Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Supplemental Information for Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status

for Herbicide Tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 S oybean s

Economic and Agronomic Impacts of the Introduction of DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans on

Glyphosate Resistant Weeds in the U.S. Cropping System

The undersigned submits this information under 7 CFR 340.6 to support the determination that the article should not be regulated under 7 CFR 340.

Submitting Company:

Dow Agr oSciences LLC

Submitted by:

__________________________________

Mark Krieger , Ph.D. Regulatory Leader

Regulatory Sciences & Government Affairs Dow AgroSciences LLC
9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 Telephone: (317) 337

- 3458

FAX: (317) 337

- 4649

Mkrieger2 @dow.com

June 27 , 2011Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 2 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Summary

Dow AgroSciences (DAS) has submitted a petition to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the determination of nonregulated status fo r DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans , which provides tolerance to the herbicides 2,4

- dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4

- D) and glufosinate

.

This document provides information pertaining to the economic and agronomic impact of
DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans . This information includes:

o Benefits of Glyphosate Tolerant Crops

o Weed Management in Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans

o Long

- term Weed Resistance Management through Use of Herbicide Tolerant
DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

o Economic Benefits of Dow AgroSciences Herbicide Tolerant Technology

o Impact of 2,4

- D on Herbicide Tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 S oybeans and DAS

40278

- 9 Corn on the Cost and Environmental Load of Herbicides Applied on Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and SoybeansSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 3 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



# Economic and Agronomic Impacts of the

Introduction of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans on Glyphosate

Resistant Weeds in the U.S. Cropping SystemSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 4 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction

________________________________ _____________________________ 8

1.2 Glyphosate tolerant crop Technology Adoption

______________________________ 9

1.3 Factors Influencing Glyphosate tolerant crop Techology Adoption

_____________ 10

2 Benefits of Glyphosate Tolerant Crops

________________________________ _______ 12

2.1 Enviro nmental Benefits

________________________________ _________________ 12

2.1.1 Enables conversva tion tillage with Glyphosate tolerant crop s

________________ 12

2.1.2 Reduces soil erosion

________________________________ __________________ 13

2.1.3 R e duces greenhouse gas emission

________________________________ _______ 13

2.2 Economic Benefits

________________________________ _____________________ 14

2.2.1 Reduces ch emical costs

________________________________ ________________ 14

2.2.2 Reduces fuel costs

________________________________ ____________________ 14

2.2.3 Reduces labor costs

________________________________ ___________________ 15

2 .2.4 Reduces management costs

________________________________ ____________ 15

2.2.5 Global ec onomic benefits

________________________________ ______________ 16

2.3 Yield Enhancement

________________________________ ____________________ 16

2.4 Convenience

________________________________ __________________________ 17

3 Weed Management in Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans

__________________ 1 9

3.1 Herbicide resistance

________________________________ ____________________ 20

3.2 Oth er shifts in weed communities

________________________________ _________ 22

3.3 Potential for future spread of glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds in glyphosate toleran t crops

________________________________ __________________ 23

3.4 Growers’ response to glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds

__________ 28

3.5 Weed mana gement strategies to sustain glyphosate resistant cropping systems in corn and soybeans

________________________________ ________________________ 34

3.6 New tools f

or weed resistance managmenet

________________________________ 35

4 Long

- term Weed Resistance Management through Use of Herbicide Tolerant DAS

68416

- 4

________________________________ ________________________________ ___ 3 6

4.1 DAS

- 68416

- 4 soy beans enables use of alternative modes of action to glyphosate

__ 3 6

4.2 Managem ent of glyphosate resistance and hard

- to

- control weeds using herbicide
tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

________________________________ _____________ 37

4.3 Proposed Use Pattern and Compatibility wi th Glyphosate Cropping System

_____ 39

4.4 Proactive resistance management for 2,4

- D throug h integration with glyphosate

_ 40

5 Economic Benefits of Dow AgroSciences herbicide tolerant technology

__________ _ 4 2Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 5 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 6 Impact of 2,4

- D on Herbicide Tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 S oybeans and DAS

- 40278

- 9

Corn on the Cost and Environmental Load of Herbicides Applied on Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans to Control Glyphosate Resistant and Glyphosate Tolerant Weed Biotypes

___________________________ ________________________________ 4 3

Conclusions__________

____________________ _______________________________ 44

Appendix A: Economic Impacts of Glyphosate Resi stant Weeds and the Benefits of DHT Technology

_______________________________________________________________ 5 1

Appendix B: Analysis to Determine the Impact of the Use of 2,4

- D on Herbicide Tolerant

DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn and DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans on the Cost and Environmental Load of Herbicides Applied on Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans to Control Glyphosate

Resistant and Hard

- to

- Control Weeds______

_____ _____________________________ 1 20

Appendix C: Survey of University Weed Specialists to Determine Glyphosate

- Resistant

and Hard

- to

- Control Weed Prevalence and Management Practices Used in Corn and Soybeans

________________________________________________________________ 1 42Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 6 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Adoption rates of herbicides tolerant corn and soybean in the United States

__ 9

Figure 1.2 U.S. glyphosate prices

________________________________ ______________ 11

Figure 2.1 Corn and soybean fuel consumption by t i llage type, Central Corn Belt

_____ 15

Figure 2.2 Benefits o f glyphosate tolerant crops

________________________________ _ 18

Figure 3.1 Global reports of herbicide resistance weeds

___________________________ 20

Figure 3.2 Adoption of glyphosate tolerant crops and development of glyphosate resistant
weeds in the United States

________________________________ ___________________ 21

Figure 3 .3 Glyphosate Resistant Weeds

________________________________ ________ 24

Figure 3.4 Projected corn and soybean acres infested with glyphosate resistant broadleaf and grass weeds in the United States (excluding volunteer glyphosate resistant corn).

__ 27

Figure 3.5 Average postemer gence glyphosate use rates on corn and soybeans in the
United States

________________________________ ______________________________ 28

Figure 3.6 Average number of gl yphosate applications on corn and s oybeans in the United
States (includes bu rndown uses)

________________________________ ______________ 29

Figure 3.7 Total pounds of glyphosate applied on corn and soy beans in the United States (includes bourndown uses)

________________________________ ___________________ 29

Figure 3.8 Preemergence non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant corn

_ 31

Figure 3.9 Preemergence non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant soybeans

________________________________ ________________________________ __________ 31

Figure 3.10 Post

- emergen ce non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant corn 32

Figure 3.11 Post

- emergence non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant soybeans (excludes products typically us ed to control volunteer corn)

_______________ 32

Figure 4.1 2,4

- D and glyphosate appli cations sc hedules for DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

____ 40Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 7 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### TABLES

Table 1.1 Yea r of deregulation for g lyphosate tolerant crop s

_______________________ 10

Table 1.2 Percent of all soybeans planted to herbici de tolerant varieties by state

______ 12

Table 3.1 Weeds that evolved resistance to glyphosate in glyphosate tolerant crops in the
United States

________________________________ ______________________________ 22

Table 3.2 Weeds reported to have increased in abundance in glyphosate tolerant crops 25

Table 3.3 Future assumptions for glyphosate resistant weeds i n corn and soybeans in the
United States

________________________________ ______________________________ 26

Table 3.4 Future assumptions for glyphosate resistant weeds in corn and soybeans in the United States, Syngenta Corporation

________________________________ __________ 2 7

Table 3.5 Assessment of resistance risk by eval uation of the cropping system

_________ 35

Table 4.1 Glyphosate resistant , ALS resistant weeds, and hard

- to

- c ontrol weeds that are
controlled by 2,4

- D

________________________________ _________________________ 38Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 8 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 1 Economic and Agronomic Impacts of the Introduction of DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans on Glyphosate Resistant Weeds in the U.S. Cropping System

1 .1 Introduction

Glyphosate tolerant crop A 

### technology has driven dramatic changes in agricultural production processes while generating important economic and environmental benefits. But as some agronomists warned, the benefits of glyphosate tolerant crop s are beginning to be eroded by increasing weed resistance as well as weed population shifts to hard

- to

control weeds. Growers have begun to alter production practices to adjust for weed

resistance and shifts to hard

- to

- control weed s . Unfortunately, some o f these practices, particularly tillage, reverse some of the benefits gained from glyphosate tolerant crop technology. In order to preserve the benefits of glyphosate tolerant crop technology, Dow AgroSciences' herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s complement g lyphosate tolerant crop technology by controlling glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds without additional tillage. In addition, DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s provide another mode of action which is strongly suggested by agronomists as a best management practice in dealing with glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of g lyphosate tolerant crop technology, briefly summarize the benefits of glyphosate resistant crop technology

, describe the developing weed resistance and weed shift problem, discuss current solutions to weed resistance, provide an overview of Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide

tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans , and finally document how this technology complements g lyphosa te tolerant crop technology and provides a durable, long

- term solution to the development of weed resistance.

A The following definitions are applied throughout this document:

Herbicide Tolerant Crop : A crop plant that has been developed (using techniques such as genetic engineering or selection of variants produced by tissue culture or mutagenesis) to survive and reproduce after treatment with a specific herbicide or herbicides that would normally damage an unmodified crop.

Herbicide Resistant Weed: A herbicide

- resistant weed is a member of a population within a species that has an inherited ability to survive and reproduce following exposure to a dose of a herbicide normally lethal to susceptible populations of the species. Through repeated herbicide selection, the resistant population becomes dominant in a given area.

Hard

- to

- Control Weed: A weed species that is inherently able to withstand treatment with a herbicide as a result of natural factors not involving herbicide selection or genetic mutation.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 9 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 1.2 Glyphosate tolerant crop Technology Adoption

There are few technologies that have been as widely and universally adopted as

g lyphosate tolerant crop s. USDA estimates that 91 percent of the soybeans planted in

2009 were glyphosate tolerant varieties (see Figure 1.1)

. 1 

### A t least one other source , which surveys approximately 5,000 large U.S. farms, suggests similar results. 2 

### In the

case of corn, there is some discrepancy in the data on the percent of corn acres that were planted with glyphosate tolerant seed in 2009. USDA estimates that total herbicide resistant hybrids planted represented 68 percent of the corn acres planted in 2009

. 1



### Estimates from proprietary surveys and Monsanto (based on seed sales) are higher, exceeding 80% of total planted area. 2, 3 

### In any case, the prevalence of glyphosate tolerant seed use in both corn and soybeans is very high, underscoring the importance of glyphosate tolerant technology

.
Figure 1.1 Adoption rates of herbicide tolerant corn and soybeans in the United

States

Sources: USDA's June "Acreage" Report, various issues, 2000

- 2009 1 , Fernandez

- Cornejo & McBride soybeans 1996

- 1999 4 , Duke and Powles corn 1998

- 1999 5

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 10 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 1.3 Factors Influencing G lyphosate tolerant crop Technology Adoption

The historical data on glyphosate to lerant technology releases and the rate of adoption provides informative clues about the perceptions of benefits, the ease of adoption, and the general availability of the technology. Adoption of most new technologies starts off

slow ly . Early adopters us ually figure out if the technology lives up to claims made about it as well as how difficult the technology is to implement in the production process. In addition, availability of the technology can limit initial growth. Beyond this point the

factors in fluencing adoption become more crop specific. It is also important to note that

g lyphosate tolerant crop technology was not simultaneously introduced for all crops in the same year and subsequently adoption curves start at different points (see Table 1.1).

The literature from the late 1990's cast s glyphosate tolerant technology mostly as a tool to

enable e asier management of crops : some early studies even documented yield drag in soybeans. 6 

### Yet in these early studies, the yield results were based on strip trials made in weed free fields which were not necessarily representative of actual farm conditions. 6 

### In addition, glyphosate tolerant technology was not available in the highest yielding soybean varieties at the time. USDA noted that analysts expected yield drags to disappear when

the glyphosate tolerant trait was backcrossed into higher yielding parent lines. 6 

### Despite the early concerns of a yield drag , the rapid adoption of glyphosate resistant crops indicates the value farmers associated with the new technology.

Table 1.1 Year of deregulation for glyphosate tolerant crops

Source: Duke and Powles, 2008. 5



### By 1998, adoption of glyphosate tolerant technology in soybeans had increased, jumping from 17 to 44 percent of total soybean acreage in the United States in just one year from

1997 to 1998 (see F igure 1.1) . This rapid jump in adoption suggests that growers perceived substantial benefits from adopting the technology. Studies document that glyphosate tolerant technology provided "better , simpler, cheaper, and more flexible weed management than the conventional alternatives." 5

, 7

, 8

, 9 

### There appears to be a

reversal in tolerant technology adoption in 2000 for corn and soybeans (see Figure 1.1)

. However, this is probably more attributable to a shift in data sources on adoption rates rather than a reversal in adoptions rates for g lyphosate tolerant technology (see citations in Figure 1.1)

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 11 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### In 2000, glyphosate came off patent and prices slowly be gan to fall as generic glyphosate producers increased production. Falling glyphosate prices provided further incentives to adopt g lyphosate tolerant technology (see Figure 1.2 and Table 1.2). Supply issues from generic glyphosate producers in 2008 drove prices back up, but this price increase was temporary (see Figure 1.2)

.
By 2004, Marra et al., noted that g lyphosate tolerant technology continued to be adopted for soybeans despite the fact that prices of herbicides used for conventional soybeans had

f allen to the point where the cost of these herbicide bundles were competitive with

g lyphosate tolerant soybean s. 10 

### Note that the adoption growth rate in soybeans slowed after 2004, but still increased. New studies have shown that profitability is not the only driver of adoption rates. Other factors such as compatibility with the use of other

herbicides , ease of use, observable in

- field results, and flexibility in application timing can drive the adoption of a new technology , and have done so here

. 11

, 12

, 13

, 14

, 15

, 16

, 17 

### The

results an d convenience associated with g lyphosate tolerant crop s are discussed below in

section 2

.
Figure 1.2 U.S. glyphosate pr ices

Source : Proprietary data source , 2009

. 2



### Adoption of glyphosate tolerant corn has occurred more slowly than adoption of

g lyphosate tolerant soybean s. For corn there were already several effective pre

- and post
emergent weed control herbicides in place that could be effectively used for

preemergence weed control. 18 

### In addition, glyphosate tolerant corn was not approved for

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Dollars Per Pound of Acid Equivalent 

### $16.00Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 12 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### import into the EU until late 2003 , thereby limiting the export market for glyphosate tolerant grain

.

Table 1.2 Percent of all soybeans planted to herbicide tolerant varieties by state

Source: USDA's June "Acreage" Report, various issues, 2000

- 2009 1



### 2 Benefits of Glyphosate Tolerant Crops

As discussed below, the use of glyphosate tolerant crops has been shown to promote the use of conservation tillage practices. “Conservation tillage” refers to the use of
herbicides to control weeds before, at, or after planting, rather than tilling the soil and “plowing up the weeds” to control them. By reducing soil erosion, conservation tillage preserves topsoil, soil structure, improved water infiltration and holding capacity as well as improved water quality b y reducing soil, pesticide and fertilizer run

- off. Additionally

, greenhouse gas emissions are decreased by reducing tractor trips across fields, and allowing the soil to sequester carbon through increased soil organic matter.

2.1 Environmental Benefits

2.1.1 Enables conservation tillage with g lyphosate tolerant crop s

Many studies have noted a linkage between the rapid adoption of g lyphosate tolerant

crop s and conservation tillage practices. 4, 10, 19

, 20

, 21

, 22 

### The literature varies somewhat in

its conclusio ns on causality, but there is consensus that g lyphosate tolerant crop s enable d
greater adoption of conservation tillage including minimum and no

- till practices. If herbicides are used to control weeds before, at, or after planting, the need for tillage

bef ore and after planting is eliminated. The National Academy of Sciences concludes in their 2010 report, "Given that agriculture is the largest source of surface water pollution, improvements in water quality resulting from the complementary nature of herbi cide

Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 13 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### resistance technology and conservation tillage may represent the largest single environmental benefit of GE [Genetically Engineered] crops." 18



### The American Soybean Association conducted a survey of famers in 2001 asking what factors had the greatest impact on their adoption of reduced tillage or no

- till soybeans. Fifty four percent of the survey respondents indicated that the release of g lyphosate tolerant soybean s had the greatest impact. 23 

### The next largest factor, with 15 percent of the respondents , was improvements in reduced till or no

- till planters. Another comparison that is a bit more striking was made by Dill, et al. in 2008. 24 

### The percent of

g lyphosate tolerant soybean s planted via no

- till was nearly 50 percent compared with conventional soybeans at 32 percent. Conventional tillage was used on about 32 percent

of g lyphosate tolerant soybean s, but nearly 50 percent of conventional soybeans. 24



### Unfortunately the develop ment of glyphosate resistant weeds and weed population shifts

to hard

- to

- control weeds is jeopardizing the gains in conservation tillage. As noted
below, i n section 3.4, increased tillage is identified as a primary grower means to control glyphosate resis tant weeds. 5, 25

, 26



### 2.1.2 Reduces soil erosion

When adoption of g lyphosate tolerant soybean s and corn encourages parallel adoption of conservation and reduced tillage practices, improved soil and water conservation can be

obtained . Conservation and reduced tillage can increase the availability of organic matter and minerals in the soil leading to enhanced soil structure and fertility. Soil erosion and water runoff are also reduced, sustaining the productive capacity of land and minimizing surface and ground water contamination. 20, 27 

### Due to improved soil moisture content and retention capacity, efficiencies in water use may also be achieved. 28 , 21, 29



### 2.1.3 Reduces greenhouse gas emission

Increased no till cultivation enabled by g lyphosate tolerant crop techn ology has two air quality impacts: reduction in fuel consumption and increased carbon sequestration within

the soil. 29, 20, 21 

### Reduction in fuel use through less tillage as well as less intensive tillage is well documented for conventional versus conservation tillage (see S ection 2.2. 2 below). In addition, by leaving the soil profile intact, a greater amount of organic carbon

i n the form of crop residue is sequestered in the soil. Sequestering more carbon in the soil leads to a reduction in green house gas (GHG) emissions. Brookes and Barfoot partitioned these GHG impacts from herbicide resistant soybeans and canola into carbo n emission reductions from reduced fuel consumption and increased carbon sequestration. 30


### Relative to conventional tillage, they increased carbon sequestration by a rate of 300 kg

carbon/hectare - 1 

### for no

- till and 100 kg carbon/hectare - 1 

### for reduced tillag e. They describe these rates as conservative relative to the range of 50 kg/hectare - 1 

### to 1

, 300 kg

carbon/hectare - 1 

### suggested by the International Panel on Climate Change. Using theseSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 14 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### carbon sequestration rates , Brookes and Barfoot estimate d that the fuel savings amounted to 1,117 million kg of carbon dioxide savings and additional carbon sequestration amounted to 13,548 million kg of carbon dioxide savings in 2006. This is equivalent to removing roughly 6.5 million cars from the road. 30



### 2.2 Economic Ben efits

One of the primary reasons g lyphosate tolerant crop technology has been so popular with growers is the strong economic incentive. The incentive s are primarily driven by lower costs of production including lower costs for chemicals, fuel , labor, and management.

2.2.1 Reduces chemical costs

Studies indicate that chemical costs for growers of g lyphosate tolerant crop s are substantially lower in part because those growers have been able to control weeds through glyphosate alone without the assistance of other herbicides until recently. 9 

### In 1997, USDA found that soybean herbicide costs were reduced 11 percent by g lyphosate tolerant crop technology in the primary growing are a of the United States 6



### . In addition, when glyphosate came off patent in 2000, it s price declined by 40 percent (Figure 1.2)

. In 2003, Sankula and Blumenthal found that soybean herbicide costs were reduced 53 percent by g lyphosate tolerant crop technology. 31 , 28 

### Slightly lower soybean herbicide cost reduction estimates of 46 percent were found by Sankula for 2005. 28, 32 

### In summary, overall, the introduction of glyphosate tolerant soybean resulted in a reduction in weed

control costs.

2.2.2 Reduces fuel costs

Energy costs are also reduced through g lyphosate tolerant crop technology. As discussed above, the expansion of conservation tillage practices and g lyphosate tolerant crop technology have been found to complement each other. NAS states that glyphosate can be used to "supplement or replace tillage" in controlling most weeds, redu cing fuel and labor inputs. 18 

### In USDA's fuel simulator, fuel consumption is reduced by 44 percent in corn and 60 percent in soybeans by switching from conventional tillage to no

- till methods (see Figure 2.1). 33 

### In 2006, Mitchell et al. found that reduced tillage systems in California cotton reduced fuel use by 42 to 62 percent. 34 

### Sanders found similar results

, with conservation tillage reducing fuel costs as much as 50 percent

. 35 

### Another source of fuel savings referenced in the literature is a reduction in herbicide applications. 5, 25



### Reduction in tillage and spraying also results in lower farm machinery expenses. Short

term machinery repairs are lower and less usage extends the life of farm machinery

, thereby reducing the long run cost of equipment. 18Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 15 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Figure 2.1 Corn and soybean fuel consumption by tillage type, Central Corn Belt

Source: USDA

- NRCS, May 2010. 33



### 2.2.3 Reduces labor costs

Labor savings result in part from reduced tillage and also fewer herbicide applications.

Sanders estimates a 40 percent reduction in labor costs through conversion to conservation tillage practices. 35 

### Jasa reports that labor was reduced from 1.22 hours per acre to 0.49 hours per acre with a shift from moldboard plow ti llage to no

- till. 36



### 2.2.4 Reduces management costs

Management costs (time and effort expended to control of weeds) are also reduced with

g lyphosate tolerant technology allowing growers to farm more land or increase their

hours at an off

- farm job. Recent studies have found a positive relationship between off farm income and the adoption of g lyphosate tolerant soybean s. 37

, 38 

### These studies concluded that a 15.9 percent increase in off

- farm household income is associated with a

ten percent increase in the pro bability of adopting g lyphosate tolerant soybean s. Other studies have found that adopting g lyphosate tolerant soybean s reduces farm labor requirements by 23 percent. 39Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 16 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 2.2.5 Global economic benefits

The reduction in costs of production at the farm level t ranslate s directly into an aggregate

reduction in costs

, enabling growers to obtain the same level of production at lower costs.

In economics

, this corresponds to a rightward shift in the supply curve which, assuming

other factors remain constant

, promote s a drop in the price of soybeans and an improvement in consumer welfare. These positive economic impacts extend to the grower through lower production costs, to the company supplying the technology through product sales, to other co

- product sales such as seed ( the carrier of the technology in this

case ) , and to global consumers through lower commodity prices. 28



### Many studies have estimated the economic be nefits of g lyphosate tolerant crop technology

, focusing on one or more of the areas realizing the economic benefits. While studies looking at the global welfare for all sectors provide the most complete picture of
economic benefits, not all studies are th is broad. In any case, the literature documents

economic benefits

, particularly for growers and global consumers. Brooks and Barfoot

focused on the farm income benefits of g lyphosate tolerant technology . They reported global economic benefits to farm in come from g lyphosate tolerant soybean s over the

1996

- 2004 period of $9.3 billion. 29 

### Falck

- Zepeda estimate d the total increase in global

welfare from glyphosate resistant soybeans for one year, 1997/98, at $1.06 billion. 40



### Moschini et al. estimated the tot al global welfare from g lyphosate tolerant soybean s for the year 2001 at $1.2 billion. 41 

### In 2002, Qaim and Traxler estimated the global welfare

effects of g lyphosate tolerant soybean s for 2001 at $1.2 billion. 42 

### In a study by Trigo and Cap of the Argentine soybean industry, accumulated savings in global consumer spending over the 1996

- 2005 from growers in Argentina adopting g lyphosate tolerant soybean s was $26 billion. 43 

### Finally, in 2008, Konduru et al. estimated a total global

welfare increase for all glyphosate resistant soybean adoption

, including losses from a shift away from the minor oilseeds

, of $31.4 billion over the 1996 to 2006 period. 28



### 2.3 Yield Enhancement

The opportunity for g lyphosate tolerant crop s to boost crop yields is driven by the a bility of glyphosate to better control weeds. Empirical evidence of yield enhancement through

use of g lyphosate tolerant crop technology is somewhat conflicting. Many of the early studies show yield drag in soybeans

, particularly in areas outside the pri mary soybean growing area. 42, 44

, 45

, 46

, 47 

### In 2002, Marra, et al. suggested that yield drags in the early years of adoption disappeared over time as glyphosate tolerance was introduced into more elite soybean varieties. 28, 48 

### Other studies have shown an in crease in yields with

g lyphosate tolerant technology

, particularly in the main growing region of the United

States. 2, 40, 49 

### In 2010, Carpenter summarized the results from 49 peer reviewed studies that reported comparisons of yields for non

- glyphosate tolerant and g lyphosate tolerant

crop s 50 

### . Of the 14 studies reporting specific results for g lyphosate tolerant soybean s inSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 17 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### developed countries, none of the studies showed a yield decrease and the average increase in soybean yields was seven per cent. Only three studies reported specific

results for g lyphosate tolerant soybean in developing countries, but again none of the studies showed a yield decrease and the average increase in soybean yields was 21 percent. While the sample size is too sma ll to draw specific conclusions, these results could be representative of different weed pressures in developing versus developed countries. Growers in developed countries can more easily access alternative options for effective weed control compared to d eveloping countries where effective weed control options may be more limited. 50 

### Therefore, the potential for yield enhancement may be greater in environments with higher weed pressures. 51 

### To the extent that existing weed control programs prior to g lyphosat e tolerant crop technology controlled weeds, the yield impact from adopting g lyphosate tolerant crop s may be smaller.

In S ection 3 of this report, a detailed discussion of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate is presented. Weed resistance and shifts in weak populations suggest the importance of complementary systems which control hard

- to

- control weeds while

all owing continued use of glyphosate in controlling the broad spectrum of weeds still susceptible.

2.4 Results and Convenience

Throughout the literature

, the simplicity and flexibility of g lyphosate tolerant crop s is mentioned repeatedly as one of the majo r benefits of this technology. 20, 52 

### But what exactly does that mean? First, and foremost, is the manner in which g lyphosate tolerant

crop technology works. As a non

- selective broad spectrum herbicide, glyphosate will

control virtually all susceptible wee d species with one or two appropriately applied post
emergent applications to the g lyphosate tolerant crop ( i.e

. applied after the crop has emerged )

. Contrast this simplicity with conventional herbicide alternatives that can involve hiring a crop consultant to prescribe a combination of herbicides appropriate to the crop with the right selectivity for the weed spectrum for each field on the farm.

Sec ond, simplicity also extends to the "over

- the

- top" application of glyphosate on

g lyphosate tolerant crop s , allowing greater ground speed and much wider coverage in a single spraying pass in contrast to more directed spray applications for other herbicides

. 11



### Third, g lyphosate tolerant crop s offer considerable flexibility at planting time. Typically, growers in the U.S. Corn Belt will plant corn before soybeans due to its longer growing season and its yield sensitivity to weather conditions at the silking s tage. However, weather delays can play havoc with the planting season and make the planting window very narrow for optimal yields. G lyphosate tolerant corn and soybean s allow growers a longer window for weed control since they can return to the field and spray the crop at a later date rather than be limited to only applying weed control at planting or early post emergence as is the case with many other herbicides . In addition, glyphosate will controlSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 18 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### larger weeds (up to 10 cm are controllable in most circ umstances)

, compared to other postemergent herbicides, further expanding the window for weed control. 27 

### Glyphosate

also has no residual soil herbicidal activity allowing maximum cropping flexibility. 26



### Finally, flexibility also encompasses the enabling of conservation tillage practices.

G lyphosate tolerant crop s allow weed control without tillage. By reducing the amount of tillage, labor requirements fall

, allowing growers more time to complete plantin g in a timely manner for optimal crop yields and/or expand their farming operation thereby reducing their fixed cost per bushel produced. 26 

### Brookes and Barfoot conclude d in their study that g lyphosate tolerant soybean s have enabled an expansion in second crop soybeans in Argentina due to the time savings alone from reduced tillage. They estimate the net value over variable costs of the additional second crop soybeans at $699 million

in 2006. 30



### Figure 2.2 Benefits of glyphosate tolerant crops

Glyphosate
Tolerant Crops Complementary with reduced tillage

• Reduces soil loss

• Lowers energy usage

• Improves carbon sequestration

• Lowers greenhouse gas emissions

Convenience

• Simplifies herbicide application

• Accelerates speed of application

• Saves management time

• Increases flexibility

• Enhances production process simplicity Cost reduction

• Lowers energy costs from fewer tillage passes and less intensive tillage

• Reduces herbicide cost

• Reduces labor costs

• Lowers machinery costs

Yield enhancement

• Improves yields on farms in developing regions

• Potentially enhances yields in developed countries depending on weed pressureSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 19 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 3 Weed Management in Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans

Proper weed control has always been a critical challenge for crop growers because weeds compete with crops for light, water and nutrients. Herbicides used in modern agricultural systems enable growers to manage most weeds across vast acreages. However, weed changes can occur in response to herbicide use as it can for other types of agricultural management decisions. Changes in weed populations begin when a su bset of plants

within a weed species, called a “biotype,” have a distinct genetic makeup that allows

them to resist and survive a particular herbicide application. As a grower continues to use a particular herbicide without any other herbicide modes of ac tion that are active against the resistant biotype , or doesn’t use any other weed control practices, the resistant biotype continues to survive and produce seed while susceptible biotype ( s ) of that weed are controlled. Subsequent populations of the resist ant biotype will continue to increase until they are the dominant weed in the field.

As detailed in the previous sections, the introduction of glyphosate tolerance into crops through genetic engineering has revolutionized crop protection. Glyphosate is a broad

spectrum herbicide with favorable environmental characteristics and effective broad

spectrum weed control that has greatly improved crop protection efficiency. The widespread adoption of g lyphosate tolerant crop s, and subsequent glyphosate use, on a large portion of the available agronomic cropland has resulted in a strong selection pressure for weed biotypes that are not controlled by glyphosate ; glyphosate resistant

weeds and hard

- to

- control weeds . After a lit tle more than a decade of use, the utility of this technology is threatened by the occurrence of glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

control biotypes of certain weed species.

G lyphosate resistant weed species such as marestail, ragweed, waterhemp and Palmer

amaranth and hard

- to

- control species such as lambsquarters and morning glory species are quickly spreading through corn and soybean producing states (Figure 3.3) . The potential magnitude of the problem affects an estimated 15 to 20 million acres of corn and soybeans and presents impor t ant agronomic and economic challenges to growers and the agricultural industry (Table 3.1) . University weed scientists from across the country

have warned of the impact of glyphosate resistant weeds on the profitability and sustainability of current cropping systems and believe that a higher level of stewardship is required to sustain the benefits of glyphosate and g lyphosate tolerant crop s into the

future. 53 

### Management of the spread of hard

- to

- control and herbicide

- resistant weeds will likely guide the direction of crop production in the future. 54 

### Growers clearly need more effective and diverse tools to manage glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds i n order to sustain the long

- term viability of the g lyphosate tolerant crop ping system and preserve the benefits it provides to growers, the agricultural industry, and society.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 20 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 3.1 Herbicide resistance

The evolution of herbicide

- resistant weeds is not uniq ue to glyphosate. Currently, 195 species (115 dicots and 80 monocots) have evolved resistance to at least one of 19

herbicide modes of action ( the means by which a herbicide achieves the intended effect on the plant) in at least 347 herbicide

- resistant we ed biotypes distributed over 340,000 fields (Figure 3.1). 55



### Figure 3.1 Global reports of herbicide resistant weeds

As discussed above in Section 1.2, c orn and soybean production in the United States was drastically altered with the introduction of g lyphosate tolerant technology in 1996 and 1998. By 2009

, producers grew glyphosate to lerant varieties and used glyphosate for weed control on approximately 95 percent and 82 percent of the soybean and corn acres, respectively. 56 

### The growers on these acres were generally not using other weed control practices, and the situation outlined abo ve occurred

– weed biotypes that were not killed by glyphosate survived and reproduced. 57 

### In response to th e selection pressure (i.e. a
reduction in the reproductive success of the glyphosate susceptible weed biotype s as a result of glyphosate treatment ) imposed by these practices , the composition and structure of weed communities in agricultural fields have been altered. 57 

### A total of eleven weed species have developed resistance to glyphosate in the United States. Nine of theseSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 21 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### species have evolved res istance to glyphosate in GT crops since their introduction 13

years ago. 55 

### The nearly exclusive reliance on glyphosate for weed control on g lyphosate tolerant crop varieties has caused substantial changes in weed communities. Figure 3.2

shows this relati onship of the adoption of g lyphosate tolerant corn and soybeans to the development of glyphosate resistant weeds

.
Figure 3.2 Adoption of glyphosate tolerant crops and development of glyphosate

resistant weeds in the United States

Sources : Third party proprietary data and Ian Heap http://www.weedscience.org

.


### The first report in the U nited S tates of glyphosate resistance in weeds associated with a

g lyphosate tolerant crop involved horseweed in Delaware. 58 

### Growers found it difficult to

control this weed in no

- till g lyphosate tolerant soybean s once resistance ev olved since tillage was not used to “plow under” any resistant biotypes. Since the initial report in
2000, glyphosate resistant populations of horseweed have been documented in 16 states throughout the Mid

- Atlantic, Mid

- South, Mississippi Delta, and Midwest states. 5 5 

### Since the discovery of glyphosate resistant horseweed in 2000, eight other weed species have evolved resistance to glyphosate in g lyphosate tolerant crop s in the United States including Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, Johnsongrass, common ra gweed, giant ragweed, kochia, Italian ryegrass and Johnsongrass (Table 3.1). 110%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 11 # of Confirmed Gly - Res Weeds in U.S.

GT Soybean GT Cotton GT Corn % of Acres with GT CropSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 22 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Table 3.1 Weeds that evolved resistance to glyphosate in glyphosate tolerant crops in the United States

Species Crop State Acreage*

Amaranthus palmeri (Palmer amaranth) Corn, cotton, soybean Georgia, North Carolina,
Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi 200,000

– 2,000,000

Amaranthus tuberculatus (waterhemp) Corn, soybean Iowa, Missouri, Illinois,
Kansas, Minnesota 1,200

– 11,000

Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed) Soybean Arkansas, Missouri,

Kansas <150

Ambrosia trifida (giant ragweed) Cotton, soybean Ohio, Arkansas, Indiana,
Kansas,

Minnesota, Tennessee 2,000

– 12,000

Erigeron canadensis

(horseweed) Corn, cotton, soybean Arkansas, California,
Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee > 2,000,000

Kochia scoparia (kochia) Corn, soybean Kansas 51

- 100

Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) Cotton, soybean Mississippi 1000

– 10,000

Sorghum halepense (Johnsongrass) Soybean Arkansas Unknown

* Minimum and maximum acreages are based on expert judgments provided for each state. The estimates were summed and rounded to provide an assessment of the minimum and maximum acreages in the United States. These values indicate orders of magnitudes but do not provide precise information on abundance of resistant weeds and likely underestimate actual acreage because the estimates were made when the

resistance was first identified. Source: Data from Heap, 2010.



### 3.2 Other shifts in weed communities (hard

- to

- contr ol species)

The makeup of weed communities in agronomic fields is influenced by many factors in addition to herbicide use including tillage, crop rotation, soil characteristics

, environment al factors , and management practices. Weeds that naturally tolerat e

g lyphosate tolerant crop weed management practices are referred to as “hard

- to

- control”Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 23 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### weeds. As described abo v e, t he adoption of g lyphosate tolerant crop ping systems has contributed to large increases in the percentage of growers using no

- till and red uced

- till
systems. 59 

### In response to these tillage practice changes, winter annual and perennial weed species have become more prevalent after the widespread adoption of g lyphosate tolerant crop s because they are not “plowed under” and can survive to reprod uce and spread. For example, horseweed, which behaves primarily as a winter annual weed, was rarely an economic problem in conventionally tilled fields, but has become a problem in

no

- till and reduced till fields. Weeds, like waterhemp, that continue to germinate after the last glyphosate application, escape control, and have an advantage in g lyphosate tolerant crop s. 60 

### Some weeds are naturally more tolerant of glyphosate, such as lambsquarters, wild buckwheat and morning glory species and have become more prevalent (Ta ble 3.2) . Table 3.2 lists weed species that have been found to become more abundant after the widespread adoption of g lyphosate tolerant crop s excluding resistant biotypes discussed above in Section 3.1

.

3.3 Potential for future spread of glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds in glyphosate tolerant crops

G lyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds are rapidly increasing in agricultural fields both in the number of species with resistant biotypes and th e acreage infested (Figure 3.3). Tables 3.3

- 3.4 and Figure 3.3 present future assumptions for glyphosate

resistant weed development in corn and soybeans in the United States. Several common annual grass and broadleaf weeds are expected to develop resista nce to glyphosate during the next five years including lambsquarters, velvetleaf, barnyardgrass and foxtail. Dow AgroSciences projects that approximately 3 0 million acres (20 percent of the 160 million total corn and soybean acres) will become infested with glyphosate resistant weeds by 2020 (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.4 ), while Syngenta projects that glyphosate resistant weeds will infest 38 million acres by 2013 (Table 3.4 and Figure 3. 4). As a result, glyphosate

resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds are projected to impact management decisions on nearly half of the corn and soybean acres in the United States within ten years.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 24 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC 

## Figure 3.3 Glyphosate Resistant Weeds

Change in Prevalence: 2001, 2005, 2009

Source: http://www.weedscience.orgSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 25 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Table 3.2 Weeds reported to have increased in abundance in glyphosate tolerant

crops

Species Crop

Acalypha spp. (copperleaf) Soybean

Amaranthus tuberculatus (waterhemp) Soybean

Amaranthus palmeri (Palmer amaranth) Cotton

Annual grasses Cotton

Chenopodium album (common lambsquarters) Soybean Iowa

Commelina communis (Asiatic dayflower) Cotton, soybean Midwest, Midsouth, Southeast

Commelina benghalensis (tropical spiderwort) Cotton Southeast, Georgia

Cyperus spp. (nutsedge) Cotton

Equisetum arvense (field horsetail) Herbicide

- resistant crops

Oenothera biennis (evening primrose) Herbicide

- resistant crops Iowa

Oenothera laciniata (cutleaf evening primrose) Soybean

Pastinaca sativa (wild parsnip) Herbicide

- resistant crops Iowa

Phytolacca americana (pokeweed) Herbici de

- resistant crops

Ipomoea spp. (annual morning glory) Cotton

Source: Ervin, D. E. et.al. 2010. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the
United States. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm

- Level Economics and Sustainability;
National Research Council. ISBN: 0

- 309

- 14709

- 3, 240 pages, 6 x 9.
h ttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/12804.html . Accessed: A pril 28, 2010.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 26 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Table 3.3 Future assumptions for glyphosate resistant weeds in corn and soybeans

in the United States*

Corn and Soybean Acres Today (2010) By 2015 By 2020

Glyphosate resistant weed species present or predicted Marestail

Common ragweed

Giant ragweed

Palmer amaranth

Waterhemp

Kochia

Rigid ryegrass

Johnsongrass All 2010 weeds

, plus

Lambsquarters

Velvetleaf

Barnyardgrass

Giant foxtail

Goosegrass All weeds listed

in 2010 and 2015

Estimated acres infested with glyphosate resistant weeds 7.5 M acres 15 M acres 30 M acres

% infested with glyphosate

resistant weeds 5% 10% 20%

Estimated % of acres on which weed management decisions are impacted by glyphosate

resistant weeds 10% 20% 40%

Source: Dow AgroSciences LLC.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 27 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Table 3.4 Future assumptions for glyphosate resistant weeds in corn and soybeans in the United States, Syngenta Corporation

Category Species

Key weeds developing resistance in corn and soybean fields over a broad area of the corn

belt Waterhemp

Pigweed species

Horseweed

Probable resistant weeds by 2010

- 2015 Foxtail

Barnyardgrass

Johnsongrass

Source: Syngenta Resistance Fighter TM Message Board. http://www.resistancefighter.com/about/weed

detail.aspx?Id=91163 ;



### Figure 3.4 Projected corn and soybean acres infested with glyphosate resistant broadleaf and grass weeds in the United States (excluding volunteer glyphosate resistant corn).

S ources:

 Foresman, C. 2009. Syngenta Resistance Fighter TM Message Board. http://blog.syngenta

us.com/blogs/ask_the_expert/archive/2009/04.aspx Accessed January 16, 2011.

