to 12,500 frames per second. They then applied in-house imaging processing methods to extract key measurements from the image sequences, such as the changing width and depth of the underwater cavity, and the evolving diameter and height of the rising crown. The researchers also captured especially tricky measurements, of the crown’s wall thickness profile and inner flow — the cylinder that rises out of the pool, just before it forms a rim and points that are characteristic of a crown.“This cylinder-like wall of rising liquid, and how it evolves in time and space, is at the heart of everything,” Bourouiba says. “It’s what connects the fluid from the pool to what will go into the rim and then be ejected into the air through smaller, secondary droplets.”The researchers worked the image data into a set of “evolution equations,” or a mathematical model that relates the various properties of an impacting droplet, such as the width of its cavity and the thickness and speed profiles of its crown wall, and how these properties change over time, given a droplet’s starting size and impact speed.“We now have a closed-form mathematical expression that people can use to see how all these quantities of a splashing droplet change over space and time,” says co-author Shen, who plans, with Bourouiba, to apply the new model to the behavior of secondary droplets and understanding how a splash end-up dispersing particles such as pathogens and pesticides. “This opens up the possibility to study all these problems of splash in 3D, with self-contained closed-formed equations, which was not possible before.”This research was supported, in part, by the Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crop Research Initiative; the Richard and Susan Smith Family Foundation; the National Science Foundation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Inditex; and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.