 Dow AgroSciences LLC.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 28 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### 3.4 Growers’ response to glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds

Glyphosate resistance and other weed shifts can reduce the effectiveness and economic

benefits of g lyphosate tolerant crop systems. H owever, growers are reluctant to stop using g lyphosate tolerant crop s and glyphosate when faced with hard

- to

- control weed species. Despite reduced weed control, growers have constructed their farming enterprise s around glyphosate and g lyphosate tolerant c rop s, and they prefer the convenience, broad spectrum control and economic benefits of using glyphosate. 57 

### So they prefer to increase glyphosate application rates, increase the number of glyphosate applications, use other herbicides in addition to glyphosate, and/or increase tillage to control problem weeds. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show how glyphosate rates and the number of glyphosate applications applied on corn and soybeans have steadily increased with the widespread adoption of g lyphosate tolerant crop systems and evolution of glyphosate

resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds. Figure 3.7 shows the impact of inc reasing glyphosate rates and application frequency, and the increase in g lyphosate tolerant corn acres on total glyphosate use on corn and soybeans. (Please note that the g lyphosate tolerant soybean acreage was flat from 2006

- 2009, so the increase in poun ds of glyphosate used during this time period resulted from higher glyphosate application rates and frequency. Corn acres, however, grew during this time period and account for much of the glyphosate increase.)

Figure 3. 5 Average postemergence glyphosate use rates on corn and soybeans in the

United States.

Source: Third party proprietary data Lb. ai/Acre



### Corn Soybeans 0.9Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 29 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Figure 3.6 Average number of glyphosate applications on corn and soybeans in the United States (includes burndown uses)

Source: Third party proprietary data



### Figure 3.7 Total pounds of glyphosate applied on corn and soybeans in the United States (includes burndown uses)

Source: Third party proprietary data No. of Glyphosate Applications



### Corn Soybeans 1.75

Lb Glyphosate Applied



### Corn Soybeans 120,000,000Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 30 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### In addition to higher rates and application frequency of glyphosate, growers have

increased their use of non

- glyphosate herbicides in g lyphosate tolerant crop systems in

order to introduce additional herbicide modes of action for control glyphosate resista nt
and hard

- to

- control weeds. The use of preemergence residual herbicides nearly doubled, increasing from approximately 40 percent to 75 percent of the g lyphosate tolerant corn acreage and from 20 percent to 34 percent of the g lyphosate tolerant soybean a creage from 2000 to 2009 (Figures 3.8 and 3.9). During this same timeframe

, the use of

postemergent non

- glyphosate herbicides on g lyphosate tolerant corn more than doubled from approximately 15 percent of the g lyphosate tolerant corn acreage in 2000 to 39
percent in 2009 (Figure 3.10). Postemergent use of non

- glyphosate herbicide s on soybeans followed a slightly different pattern (Figure 3.11). Use of these herbicides on

g lyphosate tolerant soybean s was approximately eight percent of the g lyphosate toler ant soybean acres in 2000 and 2001, then dipped to five percent in 2004

- 2006, and increased

to 11 percent in 2009.

Unfortunately, the use of non

- glyphosate herbicides does not always address weed resistance issues. Growers do not always use broad

- spectrum herbicides to supplement glyphosate , so even when utilizing these alternative modes of action, glyphosate still provides the control of certain weeds while the supplemental herbicide has no effect on

those weeds. 61 

### In addition, growers often app ly reduced rates of non

- glyphosate

herbicides

, resulting in a reduced spectrum of control and frequent weed escapes. 62

, 63


### Glyphosate still provides control of certain weeds when used in combination with

reduced rates of non

- glyphosate herbicides.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 31 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC

Figure 3. 8 Preemergence non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant corn

Source: Third party proprietary data

Figure 3.9 Preemergence non

- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant soybeans

Source: Third party proprietary data 80,000,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 40%

RR Soybean Acres Non Glyphosate Herbicide Acres % of RR Soybeans with Non Gly Herbicide 80,000,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 80%

RR Corn Acres Non Glyphosate Herbicide Acres % of RR Corn with Non Gly HerbicideSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 32 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC

Figure 3.10 Post

- emergence non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant corn

Source: Third party proprietary data

Source: Third party proprietary data 80,000,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 12%

RR Soybean Acres Non Glyphosate Herbicide Acres % of RR Soybeans with Non Gly Herbicide 80,000,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 45%

RR Corn Acres Non Glyphosate Herbicide Acres % of RR Corn with Non Gly Herbicide

Figure 3.11 Post

- emergence non
- glyphosate herbicide usage on glyphosate tolerant soybeans (excludes products typically used to control volunteer corn)Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 33 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Several peer

- reviewed journal articles have been published on grower response to glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds in glyphosate resistant crops. The following literat ure review is summarized from the National Research Council report

entitled “ Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United

States. 18



###  “Soybean growers in Delaware continued planting glyphosate

- resistant soybean even in the pres ence of widespread glyphosate resistance in horseweed. Most producers addressed the problem by applying a herbicide with a different mode of action, increasing the frequency of glyphosate applications, or using tillage before planting. Some 76 percent of growers estimated that resistance in horseweed increased their management costs by more than $2.02/acre, and 28 percent reported cost increases of over $8.09/acre.”

 “A survey of 400 corn, soybean, and cotton producers in 17 states found that most
would not limit the use of glyphosate

- resistant crops when facing problematic glyphosate

- resistant weeds. Instead, producers planned to increase the rotation of herbicides, the use of tank

- mixes, or the amount of tillage. They expected that
additional measures for the control of glyphosate

- resistant weeds would cost $13.90

– 16.30/acre.”

 “In an economic analysis of weed

- management costs with a hypothetical reduction of control with glyphosate in three regions of the United States, the projected cost of new resis tance

- management practices for horseweed was $12.33/acre in a cotton

– soybean

– corn rotation in western Tennessee. Additional
costs were due to a shift from no

- till to conventional tillage for cotton and the need for new preplant herbicides for soybean.”

 “ The projected cost of new herbicide resistance

- management practices for waterhemp was $17.91/acre in a corn

– soybean rotation in southern Illinois; this cost resulted from use of different preemergence and postemergence herbicides for soybean.”

 “For cotton grown in Georgia, the extra cost of controlling shifts in tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis), a weed that is naturally tolerant to glyphosate, was predicted to be $14.91/acre; an additional herbicide application after cotton emergence explained this cost.”

The authors of the National Research Council report concluded from these studies that the evolution of glyphosate resistance and weed shifts could lead to two important changes in practices: increased use of herbicides generally and reduction s in conservation tillage. The preceding literature review indicates that these changes will

increase weed

- management costs, reduce growers’ profits, and produce environmentalSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 34 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### consequences. If widely adopted by growers, increased use of herbicides and ti llage will negate the environmental benefits achieved through g lyphosate tolerant crop systems.

3.5 Weed management strategies to sustain glyphosate tolerant cropping systems in corn and soybeans

The key to controlling existing resistant weeds and slowing the development of new resistant weeds is to reduce and diversify selection pressure on the weed population while still maintaining economic levels of control. 64 

### This requires a planned and integrated weed management approach combining:

 Rotation of crops

-- to allow a more varied weed control program

 Rotation of cultural practices

-- to reduce reliance on herbicides

 Rotation of sequences and mixtures of herbicidal modes of action and chemistry

-

- to reduce the pressure on a specific herbicide group.

Di versification of weed

- management strategies can be accomplished by integrating

several weed

- control tactics including the following: 65



###  Scout fields before and after herbicide application.

 Start with a clean field, using either a burn

- down herbicide applic ation or tillage.

 Control weeds early when they are relatively small.

 Rotate herbicides that have different modes of action.

 Use residual herbicides that have different modes of action.

 Use tank

- mixes of herbicides that have different modes of action.

 In corporate other herbicides and cultural practices as part of g lyphosate tolerant

crop ping systems where appropriate.

 Use the right herbicide product at the right rate and the right time.

 Control weed escapes and prevent weeds from setting seeds.

 Clean equipment before moving from field to field to minimize spread of weed
seed.

 Use new commercial seed as free from weed seed as possible.

 Report any incidence of repeated non

- performance on a particular weed to the local crop protection chemical com pany representative, retailer, or county extension agent.

The Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC, www.hracglobal.com) prepared the tool presented in Table 3.5 to help growers assess the value of weed resistance management practices and create an effective integrated weed management program.

HRAC recommends that the number of applications of a single mode of action be limited in a single growing season. Where possible, HRAC recommends use of herbicide mixtures or sequential application of herbici des of different modes of action that are active on the same target weeds. In cases of confirmed herbicide resistance, HRAC advises farmers to avoid using the herbicide to which resistance has been confirmed unless used in conjunction with herbicides with a different mode of action active on the resistant weed population.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 35 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Resistance management through use of herbicide mixtures and rotation of herbicides is most effective if the partner herbicides are highly effective against the same weeds. A partner he rbicide which is only marginally effective at controlling a weed or is used at a reduced application rate (to reduce crop damage), is not expected to effectively delay

resistance

. 62



### Table 3.5 Assessment of resistance risk by evaluation of the cropping sy stem

Management Option Risk of Resistance

Low Moderate High

Herbicide mix or rotation in cropping system >2 modes of action 2 modes of action 1 mode of action

Weed control in cropping

system Cultural, mechanical

and chemical Cultural* and

chemical Chemical only

Use of same MOA per

season Once More than once Many times

Cropping system Full rotation Limited rotation No rotation

Resistance status to MOA Unknown Limited Common

Weed infestation Low Moderate High

Control in last 3 years Good Declining Poor

* Cultural control can be by using cultivation, stubble burning, competitive crops, stale seedbeds, etc. See HRAC guidelines for more details.

Source: Herbicide Resistant Action Committee. http://w ww.hracglobal.com



### 3.6 New tools for weed resistance management

Without changes in production practices, increased weed resistance to glyphosate will likely increase weed

- management expenses for growers. Given the rapid increase in, and expansion of, glyphosate resistant weeds in g lyphosate tolerant crop s, herbicide

-Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 36 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### resistance management needs national attention and requires the development and use of
new, more effective weed

- management strategies and tactics. New herbicide tools are critical to manag ement of weeds with resistance to multiple modes of action.

Herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s allows the use of a new herbicide mode of

action on soybean . It confers robust tolerance to 2,4

- D as well as tolerance to glufosinate. This technology ena bles the use of a new mode of action on soybeans for control of broadleaves, and efficacious application rates and flexible application timing
for 2,4

- D.

Most university recommendations for control of glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control
broadleaf weeds include 2,4

- D as a control option for preplant burndown in soybean B



### . 2,4

- D’s wide spectrum of broadleaf weed control complements glyphosate because it

controls most glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control broadleaf weed species (Table 4.1

and Section 4.4 ). 2,4

- D will control broadleaf weeds that are resistant to other modes of

action such as ALS

- enzyme inhibitor and PPO inhibitor herbicides, including weeds with multiple resistance. Weed researchers are hopeful that new technologies , suc h as DAS

68416

- 4

, will become useful tools to help manage glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

control weeds in order to sustain the long

- term viability of the g lyphosate tolerant

crop ping system and preserve the benefits it provides to growers, the agricultural industry, and society.

4 Long

- term Weed Resistance Management through Use of Herbicide Tolerant

DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

4.1 DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans enable use of alternative modes of action to glyphosate

DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean plants have been genetic ally engineered to express the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase

- 12 (AAD

- 12) and phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins. The AAD

- 12 protein provide tolerance to 2,4

- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4

- D) C 

### and the PAT provides tolerance to glufosinate

- am monium herbicides.

2,4

- D and glufosinate represent two distinct herbicidal modes of action that are different from glyphosate. 2,4

- D is a broadleaf herbicide that acts as a synthetic auxin causing uncontrolled growth and plant death. 2,4

- D is classified by HRAC as a Group O

B F or example: http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Pubs/ws/ws

- 16/

C Dow AgroSciences is seeking EPA regist ration of a new 2,4

- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4

- D) product to

be utilized with DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

. This proprietary choline salt of 2,4

- D has ultra low volatility,
improved stability at low temperatures and improved, lower odor. In addition, Dow AgroSciences is
developing technology to significantly reduce the potential for off

- target movement via s pray droplet drift.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 37 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### herbicide (a synthetic auxin, acts like indole acetic acid) and Group 4 in the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) mode of action classification scheme (a synthetic
auxin, specific site(s) unknown)

. Each Group desig nation reflects a specific mode of action or how it affects the sensitive species. 66 

### Glufosinate

- ammonium inhibits the glutamine synthetase enzyme resulting in a decrease of several amino acids, which eventually leads to cell membrane disruption and death of the cell. Glufosinate

ammonium is classified by HRAC as a Group H herbicide (and Group 10 in the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) mode of action classification scheme). Glyphosate

is a non

- selective herbicide that acts by inhibition of 5

- enolpyr uvylshikimate

- 3

- phosphate synthase (EPSPS), a key enzyme in the shikimate biosynthetic pathway. Glyphosate is classified by HRAC as a Group G herbicide (Group 9 in the WSSA scheme).

4.2 Management of glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weeds using herbicide

tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s will be stacked (the process of combining traits through traditional breeding) with glyphosate tolerance so that farmers will be able to use 2,4

- D

and glyphosate together

, providing two different but complementary modes of action for

both broadleaf weed control. 2,4

- D is an ideal complement to glyphosate to provide a n exceptional pre and postemergent weed management program that is not available today and is readily adaptable to use with foundation herbicide programs

. 2,4

- D controls several key broadleaf weed species that are resistant to, or difficult to control with, glyphosate and ALS herbicides (Table 4.1). Mixtures of 2,4

- D with glyphosate can provide control of glyphosate resistant biotypes and hard to control weeds that is superior to glyphosate alone.

Weed control in soybeans using 2,4

- D can play an important role in managing glyphosate

resistant weed biotypes. DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans provide a n opportunity to preserve the
economic, environmental, and convenience benefits of glyphosate

- toleran ce technology even in the presence of glyphosate resistance. DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans can enable

farmers to manage glyphosate resistant weeds withou t returning to environmentally damaging weed management practices such as tillage

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 38 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Table 4.1 Glyphosate resistant, ALS resistant weeds, and hard

- to

- control weeds that are controlled by 2,4

- D

Weed Species Glyphosate Resistance /

Hard

- to

- Control Resistant to ALS

Herbicides Controlled by

2,4

- D

Common Lambsquarters Hard

- to

- control (2004)  (2001) 

Common Ragweed Confirmed Resistant (2004)  (1998) 

Eastern Black Nightshade Hard

- to

- control (2004)  (1999) 

Giant Ragweed Confirmed Resistant (2004)  (1998) 

Marestail (horseweed) Confirmed Resistant (2000)  (2000) 

Palmer Amaranth* Confirmed Resistant (2005)  (1991) 

Waterhemp Confirmed Resistant (2005)  (1993) 

Prickly Sida Hard

- to

- control (2004)  (1993) 

* Requires an integrated weed management plan

, including additional weed control technology

, for acceptable control.



### DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s will enable farmers to better manage glyphosate resistant weeds by enabling an effective alternative mode of action that will provide the opportunity to reduce the selection p ressure for resistance to glyphosate and prevent or delay the onset of new cases of resistance. Farmers will be able to apply mixtures of herbicides with two or more distinct modes of action. Such mixtures will prevent or severely limit the

survival and reproduction of susceptible weeds which are developing resistance to one of

the herbicidal modes of action because these weeds will be susceptible to the other herbicide(s) in the mixture

. 67



### For mixtures to be most effective at delaying resistance, each c omponent alone should be highly efficacious on that weed species. 68 

### Both 2,4

- D and glyphosate individually provide very high levels of control of important susceptible weed species when applied alone, and show the expected additivity when applied together. This means that when used together, any susceptible weed plants that may be developing resistance to one ofSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 39 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### the components is expected to be eliminated from the population by the other component

, curtailing the increase and spread of the resistance.

As an alternative to mixtures of herbicides, temporally separated sp ray applications to provide a rotation among modes of action within a growing season can be effective as part of a pre

- emptive resistance management strategy. 68 

### As with mixtures, a rotation approach to herbicide management is expected to prevent or delay the emergence of new weed management challenges due to resistance. T hrough these practices, the projected trajectory of new glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weed issues, such as new resistant biotypes or expanded range of resistant and hard

- to

- con trol weed populations, can be slowed through the use of 2,4

- D with herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

.
4.3 Proposed Use Pattern and Compatibility with Glyphosate Cropping System

To encourage a system that incorporates multiple modes of action, Dow Agr oSciences has designed the technology to be compatible with the current glyphosate cropping
system

.
The proposed use pattern of 2,4

- D on DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s will allow applications of
2,4

- D at 0.5

- 1.0 lb ae/ac at burndown and preemergence timings with no planting restrictions. The proposed use pattern will also allow application of 2,4

- D at 0.5

- 1.0 lb ae/ac postemergence from VC to R2 growth stage. The pro posed maximum seasonal use
of 2,4

- D is 3.0 lbs ae/ac.

This application window will provide optimal flexibility for growers to manage their weed control program around cultural operations or climatic conditions. This application window is aligned with the application window for glyphosate on soybeans, which wi ll

maintain flexibility for farmers when stacked with a glyphosate tolerance trait. The
combination of 2,4

- D and glyphosate provides a superior weed control system with maximum flexibility and efficiency for the grower. The proposed use pattern for 2,4

- D on
DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans is shown pictorially in Figure 4.1.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 40 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Figure 4. 1 2,4

- D, and glyphosate applications schedules for DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

* ae/ac , Pre = pre

- emergence, Post = post

- emergence



### The compatibility of the windows for application of all soybean herbicides allows growers to easily incorporate DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans into their cropping system and increases the ease of delivering multiple modes of action to control weeds and mitigate the development of weed resistance.

4.4 Proactive resistance management for 2,4

- D through integration with glyphosate

Herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s provide a new tool for managing and delaying glyphosate resistance, managing hard

- to

- control weeds, and preserving the benefits of the herbicide tolerant technologies. However

, sustainable use of DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s will require long

- term management of resistance to 2,4

- D , glufosinate as well as to glyphosate. A thorough discussion of weed resistance, how it develops, and its management can be found at the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC)

website. 6 7



### 2,4

- D has been u sed since 1945 with relatively few weed resistance issues. Globally, 16 weed species have documented reports of 2,4

- D resistant biotypes, with only three in the continental United States (wild carrot, field bindweed, prickly lettuce). 69 

### None of these

are of substantial economic importance and none has shown a large degree of spread from their point of origin. The rarity of resistance to 2,4

- D or other auxinic herbicides

has been attributed to: 70

, 71

, 72

, 73

, 74



###  multiple sites of action for these auxin herbicide s in the plant,

 redundancy in receptors and other components of the auxin signal response,

 frequent use in mixtures with other herbicides, Post 0.5

- 1 lb

(up to 2 applications 12 days apart) Burndown /Pre 1 lb R2

Full flower

All units = lbs ae /A. Glyphosate
Post

- emergence Glyphosate
Pre

- emergence Post 0.5

- 1 lb

(up to 2 applications 12 days apart) Burndown /Pre 1 lb R2

Full flower

All units = lbs ae /A. Glyphosate
Post

- emergence Glyphosate
Pre

- emergenceSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 41 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



###  a fitness penalty associated with auxin resistance mechanisms in weeds, and

 quantitative inheritance of the trait

 short soil half

- life (residual)

The same principles of weed resistance management discussed above (see Section 3.5) for glyphosate apply directly to 2,4

- D and the glufosinate herbicides. F armers will be encouraged to use multiple herbicide modes of actio n with DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean to control their weed problems. DAS

- 68416

- 4 will be stacked with glyphosate resistan ce so that farmers may be able to select among 2,4

- D, glyphosate, and a mixture of the two for

their postemergence broadleaf weed control. Selection pressure for 2,4

- D resistant weed biotypes will be mitigated by the ability to use glyphosate concurrently. Since glyphosate still effectively controls most weed species in most fields, and controls all weed biotypes that have developed resistan ce to 2,4

- D, use of glyphosate will prevent or delay selection
for 2,4

- D resistance.

Formal herbicide stewardship programs being developed for use with DAS

- 68416

- 4

s oybean s will provide farmers with the knowledge and tools to optimally manage

resistance to 2,4

- D and glyphosate, to ensure that the benefits of herbicide

- tolerant cropping systems can be continued for the long term. Dow AgroSciences’ stewardship program will include substantial grower education on cost

- effective integrated weed
management. An extensive network of sales representatives, field scientists, and agronomists will play an important role in educating and training applicators and growers on the proper use of the technology. Dow AgroSciences field personnel will work with
growers to select the seed and herbicide products appropriate to their needs.

Dow AgroSciences will recommend a program approach for broad

- spectrum weed

control. Pre

- plant and pre

- emergence herbicides will be recommended to provide early season control of a range of broadleaf and grass herbicides. For example, Sonic ® 

### (a premixture of cloransulam

- methyl and sulfentrazone) D 

### is a soil herbicide that can be applied prior to or at planting in soybeans to control broadleaf weeds. These herbicide programs provide additional modes of action and they control several weeds that are increasingly problematic in glyphosate

- tolerant cro ps, such as horseweed (marestail), waterhemp, common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, common and giant ragweed, pigweed, morning glory, kochia, and Palmer amaranth.

Dow AgroSciences is voluntarily adopting mode of action labeling for its herbicides that

can be u sed with DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s, following the WSSA mode of action classification. These labels will include clear weed resistance management language promoting agronomic practices that reduce the likelihood that resistant weed populations will develop and can be used to manage weed resistance if it occurs. These

D SONIC is a registered trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLCSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 42 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### recommendations will be product specific, but generally include the use of appropriate herbicide mixtures, rotation of herbicides from different mode of action groups, use of

burndown and residual applications of herbicides at or prior to planting, use of full labeled rates when applied, use of alternative weed control practices such as delayed planting and use of weed

- free crop seeds, and scouting of fields after applications for any weeds that may have escaped treatment or show evidence of less

- than

- expected control. Growers will also be asked to report to Dow AgroSciences any incidents of repeated non

performance of these herbicides with DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans

.
In addition to labeling on Dow AgroSci ences herbicides, weed resistance management practices will be recommended in documentation that accompanies the DAS

- 68416

- 4 seed. As with Dow AgroSciences’ other genetically engineered seed products (Herculex ® 

### family of insect protection in corn, WideStr ike ® 

### insect protection in cotton,

and REFUGE ADVANCEDTM powered by SmartStax ® 

### in corn) E 

### growers who purchase and plant soybean seed containing DAS

- 68416

- 4 will be required to have a signed Grower Agreement in place. The Grower Agreement is a legal and contractual obligation that includes a provision requiring them to follow the relevant Product Use Guide. Product Use Guides are being developed and will be provided to all growers using the technology. These Guides will describe appropriate trait stewardship guidelines including effective weed resistance management based around sound agronomic practices and integrated approaches to weed control.

The divers ity of herbicide modes of action that can be applied to DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s , coupled with cultural approaches to weed management, provide the opportunity for robust resistance management and help insure long term viability of each of the components. Ther efore , Dow AgroSciences’ DAS

- 68416

- 4 herbicide tolerant soybeans will promote the sustainable use and benefits of herbicide tolerant crops.

5 Economic Benefits of Dow AgroSciences H erbicide T olerant T echnology

The introduction of glyphosate tolerant soybeans and corn enabled adoption of conservation tillage practices because weeds could be successfully controlled without additional tillage. Over the last few years, weed resistance to glyphosate has developed

an d continues to spread. Some weeds can be controlled with other herbicides at an
additional cost. In some situations, farmers have reverted back from no

- till systems to

E SmartStax ® multi

- event technology developed by Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto.

TM REFUGE ADVANCED is a trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC.

® SmartStax is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

®TM HERCULEX and the HERCULEX Shield Logo are registered trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC REFUGE ADVANCED is not registered for sale or use in all states.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 43 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### conventional tillage or minimum tillage systems in order to control weeds such as

mare stail, giant ragweed and Palmer amaranth incurring not only the cost of additional tillage but also losing the positive environmental benefits associated with reduced tillage.

A study was conducted to evaluate the economic impacts of glyphosate resistant weeds

and herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s and DAS

- 40278

- 9 corn at the farm level through individual case study analysis and to determine the aggregate economic effects at the national level using the IHS partial equilibrium models for US crops and farm income. The study is presented in Appendix A. Both the case study analysis and national analysis utilized scenario analysis to contrast a baseline situation of no weed

resistance with situations of weed resistance without DAS

- 68416

- 4 and DAS

- 40278

- 9 technology and weed resistance with DAS

- 68416

- 4 and DAS

- 40278

- 9 technology.

Glyphosate resistant weed infestations significantly reduce farm income, erode net worth, and have significant environmental consequences from tillage changes. On average

across all five soybean case studies, growers with DAS

- 68416

- 4 technology were able to recover 34 percent of their income lost from glyphosate resistant weeds. Those cases with tillage impacts recovered 45 percent of their lost income and those cases without

til lage impacts recovered 18 percent. Similar to the case studies, on a national basis

herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s and DAS

- 40278

- 9 corn were found in the study to offset over 18 percent of the net farm income impacts and eliminate environment impacts saving the equivalent of emissions from over 19,000 cars per year and reducing soil erosion by 2.6 million tons per year in the United States. Over the 2011 to 2020 period, with DAS herbici de tolerant technology, growers would save $4 billion in net

farm income and consumers would save $563 million.

6 Impact of 2,4

- D on Herbicide Tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 S oybean s and DAS

- 40278

- 9
Corn on the Cost and Environmental Load of Herbicides Applied on G lyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans to Control Glyphosate Resistant and Glyphosate Tolerant Weed Biotypes

An analysis was conducted to determine the impact of the use of 2,4

- D on herbicide

tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s and DAS

- 40278

- 9 corn on the environmental load of herbicides applied on glyphosate tolerant corn and soybeans to control glyphosate

resistant and hard

- to

- control weed biotypes. Third party prop r ietary data for corn and soybeans and a survey of university weed specialists were used to create assumptions for how growers would change herbicide use on glyphosate tolerant corn and soybeans to manage glyphosate resistant and hard

- to

- control weed biotypes. The full analysis is presented in Appendix B and the university weed speciali st survey is presented in Appendix C. Analyses were completed for corn in five states and for soybeans in fiveSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 44 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### states targeting control of a glyphosate resistant weed species that are present in each

state

In DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans , the analysis indicated t hat the use of 2,4

- D on herbicide

tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s will vary from a reduction in one scenario of 0.10 lbs ai/ac to an increase in others of up to 0.65 lbs ai/ac, with an average increase across all scenarios of only 0.3 lbs, compared to the us e of currently registered alternative non

glyphosate herbicides. The results in soybeans differ from those in corn because many of

the non

- glyphosate herbicide alternatives for control of broadleaf weeds in soybeans are very low rate products (examples: c arfentrazone, flumioxazin, fomesafen, sulfentrazone).

Conclusions

Herbicide tolerant crops have played, and continue to play, a central role in improving

U.S. agricultural productivity and protecting the agricultural environment. Herbicide tolerant crops have enabled the widespread adoption of conservation tillage practices that preserve soil health, can improve water quality, and improve efficiency of utiliza tion of agricultural inputs, while improving weed management and increasing farm income. U.S. farmers have enjoyed the benefits of an easy

- to

- use, flexible, and cost

- effective weed management technology based around glyphosate. This success has resulted in a

recent rise in glyphosate resistant weeds and hard

- to

- control weeds as a consequence of

over

- reliance on a single herbicide mode of action. Alternatives to the glyphosate system

that share the same benefits but enable use of alternative modes of acti on are necessary to preserve the benefits of herbicide tolera nt crops for the long

- term.

Dow AgroSciences has developed an alternative herbicide tolerant technology for soybeans using the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase

- 12 (AAD

- 12) and phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT) proteins. Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s provides an important alternative to glyphosate

- only herbicide tolerance and is a powerful tool that can help solve the challenges of weeds that are resistant to, or har d

to

- control with, glyphosate. By enabling the use of 2,4

- D and glufosinate herbicides in addition to glyphosate, DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s will allow the use of one more tool to control glyphosate resistance. In addition, Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide tolerant trait will enable easy implementation of effective weed resistance management programs based on pre

- mixes, tank mixes, and/or herbicide rotation programs that use multiple modes of action to control weed populations. Specific stewardship programs to be

i mplemented alongside DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybean s will help to preserve glyphosate efficacy and promote 2,4

- D resistance management.

DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeansDAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeansDAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans By offering a simple, effective, and flexible alternative to glyphosate

- only herbicide tolera nt crops

,Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 45 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide tolerant DAS

- 68416

- 4 s oybean s will create the opportunity to preserve and extend the many environmental and economic benefits farmers have realized from using g lyphosate tolerant crop s a nd provide U.S. farmers with a cutting edge technology to enhance global competitiveness.

1 

### USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) acreage report, annual issues
2000

– 2009.

2 

### Third Party Proprietary Data, 2009

3 

### Supplemental Toolkit For Investors. Monsanto. February 2010.

4 

### Fernandez

- Cornejo J. and McBride, W. (2002). Adoption of bio

- engineered crops, USDA, ERS Agricultural Economics Report No 810.

5 

### Duke, S. O., & Powles, S. B. Mini

- review Glyphosate: a once in a century herbicide. Pest Management Science, 64, 319

- 325. 2008.

6 

### Lin, W., Price, G. K., & Fernandez

- Cornejo, J. (2001). Estimating Farm Level Effects of Adopting Herbicide

- To lerant Soybeans. USDA, Economic Research Service.
Economic Research Service/USDA.

7 

### Gianessi LP, Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate

- resistant crops. Pest Management Science 61:241

- 245. 2005.

8 

### Gianessi LP, Economic impacts of glyphosate

- res istant crops. Pest Management
Science 64:346

- 352. 2008.

9 

### Duke, S. O., & Powles, S. B. Glyphosate

- Resistant Crops and Weeds: Now and in the Future. AgBioForum, 12 (3&4), 346

- 357. 2009.

10 

### Marra, M. C., Piggott, N. E., & Carlson, G. A. (2004). The Net Be nefits, Including Convenience, of Roundup Ready Soybeans: Results from a National Survey. National Science Foundation. Raleigh: NSF center for IPM.

11 

### Piggott, N. E., & Marra, M. C. (2008). Biotechnology Adoption Over Time in the
Presence of Non

- Pecuniary C haracteristics that Directly Affect Utility: A Derived Demand Approach. AgBioForum, 11 (1), 58

- 70.

12 

### Grilliches, Z. Hybrid Corn: An Exploration into the Economics of Technical Change.
Econometrica. 2:501

- 525. 1957.

13 

### Rogers, E.M. Diffussion of Innovation . Third edition, The Free Press, New York.
1983.

14 

### Wozniak, D. The Adoption of Interrelated Innovations: A Human Capital Approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 66, Issue 1(February):70

- 79. 1984.

15 

### Caswell, M., and D. Zilberman. The Choic e of Irrigation Technologies in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 67(May):224

- 34. 1985.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 46 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC

16 

### McNamara, K.T., M.E. Wetzstein, and G.K. Douce. 1991. Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management. Review of Agric ultural Economics. 13(January):129

- 39.

17 

### Marra, M., B.J. Hubbell, and G. Carlson. 2001. Information Quality, Technology Depreciation, and Bt Cotton Adoption in the Southeast. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 26(1):158

- 175.

18 

### Ervin, D. E. et. al. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm

- Level Economics and Sustainability. National Research Council. Prepublication Copy. ISBN: 0

- 309

- 14709

- 3. 2010.

19 

### Faw cett, R., and D. Towery “Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow,” Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), West Lafayette, IA. 2002.

20 

### Frisvold, G. B., Boor, A., & Reeves, J. M. (2009). Simultaneous Diffusion of Herbicide Resistant Cotton and Conservation Tillage. AgBioForum, 12 (3&4), 249

- 257.

21 

### Locke, M. A., Zablotowicz, R. M., & Reddy, K. N. (2008). Integrating soil conservation practices and glyphosate

- resista nt crops: impacts on soil. Pest Management Science, 64, 457

- 469.

22 

### Trigo, E.J., and Cap, E.J. (2006). “ Ten Years of Genetically Modified Crops in Argentine Agriculture,” Research Report, Argentine Council for Information and Development of Biotechnology

– ArgenBio.

23 

### American Soybean Association. Conservation Tillage Study. Saint Louis, MO.
Available at http://www.soygrowers.com/ctstudy/ctstudy_files/frame.htm. 2001

.

24 

### Dill, G.M. CaJacob, C.A., & Padgette, S.R. Glyphosate

- resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Management Science, 64(4), 326

- 331. 2008.

25 

### Cerdeira, A. L., & Duke, S. O. The Current Status and Environmental Impacts of Glyphosate

- Re sistant Crops: A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 1633

- 1658. 2006.

26 

### Mueller, T. C., Mitchell, P. D., Young, B. G., & Culpepper, A. S. Proactive versus reactive management of glyphosate

- resistant or

- tolerant weeds. Weed Technology, 19,
924

- 933 . 2005.

27 

### Webster, T. M., & Sosnoskie, L. M. (2010). Loss of Glyphosate Efficacy: A Changing Weed Spectrum in Georgia Cotton. Weed Science, 58, 73

- 79.

28 

### Konduru, S., Kruse, J., & Kalaitzandonakes. The Global Economic Impacts of Roundup Ready Soybeans. Gene tics and Genomics of Soybean. Chapter 19. Edited by G. Stacey. Springer 2008.

29 

### Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. Gm Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact

- The First Nine Years 1996

- 2004. AgBioForum, 8 (2&3), 187

- 196. 2005.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 47 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC

30 

### Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2008). Global impacts of Biotech Crops: Socio

- Economic and Environmental Effects, 1996

- 2006. AgBioForum, 11 (1), 21

- 38.

31 

### Sankula, Sujatha., and Blumenthal, E. Impacts on U.S. agriculture of biotechnology

derived crops planted in 2003: An up date of eleven case studies . Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy. 2004. Available on the World Wide
Web: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2004finalreport.pdf

.

32 

### Sankula, Sujatha “ Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology

Derived Crops Planted in 2005,” Report by National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC. 2006.

33 

### USDA

- NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture

– Natural Resources Conservation Service). Energy Consumption Awareness Tool: Tillage. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture

– Natural Resources Conservation Service, Available online at http://ecat.sc.egov.us da.gov/ . Accessed May 4, 2010.

34 

### Mitchell, J.P., D.S. Munk, B. Prys, K.M. Klonsky, J.F. Wroble, and R.L.D. Moura. Conservation tillage production systems compared in the San Joaquin Valley cotton. California Agriculture 60(3): 140

- 145.

35 

### Sanders, L.D. The economics of conservation and conservation tillage. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Conservation Tillage. 2000. Available via
the web at: http://agecon.oks tate.edu/isct/labranza/sanders/mazecon00.doc

.

36 

### Jasa, P.J. Conservation tillage systems. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Conservation Tillage. Mazatlan, Mexico. 2000. Available online at http://agecon.okstate.edu/isct/labranza/jasa/til lagesys.doc.

37 

### Fernandez

- Cornejo, J., and J. Li. The impacts of adopting genetically engineered crops in the USA: The case of Bt corn. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting in Providence, RI. 2005. Available online at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/19318/1/sp05fe01.pdf.

38 

### Fernandez

- Cornejo, J., and A.K. Mishra. Off

- farm income, production decisions, and farm economic performances. ERR #36. U.S. Departmen of Agriculture

– Economic
Research Service. Wa shington D.C. 2007. Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/10113/20582

.

39 

### Gardner, J.G., and C.H. Nelson. Genetically modified crops and labor savings in U.S. crop production. Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting in Mobile, AL. University of Illinois at Urbana

- Champaign. 2007.

40 

### F alck

– Zepeda, Jose B., G. Traxler, R.G. Nelson “Rent Creation and Distribution From Biotechnology Innovations: The Case of Bt Cotton and Herbicide

- Tolerant Soybeans in 1997,” Agribusiness, Vol. 16, 1, 21

– 32. 2000.

41 

### Moschini, Giancarlo, H. Lapan, and A. So bolevsky “ Roundup Ready Soybeans and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex,” Agribusiness , 16 (1): 33

- 55. 2000.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 48 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC

42 

### Qaim, Matin, and G. Traxler (2002). “Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina: Farm Level, Environmental, and Welfare Effects,” 6 th 

### International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy, July 11

- 14

43 

### Trigo, E.J., and Cap, E.J. (2006). “ Ten Years of Genetically Modified Crops in Argentine Agriculture,” Research Report, Argentine Council for Information and Development of Biotechnology

– ArgenBio.

44 

### Benbroo k, Charles (1999). “Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University

- Based Variety Tests in 1998, Ag BioTech Info Net Technical Paper 1, www.bi otech

- info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf

45 

### Duffy, Michael, and M. Ernst. (1999). Does Planting GMO Seed Boost Farmers'Profits? Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Leopold Letter, Vol. 11, No. 3.

46 

### Elmore, R.W., Roeth, F.W., Nelson , L. A., Shapiro, C. A., Klein, R. N., Knezevic, S. Z.,Martin, A. “Glyphosate

- Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines,” Agronomy Journal, 93: 408

– 412. 2001.

47 

### Oplinger, E.S., M. J. Martinka, J. M. Gaska, K. A. Schmitz and C. R. Grau. W isconsin soybean variety test results, A3654, Department of Agronomy and Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin

- Madison, 1998. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/soybean/research/98soyvar/98soyvar.pdf.

48 

### Marra, M., Pardey, P., & Alston, J. (2002). The payoffs to t ransgenic field crops: an assessment of the evidence. AgBioForum, 5(2), 43

– 50.

49 

### Gianessi, L.P., and J. E. Carpenter (2000). “Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans,” A Report by National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy,
Washin gton DC.

50 

### Carpenter, J. C. Peer

- reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 28 (4), 319

- 321. 2010.

51 

### Bertram, M. G., & Pedersen, P. (2004). Soybean: Adjusting Management Practices Using Glyphosate

- Resistant Soybean Cultivars. Agronomy Journal, 96, 462

- 468.

52 

### Frisvold, G. B., Hurley, T. M., & Mitchell, P. D. (2009). Overview: Herbicide Resistant Crops

- Diffusion, Benefits, Pricing, and Resistance Management. AgBioForum, 12 (3 & 4), 244

- 248.

53 

### Boerboom C.M. 2007. The stewardship continuum. 32

– 36 in Boerboom C.M., Owen
M.D.K. National Glyphosate Stewardship Forum II: A Call to Action . St. Louis, MO:
North Central IPM Center. h ttp://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2007/NGSFII_final.pdf

. Accessed: April 28, 2010.

54 

### Culpepper A.S. 2006. Glyphosate

- induced weed shifts. Weed Technol . 20: 277

– 281.

55 

### Heap, I. 2010. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. from WeedScience.org , http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed March 31, 2010.

56 

### Third Party Proprietary Data, 2009.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 49 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC

57 

### Ervin, D.E. et.al. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm

- Level Economics and Sustainability. National Research Council. Prepublication Copy. ISBN: 0

- 309

- 1470 9

- 3. 2010.

58 

### VanGessel, M.J. 2001. Glyphosate

- resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Science
49:703

– 705.

59 

### Givens, W. A. 2010. Shifts in Herbicide Use, Tillage Practices, and Perception s of Glyphosate

- resistant Weeds Following Adoption of Glyphosate

- resistant Crops. Miss.
State Univ. Dissertation. http://sun.library.msstate.edu/ETD

- db/theses/available/etd

03312010

- 103616/

. Accessed: April 28, 2010.

60 

### Owen, MDK. 2008. Weed species shifts in glyphosate

- resistant crops. Pest Management Science 64(4):377

- 387.

61 

### Vindrine, P.R., J.L. Griffin and D.C. Blo uin. 2002. Evaluation of reduced rates of glyphosate and chlorimuron in glyphosate

- resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology 16:731

- 736.

62 

### Golden Harvest. 2007. Weed management strategies for herbicide tolerant corn. http://www.ghcommunications.com/Uploads/Agronomy_Studies/HerbicideTolerantCorn. pdf . Accessed May 5, 2011.

63 

### Third party proprietary data

.

64 

### Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/HRACManagementandWeedResistance/tabid/2 28/Default.aspx . Accessed April 28, 2010.

65 

### Weed Resistance Management Guidelines. http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/guidelines.html . Accessed April 28, 2010.

66 

### HRAC. Classification of Herbicides According to Site of Action. http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ClassificationofHerbicideSiteofAction/tabid/222 /Default.aspx . Accessed May 5 , 2011.

67 

### HRAC. Guidelines to the Management of Herbicide Resistance. http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ManagementofHerbicideResistance/tabid/225/D efault.aspx . Accessed May 5, 2011.

68 

### Neve , P. 2008. Simulation modeling to understand the evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in weeds. Pest Management Science 64 :392

– 401

69 

### Heap, I. 2009. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com

70 

### Jasieniuk, M., Brule

- Babel, A.L. and Morrison, I.N. 1996. The evolution and genetics
of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Science 44:176

- 193.

71 

### Walsh, T.A., Neal, R., Merlo, A.O., Honma , M., Hicks, G.R., Wolff, K., Matsumura, W. and Davies, J.P. 2006. Mutations in an auxin receptor homolog AFB5 and in SGT1bSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 68416

- 4 Soybeans Page 50 of 202 Dow AgroSciences LLC



### confer resistance to synthetic picolinate auxins and not to 2,4

- Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid or indole

- 3

- acetic acid in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 142:542

- 552.

72 

### Kern, A.J., Chaverra, M.E. and Dyer, W.E. 2005. Dicamba

- responsive genes in
herbicide

- resistant and susceptible bioytpes of kochia ( Kochia scoparia ). Weed Science
53:139

- 145.

73 

### Bourdot, G.W., Saville, D.J., and Hurrell, G.A. 1996. Ecological fitness and the decline of resistance to the herbicide MCPA in a population of Ranunculus acris . Journal of Applied Ecology 33:151

- 160.

74 

### Cranston, H.J., Kern, A.J., Hackett, J.L., Miller, E.K., Maxwell, B.D., and Dyer, W.E.
2001 . Dicamba resistance in kochia. Weed Science 49:164

- 170.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 51 of 202



# E conomic Impacts of G lyphosate R esistant Weeds and the Benefits of DHT Technology Appendix A :Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 52 of 202 

# Table of Contents

1. Introduction

_____________________________________________________ 55

2. Case Study Analysis

_______________________________________________ 55

2.1 Case Study Design

______________________________________________ 56
2.1.1 Case Studies and Farm Selection

_____________________________ 56
2.1.2 State Weed Specialist Interviews

_____________________________ 57
2.1.3 Cost of Controlling GR Weeds

_______________________________ 58
2.1.4 Convenience Benefits Lost in Controlling GR Weeds Without DHT

_ 59
2.1.5 The Cost of Controlling GR Weeds With Tillage

________________ 60

2.2 Case Study Scenario Definitions

__________________________________ 64

2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis in the Case Studies

__________________ 68
2.3.1 Simulation of the Environmental Impacts

______________________ 69
2.3.2 Data

____________________________________________________ 70
2.3.3 Model outputs

____________________________________________ 71

3. Case study results

_________________________________________________ 71

3.1 Econom ic Impacts

______________________________________________ 71
3.1.1 Soybean Results

__________________________________________ 72
3.1.2 Corn Results

_____________________________________________ 73
3.1.3 Comparis on of Soybean and Corn Results

______________________ 73

3.2 Environmental Impacts

_________________________________________ 75

4. National Analysis

_________________________________________________ 77

4.1 National Scenario Assumptions

___________________________________ 77
4.1.1 GR Weed Infestation Levels

_________________________________ 77
4.1.2 Cost of Controlling GR Weeds

_______________________________ 79
4.1.3 Convenience Benefits

______________________________________ 80
4.1.4 Assumptions on the Use of Tillage to Control GR Weeds

__________ 80
4.1.5 Costs of Changing Tillage Systems

___________________________ 82
4.1.6 Adoption Rate Assumptions for GT Seed

______________________ 83

4.2 Conservative Bias in the National Analysis Assumptions

______________ 84

5. National Analysis Results

__________________________________________ 85

5.1 National Analysis Economic Impacts

______________________________ 85

5.2 National Analysis Environmental Impacts

__________________________ 88

6. Economic and Environmental Impact Conclusions

______________________ 91

7. Supplemental Tables

______________________________________________ 93

8. End Notes

______________________________________________________ 118Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 53 of 202 

# Tables

Table 1. Case Study Farm Coverage

................................ ................................ ................. 56 Table 2. Average Harvested Cropland By Farm, Acres

................................ .................. 57 Table 3. Resistant Weeds By County

................................ ................................ .............. 58 Table 4. Cost of Recommended Herbicide Program to Control Resis tant Weeds

.......... 59 Table 5. Illinois Soybean Tillage Costs By System

................................ .......................... 62 Table 6. Input Cost Reduction For Selected Reduced Tillage Systems Compared with Conventional tillage

................................ ................................ ........................... 63 Table 7. Summary of Case Study Farm Impacts, 2011

- 2020 Average of Annual Impacts (Change from Scenario 1, No Weed Resistance)

................................ ............... 74 Table 8. Environmental Impacts: Factors Contributing to Water Quality

....................... 75 Table 9. Environmental Impacts: Average Annual Carbon Sequestration

...................... 76 Table 10. Summary of Soybean Case Study Environmental Impacts

............................. 76 Table 11. Soybean Glyphosate Resistant Weed Infestation Estimates (Weighted Average
Bas ed on State Acreages)

................................ ................................ ................... 78 Table 12. Corn Glyphosate Resistant Weed Infestation Estimates (Weighted Average Based on State Acreages)

................................ ................................ ................... 78 Table 13. Additional Herbicide Cost to Control GR Weeds Without DHT in Soybeans 79
Table 14. Additional Herbicide Cost to Control GR Weeds Without DHT in Corn

....... 80
Table 15. Convenience Benefits Lost from GR Weed Control

................................ ....... 80
Table 16. No

- Till Soybean Acres in Report ed States

................................ ...................... 81 Table 17. Share of Soybean Acres Using Tillage to Control GR Weeds Weighted Average Based on State Acreages

................................ ................................ ..... 81 Table 18. Cost of Switching from No

- Till to Conventional Tillage Systems in Soybeans (Unadjusted for No

- Till and the Share of Growers Using Tillage for GR Weed Control)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 82 Table 19. Cost of Switching from No

- Till to Conventional Tillage Systems in Soybeans (Adjuste d for No

- Till and the Share of Growers Using Tillage for GR Weed Control)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 82 Table 20. Total Soybean Cost of Production Change to Control GR Weeds (Scaled for GR Weed Infestations and GT Soybean Seed Adoption)

................................ .. 83 Table 21. Adoption Rate of GT Seed

................................ ................................ ............... 84 Table 22. Total Corn Cost of Production Change to Control GR Weeds (Scaled for GR Weed Infestations and GT Corn Seed Adoption)

................................ .............. 84 Table 23. Farm Income Impacts of GR Weeds Without and With DHT Technology

.... 86 Table 24. Changes in Consumer Welfare, Million Dollars

................................ ............. 88 Table 25. Change in No

- Till Soybean Acres With GR Weeds Without DHT Technology

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 89
Table 26. Increase in S oil Loss from Switching from No

- Till to Conventional Tillage (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology)

................................ ............ 89
Table 27. Increase in C arbon Emissions from Increased Fuel Use (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology)

................................ ................................ ................ 90
Table 28. Increase in Carbon Emissions from L oss of Soil Carbon Sequestration (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology)

................................ ....................... 90Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 54 of 202



### Table 29. Total Increase in Carbon Emissions from All Sources (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology)

................................ ................................ ................ 90 Table 30. Arkansas Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ ............................ 93 Table 31. Georgia Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ .............................. 94 Table 32. Illinois Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ ............................... 95 Table 33. Iowa Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ... 96 Table 34. Minnesota Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ .......................... 97 Table 35. Illinois Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ..... 98 Table 36. Iowa Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ........ 99 Table 37. Minnesota Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ............................. 100 Table 38. Ohio Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ...... 101 Table 39. Georgia Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ . 102
Table 40. Cultivated Soils and Soil Texture

................................ ................................ ... 103 Table 41. Factors Contributing to Water Quality in Phillips County, Arkansas

........... 104 Table 42. Factors Contributing to Water Quality in Dooly/Macon County, Georgia

... 104
Ta ble 43. Factors Contributing to Water Quality in Dooly/Macon County, Georgia

... 105 Table 44. Factors Contributing to GHGs and Carbon Sequestration in Phillips County,
Arkansas

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 106 Table 45. Factors Contributing to GHGs and Carbon Sequestration in Dooly/Macon County, Georgia

................................ ................................ ............................... 106 Table 46. Factors Contributing to GHGs and Carbon Sequestration in Fayette County,
Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 107 Table 47. Phillips County, Arkansas Case Study Results, 936 Acre Soybean Farm

..... 108 Table 48. Dooly County, Georgia Case Study Results, 320 Acre Soybean Farm

......... 109 Table 49. Fayette County, Illinois Case Study Results, 250 Acre Soybean Farm

......... 110 Table 50. Story County, Iowa Case Study Results, 215 Acre Soybean Farm

............... 111 Table 51. Renville County, Minnesota Case Study Results, 260 Acre Soybean Farm

. 111 Table 52. Fayette County, Illinois Case Study Results, 245 Acre Corn Farm

.............. 112 Table 53. Story County, Iowa Case Study Results, 320 Acre Corn Farm

..................... 112 Table 54. Renville County, Minnesota Case Study Results, 390 Acre Corn Farm

....... 113 Table 55. Darke County, Ohio Ca se Study Results, 135 Acre Corn Farm

.................... 113 Table 56. U.S. Corn Supply and Demand Impacts

................................ ........................ 114 Table 57. U.S. Soybean Supply and Demand Impacts

................................ .................. 115 Table 58. U.S. Corn Acreage Impacts By Region

................................ ......................... 116 Table 59. U.S. Soybean Acreage Impacts By Region

................................ ................... 11 7Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 55 of 202



## 1. Introduction

The introduction of g lyphosate

- tolerant (GT) crop technology has had a revolutionary impact on corn and soybean farming in the US. The rapid wide scale adoption of GT soybeans and corn enabled adoption of conservation tillage practices because weeds could be successfully contr olled without additional tillage. Over the last few years, however, weed resistance to glyphosate has developed and continues to spread. Some weeds can be controlled with other herbicides at an additional cost. In some situations,

growers have reverted back from no

- till systems to conventional tillage or minimum tillage systems in order to control weeds such as marestail , incurring not only the cost of additional tillage but also losing the positive environmental benefits associated with reduced tillage. The analysis described in this report takes a look forward at the value and benefits that could be offered by Dow AgroSciences ’ herbicide tolerant trait technology ( DS

- 40278

- 9 or DHT ) that is part of the Enlist TM 

### Weed Control System 1 

### versus other project ed herbicide and tillage options.

This study evaluates the economic impacts of glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds and the benefits of DHT technology by two means

- at the farm level through individual case study analysis and at the national level using the I HS partial equilibrium models for U.S. crops and farm income to determine aggregate economic effects . Both the case stud ies
and the national analysis utilize scenario analysis to contrast a baseline situation of no
weed resistance with situations of glyph osate

- weed resistance without DHT technology and weed resistance with DHT technology. Certainly weed resistance is already an issue, but by assuming no weed resistance as the base case, one can first determine the economic impact of weed resistance and t hen determine how much of that impact can be offset with DHT technology.

The case studies enable the evaluation of a particular , realistic farm situation specific to a given location providing measures of impacts on farm expenses, farm income, and net

wor th. Then to examine the impacts beyond just the particular single farm case to that of
US growers more broadly , a national analysis was constructed using representative measures of the critical factors driving economic impacts such as the types of GR weed s by region, methods of control by region, tillage impacts by region, and ultimately the cost of GR weed control by region.



## 2. Case Study Analysis

The development of glyphosate resistance in weeds has had significant financial and production impacts on grow ers . In order to provide perspective on the farm level economic impacts, nine case studies were constructed. These case studies included five average soybean farms and four average corn farms scattered among six counties with
known weed resistance issues . These case studies were selected to give a broad

- base and realistic representation of situation across the corn and soybean production areas (see

1 Enlist is a trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the Enlist Weed Control System have not yet received regulatory a pprovals.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 56 of 202



### Table 1 ) . These farms are not specific farming entities but rather represent average farms for the county using USDA and Ag Census data 2



### Table 1 . Case Study Farm Coverage . Environmental impacts for those farms affected by tillage c hanges were also calculated and those results are reported following the economic impacts

.

2.1 Case Study Design

Each of the case studies included at least three scenarios and two additional scenarios
where tillage i s used as a method of controlling resistant weeds. In each scenario, the economic impact on the cost of producing the crop and resulting farm income, cash flow, and net worth was estimated for the 2010 through 2020 period. For those scenarios including t illage impacts, environmental impacts were also calculated.

2.1.1 Case Studies and Farm Selection

Although farms usually grow more than one type of crop, we have included only the crop of interest in each case study. And although a single farm may have probl ems with multiple resistant weeds which would further complicate the management options, only a single resistant weed was used in each scenario. The size of the farm selected is based on the 2007 Agricultural Census for each crop in each county (see Table 2 ). Net farm income is estimated in each year over the 201 1

– 2020 period using data specific to each county and/or state as available and the IHS global agricultural forecast 8 

### . The IHS global agricultural forecast provides the baseline forecast for crop prices, yields, government payments, cost of production, average indebtedness, land values, and farm machinery depreciation. This baseline forecast provides a basis for comparison and the star ting point from which changes in assumptions can be made for each of the specific scenarios. The emphasis of this analysis is on the changes from the IHS baseline forecast rather than on the specific forecasted levels. Scenario impacts are generated thro ugh the changes in the baseline projections of cost of production. Despite the additional complexity of

2 USDA

- NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture

– National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2007 Census of Agriculture. Available online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp 

### Location Soybeans Corn

Darke County, Ohio No Yes Story County, Iowa Yes Yes Renville County, Minnesota Yes Yes Fayette County, Illinois Yes Yes Dooly County, Georgia Yes No Phillips County, Arkansas Yes NoSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 57 of 202 

### handling additional herbicides for the control of resistant weeds, the scenarios do not assume crop yields are affected

.

Table 2 . Average Harvested Cropland By Farm, Acres

Source: USDA

- NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture

– National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2007 Census of Agriculture. Available online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp



### 2.1.2 State Weed Specialist Interviews

The herbicides selected to control the GR weeds are those reported in a third party proprietary survey which captures the top herbicide programs actually used from a sample of approximately 5000 large farms. In order to establish the GR weeds of greatest
concern and methods of their control, independent, recognized University weed specialists in a number of states were interviewed. The experts included Ken Smi th, professor of weed science at the University of Arkansas; Stanley Culpepper, associate professor of weed science at the University of Georgia; Mike Owen, associate chair of the agronomy department at Iowa State University; Bill Johnson, associate profes sor of
weed science at the Purdue University in Indiana; Jim Martin, extension professor specializing in weed science at the University of Kentucky; Dallas Peterson, professor of agronomy at the Kansas State University; Kevin Bradley, assistant professor a nd state extension weed specialist at the University of Missouri

- Columbia; Jeff Gunsolus, professor and extension weed scientist at the University of Minnesota; and Tom Eubank, assistant professor and weed scientist at Mississippi State University. The pr ocess included a written survey in combination with phone interviews. The sample size is small since only one expert from each state was contacted. The experts were not compensated to participate in the survey.

Tillage was found to be an option growers are returning to in some situations. I nterviews with the University weed specialists in each state indicate d tillage has been used by some soybean growers to control marestail in Missouri and Arkansas and palmer amaranth in Georgia , both recognized as GR w eeds

. Marestail is found throughout the northern
United States. Marestail can be controlled in more intensive tillage systems. Therefore
it is only a problem in crops in states where no

- till is employed such as southern Illinois, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. Marestail is not a problem where more intensive tillage systems are dominantly used such as Iowa and
Minnesota. The University weed specialists reported that c orn growers do not use tillage Location Soybeans Corn

Darke County, Ohio 135 Story County, Iowa 215 320 Renville County, Minnesota 260 390 Fayette County, Illinois 250 245 Dooly County, Georgia 320 Phillips County, Arkansas 935Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 58 of 202



### as an alternative to con trol glyphosate resistant weeds because of the effectiveness of
alternative herbicides in controlling GR weeds. It should be pointed out that the University weed specialists stated that no

- till growers use tillage reluctantly. Not only is tillage expensi ve, it is also time intensive and accelerates soil erosion

.

Table 3 . Resistant Weed s By County

2.1.3 Cost of Controlling GR Weeds

The cost of controlling GR weeds is significant. The details of the alternative herbicide

programs are presented in Table 30 through Table 39 in the Supplemental Tables in
Section 7 at the end of this report . These Supplemental T ables document the most popular herbicide programs in use for the specific locations based on data from a 2009 third party proprietary survey as well as DHT herbicide programs. These cur rent popular

programs includ e GT programs, conventional programs, and modification of current herbicide programs to address GR weeds. Although some growers may elect herbicide options not list ed, the se represent the most likely options from herbicides currently registered for these uses based on third party proprietary data

.

Table 4 presents a summary of the average cost per acre of the various herbicide programs currently used with and without GR weeds. The second column of Table 4 below presents the average herbicide costs across currently used programs according to
the third party proprietary survey. The third column represents the continued cost of using a glyphosate plus the additional cost of non

- glyphosate herbicides to control the GR weeds listed in Table 3 ( based on label recommendations from currently available
herbicides ) . The third column does not include any costs of additional tillage if that is
also a method of control for resistant weeds. Location Soybeans Corn Darke County, Ohio Giant Ragweed Story County, Iowa Giant Ragweed Waterhemp Renville County, Minnesota Waterhemp Giant Ragweed Fayette County, Illinois Marestail Waterhemp Dooly County, Georgia Palmer Amaranth Phillips County, Arkansas Palmer AmaranthSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 59 of 202



### Table 4 . Cost of Recommended Herbicide Program to Control Resistant Weeds

Source: 2009 third party proprietary survey data, a verage cost per acre of top herbicide programs used (see supplemental tables 30

- 39)

. * DHT program cost excludes the seed technology premium and utilizes 2009 2,4

- D prices because the herbicide and technology fee price structures have not been established.



### 2.1.4 Convenience Benefits Lost in Controlling GR Weeds Without DHT

Not only do growers incur the additional herbicide costs for controlling GR weeds, they also lose the convenience benefits associated with using only glyphosate. In the economic literature, convenience benefits are often referred to as non

- pecuniary aspects.
There are a few studies which have quantified these benefits through grower surveys. 1

, 2

, 3

3 

### However, a 2006 article by Marra and Piggott suggests that these benefits are overstated due to part

- whole bias. Part

- whole bias occurs when the individual values of each non

pecuniary benefit sum to a much greater level than the grower 's assessment of the total

non

- pecuniary benefits. Their conclusion on the issue of part

- whole bias is that the
individual values of each non

- pecuniary benefit are overstated by 60 percent. This analysis uses the levels of non

- pecuniary benefits associated with GT crops quantified in journal articles adjusted down by the 60 percent overstate ment.

Marra and Piggott specifically re

- analyzed their 2004 data from the national soybean

survey. 1 

### Their unadjusted estimate of the value of the convenience aspect for GT soybeans was $10 per acre. After applying their methodology to remove the part

- whole bias, they estimated the convenience benefit at $3.33 per acre. Location Top GT
herbicide

programs

w ith no
resistant
weeds Likely GT
herbicide

programs with resistant
weeds DHT program with
resistant
weeds*

$/Acre $/Acre $/Acre Soybeans

Story County, Iowa 16.05 31.49 15.23 Renville County, Minnesota 16.36 31.49 17.40 Fayette County, Illinois 19.21 31.49 16.52 Dooly County, Georgia 18.92 28.64 19.84 Phillips County, Arkansas 16.29 44.34 19.60
Corn

Darke County, Ohio 18.84 33.58 19.88 Story County, Iowa 19.23 32.10 15.43 Renville County, Minnesota 17.91 31.80 14.12 Fayette County, Illinois 17.57 33.40 18.61Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 60 of 202 

### The convenience benefit for corn is not as explicitly reported. In a 2009 journal article by Brookes and Barfoot, they report that a 2003 survey suggested total non

- pecuniary
benefits for GT corn was $14.44 per acre. 4 

### They also report that the convenienc e share
of the total non

- pecuniary benefits ranges between 50 and 66 percent. Assuming an average of 58 percent and adjusting for the part

- whole bias (60 percent overstatement) yields, the convenience benefit for corn is $3.00 per acre, approximately 10 p ercent lower than soybeans. Based on economic literature discussed above, in Scenario 3 described
below in Section 2.2 , convenience benefits of the use of GT soybeans and corn are assumed to be $3.33 and $3.00 per acre respectively. The values used for the convenience factors are realistic and even conservative compared to some of the literature
estimates

2.1.5 The Cost of Controlling GR Weeds With Tillage

Some of the University weed specialists reported that some growers used tillage as an option for control ling GR weeds , serving as a substitute for a pre

- plant herbicide burn down of weeds. This means that herbicide cost of $9.55 per acre for a pre

- plant application of glyphosate (average price of glyphosate × average application rate) can be
subtracted from the total herbicide cost where pre

- plant tillage is used. However, the additional cost of additional tillage ( fuel, machinery overhead, and repair expenses ) must be added back to the total production costs

.

Tillage cost impacts are based on the reversio n from no

- till back to conventional till or "minimum till" systems. Minimum tillage in the case studies is defined as the same tillage operations as no

- till systems with an additional pre

- plant pass with horizontal disk, drag, and rolling basket. Tillage is primarily used as a control option for GR marestail and palmer amaranth. In the case studies, the soybean farms in Georgia, Arkansas and Illinois include tillage effects. The change in tillage has specific cost implications affecting fuel, labor, mac hinery, and fertilizer as well as environmental impacts such as soil loss, carbon emissions, and nutrient loss.

In April 2006, the University of Illinois published a bulletin documenting the cost of alternative tillage systems. This bulletin provides t he basis for the machinery operations used in conventional, no

- till, and no

- till plus disking operations. 5 

### The machinery operations used to prepare for planting included chisel plowing, disking, and field
cultivation. Since 2006 growers have collapsed th e disking operation and field cultivation operation into one operation using a combination tool that includes a field cultivator, drag, and rolling basket reducing costs. The University of Illinois has not specifically published an update of the 2006 bull etin comparing the costs of alternative tillage systems however they have updated the costs of the various components used in that analysis. I n April 2010, the University of Illinois published updated estimates of the
cost of fuel, labor, and equipment ov erhead expenses required for various tillage operations. 6

, 7 

### The University of Illinois used fuel cost of $2.90 per gallon and labor costs of $16 per hour.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 61 of 202 

### Since 2006, the distribution of costs has changed with less fuel use per acre, but a significant increase in tractor and implement overhead per acre for conventional tillage systems. In the 2006 data, University of Illinois estimated total soybean no

- till costs at $49.06 per acre compared with $46.07 per acre using updated 2010 cost estimates (see
Table 5 ) . However, in the case of soybean conventional tillage systems, University of Illinois estimated a cost of $62.36 per acre in 2006 compared with $64.47 using updated
2010 cost estimates (see Table 5 ). The total machinery implement costs for no

- till systems in 2006 was $35.23 compared to 37.87 in the 2010 estimates. However, total machinery implement co sts for conventional tillage systems in 2006 was $43.63 compared with $50.37 in the 2010 estimates. Machinery implement costs increased less
in no

- till operations because the implement overhead costs for no

- till planters actually
declined since 2006. Fue l use in conventional tillage systems declined from 3.7 gallons per acre in the 2006 estimates to 2.7 gallons per acre in the 2010 estimates while no

- till fuel use decreased from 2.4 gallons per acre in the 2006 estimates to 1.5 gallons per in
the 2010 est imates. The data also suggests that the equipment cost for no till planting has
declined.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 62 of 202



### Table 5 . Illinois Soybean Tillage Costs By System

Sources: University of Illinois, Farm Management 6

, 7



### The 2010 Illinois soybean tillage cost estimates serve as a basis fo r determining the cost difference between conventional, no

- till and "minimum till" are presented in Table 6
where minimum till is defined as no

- till plus the disking operation discussed above. The overhead and labor expenses used in Table 6 are the same as the Illinois estimates, but the fuel prices were updated to reflect the IHS estimates of the 2010 average retail diesel prices adjusted for the federal excise tax exemption fo r farm use. 8 

### In addition, for Georgia the diesel fuel use was adjusted using USDA's Energy Estimator program which estimates the fuel use for various types of tillage systems specific to a growing region

. 9 Fuel Use Fuel Labor Implement
Overhead Tractor
Overhead Total
Gal/Acre --------------------------- Dollars Per Acre --------------------------

Conventional Tillage

Dry Fertilizer 0.20 0.64 0.06 0.80 0.50 2.00
Chisel Plow 0.70 2.20 1.00 4.10 4.60 11.90 Field cultivator, drag, rolling basket 0.60 2.00 1.00 4.20 4.30 11.50
Plant 0.50 1.60 1.30 5.40 2.80 11.10 Spray 0.03 0.10 0.20 3.50 0.00 3.80 Spray (1/3) 0.01 0.03 0.07 1.17 0.00 1.27
Combine 0.66 2.10 1.80 3.80 15.20 22.90

Total 2.70 8.67 5.43 22.97 27.40 64.47

No Till

Dry Fertilizer 0.20 0.64 0.06 0.80 0.50 2.00 Spray 0.03 0.10 0.20 3.50 0.00 3.80
No Till Drill 0.50 1.60 1.30 6.60 2.80 12.30 Spray 0.03 0.10 0.20 3.50 0.00 3.80 Spray (1/3) 0.01 0.03 0.07 1.17 0.00 1.27
Combine 0.72 2.10 1.80 3.80 15.20 22.90

Total 1.50 4.57 3.63 19.37 18.50 46.07

No Till with one tillage pass preplant

Dry Fertilizer 0.20 0.64 0.06 0.80 0.50 2.00 Horizontal disk, drag, rolling basket 0.80 2.50 1.70 4.70 4.60 13.50
No Till Drill 0.50 1.60 1.30 6.60 2.80 12.30 Spray 0.03 0.10 0.20 3.50 0.00 3.80 Spray (1/3) 0.01 0.03 0.07 1.17 0.00 1.27
Combine 0.72 2.10 1.80 3.80 15.20 22.90

Total 2.27 6.97 5.13 20.57 23.10 55.77



### The exact values from the energy estimator are n ot used because the University of Illinois data suggest that machinery has become more fuel efficient. Instead Georgia energy costs are adjusted relative to the Illinois estimates using Georgia's fuel use for the various tillage operations relative to Ill inois fuel use for various tillage systems as reported bySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 63 of 202 

### USDA's Energy Estimator program. Arkansas diesel fuel use by tillage type was reported by USDA's Energy Estimator to be the same as Illinois

.

Table 6 . Input Cost Reduction For Selected Reduced Tillage Systems Compared with Conventional tillage

Input Use Differences Input Cost Reduction

Conventional No-Till No-Till Plus Disking Operation* Conventional -
No Till Conventional -
No Till Plus

Disking Operation Farm Input
Prices Conventional -
No Till Conventional -
No Till Plus

Disking Operation

Soybean Diesel Fuel Use - Gallons/Acre** gallons per acre $/Gallon $/Acre
Illinois 2.70 1.50 2.27 1.20 0.43 2.62 3.14 1.13 Georgia 4.12 2.69 3.49 1.43 0.63 2.62 3.74 1.65
Arkansas 2.70 1.50 2.27 1.20 0.43 2.62 3.14 1.13

Equipment Overhead Expenses dollars per acre $/Acre
Illinois 50.37 37.87 43.67 12.5 6.70 12.50 6.70 Georgia 50.37 37.87 43.67 12.5 6.70 12.50 6.70
Arkansas 50.37 37.87 43.67 12.5 6.70 12.50 6.70

Labor dollars per acre $/Hour $/Acre
Illinois 0.34 0.23 0.32 0.11 0.02 16 1.82 0.32 Georgia 0.34 0.23 0.32 0.11 0.02 16 1.82 0.32
Arkansas 0.34 0.23 0.32 0.11 0.02 16 1.82 0.32

Fertilizer*** pounds per acre $/pound $/Acre Nitrogen Loss
Illinois 6.01 4.46 4.73 1.54 1.28 0.45 0.69 0.57 Georgia 0.44 0.30 0.45 0.14 -0.01 0.45 0.06 0.00
Arkansas 8.50 6.58 7.58 1.92 0.92 0.45 0.86 0.41

Phosphorous Loss
Illinois 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.02 0.01 Georgia 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.00 0.00
Arkansas 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.03 0.02 0.52 0.02 0.01

Total Savings $/Acre
Illinois 18.18 8.74 Georgia 18.13 8.67
Arkansas 18.35 8.57

* Source: Disking operation added to No-Till System for one preplant tillage operation to control GR weeds. Based on costs from University of Illinois - Machinery Cost Estimates: Field Operations for horizontal disks, drag, rolling basket, 17 feet wide, April 2010. Web address: http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/index.asp 7 ** Source: University of Illinois Extension, Farm Economics FEFO 06-07 April 2006. Web address: http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo06_07/fefo06_07.html 6 Fuel consumption rates for Georgia adjusted based on USDA's fuel consumption calculator. Web address: http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov/Fuel.aspx 10

*** Source: Fertilizer retention rates are based on estimates from the EPIC model.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 64 of 202



### 2.2 Case Study Scenario Definitions

Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance The first scenario estimates farm receipts, expenses, net farm income, and real net worth
for each farm using a GT cr op production system and experiencing no glyphosate weed resistance issues. The primary purpose of this scenario is that it provides a basis for comparison.

Scenario 2: Weed Resistance with No DHT Technology
The second scenario assumes the use of a GT crop production system experiencing significant weed resistan ce to glyphosate across the entire farm in each case study. The
GR weeds are specific to each crop and county. In this scenario growers are assumed to
control those GR weeds no impact on yields using additional conventional herbicides and tillage (where indicated)

. Because of the use of conventional herbicides and, in some cases tillage, growers lose the convenience benefits of GT technology and in some cases
incur additional t illage costs along with incurring environmental costs . In three of the case study states, Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas, the University weed specialists reported that growers were using tillage to control the GR weeds. In this scenario, it is
assumed t hat growers in these three case stud ies where tillage is used, switch from no

- till systems to conventional tillage systems . The pre

- plant weed burn down of $9.55 per acre
is subtracted from the additional herbicide costs. Scenario 4 considers the alternative assumption that growers switch from no

- till systems to minimum tillage systems.

Scenario 3: Weed Resistance with DHT Technology

Table 4 also includes a fourth column which assumes the use of a GT crop production

sy stem experiencing significant weed resistance to glyphosate, but using DHT technology to meet the need for control of GR weeds. The estimated cost of non

glyphosate herbicides assumes that 2,4

- D used as part of the DHT technology is priced at
2009 levels and does not include any technology fees associated with a seed technolo gy premium because the cost struc tures have not been established. Since this cost estimate does not include technology fees and the cost structure for 2,4

- D as part of the DHT system has not been established this column does not provide a basis for the cost of the DHT system. In this analysis, a more conservative approach is taken potentially understating the economic value of DHT. The cost of the DHT system is price at the best
alte rnative herbicide program for controlling GR weeds which is column three of Table 4. Arguably this makes sound economic sense because any new technology cannot be priced above the next best alternative (including cost and benefits) otherwise it would not be adopted. This assumption narrows the economic benefits to focus on convenience as well as any tillage impacts. Therefore, S cenario 3 is essentially S cenario 2 with the
same herbicide costs but with the convenience and tillage benefits added back in th at are preserved with DHT technologySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 65 of 202 

### Scenario 4: Weed Resistance with No DHT Technology, Minimum tillage
Scenario 4 is the same as S cenario 2 , assuming the use of a GT crop production system experiencing significant weed resistance to glyphosate ac ross the entire farm and using alternative herbicides and tillage to control GR weeds, except that the growers switch from no till to "minimum till" instead of conventional till. Scenario 4 only applies to Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas since those are the case study states with tillage impacts. Minimum till in this scenario is defined as the same tillage operations as no

- till systems with an additional pre

- plant pass with horizontal disk, drag, and rolling basket. As in
S cenario 2, the pre

- plant weed burn down of $9.55 per acre is subtracted from the
additional herbicide costs.

Scenario 5: Weed Resistance with DHT Technology without Tillage Impacts Scenario 5 is essentially the same as S cenario 3 assuming the use of a GT crop production system experiencing significant weed resistance to glyphosate across the entire farm, but all references to tillage impacts are removed. Scenario 5 only applies to Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas since those are t he case study states with tillage impacts.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 66 of 202



### In order to provide additional clarity , an outline of the scenarios considered in each of the
nine case stud ies is given below.

Individual farm case studies (location and size) GR weed Management scenarios c ompared

A representative corn farm
in:
1. Darke County, Ohio (135 acres) Giant Ragweed 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used

2. Story County, Iowa (215 acres) Waterhemp 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used

3. Renville Country, Minnesota (260 acres) Giant Ragweed 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used

4. Fayette Country, Illinois (250 acres) Waterhemp 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
usedSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 67 of 202



### Individual farm case studies (location and size) GR weed Management scenarios compared

A representative soybean farm in:
5. Story County, Iowa (215 acres) Giant Ragweed 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used

6. Renville County, Minnesota (260 acres) Waterhemp 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used

7. Fayette County, Illinois (250 acres) Marestail 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options + switch from no

- till to conventional tillage
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used
4. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options + switch from no

- till
to minimum tillage
5. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options but with no tillage change from no

- tillSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 68 of 202



### Individual farm case studies (location and size) GR weed Management scenarios compared

A representative soybean farm in:
8. Dooly County, Georgia (320 acres) Palmer
Amaranth 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options + switch from no

- till to conventional tillage
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used
4. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options + switch from no

- till to minimum tillage
5. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options but with no tillage change from no

- till

9. Phillips County, Arkansas (935 acres) Palmer
Amaranth 1. Base case: no GR weed problem

, standard glyphosate

- alone system
2. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options + switch from no

- till to conventional tillage
3. GR weed problem: DHT available and
used
4. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected alternative herbicide options + switch from no

- till to minimum tillage
5. GR weed problem: No DHT and instead top projected herbicide alternative herbicide options but with no tillage change from no

- till

2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis in the Case Studies

In addition to analyzing the economic impacts of the use of different herbicide systems on GT fields experiencing GR weed i nfestations, the soybean case studies also analyze
the environmental impacts of shifting tillage practices from no

- till to minimum tillage and conventional tillage. The potential environmental impacts considered in the case study analysis are soil erosion , water quality, and changes in soil organic carbon. A brief background on these type of impacts is presented in the following paragraphs.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 69 of 202



### Soil erosion is a gradual process caused by water and wind, and occurs when a s oil particle is detached, transporte d, and then deposited

. Rainfall that does not infiltrate the soil will flow and may move soil directly. The on

- site impact includes decreased soil quality due to loss of nutrients with sediment loss , and reduced water

- absorbing capacity.
The off

- site impac t occurs when water runoff carries sediment which i f deposited in watercourses, could re sult in water quality impairment, aquatic ecosystem disruption,

etc

. 10



### T he deposit of sediment

- attached nutrients could contribute to water quality degradation. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the two most common polluting nutrients. Increased levels
of nitrog en

- and phosphorus

- enriched sediments could cause eutrophication. The eutrophication process occurs when a watercourse acquires a high concentration of
nutrien ts , which stimulates excessive growth of algae and other aquatic plants. When this organic matter dies and decomposes, it depletes the dissolved oxygen levels resulting in negative impacts on other aquatic species. 11

, 12

, 13



### Carbon sequestration has a significant role in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel
combu stion account ed for approximately 80 percent of global warming potential ( GWP ) weighted emissions in 2008

, increasing at an average annual rate of one percent from
1990 to 2008. 14



### Through the carbon sequestration process, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and incorporate it into plants and soil s tructural components

. Soil organic carbon is composed of a mixture of decomposing plant and animal tissue, the living
bioma ss of microbes, and humus . Carbon can either remain stored in soils for a very long time, or be quickly released back into the atmosphere. Soil organic carbon can be enhanced by management practices includ ing incorporating biomass into the soils,
minimizin g soil disturbance, conserving soil and water, and enhancing fauna activity. Less soil disturbance allows soil carbon to accumulate. Conservation tillage systems such

as no

- till are effective ways to enhance soil organic carbon accumulation. 15

, 16

, 17



### 2.3.1 Simul ation of the Environmental Impacts

The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model is the biophysical modeling tool used in this study to analyze the environmental impacts of no till versus conventional tillage farming practices. 18 

### The EPIC model is capable of analyzing the impacts of crop management on soil, water, nutrient, and pesticide movement and in turn the effects on soil loss, water quality, and crop yields. 19



### A number of water

- erosion equations are used for soil erosion simulation. The m ain difference among them is the emphasis either on rainfall or runoff energy. The erosion equation used in this study is the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE). The MUSLE focuses on runoff energy to estimate soil erosion and provid es the amoun t of soilSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 70 of 202 

### transported to edge of field without the need to specify a delivery ratio. This allows analysis of relatively small time step events such as single storms. 20

20 

### In some soils the MUSLE estimates could exceed the Universal Soil Loss Equation's (USLE ) estimates
because the MUSLE estimates reflect larger scale erosion processes than USLE. However, t he MUSLE estimates can be lower than the USLE estimates for other soils
where the residence time of water is longer for the larger observational plot, allo wing soil and nutrients to redeposit back on the field rather than exit via runoff.

In each scenario, f ield conditions including slope, elevation, soil composition, soil water content, nutrient content, and residue cover for various tillage practices are held constant over the simulation processes. The EPIC model is calibrated using the soil type, topograph y, nutrient levels, and cultivation techniques to representative crop yields for the area. Simulations of the impact of other tillage systems such as no till and

conservat ion tillage are then conducted.

Precipitation is one of the significant factors tha t influences runoff and off

- site transport
of sediment and nutrients. Weather generated data including precipitation, temperature
and solar radiation information on weather from over 300 weather stations across the
United States are obtained from EPIC wea ther database. The sequences of weather
variables used in EPIC are generated by a precip itation model developed by Nick s (1974) and a temperature and solar radiation model developed by Richardson (1981). 21

, 22



### 2.3.2 Data

The three counties w h ere tillage was id entified as a management option were developed into representative farms for EPIC simulation. To model the interrelationships between the factors affecting the environmental impacts of no till and conventional tillage scenarios, data on soils, weather and cropping practices were obtained from various

sources.

Three scenarios of farming practices were evaluated for each of the case studies. These scenarios included no till systems, minimum till systems, and conventional tillage systems. Chemical input dat a were limited to phosphorus fertilizer applications. Data on soil types, topography, and weather are specific to each case study location (More detail is presented in Table s 40 through Table 46 in the Supplemental Tables in Section 7 at the end of this report .)

Soil data from these three locations were obtained from Natural Resources Conservation Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS

- USDA). Major soil types which indicated the suitability for cultivation we re selected. Soil characteristics for 26 soil types, comprising of 10 from Phillips County

- Arkansas, six from Dooly/Macon Counties

Georgia, and 10 from Fayette County

- Illinois were based on NRCS and soil EPIC
database. Dooly and Macon Counties are considered as one study area because soil reports from the NRCS group soil types of these two counties were reported as Dooly/Macon County. 23Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 71 of 202 

### Weather parameters and statistics were obtained from EPIC database. The key parameters are monthly precipitation, minimum and maximum temperature, radiation, relative humidity, and wind velocity and direction. For this study, nearby weather stations for
each location were selected in order to obtain data tha t closely represented the weather of the study areas. Jonesboro, Macon, and Pana weather stations in Arkansas, Georgia, and Illinois were used for the three sample farms which were Phillips, Dooly/Macon, and Fayette Counties.

2.3.3 Model outputs

Environmental benefits from no

- till practices are reflected through reduced soil erosion
and reduced levels of nitrogen and phosphorus leaving the field attached to sediment through reduced runoff to surface water and reduced leaching to ground water. Improvement in the amount of soil organic carbon is the key parameter for GHG
reduction and is also included as an environmental benefit

.

The EPIC model results reported in this study included soil erosion, nitrogen and phosphorus leaving the fields, and the change in soi l organic carbon. All annual estimates of nutrient and sediment runoff are edge

- of

- field, except for soil organic carbon, which

was an on

- the

- field estimation. Total nitrogen loss considered in this study was a
combination of dissolved nitrate lost in runo ff and nitrogen lost with sediment. Phosphorus loss with sediment was also considered in this study. A change in the total amount of soil organic carbon in the field including carbon in standing biomass, root structures, plant residues and in soil was also reported.



## 3. Case s tudy r esults

3.1 E conomic I mpacts

Table 7 presents an overall summary of the case study results for the various soybean and corn farms. (More detail is presented in Table 47 through Table 55 in the Supplemental
Tables in Section 7 at the end of this report .) Table 7 reports the average changes from the base case (no weed resistance) for farm expenses, net farm income, and real net worth in nominal dollars as well as percent change for each case study. Note that the Arkansas, Georgia, and Illinois farms also considered tillag e impacts because the University weed special i s ts indicated that tillage was used as an option to control GR weeds in those

states

.

Cursory inspection of Table 7 reveals that the expense impact and farm income impacts, when measured in dollars, are exac tly the same within each scenario. This is expected because no yield impacts are assumed in any of the scenarios and we did not assume that
individual growers could influence overall commodity prices. (Th is assumption regarding price impact s changes in t he national scenarios presented in section 4 whe re the aggregate impact on commodity prices of changes on all farms is considered.) The percentage change in expenses and farm income are different because of the base levels of expenses and income. For example, in the Arkansas soybean farm under S cenario 1Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 72 of 202 

### with no GR weeds, t he average of farm expenses and net farm income over the 2011 to 2020 period (Table 47) are $301,419 and $199,574, respectively. Comparing S cenario 2
that includes GR weeds with S cenario 1, the percentage change in expenses and net farm income are 15.4 percent and 23.3 percent, respectively.

Cash flow and accumulated net worth are also presented for each case study in T ables 47 through 55. These calculations began using 2010 as a basis and proceed through 2020. The accumulated net worth measures the accumulation of farm income through time. Since accumulated net worth is measured over the 2010 through 2020 it technically reflects eleven years of impact in the various scenari os.

3.1.1 Soybean Results

As expected, under S cenario 2 those farms with tillage impacts had larger impacts on farm expenses and subsequently larger impacts on net farm income than the Iowa and Minnesota soybean farm case studies which did not include tillage i mpacts. In S cenario 3, the use of DHT technology as part of the GT crop production system preserves the
convenience and minimum tillage benefits of the GT system. Preserving these benefits reduces the impact of GR weeds on farm expenses. In the case of Arkansas, comparing
Scenario 3 with Scenario 2 farm expenses increase an average of 10.8 percent using DHT compared to 15.4 percent using other herbicides to complement glyphosate (see Table 7 )

. On average over the 2011 to 2020 period, this puts another $14,00 8 per year back in the

grower ’ s pockets ( calculated from Table 7: $46,426

- $32,418) . Through the next eleven

years (counting 2010) this additional income accumul ates adding $152,026 back to the Arkansas soybean grower's net worth ( calculated from Table 7: $503,868

- $351,842)

.

Comparing S cenario 3 (assuming weed resistance, use of DHT) with S cenario 2 (assuming weed resistance, use of other supplemental herbicides and conversion to conventional tillage) in states with tillage impacts , DHT technology reduced the impact of GR on farm income by over 30 percent in Arkansas ( calculated from Table 7: [1

- $32 ,418/$46,426]) , and 50 percent in Georgia and Illinois ( calculated from Table 7: [1

- $3,480/$8,541] and [1

- $3,778/$7,683], respectively) . Scenario 4 is similar to S cenario 2 except that soybean growers switch from no

- till to minimum till instead of convent ional tillage . The impacts are reduced because minimum tillage is not as expensive as conventional tillage. However, comparing S cenario 4 with S cenario 3 shows that , even switching to minimum till, Arkansas soybean growers with DHT technology reduced the overall change in their expenses caused by GR weeds by nearly 7.7 percent ( calculated
from Table 7: [1

- $32,418/$35,134])

. Georgia and Illinois soybean growers using DHT technology reduced the change in their expenses by 19 .4 and 17 .0 percent, respectivel y ( calculated from Table 7: [1

- $3,840/$4,764] and [1

- $ 3,778/$4,551], respectively)

.

Scenario 5 presents the situation with no tillage impacts for Arkansas, Georgia and Illinois. Although this is not representative of reality as reported by the Univers ity weed specialists it does facilitate direct comparison with scenario 2 for the Iowa and Minnesota case studies. The levels of net farm income impacts ranging from

- 6 .0 to

- 18 .2 percent are similar to the

- 6.5 percent and

- 9.4 percent for Iowa and Minne sota, respectively (see Table 7)

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 73 of 202



### 3.1.2 Corn Results

T he corn case studies do not consider tillage impacts

, eliminating the need for S cenarios
4 and 5. T he University weed specialist s consulted for this analysis did not report tillage
as a control method for GR weeds in corn. The impact of GR weeds in S cenario 2 results in an average decline in annual net farm income between 5.7 percent and 8.8 percent over the 2011 to 2020 period (see Table 7)

. In S cenario 3, 1 5.9 to 1 8.9 percent of the loss in
farm income from GR weeds is offset with DHT technology (calculated from T able 7: [Illinois 1

- $5,127/$6,099], [Iowa 1

- $5,472/$6,747], [Minnesota 1

- $6,352/$7,724], and [Ohio 1

- $2,642/$3,180])

.

3.1.3 Comparison of Soybean and Corn Results

Overall, the impact of GR weeds in a GT production system appear s to be smaller for corn than soybeans, but much of the difference is due to the impacts of tillage used in
some of the states for GR weed control in soybeans . The remaining difference is explained by the cost of the altern ative herbicide programs used in corn versus soybeans. Soybean herbicide programs used to control GR weeds are modestly more expensive than the corresponding corn herbicide programs.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 74 of 202



### Table 7 . Summary of Case Study Farm Impacts, 2011

- 2020 Average of Annual Impacts (Change from Scenari o 1, No Weed Resistance)

Arkansas Case Georgia Case Illinois Case Iowa Case Minnesota Case Ohio Case

935 Acre Farm 320 Acre Farm 250 Acre Farm 215 Acre Farm 260 Acre Farm 135 Acre Farn
Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Soybean Case Studies

Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT Change in Farm Expenses 46,426 15.4% 8,541 10.0% 7,683 12.3% 4,965 8.1% 5,949 7.5% Change in Net Farm Income -46,426 -23.3% -8,541 -10.0% -7,683 -18.3% -4,965 -6.5% -5,949 -9.4% Change in Accumulated Net Worth* -503,868 -11.8% -92,699 -5.7% -83,383 -5.9% -53,884 -3.0% -64,564 -4.0%

Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available Change in Farm Expenses 32,418 10.8% 3,840 4.5% 3,778 6.1% 4,084 6.7% 4,876 6.1% Change in Net Farm Income -32,418 -16.2% -3,840 -4.5% -3,778 -9.0% -4,084 -5.3% -4,876 -7.7% Change in Accumulated Net Worth* -351,842 -8.2% -41,676 -2.5% -41,007 -2.9% -44,320 -2.4% -52,917 -3.3%

Scenario 4: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Addition of Preplant Disking to No-Till Change in Farm Expenses 35,134 11.7% 4,764 5.6% 4,551 7.3% Change in Net Farm Income -35,134 -17.6% -4,764 -5.6% -4,551 -10.8% Change in Accumulated Net Worth* -381,319 -8.9% -51,709 -3.2% -49,389 -3.5%

Scenario 5: Weed Resistance - No DHT without Tillage Impacts Change in Farm Expenses 36,267 12.0% 5,156 6.0% 4,803 7.7% Change in Net Farm Income -36,267 -18.2% -5,156 -6.0% -4,803 -11.4% Change in Accumulated Net Worth* -393,612 -9.2% -55,954 -3.4% -52,127 -3.7%

Corn Case Studies

Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT Change in Farm Expenses 6,099 5.5% 6,747 4.2% 7,724 3.7% 3,180 4.9% Change in Net Farm Income -6,099 -8.8% -6,747 -5.7% -7,724 -7.5% -3,180 -6.0% Change in Accumulated Net Worth* -65,770 -3.8% -72,764 -2.6% -83,303 -3.3% -34,295 -2.7%

Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available Change in Farm Expenses 5,127 4.6% 5,472 3.4% 6,352 3.0% 2,642 4.1% Change in Net Farm Income -5,127 -7.4% -5,472 -4.6% -6,352 -6.2% -2,642 -5.0% Change in Accumulated Net Worth* -55,291 -3.2% -59,009 -2.1% -68,507 -2.7% -28,495 -2.2%

* Change in Accumulated Net Worth is measured based on the level of net worth in 2020 that was accumulated over the 2010 - 2020 period.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 75 of 202



### 3.2 Environmental Impacts

The MUSLE estimates of soil erosion, nitrogen (N) loss, and phosphorous (P) loss are given in Table 8 . As expected, the result show lower environmental impacts with less
soil disturbance under the minimum till and no

- till operations. Soil erosion under no

- till compared with conventional till age is less than half with some variance for soil, topography, precipitation, and other factors. Nitrogen losses in no

- till are roughly 75 percent of the levels in conventional tillage. Phosphorous loss differences are generally
smaller across the variou s tillage systems.

Table 8

. Environmental Impacts: Factors Contributing to Water Quality

Historically, no

- till and minimum tillage practices have helped either improve soil organic carbon or alleviate a reduction of soil organ ic carbon from the farming process. In the Arkansas and Georgia counties, 159 percent and 33 percent more soil organic carbon was released into the atmosphere, respectively, with conventional tillage compared to no

- till systems (see T able 9 ). Only 1/5 th 

### of the carbon was sequestered in Fayette County, Illinois in the conventional tillage system compared with the no

- till system. In the case of minimal tillage (no til l with an extra pre

- plant disking) the increase in soil organic carbon released into the atmosphere was 49 percent and 14 percent for Arkansas and Georgia, respectively. In Illinois, minimum tillage systems sequester only about half of the carbon of no

- ti ll systems. Conventional Tillage Minimum
Till NoTill **AR, Phillips County**

Soil-Water Erosion (tons/acre) 2.19 1.27 0.97 N Loss (lbs/acre) 8.50 7.87 6.58 P Loss (lb/acre) 0.36 0.34 0.33

**GA, Dooly/Macon County**

Soil-Water Erosion (tons/acre) 0.07 0.07 0.03 N Loss (lbs/acre) 0.44 0.45 0.3 P Loss (lb/acre) 0.02 0.01 0.01

**IL, Fayette County**

Soil-Water Erosion (tons/acre) 0.74 0.43 0.30 N Loss (lbs/acre) 6.01 4.73 4.46 P Loss (lb/acre) 0.18 0.15 0.14Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 76 of 202



### Table 9

. Environmental Impacts: Average Annual Carbon Sequestration

The farm level impacts of tillage changes in the various scenarios are presented in Table
10 . These results are based on the per acre estimates from the EPIC model. These impacts can be avoided with DHT technology preserving the benefits of GT crops by preventing reversion to more intensive tillage methods.

Table 10 . Summary of Soybean Case Study Environmental Impacts Conventional Tillage Minimum
Till No till

tons/acre Soil Carbon Lost into the Atmosphere Phillips County, Arkansas -0.96 -0.55 -0.37 Dooly/Macon County, Georgia -1.45 -1.24 -1.09

Soil Carbon Sequestered in the Soil Fayette County, Illinois 0.20 0.47 1.03

Arkansas Case Georgia Case Illinois Case
935 Acre Farm 320 Acre Farm 250 Acre Farm Quantity Percent Quantity Percent Quantity Percent

Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Switch from No-Till to Conventional Till Soil Loss (tons) 1,141 125.8% 13 133.3% 110 146.7% Nitrogen Loss (pounds) 1,795 29.2% 45 46.7% 388 134.8% Phosphorous Loss (pounds) 28 9.1% 3 100.0% 10 28.6% Soil Carbon Loss (tons) 551.65 159.5% 115.2 33.0% 207.5 415%

Scenario 4: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Switch from No-Till to Minimum Till Soil Loss (tons) 281 30.9% 13 133.3% 33 43.3% Nitrogen Loss (pounds) 1,206 19.6% 48 50.0% 68 6.1% Phosphorous Loss (pounds) 9 3.0% 0 0.0% 3 7.1% Soil Carbon Loss (tons) 168.3 48.6% 48 13.8% 140 119%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 77 of 202



## 4. National Analysis

While the case studies look at specific farm s , the national analysis is designed to provide an aggregate measure for the United States. The state level differences in GR weeds
outlined in the case studies and by the University weed specialists provide i nsight in to regional differences in GR weed pressures. As discussed below, there is a particular
difference between the northern states and southern states. While the economic and environmental impacts are presented at the national level, the regional differences in GR
weeds and the methods used for GR weed control are included in the analysis.

The national analysis aspect of this study quantifies the economic impacts of current GR weed conditions and provides an estimate of future impacts assuming the strong likelihood that weed resistance will continue to spread in the future. This is accomplished through the use of three scenarios similar to the case studies discussed
above including : 1. a reference scenario assuming the use of a GT crop production system with no GR weeds,
2. a scenario assuming the use of a GT crop production system w ith GR weeds , in
which only current ly available technologies are used for GR weed control, including both non glyphosate herbicides and increased tillage as they are currently used

, and
3. a scenario assuming the use of a GT crop production system with GR w eeds , in
which DHT technology is available to growers . As in the case studies, the assumption is made that DHT technology prices will be set at levels similar to the
increase d costs of using additional non

- glyphosate herbicides to control GR
weeds . This assumption narrows the economic benefits to focus on convenience

. as well as any tillage impacts.

4.1 National Scenario Assumptions

4.1.1 GR Weed Infestation Levels

One important difference from the case studies is that the national analysis is scaled by
the overall prevalence of GR weeds across the United States rather than assuming that all acres in the United States are infested with GR weeds. Reliable data on the percent of acres across the United States affected by GR weeds is generally not yet available
altho ugh there is considerable documentation of the types of resistant weeds that have been discovered by state. In order to approximate the prevalence of GR weeds by weed type, the national analysis used the results from the interviews and surveys conducted with the University weed specialists in each state

. There was some clustering in the survey responses with consistent weed type and infestation issues reported for the northern states of Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, Kansas, and Kentucky in

c ontrast with the responses from the southern states of Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi. Given this clustering in responses, the data was aggregated into two regions for the United States weighting each state's response by the 2010 planted acreage in th at

state.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 78 of 202 

### In the surveys, each state weed scientist expert was asked to provide an estimate of the
current infestation of GR weeds by type of weed individually for corn and soybeans as
well as his impression of projected infestation levels in 2015 (see Table 11 and Table 12 )

. In general, weed scientist experts from the northern states suggested that for soybeans the most significant resistant weeds were marestail, giant ragweed, and waterhemp with
infestations expected to increas e 30 to 50% from current levels over the next five years. In the southern states, marestail and palm er amaranth were highlighted as the most significant GR weed problems. G R palmer amaranth and marestail infestations were expected to increase by over 50% by 2015. Estimates of weed infestations between 2010 and 2015 were estimated using linear interpola tion. Estimates beyond 2015 were trended based on growth over the 2000 to 2015 period topping out at 100% infestation. Infestation rates for GR weeds in corn start off a bit lower. The pattern of GR weeds in

corn by region is similar to that found in so ybeans.

Table 11 . Soybean Glyphosate Resistant Weed Infestation Estimates (Weighted Average Based on State Acreages)

Table 12 . Corn Glyphosate Resistant Weed Infestation Estimates (Weighted Average Ba sed on State Acreages)

As Table 11 and Table 12 suggest, over the next few years multiple GR weed s are predicted to infest the same acrea ge increasing the complexity of controlling GR weeds. For simplicity this analysis assumes that only one type of GR weed will infest any specific farm over the next 10 years. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(percent of total acres)** Northern Region
Marestail 26.5% 29.0% 31.4% 33.8% 36.3% 38.7% 41.1% 43.5% 46.0% 48.4% 50.8% Giant Ragweed 9.5% 12.2% 14.9% 17.6% 20.3% 22.9% 25.6% 28.3% 31.0% 33.7% 36.3% Waterhemp 18.4% 21.0% 23.7% 26.3% 28.9% 31.6% 34.2% 36.8% 39.5% 42.1% 44.8%
Palmer Amaranth 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Southern Region
Marestail 43.8% 48.2% 52.6% 57.0% 61.4% 65.8% 70.2% 74.6% 79.0% 83.3% 87.7% Giant Ragweed 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Waterhemp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Palmer Amaranth 44.3% 54.0% 63.6% 73.3% 83.0% 92.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* Northern Region survey states include IA, IN, MO, OH, KY, MN, and KS. ** Southern Region survey states include AR, GA, and MS.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(percent of total acres)** Northern Region
Marestail 19.4% 21.7% 24.0% 26.3% 28.6% 30.9% 33.1% 35.4% 37.7% 40.0% 42.3% Giant Ragweed 9.0% 11.3% 13.6% 15.8% 18.1% 20.4% 22.6% 24.9% 27.2% 29.5% 31.7% Waterhemp 16.6% 19.5% 22.5% 25.4% 28.4% 31.4% 34.3% 37.3% 40.3% 43.2% 46.2%
Palmer Amaranth 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Southern Region
Marestail 34.4% 40.6% 46.9% 53.1% 59.4% 65.6% 71.9% 78.1% 84.4% 90.6% 96.9% Giant Ragweed 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Waterhemp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Palmer Amaranth 34.5% 39.3% 44.0% 48.8% 53.6% 58.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* Northern Region survey states include IA, IN, MO, OH, KY, MN, and KS. ** Southern Region survey states include AR, GA, and MS.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 79 of 202



### 4.1.2 Cost of Controlling GR Weeds

The cost of controlling specific GR weed species varies by type of weed. Note that GR
weed infestation estimates from the University scientists in Tables 11 and 12 sum to more than 100% in the regions in some of the later years as GR weed s spread. It was necessary
to rescale these estimates in Tables 1 1 and 12 to sum to 100% and use the rescaled percentages to weight the average costs of controlling the weeds. This ignores the additional cost of other herbicides that might be needed to control multiple species. This is another advantage of DHT technol ogy because 2,4

- D controls a broad spectrum of GR weeds and thus eliminates the cost and inconvenience of adding another herbicide.

Table 13 . Additional Herbicide Cost to Control GR Weeds Without DHT in Soybeans

The estimated costs of additional herbicides versus glyphosate alone used to control GR weeds are based on the alternative programs developed in the case studies for 2010.

For soybeans, the case studies did not develop programs for controlling marestail in the
south ern regions, thus the northern region cost is used as an approximation . The state weed specialists identified marestail as a problem in the southern regions so it is included in the national analysis.

Herbicide programs to control GR palmer amaranth we re developed both for Georgia and Arkansas soybeans in the southern region. The level of additional herbicide cost used in the southern region is the planted area weighted average of the two case study estimates.
In the case of additional herbicide costs for corn, no southern states were included in the original case studies. The additional cost of marestail control is assumed to be the same as the northern region. The cost of controlling palmer amaranth in Georgia is developed in the same way as the ca se study costs (see Table 39 in the Supplemental Tables in
Section 7 at the end of this report ). Estimates for 2011 through 2020 are based on IHS projections of her bicide price inflation. 8 

### These estimates in Tables 13 and 14 are not yet scaled by GR weed infestations. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Northern Region
Marestail 12.28 12.57 13.06 13.40 13.72 14.05 14.32 14.59 14.88 15.17 15.44 Giant Ragweed 15.43 15.80 16.41 16.84 17.24 17.65 17.99 18.33 18.70 19.06 19.41 Waterhemp 15.13 15.49 16.09 16.51 16.90 17.31 17.64 17.98 18.33 18.69 19.03
Palmer Amaranth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southern Region
Marestail 12.28 12.57 13.06 13.40 13.72 14.05 14.32 14.59 14.88 15.17 15.44 Giant Ragweed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Waterhemp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Palmer Amaranth 26.60 27.23 28.29 29.03 29.71 30.43 31.01 31.60 32.23 32.86 33.45Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 80 of 202



### Table 14 . Addi tional Herbicide Cost to Control GR Weeds Without DHT in Corn

4.1.3 Convenience Benefits

The use of current available herbicide programs to control GR weeds involves the additional management, labor, fuel, and overhead costs to utilize multiple herbicides with more restrictive windows for application. As discussed in the case studies, there a re convenience costs associated with the loss of the simpler GT system. The convenience
values identified in the literature were taken as the 2010 values. The per acre cost

e stimates for 2011 through 2020 are summarized in Table 15 based on IHS projections of each farm input price inflation category. 8



### Table 15 . Convenience Benefits Lost from GR Weed Control

Sources: Marra and Piggott, 2006. 3
Brookes and Barfoot, 2009. 4



### 4.1.4 Assumptions on the Use of Tillage to Control GR Weeds

In s oyb eans some growers also use tillage as an alternative to herbicides for GR weed control. The impact of conversion from no

- till to conventional or minimum till age is limited by the number of acres that are actually under no

- till systems. Using 2006 data
from the USDA

- ERS website 24



### Table 16 the average share of no

- till acreage was 45.4 percent in the northern region and 27.9 percent in the southern region. Tillage impacts would affect only these percentages (see )

.

Based on the surve y of University weed specialists in each state and weighting by state acreages, tillage was found to be mostly used for marestail and palmer amaranth control in the southern region states (see Table 17 ) . There was some use in the northern states as well. Interestingly, the University weed specialists did not see tillage becoming an increasing option for weed control and thus the rates are held flat in the national 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Northern Region
Marestail 14.23 14.57 15.14 15.53 15.89 16.28 16.59 16.91 17.24 17.58 17.90 Giant Ragweed 14.16 14.49 15.06 15.45 15.81 16.19 16.50 16.82 17.15 17.49 17.80 Waterhemp 14.30 14.65 15.22 15.61 15.98 16.36 16.68 16.99 17.33 17.67 17.99
Palmer Amaranth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southern Region
Marestail 14.23 14.57 15.14 15.53 15.89 16.28 16.59 16.91 17.24 17.58 17.90 Giant Ragweed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Waterhemp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Palmer Amaranth 8.94 9.15 9.29 9.17 9.15 9.16 9.11 9.11 9.12 9.11 9.10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Soybeans
Fuel 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.92 Repairs 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.92
Labor 1.93 1.99 2.03 2.08 2.13 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.39 2.47 2.54
Total 3.33 3.43 3.50 3.58 3.68 3.78 3.89 4.01 4.13 4.25 4.38

Corn
Fuel 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 Repairs 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79
Labor 1.74 1.78 1.85 1.90 1.94 1.99 2.03 2.07 2.11 2.15 2.19
Total 3.00 3.07 3.19 3.27 3.35 3.43 3.50 3.56 3.64 3.71 3.77Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 81 of 202



### sce narios. These rates are used to further scale the cost of conversion of no

- till to
conventional or minimum till acres.

Table 16

. No

- Till Soybean Acres in Reported States

Table 17 . Share of Soybean Acres Using Tillage to Control GR Weeds Weighted Average Based on State Acreages Total No Till Percent
No Till

1000 acres
Northern States
Illinois 10,100 5,285 52.3%
Indiana 5,700 3,958 69.4%
Iowa 10,150 4,111 40.5%
Kansas 3,150 1,729 54.9% Kentucky 1,380 1,055 76.4%
Tennessee 1,160 833 71.8% Michigan 2,000 930 46.5%
Minnesota 7,350 778 10.6%
Missouri 5,150 2,342 45.5%
Nebraska 5,050 2,506 49.6%
North Dakota 3,900 354 9.1%
Ohio 4,650 3,573 76.8%
South Dakota 3,950 1,359 34.4% Virginia 520 417 80.2%
Wisconsin 1,650 696 42.2%
Subtotal 65,860 29,924 45.4%

Southern States
Arkansas 3,110 410 13.2%
Louisiana 870 217 25.0% Mississippi 1,670 578 34.6%
North Carolina 1,370 752 54.9%
Subtotal 7,020 1,957 27.9%

National 72,880 31,882 43.7%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(percent of total acres)** Northern Region*
Marestail 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Giant Ragweed 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Waterhemp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Palmer Amaranth 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Southern Region*
Marestail 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% Giant Ragweed 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Waterhemp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Palmer Amaranth 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

* Northern Region survey states include IA, IN, MO, OH, KY, MN, and KS. ** Southern Region survey states include AR, GA, and MS.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 82 of 202



### 4.1.5 Costs of Changing Tillage Systems

The cost of switching from no

- till to conventional tillage is made up of the additional fuel, labor, and equipment costs as well as the small amount of additional fertilizer costs associated with more soil loss in conventional tillage systems (see Table 18 ) . Offsetting a portion of these additional costs is the savings from eliminating a pre

- plant weed burn
down. The 2010 cost levels correspond to the case study esti mates. Estimates for 2011 through 2020 are based on IHS projections of each farm input price inflation category. 8



### These estimates are scaled by the percentage of acres using no

- till and the share of grower's actually using tillage as GR weed control. Applying the scaling factors, significantly reduces the average increase in the cost of production changes due to tillage across the regions (see Table 19 )

.

Table 18 . Cost of Switching from No

- Till to Conventional Tillage Systems in Soybeans ( Unadjusted for No

- Till and the Share of Grow ers Using Tillage for GR Weed Control )



### Table 19 . Cost of Switching from No

- Till to Conventional Tillage Systems in Soybeans (A djusted for No

- Till and the Share of Growers Using Tillage for GR Weed Control ) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Northern Region Herbicide Savings (No Burndown) -9.55 -9.78 -10.16 -10.42 -10.67 -10.93 -11.14 -11.35 -11.57 -11.80 -12.01
Fuel Use 3.14 3.14 3.36 3.50 3.62 3.77 3.93 4.03 4.12 4.13 4.12 Equipment Overhead 12.50 12.79 13.27 13.73 14.23 14.76 15.26 15.78 16.34 16.93 17.51
Labor 1.82 1.88 1.91 1.96 2.01 2.07 2.13 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.39
Fertilizer 0.71 0.81 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.89
Subtotal 8.62 8.84 9.17 9.57 9.99 10.48 11.00 11.49 12.00 12.46 12.90

Southern Region Herbicide Savings (No Burndown) -9.55 -9.78 -10.16 -10.42 -10.67 -10.93 -11.14 -11.35 -11.57 -11.80 -12.01
Fuel Use 3.19 3.19 3.41 3.55 3.68 3.83 3.99 4.09 4.18 4.20 4.18 Equipment Overhead 12.50 12.79 13.27 13.73 14.23 14.76 15.26 15.78 16.34 16.93 17.51
Labor 1.82 1.88 1.91 1.96 2.01 2.07 2.13 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.39
Fertilizer 0.82 0.94 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.01 1.03
Subtotal 8.78 9.02 9.35 9.75 10.17 10.67 11.19 11.68 12.20 12.66 13.10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Northern Region Herbicide Savings (No Burndown) -0.13 -0.13 -0.14 -0.14 -0.14 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16
Fuel Use 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 Equipment Overhead 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24
Labor 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Fertilizer 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Subtotal 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17

Southern Region Herbicide Savings (No Burndown) -0.38 -0.39 -0.40 -0.41 -0.42 -0.43 -0.44 -0.45 -0.46 -0.47 -0.48
Fuel Use 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 Equipment Overhead 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.69
Labor 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Fertilizer 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Subtotal 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 83 of 202



### 4.1.6 Adoption Rate Assumptions for GT Seed

In the case of soybeans, combining the scaled estimates of the conversion of no

- till to
conventional till costs with the additional herbicide costs and the loss of convenience benefits provides a measure of the total per acre cost o f weed resistance. If at least one type of GR weed was found on every crop acre and GT soybeans were used by all growers, this would be the final step. However, GR weeds are not reported on every soybean acre at present and not every grower uses GT soybe ans. In the southern region, by 2011 at least one type of GR weed is estimated on every acre, but the University weed specialists in each state suggest that it will take until 2016 before this happens in the northern region. In addition GT soybeans are o nly reported to be used on 91 percent of total soybean acres. The implication is that the overall impacts of weed resistance must be scaled by 91 percent reflecting the growers using GT technology and the impacts are
smaller in the first few years of the analysis, particularly in the northern region , due to the currently limited spread of GR weeds in the north

. Finally, 91 percent GT adoption in soybeans is held constant over the 2011 through 2020 period. Combining these factors,

t he total soybean cost o f production change calculated for S cenario 2 is presented in
Table 20

.

Table 20 . Total Soybean Cost of Production Change to Control GR We eds (Scaled for GR Weed Infestations and GT Soybean Seed Adoption)

For co rn the total per acre cost of GR weed control is less complicated because there are no tillage impacts. The combination of additional herbicide costs and loss of
convenience benef its is scaled by the weed infestation rates and adoption rate of GT corn. Unlike the case of soybeans, the adoption rate of GT corn is expected to continue to increase from its current level of 70 percent reaching a level of 91 percent by 2015 (see
Table 21 ) . Note that e stimates from the third party proprietary surveys and Monsanto (based on seed sales) are significantly higher, exceeding 80% of total planted area in
2009

. 3

, 25 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Northern Region
Herbicides 6.84 8.03 9.42 10.77 12.15 13.60 14.76 15.06 15.38 15.70 16.00
Fuel Use 0.37 0.43 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.72 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.89 Equipment Overhead 0.43 0.51 0.58 0.66 0.75 0.84 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.05
Labor 0.97 1.14 1.31 1.49 1.68 1.88 2.08 2.14 2.21 2.27 2.34
Fertilizer 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Subtotal 8.61 10.12 11.82 13.49 15.23 17.05 18.57 18.99 19.43 19.87 20.29

Southern Region
Herbicides 15.62 18.13 19.11 19.82 20.46 21.11 21.55 21.73 21.95 22.16 22.35
Fuel Use 0.66 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.99 Equipment Overhead 0.96 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.22 1.25 1.29 1.33 1.38 1.42 1.47
Labor 1.61 1.88 1.92 1.96 2.01 2.07 2.13 2.19 2.26 2.33 2.40
Fertilizer 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04
Subtotal 18.87 21.93 22.99 23.81 24.56 25.32 25.90 26.21 26.56 26.91 27.24Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 84 of 202



### Table 21 . Adoption Rate of GT Seed

As in the case of soybeans, the corn cost of production changes increase over time. The increase is more dramatic for corn than soybeans because of the increase in GT corn seed adoption and because the level of GR weed infestations grows from a lower star ting level to full infestation (see Table 12 and Table 22 ). In the case of c orn, 100 percent GR weed infestations are expected to be reached in the northern region by 2018 and by 2013 in the southern region.

Table 22 . Total Corn Cost of Production Change to Control GR Weeds (Scaled for
GR Weed Infestatio ns and GT Corn Seed Adoption)

In scenario 3, DHT technology is assumed to be available preserving the convenience
benefits of both GT corn and soybeans and eliminating the tillage impacts in soybeans.
Th is reduces preserved the reduced costs from the convenience benefits of GT crops and eliminates the additional cost of tillage and negative environmental benefits associated with increased tillage in soybeans.

4.2 Conservative Bias in the National Analysis Assumptions

The assumptions used in the national a nalysis were deliberately constructed to conservatively estimate the economic benefits of DHT. Specifically, these conservative assumptions included:

1. Convenience and tillage benefits only: The analysis considers the economic value of preserving the conv enience benefits of the GT system and tillage benefits. No benefits were assigned to DHT technology through lower costs than other herbicide programs. The technology fee and fees for 2,4

- D may be lower than other herbicide program alternatives. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Soybeans 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

Corn 70% 74% 78% 83% 87% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 **(dollars per acre)** Northern Region
Herbicides 4.49 5.68 7.13 8.68 10.37 12.25 13.62 15.03 15.70 16.00 16.29
Fuel 0.20 0.25 0.32 0.38 0.46 0.54 0.60 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.72 Repairs 0.20 0.25 0.32 0.38 0.46 0.54 0.60 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.72
Labor 0.55 0.70 0.87 1.06 1.27 1.50 1.66 1.84 1.92 1.96 1.99
Total 5.44 6.88 8.64 10.50 12.55 14.83 16.49 18.20 19.00 19.38 19.73

Southern Region
Herbicides 5.58 7.06 8.77 10.31 11.02 11.76 11.14 11.40 11.68 11.96 12.22
Fuel 0.30 0.38 0.48 0.57 0.61 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.71 0.72 Repairs 0.30 0.38 0.48 0.57 0.61 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.71 0.72
Labor 0.84 1.06 1.32 1.57 1.69 1.81 1.85 1.88 1.92 1.96 1.99
Total 7.03 8.88 11.04 13.02 13.93 14.89 14.32 14.64 14.99 15.33 15.65Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 85 of 202



### 2. Value of convenience benefits: The analysis uses the most conservative estimates of the convenience benefits as suggested by Marra. 3 

### The value of conveni ence benefits are significantly reduced by using their adjustment for the part

- whole
bias inherent in grower surveys.

3. Single weed resistance: This analysis assumes that only one type of weed in any farm is glyphosate resistant. DHT technology offers add itional cost savings in situations where multiple GR weed s infest a farm because growers would only pay one technology fee and DHT controls a broad spectrum of GR weeds. Prescriptive herbicide program alternatives are potentially more expensive and are

mo re difficult to manage.

4. Tillage impacts: The analysis results are scaled by the adoption rate of no

- till as well as the percent of growers using tillage as a method of control. Due to the relatively small percentage of no

- till acres, t his significantly reduces the impact of tillage changes. The University weed specialists did not report any tillage changes in corn and limited tillage impacts in soybeans due to the presence of GR weeds. The impacts in soybeans were focused mostly in the southern states

. These assumptions may be conservative as GR weed infestations spread to the northern states. In addition, the University weed specialists project that tillage use for GR weed control remains flat. This assumption suggests that they assume that

new tec hnologies will limit any further increase in tillage.

5. GT seed adoption: This analysis assumes that GT soybean cultivation has reached it full adoption level at 91 percent. In addition GT corn seed adoption uses the conservative adoption rates reported b y USDA instead of other sources
show ing much higher GT corn adoption rates.

6. No yield impacts: This analysis assumes that managing multiple alternative herbicides currently available to address GR weeds has no yield impacts or additional cost impacts fr om the efficacy rates for alternative herbicide systems.



## 5. National Analysis Results

5.1 National Analysis Economic Impacts

The adjustments to cost outlined above form the basis for S cenarios 2 and 3 in the
national analysis. As in the analysis of the case studies, there are two sets of impacts:
economic and environmental. There is also the added dimension of measuring the impact on overall commodity prices from the cumulative effect of grower responsiveness to
inc reased cost e stimated by the IHS U.S. agricultural model. In the national analysis, commodity prices, acreage, and demand all respond to the increases in cost of production.
Table 57 and Table 58 in the Supplemental Tables in Section 7 at the end of this report present the impacts on price, supply, and demand for corn and soybeans. The results suggest small increases in per bushel co mmodity prices for corn and soybeans that do not offset the increase in costs of production. From a grower perspective the impact on netSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 86 of 202 

### farm income is most important. Note that unlike the specific results for corn and soybeans reported in the case studi es, corn and soybean impacts are combined in the
results for U.S. farm income. In Table 23 , the results from S cenario 2 show the impact
on farm income in GT crop prod uction systems with GR weeds in the absence of DHT technology. The impacts increase from 2011 through 2017 as weed infestations reach 100 percent and GT corn becomes more widely adopted. GR weeds in GT corn and soybeans reduce net farm income by $1.9 bil lion in 2011 and this impact increases to $ 2.5 billion by 2017. The impact on gross farm income is small because prices and production are modestly affected and yields are assumed to be unaffected by the additional complications of managing multiple herbi cide programs.

DHT technology in S cenario 3 reduces the loss in farm income by preserving the GT crop production system convenience benefits while eliminating the need for tillage changes. When GR weed infestations reach 100 percent for soybeans in all areas in 2016, the addition of DHT technology can save growers $460 million per year. Over the entire period of 2011 to 2020, including the smaller impacts prior to 2016, growers are able to retain an additional $4 billion dollars. With all soybean acre s estimated to be infested with GR weeds, the benefits over a ten year would be even higher at $4.6 billion. The impact of DHT technology on U.S. farm income is similar to the results from the case studies. In the national scenarios, DHT technology offse t 18 percent of the overall
net farm income loss posed by GR weeds . The case study results for soybeans with tillage impacts did show significantly higher offsets from DHT technology, but the scaling factors in the national analysis significantly reduces these impacts.

Consumers of soybeans and corn are also impacted by higher commodity prices resulting from the slight reduction in production as growers respond to higher costs of production. Overall, consumers lose $3.32 billion dollars of consumer welfa re over the 2011 to 2020 period with GR weeds and no DHT technology. This loss is reduced to $2.75 billion in the presence of DHT technology. Over the 10 year period, DHT adds $562 million back to consumer welfare by reducing the impact on costs of produ ction (see Table 24 )

. (Producer surplus changes were measured a s the change in net farm income.)

Table 23 . Farm Income Impacts of GR Weeds W ithout and With DHT Technology

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Gross Farm Income (Billion Dollars)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 395.34 395.01 391.81 398.96 398.23 406.38 410.50 417.13 422.53 427.56 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.08 -0.03 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 -0.06 -0.06 -0.09 -0.12 -0.26
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.06 -0.03 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -0.22

Production Expenses (Billion Dollars)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 303.74 305.50 308.36 312.46 315.05 320.72 324.96 330.49 334.81 338.48 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 1.82 1.87 2.02 2.14 2.30 2.36 2.41 2.36 2.29 2.19
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 1.55 1.58 1.69 1.77 1.89 1.92 1.96 1.92 1.86 1.77

Net Farm Income (Billion Dollars)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 91.60 89.50 83.44 86.50 83.18 85.66 85.54 86.64 87.72 89.09 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -1.89 -1.90 -2.02 -2.18 -2.34 -2.42 -2.47 -2.45 -2.41 -2.45
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -1.61 -1.61 -1.69 -1.81 -1.91 -1.96 -2.01 -1.99 -1.95 -1.99Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 87 of 202Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 88 of 202



### Table 24 . Changes in Consumer Welfare, Million Dollars

5.2 National Analysis Environmental Impacts

For the national analysis, e nvironmental impacts are calculated using the switch from no

till systems to conventional till systems. The IHS global agricultural model produces acreage impacts for nine U.S. regions ( see Table 25 ). Table 58 and Table 59 in the Supplemental Tables in Section 7 .0 at the end of this report present more details on regional acreage impacts. Using the regional acreages levels from S cenario 2, and adjusting for the percent of acres using no

- till, percent of acres using tillage to control GR
weeds , percent of acres using GT soybeans seed, and percent of soybean acres with at least one type of GR weed, produces the impact on the switch to conventional tillage
from no

- till soybean acres for the nine regions. 2011-2020

Corn Change in Consumer Surplus from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 2,164.5
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 1,836.4 Consumer Surplus Saved with DHT 328.1

Soybean Change in Consumer Surplus from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 1,151.5
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 916.7 Consumer Surplus Saved with DHT 234.8

Total Change in Consumer Surplus from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 3,316.0
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 2,753.2 Consumer Surplus Saved with DHT 562.9Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 89 of 202



### Table 25 . Chan ge in No

- Till Soybean Acres With GR Weeds Without DHT Technology

The switch from no

- till to conventional till affects 1.2 million acres creating impacts on soil loss, carbon emissions as well as water quality and fertilizer implications. In the
nationa l scenarios we focus on the soil loss and carbon emission because water quality and fertilizer implication are very spatially specific requiring more precision in measuring where the impact exactly occurs (as in the case studies). Soil losses increase

to 2.6 million tons per year by 2016 and represent an addition 24.9 million tons of soil loss over the 2011 to 2020 period (see Table 26 )

.

Table 26 . Increase in Soil Loss from Switching from No

- Till to Conven tional Tillage (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology) 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Percent of Planted Area No Tilled without resistant weeds Northern Regions 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% Southern Regions 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9%

Percent of Soybean Acres Using Tillage to Control Resistant Weeds Northern Regions 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Southern Regions 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2%

Percent of Soybean Acres Using GT Seed 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0% 91.0%

Percent of Soybean Acres Infested With Resistant Weeds Northern Regions 62.2% 70.0% 77.7% 85.5% 93.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Southern Regions 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Regional Changes in No-Till Acres With Resistant Weeds and No DHT, Million Acres
Corn Belt -0.25 -0.28 -0.32 -0.34 -0.37 -0.39 -0.39 -0.40 -0.41 -0.41
Central Plains -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 -0.10 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11
Delta States -0.23 -0.24 -0.24 -0.23 -0.23 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22
Far West 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lake States -0.08 -0.09 -0.10 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13
Northeast -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Northern Plains -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.09
Southeast -0.23 -0.23 -0.23 -0.22 -0.22 -0.21 -0.22 -0.21 -0.22 -0.21
Southern Plains -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
US Total -0.97 -1.02 -1.10 -1.11 -1.17 -1.18 -1.20 -1.20 -1.21 -1.20

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Regional Soil Loss (Million tons of soil errosion per year) Northern Regions 0.84 0.93 1.06 1.12 1.23 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.32 1.31 Southern Regions 1.38 1.37 1.40 1.34 1.33 1.28 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.27

Regional Soil Loss Weed Control (Million tons of soil errosion per year)
Corn Belt 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.57 0.63 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.69
Central Plains 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Delta States 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.79 0.75 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75
Far West 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lake States 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Northeast 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Northern Plains 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26
Southeast 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51
Southern Plains 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
US Total 2.22 2.31 2.46 2.46 2.55 2.55 2.60 2.59 2.61 2.58Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 90 of 202



### Table 27 . Increase in Carbon Emissions from Incr eased Fuel Use (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology)

Table 28 . Increase in Carbon Emissions from Loss of Soil Carbo n Sequestration (With GR Weeds But Without DHT Technology)

Table 29 . Total Increase in Carbon Emissions from All Sources (With GR Weeds
But Without DHT Technology) 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
Million Pounds CO 2 equivalent Change in Soybean GHG Emissions Northern Regions 32.44 36.01 40.80 43.17 47.37 49.41 50.34 50.49 51.18 50.86 Southern Regions 34.64 34.47 34.97 33.60 33.28 32.12 32.53 32.28 32.37 31.82

Regional Changes in Soybean GHG Emissions
Corn Belt 16.95 18.69 21.07 22.40 24.60 25.89 26.26 26.50 27.01 27.07
Central Plains 4.68 5.28 5.98 6.31 6.99 7.19 7.40 7.37 7.45 7.34
Delta States 14.57 14.61 14.89 14.23 14.04 13.45 13.68 13.56 13.62 13.37
Far West 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lake States 5.40 6.01 6.83 7.24 7.94 8.37 8.51 8.53 8.60 8.52
Northeast 1.02 1.12 1.30 1.33 1.52 1.56 1.62 1.63 1.66 1.65
Northern Plains 4.39 4.90 5.62 5.89 6.32 6.40 6.55 6.45 6.46 6.28
Southeast 18.79 18.59 18.79 18.16 18.07 17.57 17.75 17.64 17.67 17.42
Southern Plains 1.28 1.27 1.28 1.21 1.17 1.09 1.11 1.08 1.08 1.04
US Total 67.07 70.48 75.77 76.77 80.65 81.53 82.88 82.77 83.55 82.68

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
Million Pounds CO 2 equivalent Change in Soybean Soil Carbon Northern Regions 57.34 63.63 72.02 76.27 83.74 87.43 89.05 89.39 90.70 90.24 Southern Regions 63.09 62.84 63.79 61.25 60.65 58.48 59.27 58.81 58.98 57.97

Regional Changes in Soybean Soil Carbon

Corn Belt 33.68 37.13 41.85 44.50 48.87 51.43 52.16 52.65 53.65 53.78
Central Plains 9.29 10.50 11.89 12.53 13.88 14.27 14.70 14.65 14.80 14.58
Delta States 31.01 31.10 31.70 30.28 29.88 28.63 29.11 28.87 28.99 28.45
Far West 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lake States 7.14 7.97 9.05 9.59 10.52 11.08 11.28 11.30 11.39 11.28
Northeast 1.41 1.55 1.80 1.84 2.11 2.17 2.25 2.26 2.30 2.28
Northern Plains 5.82 6.49 7.44 7.80 8.37 8.48 8.67 8.54 8.56 8.32
Southeast 30.27 29.94 30.27 29.26 29.10 28.31 28.59 28.41 28.45 28.05
Southern Plains 1.81 1.80 1.82 1.72 1.66 1.55 1.57 1.54 1.53 1.47
US Total 120.43 126.47 135.81 137.52 144.39 145.92 148.33 148.21 149.68 148.22

Assumes 10% of No-till was continuous No-Till (5 yrs or more)

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
Million Pounds CO 2 equivalent Change in Soybean Soil Carbon Northern Regions 89.78 99.64 112.82 119.44 131.11 136.84 139.40 139.88 141.88 141.10 Southern Regions 97.72 97.30 98.75 94.85 93.93 90.60 91.81 91.10 91.34 89.79

Regional Changes in Soybean Soil Carbon
Corn Belt 50.63 55.82 62.92 66.91 73.46 77.32 78.42 79.16 80.66 80.86
Central Plains 13.97 15.78 17.87 18.84 20.87 21.46 22.10 22.02 22.26 21.92
Delta States 45.58 45.71 46.59 44.50 43.92 42.08 42.79 42.44 42.61 41.82
Far West 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lake States 12.54 13.98 15.88 16.83 18.46 19.45 19.79 19.82 19.98 19.81
Northeast 2.42 2.67 3.09 3.17 3.64 3.73 3.87 3.88 3.96 3.93
Northern Plains 10.21 11.39 13.06 13.69 14.68 14.89 15.22 14.99 15.02 14.60
Southeast 49.06 48.53 49.06 47.42 47.17 45.88 46.33 46.04 46.12 45.47
Southern Plains 3.09 3.06 3.10 2.92 2.83 2.64 2.68 2.62 2.61 2.51
US Total 187.50 196.95 211.58 214.29 225.04 227.44 231.20 230.98 233.22 230.90

Total Change in Annual Automobile Equivalents 15,464 16,243 17,450 17,674 18,561 18,758 19,069 19,050 19,235 19,043Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 91 of 202 

### With additional tillage, green house gas emissions (measured in carbon equivalents) also increase significantly through increased fuel use as well as reduced carbon sequestration (see Table 27 and Table 28 ) . The fuel use change is based on USDA's Energy Estimator tool and used 22.2 pounds of CO 2 

### emissions per gallon of diesel fuel. 9 

### Reduced carbon sequestration is based on estimates from the former Chicago Climate Exchange. 26 

### For

most re gions this is equivalent to 1,323 pounds of CO 2 

### emissions per year. The exceptions are the Northern and Southern Plains regions which are equivalent to 882 pounds of CO 2 

### emissions per year. These CO 2 

### emissions apply only to continuous no till
situations. The amount of continuous no

- till acres is unknown so we have assumed 10 percent of no

- till acres are continuous in calculating soil carbon sequestration impacts.

The total impact on carbon emissions is large; reaching 230 million pounds of CO 2 

### emissions by 2017. This is equivalent to the annual emissions from over 19,000 cars (see
Table 29 ).



## 6. Economic and Environmental Impact Conclusions

The introduction of GT soy beans and corn enabled adoption of conservation tillage practices because weeds could be successfully controlled without additional tillage. Over the last few years, weed resistance to glyphosate has developed and continues to spread.
Some weeds can be c ontrolled with other herbicides at an additional cost. In some situations, growers have reverted back from no

- till systems to conventional tillage or minimum tillage systems in order to control weeds such as marestail incurring not only
the cost of additi onal tillage but also losing reduced tillage’s positive environmental
benefits.

This study evaluated the economic impacts at the farm level through individual case study analysis and determined the aggregate economic effects at the national level using
th e IHS partial equilibrium models for U.S. crops and farm income. Both the case study analysis and the national analysis utilized scenario analysis to contrast a baseline situation
of a GT crop production system with no weed resistance with situations of t he same GT crop production system suffering from GR weed s without DHT technology and with DHT technology.

GR weed infestations significantly reduce farm income, erode net worth, and have significant environmental consequences from tillage changes. Of the five soybean case studies, three included tillage impacts. On the three farms with tillage impacts, growers without DHT technology experienced 30 to 50 percent higher expenses in controlling GR weeds than growers using DHT technology. In the two soybean case studies without tillage impacts, growers without DHT technology experienced 18 percent higher expenses. On average farm income in the three case studies with GR weeds and tillage impacts, decreased 17.2 percent without DHT technology. With DHT tech nology on these farms, the impact of GR weeds on farm income limited was limited to a decline of 9.9 percent on average. In the two case studies with GR weeds but without tillage impacts, DHT technology limited the decline in farm income to 6.5 percent co mpared with 7.9 percent without DHT technology. On average across all five soybean caseSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 92 of 202 

### studies, growers with DHT technology were able to recover 34 percent of their income lost from GR weeds. Those cases with tillage impacts recovered 45 percent of thei r lost income and those cases without tillage impacts recovered 18 percent.

The corn case studies did not include tillage impacts for any of the cases. On average growers without DHT technology experienced 16 to 19 percent higher expenses than those grow ers with DHT technology available. On average across all four corn case studies, growers with DHT technology were able to recover 17 percent of their income
lost from GR weeds.

Similar to the case studies, on a national basis DHT technology was found t o offset over 18 percent of the net farm income impacts and eliminate environment impacts associated with conventional tillage saving the equivalent of emissions from over 19,000 cars per year and reducing soil erosion by 2.6 million tons per year. Over the 2011 to 2020 period, with DHT technology, growers saved $4 billion in net farm income and consumers saved $563 million.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 93 of 202



## 7. Supplemental Tables

Table 30

. Arkansas Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Program Description Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.55 14.70 $ 30% Glyphosate POST 0.94 9.14 $ 21%

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST 1.99 11.47 $ 10% Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate f/b ( Broadleaf + Glyphosate) BURN f/b POST f/b
POST 2.59 30.67 $ 7% Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 0.87 15.48 $ 6% Average 1.59 16.29 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) PRE f/d POST Apply Valor or Prefix or Authority MTZ premergence. Apply 0.75 Lb ae/A glyphosate ($7.62/A) + 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) postemerence as
needed. Calculations are based on one postemergence application.

1.87 19.60 $
Average 1.87 19.60 $

Broadleaf f/b ( Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Apply Valor or Prefix or Authority MTZ premergence. Apply glyphosate as needed to control grasses and other broadleaf weeds. Apply Flexstar or Ultra Blazer postemergence as
needed at full label rates to 3-inch tall or less Palmer amaranth (may be tank mixed with glyphosate). Calculations are based on one postemergence application.
1.58 28.10 $

Broadleaf f/b (Liberty + Acetamide) f/b Liberty PRE f/b EPOST f/b
POST Apply Valor or Prefix or Authority MTZ premergence. Apply Liberty + Dual Magnum over-the-top when Palmer
amaranth are less than 3-inches tall. Apply Liberty postemergence as
needed when Palmer amaranth are
less than 3-inches tall and before row
closure. Calculations are based on one postemergence application,

2.36 60.58 $
Average 1.97 44.34 $

0.28 3.31 $

0.38 28.05 $

-0.10 (24.74) $

*** Bond, J., T. Eubank, K. Smith, and B. Scott. 2010. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth and Ryegrass Management. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Infomration Sheet 1351. March 2010. http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1351.pdf * Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth Without DHT***

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for C minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus CSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 94 of 202



### Table 31

. Geor gia Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Program Description Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.75 7.21 $ 75% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST 0.91 16.99 $ 18%

(Glyphosate + DNA) f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.70 32.56 $ 8% Average 1.45 18.92 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) PRE f/d POST Apply Sencor or Canopy or Boundry or Authority MTZ or Dual Magnum or Intrro premergence. Apply 0.75 Lb ae/A glyphosate ($7.62) + 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) postemerence
as needed. Calculations are based on one postemergence application.

2.17 19.84 $
Average 2.17 19.84 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST GT Soybeans : Apply Sencor or Canopy or Boundry or Authority MTZ or Dual Magnum or Intrro premergence. Apply glyphosate + Reflex or glyphosate + Ultra Blazer or glyphosate + Cobra or glyphosate + Prefix or postemergence as needed.
Calculations are based on one postemergence application. 2.04 28.37 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b Liberty PRE f/b POST Liberty Link Soybeans: Apply Dual Magnum or Intrro or Valor or Envive or Prefix or Valor XLT premergence. Apply Liberty postemergence as
needed. Calculations are based on one postemergence application. 1.01 28.90 $
Average 1.53 28.64 $

0.72 0.92 $

0.07 9.72 $

0.65 (8.80) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for C minus A A. Top Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth Without DHT***

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A

*** Prostko, E. P. 2010. Managing Herbicide Resistant Palmer Amananty (Pigweed) in Field Corn, Peanut, and Soybean - 2010. University of Georgia. http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/resistance-10-tables.pdf Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus C
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 95 of 202



### Table 32

. Illinois Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.91 10.18 $ 30%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.75 17.69 $ 23%

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST 2.17 19.38 $ 7% ( Broadleaf + Glyphosate + Growth Regulators) f/b Glyphosate+A22+A36 BURN f/b POST 2.35 29.11 $ 6%

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 1.02 19.67 $ 4% Average 1.64 19.21 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.49 11.22 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.33 18.73 $

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 2.75 20.42 $

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulators) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A), subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and subtract 0.11 lb ai/A of Broadleaf ($9.32/A). 2.93 20.83 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Same as above 1.60 11.39 $
Average 2.22 16.52 $

Broadleaf PRE or POST 0.10 11.31 $ 15% (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) or Glyphosate f/b
Broadleaf BURN PRE or BURN f/b
POST 0.61 11.82 $ 7% (DNA + Broadleaf) or DNA f/b Broadleaf PRE or PRE f/b POST 1.20 24.17 $ 6% (Broadleaf + Post Grass) POST 0.31 18.03 $ 5% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 0.91 41.91 $ 5% (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.02 46.28 $ 4% (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN f/b POST 1.10 22.72 $ 3% (Acetamide + Broadleaf) PRE 0.89 18.82 $ 3% Liberty POST 0.43 11.91 $ 2% Average 0.84 23.00 $

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST, POST Add 0.94 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.55/A) 1.04 20.86 $ (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Glyphosate f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 1.55 21.37 $ (DNA + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or DNA f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.14 33.72 $ (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Glyphosate ) POST Same as above 1.25 27.58 $ (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post
Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.85 51.46 $ (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.96 55.83 $ (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 2.04 32.27 $ (Acetamide + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.83 28.37 $ Liberty POST No change 0.43 11.91 $
Average 1.68 31.49 $

0.58 (2.69) $

0.04 12.28 $

0.54 (14.97) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Soybeans

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 96 of 202



### Table 33

. Iowa Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.91 9.67 $ 31%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.73 18.39 $ 25% DNAs f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 1.94 16.50 $ 10%

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate POST 0.99 22.48 $ 7% (Glyphosate + Post Grass) POST 0.85 13.22 $ 4% Average 1.28 16.05 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.49 10.71 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.31 19.43 $

DNAs f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A), subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and subtract 0.11 lb ai/A of Broadleaf ($9.32/A). 2.52 17.54 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.46 14.20 $ (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) POST Same as above 1.43 14.26 $
Average 1.84 15.23 $

Broadleaf PRE or POST 0.10 11.31 $ 15% (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) or Glyphosate f/b
Broadleaf BURN PRE or BURN f/b
POST 0.61 11.82 $ 7% (DNA + Broadleaf) or DNA f/b Broadleaf PRE or PRE f/b POST 1.20 24.17 $ 6% (Broadleaf + Post Grass) POST 0.31 18.03 $ 5% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 0.91 41.91 $ 5% (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.02 46.28 $ 4% (Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN f/b POST 1.10 22.72 $ 3% (Acetamide + Broadleaf) PRE 0.89 18.82 $ 3% Liberty POST 0.43 11.91 $ 2% Average 0.84 23.00 $

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST, POST Add 0.94 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.55/A) 1.04 20.86 $ (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Glyphosate f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 1.55 21.37 $ (DNA + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or DNA f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.14 33.72 $ (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Glyphosate ) POST Same as above 1.25 27.58 $ (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post
Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.85 51.46 $ (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.96 55.83 $ (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 2.04 32.27 $ (Acetamide + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.83 28.37 $ Liberty POST No change 0.43 11.91 $
Average 1.68 31.49 $

0.56 (0.82) $

0.39 15.43

0.17 (16.26) $

** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Soybeans

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 97 of 202



### Table 34

. Minnesota Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.60 16.21 $ 37% Glyphosate POST 0.86 9.09 $ 35% (Glyphosate + Post Grass) POST 0.88 13.79 $ 6% (Glyphosate + Post Grass) f/b Glyphosate POST f/b POST 1.72 22.17 $ 4% Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + Post Grass) POST f/b POST 1.55 20.53 $ 3% Average 1.32 16.36 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.18 17.25 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.44 10.13 $ (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) POST Same as above 1.46 14.83 $

(Glyphosate + Post Grass) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.30 23.21 $ (Glyphosate) f/b (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + Post
Grass + 2,4-D ) POST f/b POST Same as above 2.13 21.57 $
Average 1.90 17.40 $

Broadleaf PRE or POST 0.10 11.31 $ 15% (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) or Glyphosate f/b
Broadleaf BURN PRE or BURN f/b
POST 0.61 11.82 $ 7% (DNA + Broadleaf) or DNA f/b Broadleaf PRE or PRE f/b POST 1.20 24.17 $ 6% (Broadleaf + Post Grass) POST 0.31 18.03 $ 5% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 0.91 41.91 $ 5% (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.02 46.28 $ 4% (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN f/b POST 1.10 22.72 $ 3% (Acetamide + Broadleaf) PRE 0.89 18.82 $ 3% Liberty POST 0.43 11.91 $ 2% Average 0.84 23.00 $

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST, POST Add 0.94 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.55/A) 1.04 20.86 $ (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Glyphosate f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 1.55 21.37 $ (DNA + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or DNA f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.14 33.72 $ (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Glyphosate ) POST Same as above 1.25 27.58 $ (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post
Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.85 51.46 $ (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.96 55.83 $ (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 2.04 32.27 $ (Acetamide + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.83 28.37 $ Liberty POST No change 0.43 11.91 $
Average 1.68 31.49 $

0.58 1.04 $

0.35 15.13 $

0.23 (14.09) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Soybeans

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 98 of 202



### Table 35

. Illinois Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of

Acres

Treated**

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide

Pre

- Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.64 23.62 $ 32% Glyphosate POST 0.90 9.50 $ 15%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST 1.52 15.61 $ 7% (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Glyphosate) POST 3.02 27.15 $ 5% (Triazine + Glyphosate) POST 1.99 11.96 $ 4% Average 2.02 17.57 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D) or (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Glyphosate + 2,4

- D) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4

- D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 3.22 24.66 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D) POST Same as above 1.48 10.54 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D) BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST Same as above 2.10 16.65 $ (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Glyphosate + 2,4

- D) POST Same as above 3.60 28.19 $ (Triazine + Glyphosate + 2,4

- D) POST Same as above 2.57 13.00 $ Average 2.59 18.61 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix PRE or POST 2.33 19.13 $ 40% (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Triazine) PRE or POST 3.16 24.43 $ 9%
Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b Broadleaf or (Acetamide

Pre

- Mix + Broadleaf) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.38 29.13 $ 7% (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Broadleaf) PRE or POST 3.14 31.86 $ 5%
Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide Pre

Mix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 2.61 26.09 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide
Pre

- Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 3.23 28.27 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b (Triazine + Glyphsate) or (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 4.06 33.57 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.28 38.27 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre

- Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 4.04 41.00 $

Acetamide Pre

- Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide Pre

Mix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 3.33 33.40 $

0.58 1.04 $

1.32 15.83 $

- 0.74 (14.79) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D

* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4

- D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4

- D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4

- D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing B ase Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of
Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion a s an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 99 of 202



### Table 36

. Iowa Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 2.44 21.93 $ 34% Glyphosate POST 0.85 8.53 $ 20%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST 1.76 18.95 $ 8% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) POST 0.93 19.63 $ 5% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST 2.33 27.09 $ 5% Average 1.66 19.23 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 3.02 22.97 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.43 9.57 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST Same as above 2.34 19.99 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and 0.24 Lb

ai/A of Broadleaf

($12.08/A) 1.27 8.59 $ Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.67 16.05 $
Average 2.15 15.43 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 2.03 19.24 $ 24% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Broadleaf or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.67 34.62 $ 14% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) PRE or POST 2.70 25.11 $ 12% (Broadleaf + Triazine) PRE or POST 0.96 19.07 $ 9%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 2.08 24.78 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 2.93 28.38 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.57 43.76 $

(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.60 34.25 $ (Broadleaf + Triazine) + Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 1.86 28.21 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 2.80 32.10 $

0.48 (3.79) $

1.14 12.87 $

-0.66 (16.66) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of
Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 100 of 202



### Table 37

. Minnesota Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 2.22 21.32 $ 31% Glyphosate POST 0.84 8.48 $ 21%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or POST
f/b POST 1.58 14.97 $ 12% Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST 2.04 28.54 $ 8% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) POST 0.92 16.23 $ 6% Average 1.52 17.91 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 2.80 22.36 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.42 9.52 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or POST
f/b POST Same as above 2.16 16.01 $

Acetamide f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and 0.24 Lb

ai/A of Broadleaf

($12.08/A). 2.38 17.50 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.26 5.19 $
Average 2.00 14.12 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 1.71 18.55 $ 34%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Broadleaf or (Acetamide PreMix + Broadleaf) PRE f/b POST or POST 1.88 24.81 $ 17% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE or POST 2.22 26.94 $ 10% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Triazine) PRE f/b POST 2.02 26.24 $ 6%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 1.98 24.48 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 2.61 27.69 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 2.78 33.95 $ (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE or POST Same as above 3.12 36.08 $ Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.92 35.38 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 2.70 31.80 $

0.48 (3.79) $

1.18 13.89 $

-0.69 (17.68) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of
Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 101 of 202



### Table 38

. Ohio Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program* Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A) % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 3.22 27.48 $ 32% Glyphosate POST 0.96 10.01 $ 14% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) BURN/PRE or POST 3.11 29.62 $ 10%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or
POST f/b POST 1.40 15.02 $ 9% (Triazine + Glyphosate) BURN/PRE or POST 2.71 12.09 $ 5% Average 2.28 18.84 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 3.80 28.52 $
(Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.54 11.05 $
(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN/PRE or POST Same as above 3.69 30.66 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or
POST f/b POST Same as above 1.98 16.06 $
(Triazine + Glyphosate) BURN/PRE or POST Same as above 3.29 13.13 $
Average 2.86 19.88 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 2.27 15.38 $ 49% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) PRE or POST 3.24 25.32 $ 14% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE or POST 2.54 28.68 $ 7% (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Triazine) POST 2.44 36.10 $ 2%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 2.51 26.27 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 3.17 24.52 $

(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 4.14 34.46 $

(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.44 37.82 $
(Broadleaf + Triazine + Glyphosate) POST Same as above 3.34 45.24 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 3.23 33.58 $

0.58 1.04 $

0.95 14.74 $

-0.37 (13.70) $

** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2%
of Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus A

* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 102 of 202



### Table 39

. Georgia Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Program Description Avg Rate (Lb ai/A)* Avg Cost ($/A)* % of

Acres

Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.77 8.90 $ 22% Triazine f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 2.86 13.26 $ 12% Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + Triazine) BURN f/b POST 3.68 20.61 $ 5% (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) + (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) BURN f/b POST 2.75 31.20 $ 3%

Glyphosate f/b Triazine f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b PRE f/b POST 3.50 21.25 $ 3% Average 2.71 19.04 $

Atrazine f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D ) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4

- D ($2.59/A)

and subtract 0.85 Lb ai/A of non

glyphosate broadleaf herbicides ($7.54/A) applied postemergence in C

below. Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.07 19.39 $

(Bicep II Magnum/Bullet/ Guardsman/Lariat/Lexar at 66% normal rate) + (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D ) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4

- D ($2.59/A)

and subtract 0.85 Lb ai/A of non

glyphosate broadleaf herbicides ($7.54/A) applied postemergence in C
below. Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.42 26.67 $

Average 3.24 23.03 $

Atrazine f/b (Glyphosate + Atrazine/Banvel/Clarity/Status or Expert/Sequence/Halex GT) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.21 24.34 $

(Bicep II Magnum/Bullet/ Guardsman/Lariat/Lexar at 66% normal rate) + (Glyphosate + Atrazine/Banvel/Clarity/Status or Expert/Sequence/Halex GT) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.56 31.62 $

Average 3.39 27.98 $

0.53 3.99 $

0.68 8.94 $

- 0.14 (4.95) $

Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for
2,4

- D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4

- D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4

- D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted.

** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by th e total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was ass umed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its

inclusion as an alternative.

*** Prostko, E. P. 2011. Managing Herbicide Resistant Palmer Amananty (Pigweed) in Field Corn, Peanut, and Soybean

- 2011. University of Georgia. http://mulch.crop soil.uga.edu/weedsci/resistance

- 2011

- tables.pdf A. Top Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Corn With DHT

C. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Corn Without DHT***

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for C minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus CSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 103 of 202



### Table 40 . Cultivated Soils and Soil Texture

Soil Acres % of Total Cultivated Soils Soil Type

**AR, Phillips County** Alligator 11,830 4.2% Silty Clay
Dubbs 8330 3.0% Silt Loam
Dundee 10300 3.6% Silt Loam Falaya 5820 2.1% Silt Loam Foley 38990 13.8% Silt Loam Henry 36980 13.1% Silt Loam
Jeanerette 9620 3.4% Silt Loam Loring 28280 10.0% Silt Loam
Newellton 38250 13.6% Silty Clay Sharkey 93800 33.2% Silty Clay
**Total 282,200**  **100.0%**

**GA, Dooly/Macon County** Chewacla 19895 9.4% Fine Sandy Loam
Cowarts 14880 7.1% Sandy Loam
Dothan 79010 37.4% Loamy Sand Fuquay 23905 11.3% Loamy Sand Lucy 25990 12.3% Loamy Sand Orangeburg 47375 22.4% Loamy Sand
**Total 211055**  **100.0% IL, Fayette County**  Atlas 15100 5.8% Silt Loam Beaucoup 11831 4.5% Silty Clay Loam
Bluford 83798 32.1% Silt Loam
Cisne 50899 19.5% Silt Loam
Darmstadt 26205 10.0% Silt Loam
Ebbert 4942 1.9% Silt Loam Hoyleton 39328 15.1% Silt Loam
Parke 13526 5.2% Silt Loam
Titus 6808 2.6% Silty Clay Loam Wynoose 8327 3.2% Silt Loam
**Total 260764**  **100.0%**
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 23Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 104 of 202



### Table 41 . Factors Contributing to Water Quality in Phillips County, Arkansas

**AR, Phillips County** Soil Soil Erosion (tons/acre) N Loss (lbs/acre) P loss ( lbs/acre) Conventional Tillage Alligator 3.81 19.16 0.71
Dubbs 0.65 2.77 0.12
Dundee 2.48 5.39 0.38 Falaya 2.34 11.37 0.44 Foley 1.73 6.88 0.30 Henry 3.23 13.11 0.53
Jeanerette 1.18 7.80 0.24 Loring 1.90 7.79 0.33
Newellton 1.47 8.15 0.32 Sharkey 2.33 10.44 0.46
No till Alligator 1.61 13.96 0.69
Dubbs 0.30 2.10 0.12
Dundee 1.21 4.26 0.34 Falaya 0.90 8.53 0.39 Foley 0.79 5.85 0.28 Henry 1.20 9.94 0.44
Jeanerette 0.47 6.15 0.23 Loring 0.78 5.91 0.30
Newellton 0.79 7.09 0.30 Sharkey 1.08 8.08 0.42



### Table 42 . Factors Contributing to Water Quality in Dooly/Macon County, Georgia

**GA, Dooly/Macon** Soil Soil Erosion (tons/acre) Total N Loss (lbs/acre) Total P losses (lbs/acre) Conventional Tillage Chewacla 0.14 1.40 0.04
Cowarts 0.48 1.72 0.07
Dothan 0.02 0.14 0.01 Fuquay 0.03 0.39 0.01 Lucy 0.02 0.24 0.01 Orangeburg 0.03 0.27 0.01
No till Chewacla 0.06 1.05 0.04
Cowarts 0.22 1.30 0.06
Dothan 0.01 0.10 0.00 Fuquay 0.01 0.21 0.01 Lucy 0.01 0.12 0.00 Orangeburg 0.01 0.17 0.00Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 105 of 202



### Table 43 . Factors Contributing to Water Quality in Dooly/Macon County, Georgia

**IL, Fayette** Soil Soil Erosion ( tons/acre) Total N Loss (lbs/acre) Total P losses (lbs/acre) Conventional Tillage Atlas 3.65 17.76 0.74 Beaucoup 0.18 3.19 0.10
Bluford 0.33 3.59 0.10
Cisne 0.99 9.04 0.23
Darmstadt 0.90 6.88 0.17
Ebbert 0.52 5.42 0.16 Hoyleton 0.33 3.59 0.10
Parke 0.61 3.68 0.13
Titus 0.76 8.27 0.26 Wynoose 0.66 5.48 0.16
No till Atlas 1.66 14.02 0.63 Beaucoup 0.07 1.97 0.06
Bluford 0.14 2.51 0.08
Cisne 0.35 6.79 0.17
Darmstadt 0.35 5.35 0.17
Ebbert 0.20 4.04 0.12 Hoyleton 0.13 2.49 0.07
Parke 0.26 2.51 0.10
Titus 0.32 6.57 0.21 Wynoose 0.27 4.36 0.12Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 106 of 202



### Table 44 . Factors Contributing to GHGs and Carbon Sequestration in Phillips County, Arkansas

**AR, Phillips County** Soil Carbon Sequestration (tons/acre) Conventional Tillage Alligator 2.36
Dubbs 2.01
Dundee 0.45 Falaya

- 4.29 Foley 0.10 Henry 1.54
Jeanerette 0.41 Loring 1.74
Newellton NA Sharkey 0.82
No till Alligator 3.21
Dubbs 2.91
Dundee 1.06 Falaya

- 2.77 Foley 1.10 Henry 2.84
Jeanerette 1.42 Loring 2.81
Newellton NA Sharkey 1.45



### Table 45 . Factors Contributing to GHGs and Carbon Sequestration in Dooly/Macon County, Georgia

**GA, Dooly/Macon** Soil Carbon Sequestration (tons/acre) Conventional Tillage Chewacla

- 4.98
Cowarts

- 2.07
Dothan

- 0.13 Fuquay

- 4.02 Lucy

- 2.03 Orange

- 0.37
No till Chewacla

- 4.38
Cowarts

- 1.64
Dothan 0.12 Fuquay

- 3.70 Lucy

- 1.74 Orange 0.10Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 107 of 202



### Table 46 . Factors Contributing to GHGs and Carbon Sequestration in Fayette County, Illinois

**IL, Fayette**  Soil Carbon Sequestration (tons/acre) Conventional Tillage Atlas

- 1.18 Beaucoup

- 4.54
Bluford 0.31
Cisne 0.67
Darmstadt 1.09
Ebbert 0.02 Hoyleton 0.69
Parke 0.69
Titus

- 1.39 Wynoose 0.83
No till Atlas 0.12 Beaucoup

- 3.88
Bluford 1.03
Cisne 1.68
Darmstadt 1.89
Ebbert 0.79 Hoyleton 1.48
Parke 1.43
Titus

- 0.56 Wynoose 1.63Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 108 of 202



### Table 47

. Phillips County, Arkansas Case Study Results , 936 Acre Soybean Farm

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 535,534 519,552 515,543 501,103 483,106 488,764 482,342 495,385 491,798 496,808 Total Farm Expenses 299,719 298,804 299,922 299,776 299,992 298,643 296,474 302,083 307,089 311,690
Net Farm Income 235,815 220,748 215,622 201,327 183,114 190,121 185,867 193,302 184,709 185,118
Cash Flow 461,498 617,537 757,428 870,237 949,805 1,018,435 1,192,454 1,373,347 1,545,060 1,716,567
Net Worth 2,259,068 2,599,339 2,868,732 3,095,439 3,289,323 3,478,485 3,665,475 3,867,063 4,067,753 4,275,349

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 535,534 519,552 515,543 501,103 483,106 488,764 482,342 495,385 491,798 496,808 Total Farm Expenses 340,222 340,381 343,062 344,279 346,019 345,953 344,994 351,861 358,007 363,671
Net Farm Income 195,312 179,171 172,481 156,824 137,087 142,811 137,348 143,524 133,791 133,137
Cash Flow 381,383 495,845 592,596 660,902 694,443 715,763 841,262 972,378 1,093,173 1,212,699
Net Worth 2,178,953 2,477,647 2,703,899 2,886,104 3,033,961 3,175,813 3,314,283 3,466,094 3,615,867 3,771,481

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 535,534 519,552 515,543 501,103 483,106 488,764 482,342 495,385 491,798 496,808 Total Farm Expenses 328,001 327,837 330,046 330,852 332,132 331,679 330,354 336,842 342,644 347,988
Net Farm Income 207,532 191,715 185,498 170,252 150,974 157,085 151,987 158,543 149,154 148,821
Cash Flow 405,555 532,562 642,329 724,062 771,490 807,084 947,223 1,093,357 1,229,515 1,364,725
Net Worth 2,203,125 2,514,363 2,753,632 2,949,264 3,111,008 3,267,135 3,420,244 3,587,073 3,752,209 3,923,507

**Scenario 4: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Addition of Preplant Disking to No-Till** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 535,534 519,552 515,543 501,103 483,106 488,764 482,342 495,385 491,798 496,808 Total Farm Expenses 330,371 330,269 332,570 333,455 334,825 334,446 333,193 339,754 345,623 351,029
Net Farm Income 205,163 189,283 182,974 167,648 148,281 154,317 149,149 155,631 146,175 145,780
Cash Flow 400,869 525,443 632,686 711,815 756,551 789,377 926,678 1,069,900 1,203,079 1,335,248
Net Worth 2,198,439 2,507,244 2,743,989 2,937,018 3,096,069 3,249,428 3,399,699 3,563,616 3,725,773 3,894,030

**Scenario 5: Weed Resistance - No DHT without Tillage Impacts** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 535,534 519,552 515,543 501,103 483,106 488,764 482,342 495,385 491,798 496,808 Total Farm Expenses 331,359 331,283 333,622 334,541 335,948 335,600 334,377 340,968 346,865 352,297
Net Farm Income 204,175 188,269 181,921 166,562 147,158 153,163 147,965 154,417 144,933 144,512
Cash Flow 398,914 522,474 628,664 706,708 750,321 781,993 918,110 1,060,118 1,192,055 1,322,956
Net Worth 2,196,484 2,504,275 2,739,968 2,931,911 3,089,839 3,242,044 3,391,131 3,553,834 3,714,748 3,881,737

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 40,503 41,577 43,140 44,503 46,027 47,310 48,519 49,777 50,918 51,981
Net Farm Income -40,503 -41,577 -43,140 -44,503 -46,027 -47,310 -48,519 -49,777 -50,918 -51,981
Cash Flow -80,115 -121,692 -164,832 -209,335 -255,362 -302,672 -351,192 -400,969 -451,887 -503,868
Net Worth -80,115 -121,692 -164,832 -209,335 -255,362 -302,672 -351,192 -400,969 -451,887 -503,868

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -12,221 -12,544 -13,016 -13,427 -13,887 -14,274 -14,639 -15,019 -15,363 -15,684
Net Farm Income 12,221 12,544 13,016 13,427 13,887 14,274 14,639 15,019 15,363 15,684
Cash Flow 24,172 36,717 49,733 63,160 77,047 91,322 105,961 120,979 136,342 152,026
Net Worth 24,172 36,717 49,733 63,160 77,047 91,322 105,961 120,979 136,342 152,026

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 4** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -2,369 -2,432 -2,524 -2,603 -2,693 -2,768 -2,838 -2,912 -2,979 -3,041
Net Farm Income 2,369 2,432 2,524 2,603 2,693 2,768 2,838 2,912 2,979 3,041
Cash Flow 4,687 7,119 9,643 12,246 14,939 17,707 20,545 23,457 26,436 29,477
Net Worth 4,687 7,119 9,643 12,246 14,939 17,707 20,545 23,457 26,436 29,477

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 5** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -3,358 -3,447 -3,576 -3,689 -3,816 -3,922 -4,022 -4,126 -4,221 -4,309
Net Farm Income 3,358 3,447 3,576 3,689 3,816 3,922 4,022 4,126 4,221 4,309
Cash Flow 6,641 10,088 13,664 17,353 21,169 25,091 29,113 33,239 37,460 41,769
Net Worth 6,641 10,088 13,664 17,353 21,169 25,091 29,113 33,239 37,460 41,769Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 109 of 202



### Table 48 . Dooly County, Georgia Case Study Results
, 320 Acre Soybean Farm

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 181,256 176,435 175,309 170,980 165,566 167,429 165,583 169,715 168,745 170,414 Total Farm Expenses 83,663 83,652 84,255 84,506 84,881 84,815 84,527 86,228 87,755 89,164
Net Farm Income 97,593 92,783 91,054 86,473 80,685 82,614 81,056 83,487 80,991 81,249
Cash Flow 198,575 275,342 347,598 412,042 466,897 519,141 597,747 678,668 756,971 835,405
Net Worth 793,163 923,931 1,032,075 1,126,614 1,210,722 1,293,031 1,374,444 1,460,564 1,546,634 1,635,027

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Switch from No-Till to Conventional Till** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 181,256 176,435 175,309 170,980 165,566 167,429 165,583 169,715 168,745 170,414 Total Farm Expenses 91,115 91,301 92,192 92,694 93,349 93,519 93,453 95,386 97,122 98,728
Net Farm Income 90,142 85,134 83,118 78,286 72,217 73,910 72,130 74,329 71,623 71,686
Cash Flow 183,835 252,954 317,273 373,530 419,917 463,457 533,137 604,899 673,835 742,706
Net Worth 778,424 901,543 1,001,750 1,088,102 1,163,742 1,237,347 1,309,833 1,386,796 1,463,498 1,542,328

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 181,256 176,435 175,309 170,980 165,566 167,429 165,583 169,715 168,745 170,414 Total Farm Expenses 87,013 87,091 87,823 88,187 88,688 88,728 88,540 90,346 91,966 93,464
Net Farm Income 94,243 89,344 87,486 82,792 76,878 78,701 77,043 79,370 76,779 76,950
Cash Flow 191,948 265,277 333,965 394,728 445,776 494,106 568,699 645,503 719,594 793,729
Net Worth 786,536 913,866 1,018,441 1,109,300 1,189,600 1,267,996 1,345,396 1,427,399 1,509,257 1,593,351

**Scenario 4: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Addition of Preplant Disking to No-Till** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 181,256 176,435 175,309 170,980 165,566 167,429 165,583 169,715 168,745 170,414 Total Farm Expenses 87,820 87,919 88,682 89,073 89,604 89,670 89,506 91,337 92,980 94,499
Net Farm Income 93,437 88,516 86,627 81,906 75,961 77,759 76,077 78,378 75,765 75,915
Cash Flow 190,353 262,853 330,682 390,559 440,691 488,079 561,706 637,518 710,596 783,696
Net Worth 784,941 911,443 1,015,159 1,105,131 1,184,515 1,261,969 1,338,403 1,419,415 1,500,259 1,583,318

**Scenario 5: Weed Resistance - No DHT without Tillage Impacts** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 181,256 176,435 175,309 170,980 165,566 167,429 165,583 169,715 168,745 170,414 Total Farm Expenses 88,161 88,269 89,046 89,448 89,992 90,068 89,915 91,756 93,409 94,937
Net Farm Income 93,095 88,166 86,264 81,531 75,573 77,360 75,668 77,959 75,336 75,477
Cash Flow 189,678 261,828 329,294 388,796 438,540 485,530 558,748 634,140 706,789 779,451
Net Worth 784,266 910,417 1,013,770 1,103,368 1,182,364 1,259,420 1,335,445 1,416,037 1,496,452 1,579,073

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 7,452 7,649 7,937 8,187 8,468 8,704 8,926 9,158 9,368 9,563
Net Farm Income -7,452 -7,649 -7,937 -8,187 -8,468 -8,704 -8,926 -9,158 -9,368 -9,563
Cash Flow -14,739 -22,388 -30,325 -38,512 -46,980 -55,684 -64,610 -73,768 -83,136 -92,699
Net Worth -14,739 -22,388 -30,325 -38,512 -46,980 -55,684 -64,610 -73,768 -83,136 -92,699

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -4,101 -4,210 -4,369 -4,506 -4,661 -4,791 -4,913 -5,041 -5,156 -5,264
Net Farm Income 4,101 4,210 4,369 4,506 4,661 4,791 4,913 5,041 5,156 5,264
Cash Flow 8,113 12,323 16,691 21,198 25,859 30,649 35,563 40,603 45,759 51,023
Net Worth 8,113 12,323 16,691 21,198 25,859 30,649 35,563 40,603 45,759 51,023

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 4** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -807 -828 -859 -886 -917 -942 -966 -991 -1,014 -1,035
Net Farm Income 807 828 859 886 917 942 966 991 1,014 1,035
Cash Flow 1,595 2,423 3,282 4,168 5,085 6,027 6,993 7,984 8,998 10,033
Net Worth 1,595 2,423 3,282 4,168 5,085 6,027 6,993 7,984 8,998 10,033

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 5** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -1,148 -1,178 -1,222 -1,261 -1,304 -1,341 -1,375 -1,411 -1,443 -1,473
Net Farm Income 1,148 1,178 1,222 1,261 1,304 1,341 1,375 1,411 1,443 1,473
Cash Flow 2,270 3,448 4,671 5,932 7,236 8,577 9,952 11,362 12,805 14,278
Net Worth 2,270 3,448 4,671 5,932 7,236 8,577 9,952 11,362 12,805 14,278Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 110 of 202



### Table 49

. Fayette C ounty, Illinois Case Study Results , 250 Acre Soybean Farm

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 113,579 109,849 108,481 105,149 101,192 101,757 100,058 102,017 100,879 101,346 Total Farm Expenses 62,912 62,529 62,538 62,299 62,116 61,616 60,939 62,018 62,976 63,852
Net Farm Income 50,667 47,320 45,943 42,850 39,076 40,141 39,120 39,999 37,903 37,495
Cash Flow 96,089 128,395 156,808 179,212 194,416 206,598 242,602 279,339 313,825 347,741
Net Worth 937,497 1,038,786 1,109,009 1,163,319 1,207,258 1,246,967 1,286,593 1,330,334 1,375,453 1,423,097

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 113,579 109,849 108,481 105,149 101,192 101,757 100,058 102,017 100,879 101,346 Total Farm Expenses 69,615 69,410 69,677 69,664 69,733 69,445 68,968 70,256 71,402 72,454
Net Farm Income 43,964 40,439 38,804 35,485 31,459 32,312 31,090 31,762 29,477 28,892
Cash Flow 82,831 108,257 129,531 144,570 152,157 156,510 184,485 212,984 239,044 264,357
Net Worth 924,239 1,018,647 1,081,732 1,128,677 1,164,999 1,196,879 1,228,476 1,263,979 1,300,672 1,339,713

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 113,579 109,849 108,481 105,149 101,192 101,757 100,058 102,017 100,879 101,346 Total Farm Expenses 66,208 65,913 66,049 65,921 65,862 65,466 64,888 66,069 67,120 68,082
Net Farm Income 47,370 43,936 42,432 39,228 35,330 36,291 35,171 35,948 33,759 33,264
Cash Flow 89,569 118,491 143,394 162,175 173,634 181,965 214,021 246,706 277,048 306,734
Net Worth 930,977 1,028,882 1,095,594 1,146,282 1,186,476 1,222,334 1,258,011 1,297,701 1,338,676 1,382,090

**Scenario 4: Weed Resistance - No DHT, Addition of Preplant Disking to No-Till** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 113,579 109,849 108,481 105,149 101,192 101,757 100,058 102,017 100,879 101,346 Total Farm Expenses 66,882 66,605 66,767 66,661 66,627 66,253 65,695 66,897 67,967 68,947
Net Farm Income 46,697 43,244 41,715 38,487 34,565 35,504 34,364 35,120 32,912 32,399
Cash Flow 88,236 116,467 140,652 158,693 169,386 176,930 208,179 240,036 269,531 298,352
Net Worth 929,644 1,026,858 1,092,852 1,142,800 1,182,228 1,217,299 1,252,169 1,291,031 1,331,159 1,373,708

**Scenario 5: Weed Resistance - No DHT without Tillage Impacts** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 113,579 109,849 108,481 105,149 101,192 101,757 100,058 102,017 100,879 101,346 Total Farm Expenses 67,102 66,830 67,001 66,903 66,878 66,510 65,958 67,168 68,244 69,229
Net Farm Income 46,477 43,018 41,480 38,246 34,315 35,247 34,100 34,849 32,635 32,117
Cash Flow 87,801 115,805 139,756 157,555 167,998 175,285 206,270 237,857 267,075 295,614
Net Worth 929,208 1,026,196 1,091,956 1,141,663 1,180,840 1,215,654 1,250,261 1,288,852 1,328,703 1,370,970

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 6,703 6,880 7,139 7,365 7,617 7,829 8,029 8,237 8,426 8,602
Net Farm Income -6,703 -6,880 -7,139 -7,365 -7,617 -7,829 -8,029 -8,237 -8,426 -8,602
Cash Flow -13,258 -20,138 -27,277 -34,642 -42,259 -50,088 -58,117 -66,355 -74,781 -83,383
Net Worth -13,258 -20,138 -27,277 -34,642 -42,259 -50,088 -58,117 -66,355 -74,781 -83,383

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -3,406 -3,497 -3,628 -3,743 -3,871 -3,979 -4,081 -4,186 -4,282 -4,372
Net Farm Income 3,406 3,497 3,628 3,743 3,871 3,979 4,081 4,186 4,282 4,372
Cash Flow 6,738 10,234 13,863 17,605 21,476 25,455 29,536 33,722 38,005 42,376
Net Worth 6,738 10,234 13,863 17,605 21,476 25,455 29,536 33,722 38,005 42,376

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 4** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -674 -692 -718 -740 -766 -787 -807 -828 -847 -865
Net Farm Income 674 692 718 740 766 787 807 828 847 865
Cash Flow 1,333 2,024 2,742 3,482 4,248 5,035 5,842 6,670 7,517 8,382
Net Worth 1,333 2,024 2,742 3,482 4,248 5,035 5,842 6,670 7,517 8,382

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 5** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -894 -918 -952 -982 -1,016 -1,044 -1,071 -1,099 -1,124 -1,147
Net Farm Income 894 918 952 982 1,016 1,044 1,071 1,099 1,124 1,147
Cash Flow 1,768 2,686 3,638 4,620 5,636 6,680 7,751 8,849 9,973 11,120
Net Worth 1,768 2,686 3,638 4,620 5,636 6,680 7,751 8,849 9,973 11,120Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 111 of 202



### Table 50

. Story County, Iowa Case Study Results , 215 Acr e Soybean Farm

Table 51

. Renville C ounty, Minnesota Case Study Results , 260 Acre Soybean Farm 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 149,085 144,361 142,776 138,548 133,464 134,437 132,362 135,209 133,877 134,710 Total Farm Expenses 61,291 61,008 61,116 60,982 60,912 60,536 59,995 60,966 61,812 62,574
Net Farm Income 87,793 83,353 81,661 77,565 72,551 73,901 72,366 74,243 72,065 72,137
Cash Flow 176,393 245,046 309,757 367,777 417,743 465,447 532,880 601,957 668,611 735,081
Net Worth 1,010,653 1,150,105 1,257,003 1,346,481 1,424,087 1,497,538 1,570,431 1,648,563 1,728,129 1,810,816

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 149,085 144,361 142,776 138,548 133,464 134,437 132,362 135,209 133,877 134,710 Total Farm Expenses 65,623 65,454 65,729 65,742 65,834 65,596 65,184 66,289 67,257 68,133
Net Farm Income 83,462 78,907 77,047 72,806 67,629 68,841 67,177 68,920 66,620 66,578
Cash Flow 167,826 232,032 292,130 345,390 390,435 433,078 495,323 559,077 620,286 681,196
Net Worth 1,002,086 1,137,091 1,239,376 1,324,094 1,396,778 1,465,170 1,532,874 1,605,683 1,679,804 1,756,932

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 149,085 144,361 142,776 138,548 133,464 134,437 132,362 135,209 133,877 134,710 Total Farm Expenses 64,854 64,665 64,910 64,897 64,961 64,698 64,263 65,344 66,291 67,146
Net Farm Income 84,231 79,696 77,866 73,651 68,503 69,740 68,098 69,865 67,587 67,564
Cash Flow 169,346 234,342 295,259 349,364 395,282 438,824 501,989 566,688 628,864 690,761
Net Worth 1,003,606 1,139,401 1,242,504 1,328,068 1,401,626 1,470,915 1,539,540 1,613,295 1,688,382 1,766,496

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 4,331 4,446 4,613 4,759 4,922 5,059 5,189 5,323 5,445 5,559
Net Farm Income -4,331 -4,446 -4,613 -4,759 -4,922 -5,059 -5,189 -5,323 -5,445 -5,559
Cash Flow -8,568 -13,014 -17,627 -22,387 -27,309 -32,368 -37,557 -42,880 -48,325 -53,884
Net Worth -8,568 -13,014 -17,627 -22,387 -27,309 -32,368 -37,557 -42,880 -48,325 -53,884

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -769 -789 -819 -845 -874 -898 -921 -945 -967 -987
Net Farm Income 769 789 819 845 874 898 921 945 967 987
Cash Flow 1,521 2,310 3,129 3,974 4,847 5,746 6,667 7,611 8,578 9,565
Net Worth 1,521 2,310 3,129 3,974 4,847 5,746 6,667 7,611 8,578 9,565

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 155,032 149,859 148,011 143,383 137,866 138,734 136,397 139,237 137,689 138,415 Total Farm Expenses 77,774 77,775 78,343 78,605 78,980 78,960 78,740 80,192 81,477 82,649
Net Farm Income 77,258 72,084 69,669 64,779 58,886 59,774 57,657 59,045 56,212 55,766
Cash Flow 156,048 212,617 264,335 308,347 343,168 374,950 427,949 482,115 533,218 583,633
Net Worth 934,315 1,058,644 1,151,817 1,227,690 1,291,283 1,350,638 1,408,785 1,471,452 1,534,650 1,600,241

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 155,032 149,859 148,011 143,383 137,866 138,734 136,397 139,237 137,689 138,415 Total Farm Expenses 82,963 83,102 83,870 84,307 84,877 85,022 84,958 86,570 88,001 89,309
Net Farm Income 72,068 66,757 64,141 59,076 52,988 53,712 51,440 52,667 49,688 49,105
Cash Flow 145,782 197,024 243,214 281,524 310,447 336,167 382,949 430,737 475,315 519,069
Net Worth 924,049 1,043,051 1,130,696 1,200,866 1,258,562 1,311,855 1,363,785 1,420,074 1,476,747 1,535,678

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 155,032 149,859 148,011 143,383 137,866 138,734 136,397 139,237 137,689 138,415 Total Farm Expenses 82,027 82,141 82,873 83,278 83,813 83,929 83,836 85,420 86,824 88,108
Net Farm Income 73,004 67,718 65,138 60,105 54,052 54,805 52,561 53,817 50,865 50,307
Cash Flow 147,634 199,837 247,024 286,363 316,350 343,163 391,066 440,005 485,760 530,716
Net Worth 925,901 1,045,864 1,134,506 1,205,705 1,264,465 1,318,851 1,371,903 1,429,342 1,487,192 1,547,324

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 5,190 5,327 5,528 5,702 5,898 6,062 6,217 6,378 6,524 6,661
Net Farm Income -5,190 -5,327 -5,528 -5,702 -5,898 -6,062 -6,217 -6,378 -6,524 -6,661
Cash Flow -10,266 -15,593 -21,121 -26,823 -32,721 -38,783 -45,000 -51,379 -57,903 -64,564
Net Worth -10,266 -15,593 -21,121 -26,823 -32,721 -38,783 -45,000 -51,379 -57,903 -64,564

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -936 -961 -997 -1,029 -1,064 -1,094 -1,121 -1,151 -1,177 -1,202
Net Farm Income 936 961 997 1,029 1,064 1,094 1,121 1,151 1,177 1,202
Cash Flow 1,852 2,813 3,810 4,839 5,903 6,996 8,118 9,268 10,445 11,647
Net Worth 1,852 2,813 3,810 4,839 5,903 6,996 8,118 9,268 10,445 11,647Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 112 of 202



### Table 52

. Fayette County, Illinois Case Study Results , 245 Acre Corn Farm

Table 53

. Story County, Iowa Case Study Results , 320 Acre Corn Farm 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 190,855 182,650 183,859 174,393 176,503 176,130 177,326 178,673 179,685 178,803 Total Farm Expenses 102,623 103,664 105,856 107,022 109,249 110,587 112,154 115,764 119,325 122,681
Net Farm Income 88,232 78,986 78,003 67,371 67,253 65,543 65,172 62,908 60,361 56,122
Cash Flow 181,912 245,283 305,033 351,092 393,440 429,788 491,907 551,618 608,630 661,245
Net Worth 1,007,863 1,139,739 1,241,536 1,320,139 1,392,158 1,457,277 1,522,945 1,589,520 1,656,953 1,723,021

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 190,855 182,650 183,859 174,393 176,503 176,130 177,326 178,673 179,685 178,803 Total Farm Expenses 107,748 108,955 111,395 112,744 115,232 116,777 118,574 122,430 126,234 129,820
Net Farm Income 83,106 73,694 72,464 61,649 61,271 59,353 58,752 56,242 53,451 48,983
Cash Flow 172,002 230,082 284,293 324,630 360,996 391,153 446,852 499,897 550,000 595,476
Net Worth 997,954 1,124,538 1,220,797 1,293,677 1,359,713 1,418,642 1,477,890 1,537,799 1,598,322 1,657,252

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available*** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 190,855 182,650 183,859 174,393 176,503 176,130 177,326 178,673 179,685 178,803 Total Farm Expenses 106,932 108,112 110,513 111,832 114,279 115,791 117,552 121,368 125,133 128,683
Net Farm Income 83,923 74,537 73,347 62,560 62,224 60,339 59,775 57,304 54,552 50,120
Cash Flow 173,581 232,503 287,597 328,846 366,165 397,308 454,030 508,137 559,341 605,954
Net Worth 999,533 1,126,960 1,224,101 1,297,893 1,364,882 1,424,797 1,485,068 1,546,039 1,607,663 1,667,730

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 5,126 5,292 5,539 5,722 5,983 6,190 6,420 6,666 6,909 7,139
Net Farm Income -5,126 -5,292 -5,539 -5,722 -5,983 -6,190 -6,420 -6,666 -6,909 -7,139
Cash Flow -9,910 -15,201 -20,740 -26,462 -32,445 -38,635 -45,055 -51,721 -58,630 -65,770
Net Worth -9,910 -15,201 -20,740 -26,462 -32,445 -38,635 -45,055 -51,721 -58,630 -65,770

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -817 -843 -882 -912 -953 -986 -1,023 -1,062 -1,101 -1,137
Net Farm Income 817 843 882 912 953 986 1,023 1,062 1,101 1,137
Cash Flow 1,579 2,422 3,304 4,216 5,169 6,155 7,178 8,240 9,341 10,478
Net Worth 1,579 2,422 3,304 4,216 5,169 6,155 7,178 8,240 9,341 10,478

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 293,508 281,966 284,556 270,986 274,886 275,013 277,509 280,227 282,430 281,722 Total Farm Expenses 148,778 150,378 153,654 155,444 158,783 160,837 163,233 168,325 173,339 178,050
Net Farm Income 144,730 131,588 130,901 115,542 116,104 114,176 114,276 111,902 109,090 103,672
Cash Flow 296,435 404,965 509,238 594,025 674,540 747,380 854,313 958,526 1,059,563 1,154,800
Net Worth 1,539,917 1,755,000 1,923,464 2,056,737 2,180,364 2,293,870 2,408,929 2,526,620 2,646,874 2,766,248

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 293,508 281,966 284,556 270,986 274,886 275,013 277,509 280,227 282,430 281,722 Total Farm Expenses 154,449 156,233 159,782 161,775 165,401 167,686 170,336 175,700 180,983 185,948
Net Farm Income 139,059 125,733 124,774 109,211 109,485 107,327 107,173 104,527 101,446 95,773
Cash Flow 285,472 388,148 486,293 564,748 638,645 704,636 804,466 901,304 994,697 1,082,036
Net Worth 1,528,954 1,738,182 1,900,519 2,027,460 2,144,468 2,251,126 2,359,082 2,469,398 2,582,008 2,693,484

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available*** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 293,508 281,966 284,556 270,986 274,886 275,013 277,509 280,227 282,430 281,722 Total Farm Expenses 153,377 155,126 158,624 160,578 164,150 166,391 168,993 174,306 179,538 184,455
Net Farm Income 140,131 126,840 125,932 110,408 110,736 108,622 108,515 105,921 102,891 97,267
Cash Flow 287,544 391,327 490,630 570,282 645,430 712,716 813,889 912,121 1,006,959 1,095,791
Net Worth 1,531,026 1,741,361 1,904,856 2,032,994 2,151,254 2,259,206 2,368,505 2,480,215 2,594,270 2,707,239

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 5,671 5,854 6,128 6,331 6,619 6,849 7,103 7,375 7,644 7,899
Net Farm Income -5,671 -5,854 -6,128 -6,331 -6,619 -6,849 -7,103 -7,375 -7,644 -7,899
Cash Flow -10,963 -16,818 -22,946 -29,276 -35,895 -42,744 -49,847 -57,222 -64,866 -72,764
Net Worth -10,963 -16,818 -22,946 -29,276 -35,895 -42,744 -49,847 -57,222 -64,866 -72,764

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -1,072 -1,107 -1,158 -1,197 -1,251 -1,295 -1,343 -1,394 -1,445 -1,493
Net Farm Income 1,072 1,107 1,158 1,197 1,251 1,295 1,343 1,394 1,445 1,493
Cash Flow 2,072 3,179 4,338 5,534 6,786 8,080 9,423 10,817 12,262 13,755
Net Worth 2,072 3,179 4,338 5,534 6,786 8,080 9,423 10,817 12,262 13,755Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 113 of 202



### Table 54

. Renville County, Minnesota Case Study Results , 390 Acre Corn Farm

Table 55

. Darke County, Ohio Case Study Results , 135 Acre Corn Farm 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 329,290 315,773 318,598 302,736 307,077 307,054 309,770 312,744 315,122 314,134 Total Farm Expenses 192,816 195,241 199,922 202,653 207,469 210,599 214,207 221,151 227,997 234,444
Net Farm Income 136,474 120,532 118,676 100,084 99,608 96,455 95,564 91,594 87,125 79,690
Cash Flow 283,060 377,016 464,830 529,091 587,059 634,943 723,520 807,796 887,256 958,919
Net Worth 1,455,494 1,654,394 1,808,326 1,925,051 2,031,720 2,127,546 2,223,845 2,320,872 2,418,475 2,512,903

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 329,290 315,773 318,598 302,736 307,077 307,054 309,770 312,744 315,122 314,134 Total Farm Expenses 199,308 201,943 206,937 209,901 215,047 218,439 222,338 229,594 236,748 243,487
Net Farm Income 129,982 113,830 111,661 92,836 92,030 88,614 87,432 83,150 78,373 70,647
Cash Flow 270,509 357,762 438,561 495,574 545,965 586,009 666,453 742,286 812,995 875,616
Net Worth 1,442,942 1,635,140 1,782,057 1,891,534 1,990,626 2,078,611 2,166,779 2,255,362 2,344,214 2,429,599

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available*** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 329,290 315,773 318,598 302,736 307,077 307,054 309,770 312,744 315,122 314,134 Total Farm Expenses 198,155 200,753 205,691 208,613 213,701 217,047 220,894 228,094 235,194 241,881
Net Farm Income 131,135 115,020 112,907 94,123 93,376 90,007 88,876 84,650 79,928 72,253
Cash Flow 272,738 361,182 443,227 501,527 553,264 594,700 676,589 753,922 826,186 890,412
Net Worth 1,445,172 1,638,560 1,786,723 1,897,487 1,997,925 2,087,303 2,176,915 2,266,998 2,357,405 2,444,395

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 6,492 6,702 7,015 7,248 7,577 7,840 8,132 8,443 8,751 9,043
Net Farm Income -6,492 -6,702 -7,015 -7,248 -7,577 -7,840 -8,132 -8,443 -8,751 -9,043
Cash Flow -12,551 -19,254 -26,269 -33,517 -41,094 -48,935 -57,066 -65,510 -74,261 -83,303
Net Worth -12,551 -19,254 -26,269 -33,517 -41,094 -48,935 -57,066 -65,510 -74,261 -83,303

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -1,153 -1,190 -1,246 -1,287 -1,346 -1,393 -1,444 -1,500 -1,554 -1,606
Net Farm Income 1,153 1,190 1,246 1,287 1,346 1,393 1,444 1,500 1,554 1,606
Cash Flow 2,229 3,420 4,666 5,953 7,299 8,692 10,136 11,636 13,190 14,796
Net Worth 2,229 3,420 4,666 5,953 7,299 8,692 10,136 11,636 13,190 14,796

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

**Scenario 1: No Weed Resistance** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 126,483 120,878 121,360 115,014 116,101 115,609 116,123 116,736 117,141 116,358 Total Farm Expenses 59,873 60,525 61,857 62,585 63,942 64,778 65,752 67,860 69,938 71,895
Net Farm Income 66,610 60,353 59,503 52,428 52,159 50,831 50,371 48,876 47,204 44,463
Cash Flow 138,654 190,072 239,171 279,493 317,548 351,893 400,165 446,842 491,743 533,795
Net Worth 727,727 825,896 902,412 962,871 1,018,437 1,068,964 1,119,690 1,171,188 1,223,448 1,275,023

**Scenario 2: Weed Resistance - No DHT** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 126,483 120,878 121,360 115,014 116,101 115,609 116,123 116,736 117,141 116,358 Total Farm Expenses 62,546 63,284 64,745 65,569 67,062 68,006 69,100 71,336 73,540 75,617
Net Farm Income 63,937 57,594 56,615 49,445 49,039 47,603 47,023 45,400 43,601 40,741
Cash Flow 133,487 182,145 228,356 265,695 300,630 331,748 376,671 419,873 461,171 499,500
Net Worth 722,560 817,969 891,597 949,072 1,001,519 1,048,819 1,096,197 1,144,219 1,192,876 1,240,728

**Scenario 3: Weed Resistance - DHT Techology Available*** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 126,483 120,878 121,360 115,014 116,101 115,609 116,123 116,736 117,141 116,358 Total Farm Expenses 62,094 62,818 64,256 65,065 66,534 67,460 68,534 70,748 72,931 74,988
Net Farm Income 64,389 58,060 57,104 49,949 49,567 48,149 47,589 45,988 44,210 41,370
Cash Flow 134,361 183,486 230,185 268,028 303,491 335,154 380,644 424,433 466,341 505,300
Net Worth 723,434 819,310 893,426 951,406 1,004,380 1,052,226 1,100,170 1,148,779 1,198,046 1,246,528

**Change: Scenario 2 - Scenario 1** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses 2,673 2,759 2,888 2,984 3,120 3,228 3,348 3,476 3,603 3,723
Net Farm Income -2,673 -2,759 -2,888 -2,984 -3,120 -3,228 -3,348 -3,476 -3,603 -3,723
Cash Flow -5,167 -7,926 -10,815 -13,798 -16,918 -20,146 -23,493 -26,969 -30,572 -34,295
Net Worth -5,167 -7,926 -10,815 -13,798 -16,918 -20,146 -23,493 -26,969 -30,572 -34,295

**Change: Scenario 3 - Scenario 2** Total Farm Receipts Including Government Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Farm Expenses -452 -467 -488 -505 -528 -546 -566 -588 -609 -630
Net Farm Income 452 467 488 505 528 546 566 588 609 630
Cash Flow 874 1,340 1,829 2,333 2,861 3,407 3,973 4,561 5,170 5,800
Net Worth 874 1,340 1,829 2,333 2,861 3,407 3,973 4,561 5,170 5,800Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 114 of 202



### Table 56

. U.S. Corn Supply and Demand Impacts

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Variable Cost of Production (Dollars Per Acre)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 323.12 331.33 344.40 355.33 370.56 383.42 397.66 412.89 427.95 442.21 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 7.08 8.88 10.76 12.69 14.83 16.27 17.84 18.60 18.97 19.31
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 5.82 7.30 8.84 10.43 12.20 13.37 14.67 15.29 15.59 15.88

Season Average Farm Price (Dollars Per Bushel)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 4.48 4.22 4.19 3.91 3.90 3.84 3.81 3.79 3.76 3.69 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 90.54 91.65 89.49 92.34 89.18 89.99 88.64 87.81 86.49 85.91 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.12 -0.22 -0.23 -0.34 -0.36 -0.42 -0.48 -0.50 -0.51 -0.52
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.08 -0.18 -0.18 -0.28 -0.30 -0.37 -0.40 -0.43 -0.43 -0.44

Yield (Bushels Per Acre)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 164.5 169.2 172.7 176.7 181.0 184.5 188.0 190.4 192.7 195.1 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Production (Million Bushels)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 13,722 14,296 14,246 15,058 14,902 15,339 15,396 15,442 15,392 15,480 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -13 -28 -29 -47 -51 -64 -74 -80 -83 -86
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -7 -24 -23 -40 -44 -57 -64 -69 -71 -74

Domestic Disappearance (Million Bushels)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 11,489 12,068 12,094 12,423 12,495 12,784 12,869 12,860 12,820 12,795 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -6 -15 -18 -27 -32 -40 -48 -54 -57 -52
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -4 -12 -14 -23 -28 -35 -41 -46 -49 -45

Exports (Million Bushels)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 1,991 2,052 2,243 2,404 2,461 2,489 2,514 2,567 2,585 2,627 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -5 -9 -12 -15 -18 -21 -24 -25 -25 -21
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -3 -7 -10 -13 -16 -18 -21 -22 -22 -18Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 115 of 202



### Table 57

. U.S. Soybean Supply and Demand Impacts

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Variable Cost of Production (Dollars Per Acre)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 138.49 141.21 145.51 149.90 154.64 158.95 163.02 167.24 171.07 174.65 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 12.10 13.70 15.23 16.80 18.44 19.80 20.20 20.63 21.05 21.46
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 10.51 11.78 12.94 14.08 15.23 16.08 16.37 16.68 16.98 17.26

Season Average Farm Price (Dollars Per Bushel)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 9.99 9.57 9.37 9.00 8.58 8.57 8.35 8.46 8.30 8.29 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04

Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 77.35 76.39 77.94 75.02 75.32 73.16 74.42 74.48 75.35 74.74 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.70 -0.59 -0.70 -0.70 -0.79 -0.79 -0.76 -0.74 -0.74 -0.74
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.61 -0.50 -0.59 -0.57 -0.63 -0.61 -0.59 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57

Yield (Bushels Per Acre)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 44.2 45.4 46.6 47.8 48.6 49.4 49.8 50.2 50.6 51.0 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Production (Million Bushels)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 3,377 3,423 3,584 3,540 3,616 3,572 3,662 3,695 3,769 3,770 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -28 -24 -29 -30 -34 -35 -34 -33 -33 -33
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -24 -20 -25 -24 -27 -27 -26 -25 -25 -25

Domestic Disappearance (Million Bushels)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 1,828 1,885 1,929 1,911 1,954 1,988 2,010 2,030 2,059 2,046 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -9
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -6 -7 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -8 -8 -6

Exports (Million Bushels)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 1,526 1,589 1,653 1,610 1,633 1,606 1,657 1,687 1,714 1,745 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -18 -16 -20 -20 -23 -23 -22 -22 -22 -18
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -16 -14 -16 -16 -18 -18 -17 -17 -17 -14Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 116 of 202



### Table 58

. U.S. Corn Acreage Impacts By Region

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Corn Belt Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 39.39 40.08 39.51 40.57 39.97 40.41 39.97 39.58 38.91 38.69 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05

Central Plains Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 15.19 15.36 14.62 15.22 14.42 14.56 14.26 14.13 13.93 13.84 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.05 -0.07 -0.08 -0.10 -0.12 -0.13 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.04 -0.06 -0.06 -0.08 -0.10 -0.11 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12

Delta States Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 1.73 1.75 1.72 1.76 1.70 1.72 1.69 1.68 1.66 1.66 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Far West Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 1.31 1.34 1.32 1.36 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.26 1.25 1.23 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Lake States Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 14.34 14.40 14.08 14.50 14.09 14.17 13.94 13.86 13.71 13.67 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.01 -0.02 0.01 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.01 -0.02 0.01 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05

Northeast Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 3.57 3.56 3.44 3.56 3.39 3.42 3.34 3.31 3.25 3.23 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

Northern Plains Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 7.71 7.80 7.58 7.98 7.32 7.40 7.24 7.15 7.04 6.93 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.08 -0.09 -0.11 -0.13 -0.15 -0.17 -0.18 -0.18 -0.18 -0.18
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.06 -0.08 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12 -0.14 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15

Southeast Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 4.46 4.47 4.39 4.48 4.29 4.31 4.25 4.21 4.16 4.13 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Southern Plains Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 2.84 2.90 2.82 2.90 2.72 2.71 2.66 2.62 2.58 2.54 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 117 of 202



### Table 59

. U.S. Soybean Acreage Impacts By Region

11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21

Corn Belt Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 33.50 32.80 33.30 32.21 32.44 31.83 32.26 32.56 33.17 33.24 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.14 -0.09 -0.11 -0.11 -0.12 -0.12 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.08
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.13 -0.08 -0.09 -0.08 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.05

Central Plains Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 9.27 9.30 9.49 9.11 9.26 8.89 9.14 9.11 9.21 9.07 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

Delta States Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 6.68 6.68 6.81 6.51 6.43 6.17 6.27 6.21 6.24 6.12 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.17 -0.15 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.14 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.14 -0.14 -0.14 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13

Far West Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lake States Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 10.67 10.56 10.85 10.43 10.53 10.32 10.51 10.50 10.59 10.50 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.05 -0.04 -0.08 -0.05 -0.09 -0.07 -0.08 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.04 -0.03 -0.07 -0.04 -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

Northeast Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 1.40 1.37 1.43 1.34 1.41 1.34 1.39 1.40 1.43 1.41 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Northern Plains Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 8.78 8.70 9.01 8.62 8.50 8.06 8.23 8.12 8.14 7.91 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.13 -0.12 -0.15 -0.17 -0.20 -0.21 -0.21 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.12 -0.11 -0.13 -0.14 -0.16 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17

Southeast Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 6.46 6.38 6.45 6.24 6.21 6.04 6.10 6.06 6.07 5.98 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.11 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.09 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.08

Southern Plains Planted Acreage (Million Acres)
Scenario 1: Without Weed Resistance 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.52 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.49 Change from Scenario 1 Scenario 2: With Weed Resistance, No DHT -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
Scenario 3: With Weed Resistance and DHT -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 118 of 202



## 8. End Notes

1 Marra, M. C., Piggott, N. E., & Carlson, G. A. (2004). The Net Benefits, Including Convenience, of Roundup Ready Soybeans: Results from a National Survey. National Science Foundation. Raleigh: NSF
center for IPM.

2 Piggott, N. E., & Marra, M. C. (2008). Biotechnology Adoption Over Time in the Presence of Non

Pecuniary Characteristics that Directly Affect Utility: A Derived Demand Approach. AgBioForum, 11 (1),
58

- 70.

3 Marra, M., & Piggottt, N

. (2006) The value of non p ecuniary characteristics of crop biotechnologies: A new look at the evidence. In Just, j. Alston, & D. Zilbermann (Eds.) Regulating agricultural biotechnology: Economics and Policy, pp. 145

- 178. New York: Springer

- Verlag.

4 Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (200 9 ). Global impacts of Biotech Crops: Income and Production Effects

, 1996

- 200 7 . AgBioForum, 1 2 ( 2 ), 184

- 208

.

5 University of Illinois Extension, Farm Economics Facts & Opinions, "Costs and Fuel Use for Alternative Tillage S ystems" FEFO 06

- 07 April 17, 2006. http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo06_07/fefo06_07.html

6 University of Illinois Extension, Farm Business Mana gement, Machinery Cost Estimates: Field Operations. April 2010. http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/index.asp

7 University of Illinois Extension, Farm Economics Facts & Opinions, "Machin ery Cost Estimates: Harvesting." April 2010. http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/index.asp

8 IHS Global Insight. November 2010. Global Agricultural Forecast. Proprietary Data.

9 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Energy Estimator.
Retrieved December 2010. http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov/

10 Soil Erosion Site. Retrieved October 2010 http://soilerosion.net/doc/water_erosion.html

11 USGS, 2010. Eutrophication, Retrieved October 2010. http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html

12 Daniel, T. C., A. N. Sharpley, and J. L. Lemunyon. 1995. Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication: A Symposium Overview. J. of Environ. Qual., 27: 251

- 257.

13 Correll. D.L. 1998. The Role of Phos phorus in the Eutrophicaton of Receiving Waters: A Review. J. Environ. Qual. 27: 261

- 266.

14 USEPA, 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2008. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/US

- GHG

- Inventory

- 2010_Report.pdf

15 Sundermeier, Alan, Randall Reeder , and Rattan Lal. Soil Carbon Sequestration

- Fundamentals. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX

- 510

- 05

. http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex

- fact/pdf/0510.pdf

16 West, O. Tristram O. and Wilfred M. Post. 2002. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1930

– 1946.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 119 of 202

17 USEPA, 2010. Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Retrieved October 2010 http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html

18 Texas A&M Blackland Research Center. 2006. Researcher's Guide for WinEPIC: Version 3.0. BRC Report No. 05

- 01 (revised), Temple, Texas.

19 Gassman, P.W., J.R. Williams, V.W. Benson, R.C. Izaurralde, L.M. Hauck, C.A. Flowers. 2005. Historical Development and Applicat ions of the EPIC and APEC models. Eorking Paper 05

- WP

- 397, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames.

20 Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). 2007. Estimating Water Quality, Air Quality,
and Soil Carbon Benefits of the Conservation Program, FAPRI

- UMC Report #01

- 07.University of Missouri, Columbia.

21 Nicks, A.D. 1974. "Stochastic Generation of the Occurrence, Pattern, Location of Maximum Amount of Daily rainfall." In Proceedings symposium on statistical h ydrology: USDA Misc. Pub. N. 1275.

22 Richardson, C.W. 1981. Stochastic Simulation of Daily Precipitation, Temperature, and Solar Radiation.

Water Resources Res . 17(10: 182

- 90.

23 USDA, National Resources Conservation Service. 2010. County Soil Data, Retri eved October 2010 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/State.aspx

24 USDA

- ERS . 2006. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/app/default.aspx?survey=CROP

25 Supplemental Toolkit For Investors. Monsanto. February 2010.

26 Chicago Climate Exchange. Agricultural Best Management Practices. Referenced December 2010. http://www.chicagoclimatex.com /docs/offsets/CCX_Conservation_Tillage_and_Grassland_Conversion_Pr otocol_Final.pdfSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 120 of 202



# Appendix B
A nalysis to D etermine the I mpact of the U se of 2,4

- D on H erbicide

T olerant DAS

- 40278

- 9 C orn and DAS

- 68416

- 4 S oybeans on the
Cost and E nvironmental L oad of H erbicides A pplied on Glyphosate Tolerant C orn and S oybeans to C ontrol Glyphosate
Resistant and Hard

- to

- Control W eeds :Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 121 of 202



# Table of Contents

1. Introduction

____________________________________________________ 123

2. Case Study Process

_______________________________________________ 123

3. Analysi s Results

_________________________________________________ 129

4. End Notes

______________________________________________________ 141Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 122 of 202



# Tables

Table 1. State, crop and weed species combinations targeted in the herbicide load analysis.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 123 Table 2. Year on Year Changes in Average Glyphosate Rates Applied Postemergence on Glyphosate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans.

................................ ........................ 125 Table 3. Corn and Soybean herbicide categories used to subdivide the third party proprietary data data.

................................ ................................ ....................... 126 Table 4. Application Sequence Categories Used to Subdivide the Third Party Proprietary
Data.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 127 Table 5. Arkansas Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ ............................ 130 Table 6. Georgia Soy bean Herbicide Programs

................................ .............................. 131 Table 7. Illinois Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ ............................... 132 Table 8. Iowa Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ... 133
Table 9. Minnesota Soybean Herbicide Programs

................................ .......................... 134 Table 10. Illinois Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ... 135 Table 11. Iowa Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ...... 136
Table 12. Minnesota Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ............................. 137 Table 13. Ohio Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ ...... 138 Table 14. Georgia Corn Herbicide Programs

................................ ................................ . 139 Table 15. Summary of the impact of incorporating 2,4

- D and other non

- glyphosate herbicides into GT crop herbicide programs to control GR and GT weeds on per

acr e herbicide load.

................................ ................................ .......................... 140Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 123 of 202



## 1. Introduction

An analysis was conducted to determine the impact of t he use of 2,4

- D on herbicide
tolerant DAS

- 40278

- 9 corn and DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans on the cost and environmental load of herbicides applied on glyphosate tolerant ( GT ) corn and soybeans to control glyphosate resistant ( GR ) and har d

- to

- control ( HTC ) weeds. 2009 t hird party proprietary
data (hereafter referred to as data) for corn and soybeans and a survey of university weed specialists were used to create assumptions about how growers would change herbicide use on GT corn and soybeans to manage GR and HTC weeds. The university weed specialist surv ey is presented in Append ix C

.



## 2. Case Study Process

Analyses were completed for corn in five states and for soybeans in five states

, targeting growers’ approaches to control a GR resistant weed species that is present in each state ( Table 1 ). The weed species chosen for each case study is common and widely distributed throughout each respective case study state

, although GR biotypes may not yet be widespread.

Table 1

. State, crop and weed species combinations targeted in the herbicide load analysis.

State Crop Target Weed Species

Arkansas Soybeans Palmer amaranth

Georgia Corn Palmer amaranth Soybeans Palmer amaranth

Illinois Corn Waterhemp Soybeans Marestail

Iowa Corn Waterhemp Soybeans Giant ragweed

Minnesota Corn Giant ragweed Soybean Waterhemp
Ohio Corn Giant ragweed



### The following approach was used to objectively identify potential herbicide programs for

use in GT corn and soybeans to control GR weeds both with and without Dow AgroSciences herbicide tolerant ( DHT ) trait technology found in DAS

- 40278

- 9 corn and
DAS

- 68416

- 4 soybeans that is part of the Enlist TM 

### Weed Control System 1



### .

1 Enlist is a trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the Enlist Weed Control System have not yet received regulatory approvals; approvals are pending. The information provided here is not an offer for sale. ©2011 Dow AgroSciences LLCSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 124 of 202



### 2009 market research data was used to identify the most commonly used herbicide

p rograms on GT and conventional corn and soybeans in each case study state. The third party proprietary data source is one of the most trusted sources of market information for many of the world’s leading manufacturers and suppliers of agricultural products and
services. This source has created and maintains a large respondent datab ase consisting of products and quantities used, field acres treated with products, and dollar expenditures. Market research surveys are sent out to a randomly selected population of participants (growers and distribution/retailers). Based on the response s, survey data compiled are extrapolated to estimate the market size and value for crop protection solutions in major crops. Dow AgroScience s has purchased licenses to access the proprietary databases for marketing a nd business analysis purposes. Step 1: Identify the most commonly used GT and conventional herbicide programs in corn and soybeans.

The 200 9 market data for corn herbicides shows that glyphosate is predominantly used in
combination with non

- glyphosate herbicides on corn (53% of corn acres) and is only used alone on approximately 20% of corn acres. This contrasts with glyphosate use on soybea ns where glyphosate is used alone on approximately 56% of the acres and in
combination with non

- glyphosate herbicides on approximately 39% of the acres. Conventional herbicides were used on approximately 23% and 5% of corn and soybean acres, respectively, while glufosinate was used on approximately 4% and 0.2% of corn and soybean acres , respectively , in 2009

.

The market data shows that the average use rate for glyphosate applied on GT corn and soybeans has increased an average of 0.014 lb ae/ac/yr from 1998 to 2010 ( Table 2 ). The steady increase in average glyphosate application rate s coincides with the widespread adoption of GT crop systems and evolution of GR an d HTC weeds. Based on this assessment, it was assumed that average glyphosate use rates would increase 0.01 lb ae/ac/yr from 2011 forward

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 125 of 202


### Table 2 . Year on Year Changes in Average Glyphosate Rates Applied Postemergence on Glyphos ate Tolerant Corn and Soybeans.

Year Year on Year Glyphosate Rate Increase (Decrease) (Lb ae/Ac)

1999 0.018

2000 0.006

2001 ( 0.003 )

2002 0.013

2003 0.020

2004 0.019

2005 0.016

2006 0.010

2007 0.019

2008 0.017

2009 0.003

2010 0.031
Avg 0.014

Source: Third party proprietary data

.



### The 2009 data for corn and soybeans was grouped into similar herbicide ( Table 3 ) and application sequence categories ( Table 4 ) . Grouping the individual herbicide programs into these categories enabled the identification of the most commonly used herbicide programs on GT and conventio nal crops in each state

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 1 26 of 202



### Table 3 . Corn and Soybean herbicide categories used to subdivide the third party proprietary data data.

Herbicide Categories
Corn Soybeans

ACETAMIDE PRE

- MIX ACETAMID

Lumax ( S

- metolachlor + atrazine + mesotrione ) Lasso (a lachlor )

Lexar ( S

- metolachlor + atrazine + mesotrione ) Axiom, Define (f lufenacet )

Harness Xtra, Keystone (a cetochlor + atrazine ) Cinch, Dual Magnum, Medal, Parallel ( S

metolachlor ) Bicep II Magnum ( S

- metolachlor + atrazine ) Prefix ( S

- metolachlor + fomesafen )

Guardsman (d imethenamid + atrazine ) Boundary ( S

- metolachlor + metribuzin )

Sure S tart (a cetochlor + flumetsulam + clopyralid )

BROADLEAF

Balance (i soxaflutole ) Blazer (acifluorfen)

I mpact (t opramezone ) Galaxy, Storm (a cifluorfen + bentazone )

Marksman (d icamba + atrazine ) Basagran (b entazone )

Corvus (i soxaflutole + thiencarbazone

- methyl ) Aim (c arfentrazone )

Callisto (m esotrione ) Classic (c hlorimuron )

Hornet (f lumetsulam + clopyralid ) Canopy (c hlorimuron + metribuzin )
Synchrony (ch lorimuron + thifensulfuron )
Enlite, Envive (c hlorimuron + thifensulfuron +
flumioxazim )

FirstRate (ch loransulam )

Resource (f lumiclorac )
Encompass, Valor (f lumioxazin )

Ganster Co

- Pak (f lumioxazin + cloransulam )

Cadet (f luthiacet )

Flexstar, Reflex (f omesafen )
Raptor (i mazamox )
Scepter (i mazaquin )

Pursuit (i mazethapyr )

Cobra (l actofen )
Authority, Blanket (s ulfentrazone ) Authority First, Sonic (s ulfentrazone +
cloransulam ) Harmony (t hifensulfuron + tribenuron )

DNA

Prowl (pendimethalin) Pendant, Prowl (p endimethalin )

Pursuit Plus (p endimethalin + imazethapyr )

Treflan, Trifluralin, Triflurex (trifluralin)

GLYPHOSATESupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 127 of 202 

### Herbicide Categories
Corn Soybeans

Buccaneer, Cornerstone, Clearout, Credit, Durango, Gly S tar, Honcho, Mad Dog, Roundup
Weathermax

, Touchdown , several (glyphosate) Buccaneer, Cornerstone, Clearout, Credit, Durango, Gly S tar, Honcho, Mad Dog, Roundup
Weathermax , Touchdown , several (glyphosate)

SYNTHETIC AUXIN
2,4

- D, several (2,4

- D) 2,4

- D, several (2,4

- D)
Clarity, Distinct, Oracle

, Status (dicamba)

POST GRASS

Steadfast (n icosulfuron + rimsulfuron ) Select (c lethodim )
Option Corn (f oramsulfuron ) Fusilade (f luazifop ) Celebrity (n icosulfuron + dicamba + diflufenzopyr ) Assure (q uizalofop )

Lightning (i mazethapyr ) Poast (s ethoxydim )

TRIAZINE
Aatrex, Atrazine (atrazine) Sencor, Metribuzin, s everal (metribuzin)
Princep, Simazine (simazine)



### Table 4 . Application Sequence Categories Used to Subdivide the Third Party Proprietary Data.

Herbicide Sequence Category Definition

BURN Herbicides applied to burndown vegetation before, during or after planting but before crop emergence

PRE Herbicides applied premergence (before crop emergence)

POST Herbicides applied postemergence (after crop emergence)

(_____ + _____) Tank

- mixed products

_____ f/b _____ Sequential application



### University Extension weed control recommendations were consulted to identify recommended solutions for control of GR weeds. Specific recommendations were found for the control of GR Palmer amaranth in soybeans and corn from the University of Georgia and the University of Arkansas. Step 2: Identify University Extension weed control recommendations for control of
each GR weed species

.

1

, 2 

### The majority of the GR Palmer amaranth present in Georgia and Arkansas is also resistant to ALS

- inhibitor herbicides and this was reflected in the university recommendations. Only general recommendations were found for the control of the other GR weed species. An objective, non

- biased approach was developed to estimate the most likely herbicide programs growers would use in GT crops

to control GR weed s pecies other than Palmer amaranth (see Step s 3 and 4 ).Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 128 of 202



### The five most widely used GT herbicide programs (greatest number of base treated acres)

were identified and selected to represent the “current state” weed control programs for GT corn and soybeans. In each case study, the top five GT programs identified using this approach accounted for 60% or more of the total base treated acres of GT corn and soybeans

. Step 3: Identify likely herbicide programs for control of GR weeds in GT/DHT corn and soybeans

It was assumed that DHT trait technology would be stacked with GT technology in both corn and soybeans

, allow ing the use of 2,4

- D + glyphosate tank mixtures to control GR weed biotypes. DHT programs were created by adding 0.71 lb ae/ac of 2,4

- D to the top GT programs identified in each state . Each program was evaluated and adjusted to eliminate redundant herbicides. For example, it was assumed that 2,4

- D would replace any “Broadleaf” category herbicides that were applied tank mixed with glyphosate in a given program. Finally, it was assumed that glyphosate rates would return to 0.75 lb ae/ac of glyphosate in DHT programs because of the high level of control demonstrated
in field trials with the 0.75 lb ae/ac glyphosate + 0.71 lb ae/ac 2,4

- D tank mixture

.

The market data was determined to be the best non

- biased source for identification of

non

- glyphosate herbicides and rates for use in combination with glyphosate on GT crops.
The 2009 market data show that t he average rate of non

- glyphosate herbicides applied on GT corn in combination with glyphosate was 1.41 lb ai/ac while the average rate of non

glyphosate herbicides applied on conventional corn was 2.34 lb ai/ac. The difference in these two amounts (0.93 lb ai/ ac of non

- glyphosate herbicides) is the reduction in
envir onmental load of non

- glypho s ate herbicides achieved from the use of glyphosate. Step 4 : Identify likely herbicide programs for control of GR weeds in GT corn and soybeans without DHT technology

Growers , however, will no longer be able to use reduced rates of non

glyphosate herbicides in combination with glyphosate if their objective is to control
GR resistant weeds

. As a result, it was assumed that growers must return to using
full rates of non

- glyphosate herbicides in combination with glyphosate in order to continue to realize the benefits of the GT cropping system and effectively control
GR weeds. Non

- DHT alternat ive programs were created by adding full use rates of glyphosate to full use rates of the top conventional herbicide programs in corn and soybeans

. This approach would insure that the herbicide and rate choices were non

biased and would mirror the non

- gly phosate herbicides and use rates growers are using today and most likely would use in the future

.

The five most widely used herbicide programs in “conventional” corn and soybeans were identified as outlined in Step 3. The top five conventional programs i dentified using this approach accounted for 60% or more of the total base treated acres of conventional corn in each state. However, the five most widely used programs in conventional soybeans
were identified on a national basis because there were too few conventional soybean acres for accurate identification at the state level. The top five conventional programs in soybeans identified using this approach accounted for approximately 50% of the total base treated acres of conventional soybeans nationally.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 129 of 202



### The average use rate for postemergence applied glyphosate on GT corn and soybeans in
20 1 0 was 0.88 lb ae/ac. D ow AgroSci e nces is striving for a 2012 and 2014 launch for

corn and soybeans , respectively

. By the time DHT is launched, i t was assum ed that the

average application rate of glyphosate would increase 0.01 lb ae/ac/yr to 0. 9 lb ae/ ac GT
corn and to 0.9 4 lb ae/ ac on GT soybeans

. Similar to the GT /DHT programs, a ll redundant herbicides were eliminated from the herbicide program. For example, it w as assumed that glyphosate would replace any “ POST GRASS ” herbicides that were applied in a given program. All ALS

- inhibitor herbicides were eliminated from the “Broadleaf” herbicide category in the soybean analysis because of widespread ALS resistance an d the increasing occurrence of biotypes that are resistant to both glyphosate and ALS
herbicides. The most commonly used g lufosinate program was also included as one of the top five programs in each case study despite low current use. The glufosinate

tre atment was assumed to be 2% of b ase t reated a cres in each case study to insure its
inclusion as an alternative.

The 2009 market data was used to provide the herbicide cost and application rate information used in the analysis. In this s tep, the “current ” state GT and conventional programs were compared to the “ future state” GT /DHT and GT/non

- glyphosate herbicide

program s to determine the impact of the different programs on cost, complexity and
environmental load of herbicide active ingredients

. Step 5 : Analysis



## 3. Analysis Results

Analysis results for the ten case studies are presented in Table 5 through Table 14 and
summarized in Table 15

.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 130 of 202


### Table 5

. Arkansas Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Program Description Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.55 14.70 $ 30% Glyphosate POST 0.94 9.14 $ 21%

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST 1.99 11.47 $ 10% Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate f/b ( Broadleaf + Glyphosate) BURN f/b POST f/b
POST 2.59 30.67 $ 7% Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 0.87 15.48 $ 6% Average 1.59 16.29 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) PRE f/d POST Apply Valor or Prefix or Authority MTZ premergence. Apply 0.75 Lb ae/A glyphosate ($7.62/A) + 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) postemerence as
needed. Calculations are based on one postemergence application.

1.87 19.60 $
Average 1.87 19.60 $

Broadleaf f/b ( Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Apply Valor or Prefix or Authority MTZ premergence. Apply glyphosate as needed to control grasses and other broadleaf weeds. Apply Flexstar or Ultra Blazer postemergence as
needed at full label rates to 3-inch tall or less Palmer amaranth (may be tank mixed with glyphosate). Calculations are based on one postemergence application.
1.58 28.10 $

Broadleaf f/b (Liberty + Acetamide) f/b Liberty PRE f/b EPOST f/b
POST Apply Valor or Prefix or Authority MTZ premergence. Apply Liberty + Dual Magnum over-the-top when Palmer
amaranth are less than 3-inches tall. Apply Liberty postemergence as
needed when Palmer amaranth are
less than 3-inches tall and before row
closure. Calculations are based on one postemergence application,

2.36 60.58 $
Average 1.97 44.34 $

0.28 3.31 $

0.38 28.05 $

-0.10 (24.74) $

*** Bond, J., T. Eubank, K. Smith, and B. Scott. 2010. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth and Ryegrass Management. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Infomration Sheet 1351. March 2010. http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1351.pdf * Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth Without DHT***

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for C minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus CSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 131 of 202



### Table 6

. Georgia Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Program Description Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.75 7.21 $ 75% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST 0.91 16.99 $ 18%

(Glyphosate + DNA) f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.70 32.56 $ 8% Average 1.45 18.92 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) PRE f/d POST Apply Sencor or Canopy or Boundry or Authority MTZ or Dual Magnum or Intrro premergence. Apply 0.75 Lb ae/A glyphosate ($7.62) + 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) postemerence
as needed. Calculations are based on one postemergence application.

2.17 19.84 $
Average 2.17 19.84 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST GT Soybeans : Apply Sencor or Canopy or Boundry or Authority MTZ or Dual Magnum or Intrro premergence. Apply glyphosate + Reflex or glyphosate + Ultra Blazer or glyphosate + Cobra or glyphosate + Prefix or postemergence as needed.
Calculations are based on one postemergence application. 2.04 28.37 $

Broadleaf or Acetamide f/b Liberty PRE f/b POST Liberty Link Soybeans: Apply Dual Magnum or Intrro or Valor or Envive or Prefix or Valor XLT premergence. Apply Liberty postemergence as
needed. Calculations are based on one postemergence application. 1.01 28.90 $
Average 1.53 28.64 $

0.72 0.92 $

0.07 9.72 $

0.65 (8.80) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for C minus A A. Top Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth Without DHT***

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A

*** Prostko, E. P. 2010. Managing Herbicide Resistant Palmer Amananty (Pigweed) in Field Corn, Peanut, and Soybean - 2010. University of Georgia. http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/resistance-10-tables.pdf Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus C
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 132 of 202



### Table 7

. Illinois Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.91 10.18 $ 30%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.75 17.69 $ 23%

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST 2.17 19.38 $ 7% ( Broadleaf + Glyphosate + Growth Regulators) f/b Glyphosate+A22+A36 BURN f/b POST 2.35 29.11 $ 6%

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 1.02 19.67 $ 4% Average 1.64 19.21 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.49 11.22 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.33 18.73 $

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 2.75 20.42 $

(Glyphosate + Growth Regulators) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A), subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and subtract 0.11 lb ai/A of Broadleaf ($9.32/A). 2.93 20.83 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Same as above 1.60 11.39 $
Average 2.22 16.52 $

Broadleaf PRE or POST 0.10 11.31 $ 15% (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) or Glyphosate f/b
Broadleaf BURN PRE or BURN f/b
POST 0.61 11.82 $ 7% (DNA + Broadleaf) or DNA f/b Broadleaf PRE or PRE f/b POST 1.20 24.17 $ 6% (Broadleaf + Post Grass) POST 0.31 18.03 $ 5% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 0.91 41.91 $ 5% (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.02 46.28 $ 4% (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN f/b POST 1.10 22.72 $ 3% (Acetamide + Broadleaf) PRE 0.89 18.82 $ 3% Liberty POST 0.43 11.91 $ 2% Average 0.84 23.00 $

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST, POST Add 0.94 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.55/A) 1.04 20.86 $ (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Glyphosate f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 1.55 21.37 $ (DNA + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or DNA f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.14 33.72 $ (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Glyphosate ) POST Same as above 1.25 27.58 $ (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post
Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.85 51.46 $ (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.96 55.83 $ (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 2.04 32.27 $ (Acetamide + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.83 28.37 $ Liberty POST No change 0.43 11.91 $
Average 1.68 31.49 $

0.58 (2.69) $

0.04 12.28 $

0.54 (14.97) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Soybeans

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 133 of 202


### Table 8

. Iowa Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.91 9.67 $ 31%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.73 18.39 $ 25% DNAs f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 1.94 16.50 $ 10%

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate POST 0.99 22.48 $ 7% (Glyphosate + Post Grass) POST 0.85 13.22 $ 4% Average 1.28 16.05 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.49 10.71 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.31 19.43 $

DNAs f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A), subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and subtract 0.11 lb ai/A of Broadleaf ($9.32/A). 2.52 17.54 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.46 14.20 $ (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) POST Same as above 1.43 14.26 $
Average 1.84 15.23 $

Broadleaf PRE or POST 0.10 11.31 $ 15% (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) or Glyphosate f/b
Broadleaf BURN PRE or BURN f/b
POST 0.61 11.82 $ 7% (DNA + Broadleaf) or DNA f/b Broadleaf PRE or PRE f/b POST 1.20 24.17 $ 6% (Broadleaf + Post Grass) POST 0.31 18.03 $ 5% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 0.91 41.91 $ 5% (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.02 46.28 $ 4% (Glyphosate + Growth Regulator) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN f/b POST 1.10 22.72 $ 3% (Acetamide + Broadleaf) PRE 0.89 18.82 $ 3% Liberty POST 0.43 11.91 $ 2% Average 0.84 23.00 $

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST, POST Add 0.94 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.55/A) 1.04 20.86 $ (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Glyphosate f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 1.55 21.37 $ (DNA + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or DNA f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.14 33.72 $ (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Glyphosate ) POST Same as above 1.25 27.58 $ (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post
Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.85 51.46 $ (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.96 55.83 $ (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 2.04 32.27 $ (Acetamide + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.83 28.37 $ Liberty POST No change 0.43 11.91 $
Average 1.68 31.49 $

0.56 (0.82) $

0.39 15.43

0.17 (16.26) $

** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Soybeans

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 134 of 202



### Table 9

. Minnesota Soybean Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST 1.60 16.21 $ 37% Glyphosate POST 0.86 9.09 $ 35% (Glyphosate + Post Grass) POST 0.88 13.79 $ 6% (Glyphosate + Post Grass) f/b Glyphosate POST f/b POST 1.72 22.17 $ 4% Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + Post Grass) POST f/b POST 1.55 20.53 $ 3% Average 1.32 16.36 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) BURN f/b POST, POST
f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.18 17.25 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of

Glyphosate ($1.55/A). 1.44 10.13 $ (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) POST Same as above 1.46 14.83 $

(Glyphosate + Post Grass) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) POST f/b POST Add one or two applications of 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and subtract one or two applications of 0.13 Lb

ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A). Calculations are based on one 2,4-D application. 2.30 23.21 $ (Glyphosate) f/b (Glyphosate + Post Grass + 2,4-D ) or (Glyphosate + 2,4-D ) f/b (Glyphosate + Post
Grass + 2,4-D ) POST f/b POST Same as above 2.13 21.57 $
Average 1.90 17.40 $

Broadleaf PRE or POST 0.10 11.31 $ 15% (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) or Glyphosate f/b
Broadleaf BURN PRE or BURN f/b
POST 0.61 11.82 $ 7% (DNA + Broadleaf) or DNA f/b Broadleaf PRE or PRE f/b POST 1.20 24.17 $ 6% (Broadleaf + Post Grass) POST 0.31 18.03 $ 5% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 0.91 41.91 $ 5% (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN PRE f/b POST 2.02 46.28 $ 4% (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf + Post Grass) BURN f/b POST 1.10 22.72 $ 3% (Acetamide + Broadleaf) PRE 0.89 18.82 $ 3% Liberty POST 0.43 11.91 $ 2% Average 0.84 23.00 $

Broadleaf f/b Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST, POST Add 0.94 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.55/A) 1.04 20.86 $ (Glyphosate + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Glyphosate f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 1.55 21.37 $ (DNA + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or DNA f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate ) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.14 33.72 $ (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Glyphosate ) POST Same as above 1.25 27.58 $ (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf + Post
Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.85 51.46 $ (Broadleaf + DNA + Glyphosate) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.96 55.83 $ (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) f/b (Broadleaf +

Post Grass + Glyphosate ) BURN f/b POST Same as above 2.04 32.27 $ (Acetamide + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 1.83 28.37 $ Liberty POST No change 0.43 11.91 $
Average 1.68 31.49 $

0.58 1.04 $

0.35 15.13 $

0.23 (14.09) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis
was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treated Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Soybeans

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Soybeans Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 135 of 202


### Table 10

. Illinois Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.64 23.62 $ 32% Glyphosate POST 0.90 9.50 $ 15%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST 1.52 15.61 $ 7% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) POST 3.02 27.15 $ 5% (Triazine + Glyphosate) POST 1.99 11.96 $ 4% Average 2.02 17.57 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 3.22 24.66 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.48 10.54 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST Same as above 2.10 16.65 $ (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 3.60 28.19 $ (Triazine + Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 2.57 13.00 $
Average 2.59 18.61 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 2.33 19.13 $ 40% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) PRE or POST 3.16 24.43 $ 9% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Broadleaf or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.38 29.13 $ 7% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE or POST 3.14 31.86 $ 5%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 2.61 26.09 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 3.23 28.27 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Triazine + Glyphsate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 4.06 33.57 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.28 38.27 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 4.04 41.00 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 3.33 33.40 $

0.58 1.04 $

1.32 15.83 $

-0.74 (14.79) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of
Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 136 of 202



### Table 11

. Iowa Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 2.44 21.93 $ 34% Glyphosate POST 0.85 8.53 $ 20%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST 1.76 18.95 $ 8% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) POST 0.93 19.63 $ 5% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST 2.33 27.09 $ 5% Average 1.66 19.23 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 3.02 22.97 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.43 9.57 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or POST f/b POST Same as above 2.34 19.99 $

(Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and 0.24 Lb

ai/A of Broadleaf

($12.08/A) 1.27 8.59 $ Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.67 16.05 $
Average 2.15 15.43 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 2.03 19.24 $ 24% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Broadleaf or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.67 34.62 $ 14% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) PRE or POST 2.70 25.11 $ 12% (Broadleaf + Triazine) PRE or POST 0.96 19.07 $ 9%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 2.08 24.78 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 2.93 28.38 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.57 43.76 $

(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.60 34.25 $ (Broadleaf + Triazine) + Glyphosate or (Broadleaf + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 1.86 28.21 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 2.80 32.10 $

0.48 (3.79) $

1.14 12.87 $

-0.66 (16.66) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of
Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 137 of 202



### Table 12

. Minnesota Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A)* % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 2.22 21.32 $ 31% Glyphosate POST 0.84 8.48 $ 21%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or POST
f/b POST 1.58 14.97 $ 12% Acetamide f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST 2.04 28.54 $ 8% (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) POST 0.92 16.23 $ 6% Average 1.52 17.91 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 2.80 22.36 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.42 9.52 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or POST
f/b POST Same as above 2.16 16.01 $

Acetamide f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate ($1.55/A) and 0.24 Lb

ai/A of Broadleaf

($12.08/A). 2.38 17.50 $ (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.26 5.19 $
Average 2.00 14.12 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 1.71 18.55 $ 34%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Broadleaf or (Acetamide PreMix + Broadleaf) PRE f/b POST or POST 1.88 24.81 $ 17% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE or POST 2.22 26.94 $ 10% Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Triazine) PRE f/b POST 2.02 26.24 $ 6%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 1.98 24.48 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 2.61 27.69 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Glyphosate) or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 2.78 33.95 $ (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE or POST Same as above 3.12 36.08 $ Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Broadleaf + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST Same as above 2.92 35.38 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 2.70 31.80 $

0.48 (3.79) $

1.18 13.89 $

-0.69 (17.68) $ Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D
* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted. ** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of
Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn

D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus ASupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 138 of 202



### Table 13

. Ohio Corn Herb icide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Description of Changes to "Current

State" Program* Avg Rate (Lb ai/A) Avg Cost ($/A) % of
Acres
Treated**

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 3.22 27.48 $ 32% Glyphosate POST 0.96 10.01 $ 14% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) BURN/PRE or POST 3.11 29.62 $ 10%

Glyphosate f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b POST or
POST f/b POST 1.40 15.02 $ 9% (Triazine + Glyphosate) BURN/PRE or POST 2.71 12.09 $ 5% Average 2.28 18.84 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) PRE f/b POST Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4-D ($2.59/A) and
subtract 0.13 Lb ae/A of Glyphosate

($1.55/A) 3.80 28.52 $
(Glyphosate + 2,4-D) POST Same as above 1.54 11.05 $
(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN/PRE or POST Same as above 3.69 30.66 $

Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4-D) BURN f/b POST or
POST f/b POST Same as above 1.98 16.06 $
(Triazine + Glyphosate) BURN/PRE or POST Same as above 3.29 13.13 $
Average 2.86 19.88 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix PRE or POST 2.27 15.38 $ 49% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) PRE or POST 3.24 25.32 $ 14% (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) PRE or POST 2.54 28.68 $ 7% (Broadleaf + Post Grass + Triazine) POST 2.44 36.10 $ 2%Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST 2.06 25.88 $ 2% Average 2.51 26.27 $

Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Add 0.90 Lb ae/A Glyphosate ($9.14/A) 3.17 24.52 $

(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine) f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Triazine + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 4.14 34.46 $

(Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf) f/b Glyphosate or (Acetamide Pre-Mix + Broadleaf + Glyphosate) PRE f/b POST or POST Same as above 3.44 37.82 $
(Broadleaf + Triazine + Glyphosate) POST Same as above 3.34 45.24 $Acetamide Pre-Mix f/b Liberty or (Acetamide PreMix + Liberty) PRE f/b POST or POST No change 2.06 25.88 $
Average 3.23 33.58 $

0.58 1.04 $

0.95 14.74 $

-0.37 (13.70) $

** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2%
of Base Treated Acres to insure its inclusion as an alternative. D. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn Without DHT C. Top Five Herbicide Herbicide Programs in Conventional Corn B. Projected Herbicide Programs in GT Corn With DHT

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus D A. Top Five Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for D minus A

* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for 2,4-D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4-D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2,4-D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 139 of 202



### Table 14

. Georgia Corn Herbicide Programs

Herbicide Program Sequence Program Description Avg Rate (Lb ai/A)* Avg Cost ($/A)* % of

Acres

Treated**

Glyphosate POST 0.77 8.90 $ 22% Triazine f/b Glyphosate PRE f/b POST 2.86 13.26 $ 12% Glyphosate f/b (Glyphosate + Triazine) BURN f/b POST 3.68 20.61 $ 5% (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) + (Glyphosate + Synthetic Auxin) BURN f/b POST 2.75 31.20 $ 3%

Glyphosate f/b Triazine f/b Glyphosate BURN f/b PRE f/b POST 3.50 21.25 $ 3% Average 2.71 19.04 $

Atrazine f/b (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D ) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4

- D ($2.59/A)

and subtract 0.85 Lb ai/A of non

glyphosate broadleaf herbicides ($7.54/A) applied postemergence in C
below. Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.07 19.39 $

(Bicep II Magnum/Bullet/ Guardsman/Lariat/Lexar at 66% normal rate) + (Glyphosate + 2,4

- D ) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Add 0.71 Lb ae/A of 2,4

- D ($2.59/A)
and subtract 0.85 Lb ai/A of non

glyphosate broadleaf herbicides ($7.54/A) applied postemergence in C

below . Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.42 26.67 $

Average 3.24 23.03 $

Atrazine f/b (Glyphosate + Atrazine/Banvel/Clarity/Status or Expert/Sequence/Halex GT) + (2,4

- D or

Banvel /Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.21 24.34 $

(Bicep II Magnum/Bullet/ Guardsman/Lariat/Lexar at 66% normal rate) + (Glyphosate +
Atrazine/Banvel /Clarity/Status or Expert/Sequence/Halex GT) + (2,4

- D or Banvel/Clarity/Status) PRE f/b POST f/b LAYBY (as needed) Calculations are based on one layby application. 3.56 31.62 $

Average 3.39 27.98 $

0.53 3.99 $

0.68 8.94 $

- 0.14 (4.95) $

* Cost estimates for DHT Technology is based on 2009 pricing for
2,4

- D, where 0.71 Lb ae of 2,4

- D cost $2.59. Retail cost of the specially formulated 2 ,4

- D that will be used registered for use on crops containing DHT technology, and technology fees had not been established at the time this analysis was conducted.

** "Percent of Acres Treated" values were calculated dividing Base Treated Acres for each altnerative herbicide program by the total Base Treated Acres of glyphosate resistant crops or conventional crops, as appropriate. The Liberty treatment was assumed to be 2% of Base Treat ed Acres to insure its
inclusion as an alternative.

* ** Prostko, E. P. 2011. Managing Herbicide Resistant Palmer Amananty (Pigweed) in Field Corn, Peanut, and Soybean

- 2011. University of Georgia. http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/resistance

- 2011

- tables.pdf A. Top Herbicide Programs in GT Corn

B. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Corn With DHT

C. Recommended Herbicide Program to Control GR Palmer Amaranth in GT Corn Without DHT***

Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Dec rease) for B Minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for C minus A Projected Rate and Cost Increase (Decrease) for B Minus CSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 140 of 202


### Table 15 . Summary of the impact of incorporating 2,4

- D and other non

- glyphosate herbicides into GT crop herbicide programs to control GR and GT weeds on per
acre herbicide load.

Herbic ide Load (Lb ai/A)

Per Acre Herbicide Load in Corn Ohio Minnesota Iowa Illinois Georgia Avg

Average applied on G T corn in 2009 2.28 1.52 1.66 2.02 2.71 2.04 Average increase (decrease) when 0.71 lb
ae/ac of 2,4

- D is incorporated into existing
G T crop herbicide programs to control GR
and GT resistant weeds 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.42 Average increase (decrease) when other

non

- glyphosate herbicides are incorporated
into G T crop herbicide programs to control
GR and GT resistant weeds 0.95 1.18 1.14 1.32 0.68 0.92 Net increase (decrease) from 2,4

- D versus other non

- glyphosate herbicide alternatives ( 0.37 ) (0.69) ( 0.66 ) ( 0.74 ) (0.15) ( 0. 49)

Per Acre Herbicide Load in Soybeans Minnesota Iowa Illinois Arkansas Georgia Avg Average applied on G T soybeans in 2009 1.32 1.28 1.64 1.59 1.45 1.46 Average increase (decrease) when 0.71 lb
ae/ac of 2,4

- D is incorporated into existing
G T crop herbicide programs to control GR
and GT resistant weeds 0.58 0.56 0.58 0.28 0.72 0.54 Average increase (decrease) when other

non

- glyphosate herbicides are incorporated
into G T crop herbicide programs to control
GR and GT resistant weeds 0.35 0.39 0.04 0.38 0.07 0.25 Net increase (decrease) from 2,4

- D versus other non

- glyphosate herbicide alternatives 0.23 0.17 0.54 ( 0.10 ) 0.65 0.30Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 141 of 202



## 4. End Notes

1 Prostko, E. P. 2010. Managing Herbicide Resista nt Palmer Amaranth (Pigweed) in Field Corn, Peanut, and Soybean

- 2010. University of Georgia. http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/resistance

- 10

- tables.pdf . Accessed January 1 6, 2011.
2 Bond, J., T. Eubank, K. Smith, and B. Scott. 2010. Glyphosate

- resistant Palmer Amaranth and Ryegrass Management. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Infomration Sheet 1351. March 2010. http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets_research/i1351.pdf . Accessed January 16, 2011.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 142 of 20 2



# Survey of University Weed Specialists to Determine Glyphosate

Resistant and Hard

- to

- Control Weed Prevalence and Management Practices Used in Corn and Soybeans Appendix C :Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 143 of 20 2 

# Table of Contents

1. Survey Participants

______________________________________________ 144

2. Survey Form

____________________________________________________ 145

3. Survey Results

__________________________________________________ 154

3.1 Question 1

___________________________________________________ 154

3.2 Question 2

___________________________________________________ 155

3.3 Question 3

___________________________________________________ 156

3.4 Question 4

___________________________________________________ 158

3.5 Question 5

___________________________________________________ 167

3.6 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Marestail Control in Soybeans

_____ 17 3

3.7 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Waterhemp Control in Soybeans

___ 177

3.8 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Giant Ragweed Control in Soybeans 180

3.9 Question 6 : Glyphosate Resistant Kochia Control in Soybeans

_______ 183

3.10 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Palmer Amaranth Control in Soybeans 184

3.11 Question 6: Glyphosate Tolerant Common Lambsquarters Control in Soybeans

____________________________________________________________ 186

3.12 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Italian Ryegrass Control in Soybeans 188

3.13 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Marestail Control in Corn

_________ 189

3.14 Question 6: Glyphosate Resis tant Waterhemp Control in Corn

_______ 190

3.15 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Kochia Control in Corn

___________ 192

3.16 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Giant Ragweed Control in Corn

____ 193

3.17 Question 6: Glyphosate Tolerant Common Lambsquarters Control in Corn

____________________________________________________________ 194

3.18 Question 7

___________________________________________________ 196

3.19 Question 8

___________________________________________________ 197

3.20 Question 9

___________________________________________________ 198

3.21 Question 10

__________________________________________________ 200

3.22 Question 11

__________________________________________________ 202Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 144 of 20 2



## 1. Survey Participants

State Weed Specialist Affiliation

AR Ken Smith University of Arkansas

G A Stanley Culpepper University of Georgia

IA Mike Owen Iowa State University

IN Bill J ohnson Purdue

KY Jim Martin University of Kentucky

KS Dallas Peterson Kansas State University

MO Kevin Bradley University of Missouri

MN Jeff 

### Gunsolus University of Minnesota

MS Tom Eubank Mississippi State University

OH Mark Loux Ohio State UniversitySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 145 of 20 2



## 2. Survey Form 

# Survey of University Weed Specialists to Determine Glyphosate

Resistant and Hard

- to

- Control Weed Prevalence and Management
Practices Used in Corn and Soybeans

Date:

_____________________________ Name:

____________________________ Address:___________________________ Title:______________________________

____________________________ Phone:____________________________

____________________________ Email:_____________________________

Survey Purpose: This survey is being conducted on behalf of Dow AgroSciences in support of the deregulation of DHT herbicid e tolerant trait technology on corn and soybeans. Dow AgroSciences is required to provide USDA and EPA with an assessment of the economic benefits DHT technology will provide once registered. The information generated by this survey
will be used to fulfi ll this requirement and provide useful and accurate information to both USDA and EPA. Thank you for your help and continued support of Dow AgroSciences and DHT herbicide tolerant trait technology.

Questions
1. How would you describe the glyphosate

- resistan t (GR) weed problem in your state today?

a. Declining b. Static

c. Slowly increasing d. Increasing at a moderate rate

e. Increasing rapidly f. Increasing very rapidly

2. How would you describe the hard

- to

- control (HTC) weed problems in your state today?

a. Declining b. Static

c. Slowl y increasing d. Increasing at a moderate rate

e. Increasing rapidly f. Increasing very rapidlySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 146 of 20 2 

### 3. As a way to manage potential GR weed development, how effective do you consider each of the following practices? Rate using a 1

- 10 scale where 1 = ineffective and 10 = very effective. 

### ___ a. Rotate herbicide chemistries from one year to the next ___ b. Tillage ___ c. Rotate crops and aggressively manage GR weeds in the rotational crop ___ d. Use correct label herbicides rates (for the size and type of weeds present) ___ e. Apply burndown and postemergence herbicides at the proper weed size ___ f. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and a residual herbicide(s) ___ g. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as gly phosate and
another foliar

- applied herbicide(s) ___ h. Scout fields after a glyphosate application to determine treatment effectiveness and if treatment is necessary, apply a postemergence
herbicide with a different mode of action ___ i. Clean equipment before moving from field to field to minimize spread of seed ___ j. Other ________________________________________________________

4. What are the major obstacles/challenges to implementing each practice in a resistant weed manage ment system?

a. Rotate herbicide chemistries from one year to the next.



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

b. Tillage.



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

c. Rotate crops and aggressively manage GR weeds in the rotational crop.



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 147 of 20 2 

### d. Use correct label herbicides rates (for the size and type of weeds present).



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

e. Apply burndown and postemergence herbicides at the proper weed size.



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

f. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and a residual herbicide(s).



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

g. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and another foliar

- applied herbicide(s).



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

h. Scouting fields after a glyphosate application to determine treatment effectiveness and if treatment is necessary, apply a postemergence herbicide with a different mode of action.



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

i. Clean equipment before moving from field to field to minimize spread of seed
seed.



### ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 148 of 20 2 

### 5. What specific GR and HTC weeds are the biggest problems in your state, what percentage of each crop in your state is currently infested with each GR and HTC species, and what would you project the percent infested acreage to increase to over the
next 3

- 5 years (by 2015)?



### Estimated 2010 Infested Acreage (% of Crop) Estimated 2015 Infested Acreage (% of Crop)

Weed GR

or HTC Soybean Corn Other Soybean Corn OtherSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 149 of 20 2



### 6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species). 

### a. Weed:______________________ Crop:__________________(corn or soybeans)

Control Measure % of
Growers Currently

Using Estimated
% of
G rowers Employing

by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on

1

- 10 scale) Strengths/
Benefits Weaknesses/ Consequences



### b. Weed:______________________ Crop:__________________(corn or soybeans)

Control Measure % of
Growers Currently

Using Estimated
% of
Growers Employing

by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on

1

- 10 scale) Strengths/
Benefits Weaknesses/ ConsequencesSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 150 of 20 2 

### c. Weed:______________________ Crop:__________________(corn or soybeans)

Control Measure % of
Growers Currently

Using Estimated
% of
Growers Employing

by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on

1

- 10 scale) Strengths/
Benefits Weaknesses/ Consequences



### d. Weed:______________________ Crop:__________________(corn or soybeans)

Control Measure % of
Growers Currently

Using Estimated
% of
Growers Employing

by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on

1

- 10 scale) Strengths/
Benefits Weaknesses/ ConsequencesSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 151 of 20 2 

### e. Weed:______________________ Crop:__________________(corn or soybeans)

Control Measure % of
Growers Currently

Using Estimated
% of
Growers Employing

by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on

1

- 10 scale) Strengths/
Benefits Weaknesses/ Consequences



### f. Weed:______________________ Crop:__________________(corn or soybeans)

Control Measure % of
Growers Currently

Using Estimated
% of
Growers Employing

by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on

1

- 10 scale) Strengths/
Benefits Weaknesses/ ConsequencesSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 152 of 20 2 

### 7. How significant of a problem are GR weeds that are also resistant other herbicides (resistant to multiple modes of action) in your state?



### _____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

8. Do you expect the acreage infested with multiple herbicide resistance weeds to continue to increase in your state?



### _____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

9. In your opinion, what needs to be done to sustain the longevity of the GR system and continue to reap the economic, soil conservation and environmental benefits the GR cropping system of fers?



### Corn:________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
Soybeans____________________________

_________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

10. In your opinion, how significant of a contribution will DHT herbicide tolerant technology contribute to preserving the utility and benefits of GR crops?

a. No benefit b. Small benefit

c. Moderate benefit d. Substantial benefit



### Why (strengths and weaknesses)? Corn:__________________________________

___________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
Soybeans____________________________________

______________________Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 153 of 20 2



### __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

11. What would be your recommendations for building a resistance weed management program that would include DHT herbicide trait technology in corn and soybeans?



### Corn:____________________________

_________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
Soybeans______________________________

____________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

12. Are you aware of any research studies you or other researchers have completed comparing the effectiveness of alternative s for the control of GR and HTC weeds?



### __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

THANK YOUSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 154 of 20 2



## 3. S urvey Results

3.1 Question 1

1. How would you describe the glyphosate

- resistant (GR) weed problem in your state today?
a. Declining

b. Static c. Slowly increasing
d. Increasing at a moderate rate
e. Increasing rapidly f. Increasing very rapidly

State Responses

AR f

G A e

IA Did not ask

IN d

KY d

KS d

MO d

MN c

MS f

OH C

Summary
Average d to e

Range c

- fSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 155 of 20 2 

### 3.2 Question 2

2. How would you describe the hard

- to

- control (HTC) weed problems in your state today?
a. Declining

b. Static

c. Slowly increasing
d. Increasing at a moderate rate
e. Increasing rapidly f. Increasing very rapidly

State 

### Response

AR E

G A A

IA Did not ask

IN C

KY B

KS D

MO C

MN C

MS F

OH B

Summary
Average C

Range A

- FSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 156 of 20 2



### 3.3 Question 3

3. As a way to manage potential GR weed development, how effective do you consider each of the following practices? Rate using a 1

- 10 scale where 1 = ineffective and 10 = very effective.
___ a. Rotate herbicide chemistries from one year to the next
___ b. Tillage ___ c. Rotate crops and aggressively manage GR weeds in the rotational crop
___ d. Use correct label herbicides rates (for the size and type of weeds present)
___ e. Apply burndown and postemergence herbicides at the proper weed size ___ f. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and a residual herbicide(s)
___ g. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and another foliar

- applied herbicide(s) ___ h. Scout fields after a glyphosate application to determine treatment effectiveness and if treatment is necessary, apply a postemergence herbicide with a different mode of action ___ i. Clean equipment before moving from field to field to minimize spread of seed ___ j. Other ________________________________________________________

Resistance Management Practice Effectiveness

State a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

AR 7 7 10 3 7 8 7 7 4 n/a

G A 7 8 8 8 8 9 7 8 5 10

IA Did not ask

IN 10 6 1 6 7 7 7 4 6.5 n/a

KY 8 8 8 5 3 8 5 8 8 n/a

KS 7 5 9 5 3 8 8 5 3 n/a

MO 9 5 7 4 5 8 7 7 3 n/a

MN 6 6 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 n/a

MS 10 7 8 8 8 9 7 10 9 n/a

OH 5 5 5 2 4 10 7 5 4 n/aSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 157 of 20 2

Summary
Average 7.7 6.3 7.2 5.3 5.9 8.4 7.0 7.0 5.5
Range 5 to10 5 to 8 1 to 10 2 to 8 3 to 8 7 to 10 7 to 8 4 to 10 3 to 9Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 158 of 20 2



### 3.4 Question 4

4. What are the major obstacles/challenges to implementing each practice in a resistant weed management system?

a. Rotate herbicide chemistries from one year to the next.
AR Rotating crops may not be an option due to soil suitability, farming practices, and markets. If the crop is not rotated, the most economical weed control program may be the same as used in previous years. Many are reluctant to change if the program worked last year. G A Many of the acres are not rotated out of cotton thus this tool is challenging. Often one product is more effective an more economical thus growers continue to use the most effective option
IA Did not ask
IN Cost and simplicity.
KY Cost of alternative herbicides. Where you grow the same crop continuously can be a challenge to find alternatives for the resistant species we have. KS Cost and effectiveness.
MO No challenges. Have a lot of continuous soybea n acres that get back to using the same thing year after year because they like to use the cheapest thing out there which is glyphosate. There is less pushback on this than for the other practices.
MN Low cost and ease of application of glyphosate is an obstacle. Recent literature out of Canada has shown this approach to be less viable then using more than one chemistries in a given year. MS Rotation of herbicide modes of action is a viable means of resistant weed management in that it limits exposure o f weeds to a herbicide chemistry within a growing cycle. The biggest challenge I could envision is educating producers to the strengths and weaknesses of different herbicide modes of action as compared to the historical ease of a glyphosate only program. OH prevalence of glyphosate

- resistant cropsSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 159 of 20 2

b. Tillage.
AR Time and money. G A erosion, high costs, slow
IA Did not ask
IN Time managmenet and cost factor
KY Tillage requires additional time and expense toward fuel and labor, as well as soil erosion. We don’t do a lot of tillage. Growers are reluctant to use tillage. No till is a religion for many of our growers.
KS Counteracts benefits of no

- till production systems MO Not very effective anyway. Not really a challenge to implement, however, we are going more and more to notill.
MN Although not a big no

- till state those involved in no

- and reduced

- tillage would be reluctant to change. Also, many growers do not want to take the time to do inter

- row cultivation. MS Tillage is an effective means of controlling emerged weeds; however, it could also lead to the increased emergence of other weeds previously buried in the soil, increased production costs, and the increased likelihood of sediment loss. OH cost, time and soil erosionSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 160 of 20 2

c. Rotate crops and aggressively manage GR weeds in the rotational crop.
AR Market, soil capabilities, and farm structure. Some farmers do not have the equipment, labor, or capacity to grow
rice or cotton. G A Sometimes growers cant rotate crops because of economics. Sometimes growers cant control the pest in a rotational crops easily, some rotational crops are of low value thus growers will not spend the money to control the pest even if options do exist. An example would be soybea n in Georgia as growers will not spend the money in this crop even though options exist.
IA Did not ask
IN Profitability of the rotational crop.
KY Cost. Another would be the grain prices dictate what crop the grower will plant. KS None MO The challenge is that growers believe they have to grow soybeans on the ground which is reflected in our soybean acreage. We are 2:1 soybeans to corn. Liberty Link soybeans have not taken off in Missouri. We really no options to clean up resistant weeds if growers produce soybeans.
MN Low cost and ease of application of glyphosate is an obstacle. However, growers that have experienced GR weeds are making strategic choices as to which crop they want to keep viable for glyphosate (generally this would be sugar beets or soybeans) MS As w ith rotating herbicides knowing which chemistries control GR weeds in alternative cropping systems. In some situations the advantages of crop rotation may worsen the problem. Such as rotating wheat and soybeans with GR Italian ryegrass. OH can’t rotate to crop this is different enough in gowth habit or herbicide used, or in area where corn does not grow
wellSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 161 of 20 2

d. Use correct label herbicides rates (for the size and type of weeds present).
AR Not a major problem. G A No good reason other than trying to save money IA Did not ask
IN Used to preach that this was not a factor. And it is not a factor for target site resistance. But with glyphosate, where we are spraying big weeds, I feel it is a major factor causing resistance.
KY Cost. Don’t see a lot of obstacles. More and more growers are using full rates. It depends on the cost of glyphosate. KS By itself, will not help that much. MO There are no challenges. When we do surveys of custom applicators, we see they are often using over the label

ra te. We don’t encounter many people that use less than label rates.
MN Low cost of glyphosate has helped to improve label use rates but for established GR weeds this tactic won’t be enough. MS The practice of cutting rates will always be a problem depending on the producers in the area. OH time, too many acres to cover, weather, stupiditySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 162 of 20 2

e. Apply burndown and postemergence herbicides at the proper weed size.
AR Mainly weather. Some may wait on financing to be approved prior to spending money on burndown. G A Growers are handling too many acres thus there is no way to be timely everywhere. Rainfall events often delay our ability to be timely
IA Did not ask
IN Same as d
KY Growers have room for improvement. One of the issues is marestail and they are not timely with their burndown. Timeliness is important for burndown and post applications. Just a few inches and you are out of luck (with marestail). KS Same as above. Extra applications, cost. MO The three years of torrential downpours we have in the spring have created problems with proper application timing. There are no challenges other than environment. Most spraying done in MO is by a custom applicator.
MN Timing to proper weed size to me is critical and links to rate and use of residual chemistries. Residual chemistries are needed to create a more uniform size cohort of emerged weeds for the POST glyphosate application.
MS One of the biggest issues I have seen with burndown/postemergence herbicides is applications being made in high winds, poor growing conditions, and improper nozzle selection. Proper weed size is imperative to getting adequate control; however, most will wait until the maximum label recom mendation is reached to “get more bang for their buck” and as farming operations increase in acreage the longer it takes to cover those acres and the weeds are subsequently off label by the time they reach the back forty. OH time, too many acres to cover , weather, stupiditySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 163 of 20 2

f. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and a residual herbicide(s).
AR Time and convenience. Accustomed to good performance with glyphosate and old habits are hard to break. Most
have not started thinking about weed control from a whole farm, multiple year approach. G A If growers see one chemistry as being the most effective and economical option then this is the one they use thus the limitation is convincing them of the value of that extra chemis try.
IA Did not ask
IN Cost and simplicity.
KY Cost. To a lesser degree some guys have been using glyphosate for so long that they are not knowledgeable about the available herbicide alternatives. We have some ALS resistance weeds in Kentucky but not a lot so ALS herbicides control glyphsate resistant weeds. KS Did not ask MO Goes back to cost. The cost of the residual herbicide. We are gaining more acceptance of this practice in the past year or two.
MN Residual chemistries are needed to create a more uniform size cohort of emerged weeds for the POST glyphosate application and increase the critical period of weed control window to reduce yield loss due to weed competition and allows more time for effective postemergence weed control. Residual chem istries also introduce new MOA’s
MS The biggest hurdle will be overcoming the expense of a residual herbicide. In Mississippi we have come to the point, with 5 GR weed species, that you cannot make a crop without multiple residual herbicides.
OH cost, f ailure to recognize other benefits of residualSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 164 of 20 2

g. Use more than one chemistry in a given year, such as glyphosate and another foliar

- applied herbicide(s).
AR Not a major problem. G A Having a tank mix partner that is effective on the pest in question. Additional costs
IA Did not ask
IN Same as f.
KY Timeliness and compatibility. Non

- glyphosate products require more precise timing than glyphosate. KS Cost, antagonism.
MO Cost. There is less challenges than using residual herbicides. However, I see them using the wrong product for the weed they are targeting in order to control cost. I find
MN Multiple chemistries that are effective on a GR weed can be effective but often, due to staggered weed flushes and time management issues the tank mix partner with glyphosate may be very weed and size specific plus the partner with glyphosate may be limited by crop size. This is not as robust of an approach as option (g). MS T hese have value and merit but should not be used as standalone weed control programs. I would rather utilize a foliar as a clean up for what was missed by the residual program. OH cost, crop injury risk, lack or POST herbicides that do what is needed (soybeans)Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 165 of 20 2

h. Scouting fields after a glyphosate application to determine treatment effectiveness and if treatment is necessary, apply a postemergence herbicide with a different mode of action.
AR Most scouts are entomologists. They have been trained to look for insects with a hand lens, but cannot see a weed until it is 3 ft. tall. G A Too many acres. Having a different mode of action to treat the pest. A second application would likely occur only on large weeds that are tough to kill follow ing the first application.
IA Did not ask
IN What can you apply that late in the season? Most growers apply glyphosate late. You would be trying to control a weed that has been treated with and injured by glyphosate with a herbicide applied much later than it should be (for optimum performance
KY We preach all the time but guys miss the boat. KS Often too late for alternative herbicide to be effective.
MO Hope they do more of that. The obstacle is time.
MN This is an effective and highly desirable approach but is limited by time to adequately scout for weeds that are still small enough to be adequately controlled by a different mode of action and still within the window of application to the crop without inducing crop injury or off

- target injury concerns. MS Absolutely imperative in managing GR weeds whereas in many situations the weeds will become too large to control if the fields are not scouted soon after application. OH too late to control large resistant weeds by the time there is the recognition that glyphosate has failed, multiple

resistant weed populationsSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 166 of 20 2

i. Clean equipment before moving from field to field to minimize spread of weed seed.
AR Time, Time, Time, If it slows the operation of planting or harvesting, it won’t happen. G A Not possible to clean all parts of the equipment, especially a cotton picker, bean harvestor, etc.
IA Did not ask
IN Its time. People won’t do it. Also this does not prevent the major mode with which the gene moves around. Marestail seed is blowing around. Common ragweed moves with the pollen. So cleaning equipment will have a less than complete effect.
KY Growers just don’t do it. If you do it you need to be thorough. They will miss something. KS May help prevent spread, but not development. Time. MO Time, Not an answer for many resistant weeds because waterhemp spreads through he pollen and marestail seed spreads by wind.
MN This is effective in reducing seed spread but narrow harvest windows often create time limitations. MS A well advised practice but most farmers will not take the time to clean harvest equipment as time is of the essence and will subsequently spread weeds across their farms bu t the practice is definitely warranted.

OH timeSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 167 of 20 2



### 3.5 Question 5

5. What specific GR and HTC weeds are the biggest problems in your state, what percentage of each crop in your state is currently infested with each GR and HTC species, and what would you project the percent infested acreage to increase to over the next 3

- 5 years (by 2015)?

Estimated 2010 Infested Acreage (% of Crop) Estimated 2015 Infested Acreage (% of Crop)

Weed GR or HTC Soybean* Corn* Cotton** Soybean* Corn* Cotton**

MARESTAIL

AR GR 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

G A Did not list

IA GR 5% 5% 5% 5%

IN GR 50% 50% 100% 100%

KY GR 33% 3.5% 23% 1%

KS GR 40% 20% 60% 40%

MO GR 20% 10% 35% 20%

MN Did not list

MS GR 40% 40% 40% 100% 100% 100%

OH GR 80% 80% 90% 90% 

### Average 32% 26% 23% 46% 41% 38% Range 0

- 50% 0

- 50% 0

- 50% 0

- 100% 0

- 100% 0

- 100%
* Average calculated by dividing column by 10 soybean producing states.
** Average calculated by dividing column by 4 cotton producing states AR, GE, MO, MS).



### COMMON RAGWEED

AR Did not list

G A Did not list

IA Did not list

IN GR 2.5% 2.5% 15% 15%

KY GR < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%

KS Did not list

MO GR 1% 1% 1% 1%

MN GR 2% 2% 5% 5%

MS Did not list

OH GR 0.1% 0.1% 5% 5% 

### Average 0.6% 0.6% 2.6% 2.6% Range 0

- 2.5% 0

- 2.5% 0

- 15% 0

- 15%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 168 of 20 2



### GIANT RAGWEED

AR Did not list

G A Did not list

IA GR < 5% < 5% 17.5% 17.5%

IN GR 30% 30% 50% 50%

KY Did not list

KS GR < 1% <1% <2% <1%

MO GR 8% 8% 30% 20%

MN GR 2% 2% 5% 5%

MS Did not list

OH GR 20% 20% 50% 50% 

### Average 6% 6% 15% 14% Range 0

- 30% 0

- 30% 0

- 50% 0

- 50%

WATERHEMP

AR Did not list

G A Did not list

IA GR 40% 40% 75% 75%

IN GR 2.5% 2.5% 15% 15%

KY GR < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%

KS GR < 5% < 1 % 8% < 1%

MO GR 45% 20% 60% 35%

MN GR 5% 5% 5% 5%

MS Did not list

OH Did not list 

### Average 9% 7% 16% 13% Range 0

- 45% 0

- 40% 0

- 75% 0

- 75%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 169 of 20 2



### PALMER AMARANTH

AR GR 60% 60% 75% 100% 100% 100%

G A GR 75% 75% 90% 100% 100% 100%

IA Did not list

IN Did not list

KY GR < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%

KS Did not list

MO Did not list

MN Did not list

MS GR 15% 5% 10% 80% 20% 60%

OH Did not list 

### Average 15% 14% 44% 28% 22% 65% Range 0

- 75% 0

- 75% 0

- 90% 0

- 100% 0

- 100% 0

- 100%

KOCHIA

AR Did not list

G A Did not list

IA Did not list

IN Did not list

KY Did not list

KS GR 10% 10% 20% 20%

MO Did not list

MN Did not list

MS Did not list

OH Did not list



### ITALIAN RYEGRASS

AR GR 2% 2% 2% 25% 25% 25%

G A Did not list

IA Did not list

IN Did not list

KY Did not list

KS Did not list

MO Did not list

MN Did not list

MS GR 30% 10% 10% 60% 20% 20%

OH Did not list 

### Average 3% 1% 3% 9% 5% 11% Range 0

- 30% 0

- 10% 0

- 10% 0

- 60% 0

- 25% 60

- 25%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 170 of 20 2



### MORNINGGLORY

AR Did not list

G A Did not list

IA Did not list

IN HTC 35% 35% 35% 35%

KY HTC 40% 40% 20% 20%

KS Did not list

MO HTC 95% 85% 95% 85%

MN Did not list

MS Did not list

OH Did not list 

### Average 17% 16% 15% 14% Range 0

- 95% 0

- 85% 0

- 95% 0

- 85%

NUTSEDGE

AR Did not list

G A Did not list

IA Did not list

IN Did not list

KY HTC 5% 5% 5% 5%

KS Did not list

MO Did not list

MN Did not list

MS HTC 20% 5% 20% 30% 5% 30%

OH Did not list 

### Average 3% 1% 5% 4% 1% 8% Range 0

- 20% 0

- 5% 0

- 20% 0

- 30% 0

- 5% 0

- 30%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 171 of 20 2



### LAMBSQUARTERS

AR Did not list

GA Did not list

IA HTC 82.5% 82.5% 82.5% 82.5%

IN HTC 50% 50% 50% 50%

KY HTC 5% 5% < 2% < 2%

KS Did not list

MO HTC 80% 80% 80% 80%

MN Did not list

MS Did not list

OH HTC 30% 30% 40% 40% 

### Average 25% 25% 25% 25% Range 0

- 82.5% 0

- 82.5% 0

- 82.5% 0

- 82.5%

ASIATIC DAYFLOWER

AR Did not list

GA Did not list

IA HTC < 5% < 5% 15% 15%

IN HTC 0% 0% 0% 0%

KY Did not list

KS Did not list

MO HTC 20% 20% 35% 35%

MN Did not list

MS Did not list

OH Did not list 

### Average 2% 2% 5% 5% Range 0

- 20% 0

- 20% 0

- 35% 0

- 35%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 172 of 20 2



### JOHNSONGRASS

AR Did not list

GA Did not list

IA Did not list

IN Did not list

KY Did not list

KS Did not list

MO HTC 20% 25% 25% 30%

MN Did not list

MS Did not list

OH Did not list



### VELVETLEAF

AR Did not list

GA Did not list

IA Did not list

IN HTC 30% 30% 30% 30%

KY Did not list

KS Did not list

MO Did not list

MN Did not list

MS Did not list

OH Did not listSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 173 of 20 2



### 3.6 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Marestail Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

MARESTAIL

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use 2,4

- D or another NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE with BURNDOWN glyphosate applications to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

AR Dicamba in spring 80% 80% 8.5 Quick and adds only $5.00/A cost Plant back interval, weather for spraying.

IA 2,4

- D as an early preplant 2.5% 15% 9 Controls a lot of winter
annuals Application timing (preplant only). Drift.

IN Glyphosate + 2,4

- D, Sharpen or some other herbicide in burndown program 65% 100% 9 Broadens spectrum, improves activity on broadleaf weeds Always receive questions on compatibility and antagonism although likely not a problem. Additional cost.

KS Fall/Early Preplant burdown 50% 90% 8 Improved control/planting Cost, time

KY Apply 2,4

- D in the burndown 75% 40% 7 Adding another mode of action. Relatively inexpensive. Drift onto tobacco beds and housing developments.

KY Apply Kixor with Glyphosate 20% 50% 9 No waiting to plant like 2,4

- D. Efficacy. You can afford to be later with Kixor technology and still control marestail. Cost.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 174 of 20 2

MO Use 2,4

- D or Sharpen with glyphosate
burndown 70% 90% 8 Another mode of action. It is getting it before the crop is planted. With 2,4

- D need to wait 7 days after application before planting.

MS 2,4

- D 80% 100% 8 Economical beginning to miss some horseweed

MS Dicamba 40% 100% 8 Effective Severe soybean injury

MS Ignite 20% 60% 9 Effective alternative Expensive

OH Use of other herbicide with glyphosate in
burndown 50% 60% 9 Control better than glyphosate alone Waiting period to plant or restrictions on use of PPO inhibiting residual herbicides Average 8.4 Range <5 to 80% 15 to 100%



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

KY Apply residual ALS chemistries like Firstrate. 5% 5% 8 Controls glyphosate resistant broadleaf weed species Additional cost. Adds selection pressure for ALS resistance. Do not have ALS resistance in Kentucky.

OH Use of residual herbicides 35% 60% 8 Control better than glyphosate alone Not long enough control in some fields, multiple
resistance reduces effectiveness of some options

Average 8 Range 5 to 35% 5 to 60%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 175 of 20 2



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

IN Tankmix glyphosate with First Rate or Classic 22.5% ??? ALS
resistance potential. 9, may be ALS
resistant Second mode of action. Fairly active on sensitive species Potential for ALS resistance. Cost.

MS Firstrate 20% 40% 8 Only postemergence option ALS resistance will develop

soon
OH POST mixtures 10% 10% 5 Sometimes works multiple resistance reduces effectiveness, too expensive

Average 7.3 (Rating assumes no ALS resistance) Range 10 to 22.5% 10 to 40%



### Plant LIBERTY LINK varieties and use LIBERTY
MS Ignite 20% 60% 9 Effective alternative Expensive



### Use TILLAGE to control glyphosate resistant weed species

AR Spring tillage 20% 20% 8.5 Good seedbed, no plantback interval. Expensive and slow. Must wait until soil dries enough to
till.

IA Those in notill are the ones with the (marestail) problem. There is little notill in
Iowa.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 176 of 20 2

IN Tillage. In southern Indiana we lost some notill acres. In 2002

- 2003 upto 25% of soybean growers resorted to tillage before 2,4

- D became the accepted burndown combination product. Monsanto was not recognizing problem and did not recommend use of 2,4

- D at this time. Very few

acres Less than
10%. 8 Controls germinating weeds. Allows crop to
ge t a head start. Horseweed is not that competitive and if we
can control at burndown the crop will prevent establishment of weeds that emerge incrop Cost, soil erosion, time. Big farms will not resort to tillage. Rather they will exhaust all herbicide op tions before going to tillage

KY Tillage requires additional time and expense toward fuel and labor, as well as soil erosion. We don’t do a lot of tillage. Growers are reluctant to use tillage. No till is a religion for many of our growers. MO Tillage 20% 20% 8 You can control the population that is there. Soil erosion

OH Tillage 2% 2% 9 Good control Cost, soil erosion, time
Average 8.4 Range 2 to 20% 2 to 20%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 177 of 20 2



### 3.7 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Waterhemp Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

WATERHEMP

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Stren g ths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use 2,4

- D or another NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE with BURNDOWN glyphosate applications to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

IA Premergence PPO herbicides

– Flumioxazin. Growers have started to
look at new BASF product. ALS inhibitors do not work because of resistance. 5% 15% 

### 6.5 Provide good residual control Variability of response due to environmental conditions, as well as, potential for injury

IN Post glyphosate + Cobra or
Flexstar 20% 35

- 40% 

### 8.5 Different mode of action. Both herbicides are fairly active on watermhemp. Cobra offers little residual control. Flexstar provides 2 weeks of residual control.

KS Preemergence herbicide 20% 50% 9 Yield protection, multiple MOA Cost, inconsistent

MN Authority products/glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Valor products/glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins
out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variabliltySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 178 of 20 2

MO Using a preemergence herbicide

– Valor, Prefix, Authority 35% 65% 8 The residuals are still very effective on waterhemp Cost. Almost none of them will give

you season

- long control.

Average 8.3 Range 5 to 35% 15 to 65%



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

IA Include a PPO herbicide with glyphosate postemergence

– Phoenix, Ultra Blazer, others 10

- 15% 10

- 15%



### 6.5 It works and provides a little bit of residual. Crop injury, resistance

IN Pre herbicide + glyphosate burndown

- Authority or Valor will provide some suppression of waterhemp 20% 30

- 40%



### 8.5 Different mode of action. Both herbicides are fairly active on watermhemp. Crop injury. Depending on rainfall late flushes make break thru the premergence treatment.

MN Flexstar or Cobra+glyphosate No idea No idea Effective on 4

- inch weeds Early time of application is critical.

MO Using a non

- glyphosate tankmix partner with glyhphosate

– Flexstar, Cobra, Aim, Cadet, Butyrac 45% 60% 6 An alternative chemistry that offers some control Does not work as good as a pre residual because you never get weeds at right time and the flushes continue after application. Many people are spraying too late for the

non

- glyphosate herbicides.

Average 7.0 Range 10 to
45% 10 to 60%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 179 of 20 2



### Plant LIBERTY LINK varieties and use LIBERTY
MO Planting Liberty Link Soybeans 2% 15% 8 An alternative mode of
action non

- selective herbicide. Only controls small weeds. Its not Roundup Ready. Not as effective as glyphosate. You can make it work if you are a good manager.



### Plant CORN rather than SOYBEANS
MO Plant corn and use alternative chemistry 20% 30% 9 Another mode of action. Many growers will not rotate to corn because they feel they can’t grow corn economically on their piece of ground. A lot of it is Missouri river bottom and prone to flooding.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 180 of 20 2



### 3.8 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Giant Ragweed Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

GIANT RAGWEED

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on
1

- 10 scale) Streng ths/Benefits Weaknesses/Conseque

nces



### Use HIGHER RATES of GLYPHOSATE

IN Higher glyphosate rates 75% 100% Depends
on extent of
tolerance Good short term strategy to protect crop yields. Poor long term strategy. Continued selection pressure for GR weeds



### Use 2,4

- D or another NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE with BURNDOWN glyphosate applications to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

IA 2,4

- D early preplant 5% 5% 8 Works well. Lack of residual.

IN More effective burndown

– glyphosate + 2,4

- D 50% 100% 5 Another mode of action. 2,4

- D is pretty active on giant ragweed No residual.

MO 2,4

- D applied at burndown Another mode of action. Controls emerged weeds at planting. Does not provide residual control. OH Use of other herbicide with glyphosate in burndown 50% 60% 9 Control better than glyphosate alone Waiting period to plant or restrictions on use of PPO inhibiting residual herbicides Average 7.3 Range 5 to 50% 5 to 100%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 181 of 20 2



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

IA Premergence ALS inhibitor
herbicides 15% 15% Variable

response based on resistance.
0

- 9 It works unless the population is resistant GR resistant weeds are also ALS resistance

IN Glyphosate tank mixed with a
residual herbicides 20

- 30% 20

- 30% 

### 7.5 Thins out weed population. Provides bigger window to apply post treatments Perception of effectiveness. The perception could be that it failed unless have a check strip.
MN Pre Products containing FirstRate / Glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MO Residual herbicides

– Authority, Gangster, 30% 60% 7 Another mode of action. It is such a large seeded broadleaf weed that you can’t get close to 100% control OH Use of residual herbicides 35% 60% 8 Control better than glyphosate
alone Not long enough control in some fields, multiple
resistance reduces effectiveness of some options Average 8.1 (Assumes no ALS resistance)
Range 15 to
35% 15 to 60%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 182 of 20 2



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

IA Include a PPO inhibitor with glyphosate postemergence 5

- 10% 5

- 10% 7 Works well but timing of application is critical

IN Post Glyphosate + Cobra or
Flexstar 20% 30

- 40% 8 Another mode of action. Crop injury is a concern. Both products have weed size restrictions that smaller than glyphosate.
MN Flexstar + Glyphsate No idea No idea 8 Effective on 4

- inch weeds Early time of application
is critical.
MN FirstRate + Glyphosate No idea No idea 8 Effective on 4

- inch weeds Early time of application is critical. Some biotypes appear to be ALS

resistant MO Post

- Reflex 50% 70% 7 Easier to hit application window than with waterhemp. Another mode of action. Can’t think of any.

OH POST mixtures 10% 10% 5 Sometimes works multiple resistance reduces effectiveness, too expensive Avg 7.2 Range 5 to 50% 5 to 70%



### Plant LIBERTY LINK varieties and use
LIBERTY
MO Liberty Link 2% 10% 7 Another mode of action. Requires a small weed size and this is a large seeded broadleaf weed.



### Use TILLAGE to control glyphosate resistant weed species
OH Tillage 2% 2% 9 Good control Cost, soil erosion, timeSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 183 of 20 2



### 3.9 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Kochia Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

KOCHIA

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on
1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
KS Premergence Herbicide 20% 50% 8 Yield protection, Multiple MOA Cost, inconsistentSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 184 of 20 2



### 3.10 Question 6 : Glyphosate Resistant Palmer Amaranth Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

PALMER AMARANTH

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

AR Soil residual
herbicide 60% 90% 8.5 Better control Costs

GA Three or more residual herbicides applied throughout the weed control program plus MSMA mixtures at layby 98% 98% 7 Numerous modes of action Requires rainfall on dryland production acres

MS Valor pre 40% 80% 8 Economical Severe soybean injury possible

MS Prefix pre 40% 80% 9 Two modes of action Short lived residual
Average 8.1 Range 40 to
98% 80 to 98%Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 185 of 20 2



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MS Flexstar post 50% 90% 8 Only postemergence option Weed size



### Plant LIBERTY LINK varieties and use LIBERTY
GA Ignite based
programs 25 75 7 Topical applications if timely will control Palmer Very timely applications required



### Use TILLAGE to control glyphosate resistant weed species
GA Tillage 50% 25% 5 Reduces Palmer populations at least 50% Erosion, high costs

GA Hand weeding 50% 25% 7 No seed produced Very high costs, must be timely



### Other
GA Rye residue 1% 20% 7 Reduce Palmer populations at least 50% Convincing growers they can adopt this production practiceSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 186 of 20 2



### 3.11 Question 6: Glyphosate Tolerant Common Lambsquarters Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

LAMBSQUARTERS

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Strentths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequ

ences



### Use 2,4

- D or another NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE with BURNDOWN glyphosate applications to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
OH Use 2,4

- D in burndown 50% same 9 Control better than glyphosate alone Waiting period to plant



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MN Authority or Flexstar or Valor package mixtures / glyphosate No idea No idea 8 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

OH Use of residual herbicides 35% 60% 10 Good control costSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 187 of 20 2



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MN Harmony GT products + glyphosate No idea No idea 7 Only consistent postemergence herbicide labeled in soybeans to compliment glyphosate Timing to proper crop size to avoid crop injury. Weather and weed size greatly influence efficacy.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 188 of 20 2



### 3.12 Question 6 : Glyphosate Resistant Italian Ryegrass Control in Soybeans

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

ITALIAN RYEGRASS

- SOYBEANS

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use 2,4

- D or another NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE with BURNDOWN glyphosate applications to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
MS Paraquat 20% 80% 7 Only option close to planting Resistance may develop soon



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
MS Dual in the fall 10% 60% 9 Expensive output after cropping



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

AR Select 1% 20% 8 No tillage required/no plant
back interval Expensive

MS Select Max 40% 90% 8 Effective on small plants antagonism with phenoxy’sSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 189 of 20 2



### 3.13 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Marestail Control in Corn

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

MARESTAIL

- CORN

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on
1

- 10 scale) Strentths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use 2,4

- D or another NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE with BURNDOWN glyphosate applications to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
KS Fall/preplant
burndown 60% 90% 9 Improved control/planting CostSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 1 90 of 20 2



### 3.14 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Waterhemp Control in Corn

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

WATERHEMP

- CORN

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
KS Premergence herbicide 70% 80% 9 Yield protection, Multiple MOA Cost

MN Lumax / Glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Surestart / Glyphosate No idea No idea 8 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Harness or Surpass/Glyphosate No idea No idea 8.5 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Higher PRE rates needed for high populations to maintain control into the season
Average 8.6 RangeSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 191 of 20 2



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
KS Postermegence tank

mix 50% 70% 9 Improved control, Multiple MOA Cost

MN Callisto or Impact or Laudis or Capreno + glyphosate No idea No idea 8.5 Effective control with
residual that can extend into later weed flushes Timing before weeds exceeds
4

- inches in height.

MN Dicamba products + glyphosate No idea No idea 8 Effective control with
residual that can extend into later weed flushes Timing to proper crop size to avoid crop injury. Control not as consistent as with Pigment inhibitors

Average 8.5 RangeSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 192 of 20 2



### 3.15 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Kochia Control in Corn

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

KOCHIA

- CORN

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on
1

- 10 scale) Stren g ths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
KS Premergence herbicide 70% 80% 9 Yield protection, Multiple MOA Cost



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.
KS Postemergence
herbicide 50% 70% 9 Improved control, spectrum Cost, drift potentialSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 193 of 20 2



### 3.16 Question 6: Glyphosate Resistant Giant Ragweed Control in Corn

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

KOCHIA

- CORN

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate on
1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MN Lumax / Glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Surestart / Glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MN Glyphosate + dicamba No idea No idea 8 Effective on early V2

- V3

corn Early time of application is critical

MN Glyphosate + Hornet No idea No idea 8 Effective on early V2

- V3

corn Early time of application is criticalSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 194 of 20 2



### 3.17 Question 6: Glyphosate Tolerant Common Lambsquarters Control in Corn

6. Now let’s detail what growers are currently doing to manage each GR and HTC weed and how effective each alternative is at managing each problem weed? (Complete the chart for each weed species in each crop for a maximum of three species).

LAMBSQUARTERS

- CORN

Control Measure % of Growers Currently Using Estimated % of Growers Employing by 2015 Efficacy (Rate
on 1

- 10 scale) Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Consequences



### Use a PREMERGENCE RESIDUAL HERBICIDE(S) to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MN Lumax / Glyphosate No idea No idea 8 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Surestart / Glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variablilty

MN Harness or Surpass/Glyphosate No idea No idea 7+ Pre activity helps glyphosate timing and thins out population Rain dependent and Pre efficacy variabliltySupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 195 of 20 2



### Use a POSTEMERGENCE NON

- GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE(S) with postemergence glyphosate treatments to provide another mode of action for control of glyphosate resistant weed species.

MN Callisto or Impact or Laudis or Capreno + glyphosate No idea No idea 8+ Effective control
with residual that can extend into later weed flushes Timing before weeds exceeds
4

- inches in height. Weather and weed size greatly influence efficacy.

MN

Dicamba products + glyphosate No idea No idea 8+ Effective control
with residual that can extend into later weed flushes Timing before weeds exceeds
4

- inches in height. Weather and weed size greatly influence efficacy.

MN

Atrazine + glyphosate No idea No idea 9 Effective control with residual that can extend into later weed flushes Timing before weeds exceeds
4

- inches in height. BMP’s and crop height restrictions limit timeliness flexibility.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 196 of 20 2



### 3.18 Question 7

7. How significant of a problem are GR weeds that are also resistant other herbicides (resistant to multiple modes of action) in your state?

State Response
AR Ryegrass is resistant to at least three modes of action. We have not confirmed all three in the same biotype, but will be just a matter of time. GA Palmer is resistant to ALS and glyphosate. Approximately 50% of the GR
Palmer is also ALS resistant.
IA Did not ask
IN
Most glyphosate resistant giant ragweed, marestail and waterhmp will also be resistant to ALS herbicides. This is a significiant problem in Indiana.
KY Multiple resistance is not widespread but growing. KS Very. MO Yes

– Waterhemp (Gly, PPO, ALS), giant rag (gly and ALS),
MN It is likely that most of the GR common waterhemp and some (amount not known) of the the GR giant and common ragweed biotypes are also resistant to ALS herbicides.
MS Did not ask OH Major problem with horseweed and giant ragweed (ALS + gly

- R),_minor problem for common ragweed (only because we have almost no gly

- R common ragweed though

– much of the common ragweed is already gly

- R)Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 197 of 20 2



### 3.19 Question 8

8. Do you expect the acreage infeste d with multiple herbicide resistance weeds to continue to increase in your state?

State Response

AR No doubt

GA Yes

IA Did not ask

IN Yes.

KY I expect it to increase. With palmer amaranth and waterhemp we are likely to develop multiple resistance.

KS Yes

MO Yes will increase

MN Good question, with the influx of PPO herbicides in soybean, Pigment Inhibitor herbicides in corn and the option of Ignite in corn and now soybean I think we can manage the ALS/GR resistance.

MS Did not ask

OH yes

Summary

7 Increase



### 1 Flat



### 2 Did not askSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 198 of 20 2



### 3.20 Question 9

9. In your opinion, what needs to be done to sustain the longevity of the GR system and continue to reap the economic, soil conservation and environmental benefits the GR cropping system offers?

(Responses were the same for corn and soybeans except where specified.)
AR New modes of action herbicides. Begin holistic approach to weed control with entire farm and multiple year
consideration. GA Corn: Continue to use atrazine plus alternative chemistry to protect from atrazine and glyphosate resistance
GA Soybeans: Preplant herbicide applications and timely postemergence applications, rotate with other crops where possible, move to Ignite based programs
IA We need to include more diverse tactics and eliminate the likelihood that growers will use glyphosate exclusively for weed management. Use education and incentivize other behaviors. New tools are always important, but at least in the Midwest, the tools we have can be effective if they would use them correctly.
IN For both corn and soybeans I think we need to go after the worst weed problems with more than one mode o f action. We need to think about glypho s ate as atrazine. We used to use 4

- 5 lbs of atrazine on corn by itself. As we cut rates we began adding other products to control weeds that were not controlled by the lower rate atrazine treatment. We still will use atrazine but use it with other herbicides to control the weeds that are present in a field. That is how we will use glyphosate. We will use glyphosate as the base herbicide and combine it in a system with other products to control the weeds that are present.
KY A complete understanding of the new herbicide chemistries needs to be central. Whatever technology (herbicide or trait) you use is going to be based on where its best fit is. Being timely, using the right labeled rate, and not cutting corners. We have gotten lax with weed management. We need to get back to focusing on weed management. If we don’t it won’t take us long to screw up the new technologies as well. KS Diversify weed control programs with modes of action, timing, and crop rotation. MO What is realistic? It important to give growers more options. Stacking Liberty Link with glyphosate and DHT traits all in one variety. When we encounter problems with multiple resistant weeds we can’t do anything about it. It’s a pretty simple fix but have not been able to educate growers to implement practices or the economics are against them and they are not choosing to use the practices we recommend. The reality is that farmers want more tools. They won’t manage resistance, they wil l control it with a tool and will end up with more resistance in the future.
MN In a word

– diversification. Chemical diversification is the key driver. I personally think that more PRE residual chemistry is needed in fields with difficult to control wee ds as it has benefits to improve timeliness of weed control and adds chemical diversification.Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 199 of 20 2

MS Moderate benefit OH Corn: Return to labeled rates of PRE herbicides, use of other POST/burndown herbicides with glyphosate or instead of glyphosate. Soybeans: Use of PRE herbicides and alternatives to glyphosate (eg glufosinate), use of effective birndown POST herbicides with glyphosate (need new ones though)Supplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 200 of 20 2



### 3.21 Question 10

10. In your opinion, how significant of a contribution will DHT herbicide tolerant technology contribute to preserving the utility and benefits of GR crops?

a. No benefit

b. Small benefit

c. Moderate benefit

d. Substantial benefit

State Response

AR d

GA d

IA d

IN d

KY b

KS c

MO d

MN b

MS c

OH d



### Summary Average c to d Range b to dSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 201 of 20 2

Why (strengths and weaknesses)?
(Responses were the same for corn and soybeans except where specified.)
AR Application timing flexibility. Adding another economical herbicide in the program. GA I question grower use of GR crops by 2015; thus, I am not sure DHT technology will benefit GR crop production very much. If your question was how valuable will DHT be to manage the GR Palmer amaranth then the answer would be a substantial benefit. GA Cotton: DHT systems can effectively mange GR Palmer amaranth; however, if the herbicide drift and/or volatility of these herbicides can not be managed then the technology will not be adopted
IA It provides another way to use existing products. Some of these product will focus very nicely on the weeds that are emerging in the GR system. Phenoxy herbicides have drift and contamination issues. The ACCase herbicides could be very important if we begin to see resistance evolve in grass weeds. However, it complicates volunteer management. And regardless, Dow is going to have to strongly emphasize stewardship on the DHT trait.
IN If we look at the weeds that are becoming more problematic, they are mostly broadleaf weeds. We have many effective broadleaf herbicides in corn. With 2,4

- D in soybeans we are able to use a broadleaf herbicide that is very effective on broadleaf weeds an d does not any resistant weeds in corn and soybeans. 2,4

- D has a low likelihood of resistance development. There are no current resistance issues in corn and soybeans. Its is fairly compatible with glyphosate. Mixing does not result in any huge issues with antagonism. The issue will be to manage off

- site movement.
KY Kentucky has had problems with 2,4

- D drift issues. There will be situations where it will fit but it will need an education. In the grand scheme of things it will be a small thing in Kentucky. Drift will be an issue with 2,4

- D and dicamba technology. KS Corn: Strengths: Improved crop safety, expanded rates and wider window of application of 2.4

- D. Weakness: Field identification and management. Drift potential. KS Soybeans: New mode of action and weed control. Weakness: Field identification and management. Drift potential.
MO It has no preplant interval. Ability to burndown key resistant species like marestail and giant ragweed. Higher flexibility on rate range in

- crop. Currently most problematic resistant weed species are broadleaves and 2,4

- D would do a go job at controlling them.
MN It could improve early season weed control options where we have had difficulty getting a fall

- or early

- spring burndown for
winter ann ual and perennial weeds in reduced tillage. Concerns during the postemergence time period would include off

target movement and tank contamination issues. MS Did not ask OH Corn: mixtures of 2,4

- D with glyphosate for burndown/POST without risk of crop injury. Soybeans: same as corn, although we already have some 2,4

- D resistant horseweed populationsSupplemental Information for USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS

- 40278

- 9 Corn Dow AgroSciences LLC Page 202 of 20 2



### 3.22 Question 11

11. What would be your recommendations for building a resistance weed management program that would include DHT herbicide trait technology in corn and soybeans?

(Responses were the same for corn and soybeans except where specified.)
AR Don’t know enough about the DHT trait technology at this time. Only after we have had an opportunity to test the technology and see it in the field will we be able to offer recommendations for use. GA Cotton: At least three alternative modes of action included in the system including at least one at plant residual, one POST residual, and one residual at layby, timely applications, crop rotation, adoption of heavy cover crop residues
IA Did not ask
IN The key is to understand what the worst weed problems are in a field and use multiple modes of action to control those weeds. That would include residual herbicides to allow for timely post spraying and postemergence herbicides. In the short

- term I am no t concerned about using 2,4

- D twice during a single season. In the long

- term using 2,4

- D as a burndown and again postemergence will likely hasten the development of weed resistance weeds. However, in Indiana we have a house every 300 feet in the country and I am concerned about offsite movement. Everyfield will present a unique set of circumstances. If you have god

- awful weed problems, blow on as much as you can. If you have waterhemp, use 2,4

- D postemergence because you can use other herbicide at burn down for waterhemp control. If you have markestail, you should use 2,4

- D with a residual herbicide at burndown because marestail is not problem weed in crop. The biology of the DHT technology fits soybeans best.
KY Did not ask KS Utilize as needed. Still encourage use of preemergence herbicides.
MO We are trying to figure out the rates and timing on resistant weeds. It is not as simple as I thought. The rate of 2,4

- D you can use is higher than I thought. We are working on the right mixes and rates.
MN Build a PRE herbicide component into it to improve the postemergence window of opportunity so that it is easier to avoid spraying under unfavorable conditions. This would also add some chemical diversification. MS Did not ask OH Corn: use of active rates of residual herbicides, use of mixtures of glyphosate and 2,4

- D POST. Soybeans: same as corn with the addition of ability to use 2,4

- D at or after planting for burndown in mixtures with glyphosate, other burndown herbicides.