North Dakota State
University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 16, No. 4, October 1998
Managing Pesticides – It's Working
Coordinator's Comments
Visa and MasterCard Now Accepted!
Financial Responsibility Law 1999 . . . It's Ba-a-ack!
Liability Principles Pertaining to the Aerial Application of Pesticides
Dust Partical Movement of Herbicides
Yet Another Fine Mess
Dinoseb – Banned But Not Forgotten
1998/99 Training Calendar
In recent months the U.S. Geological Survey produced a comprehensive report on the water quality of the Red River Basin. The report was a compilation of studies which began in 1992. That report contained some good news for agriculture and pesticide use in particular. The executive summary reveals the following about pesticides in the basin:
"Pesticides detected in stream and shallow ground water did not exceed any drinking water standards and, except for a single concentration of the herbicide triallate (Far-Go), was not acutely toxic to aquatic life based on current standards."
That statement is truly impressive when you consider that 65% of the land in the Red River Basin is devoted to agricultural use and it is, as many of us know, an area of intensive pesticide use. More salient points are listed below:
The report was met with a positive editorial in the Fargo Forum newspaper. While this report is not a vindication for pesticide use, it does suggest that we in the agricultural community are engaged in safe and responsible use. It also suggests that:
This report is independent confirmation that we in the agricultural community are on the right track and that it can only get better.
This past summer was a busy one for us in the pesticide program as we worked aggressively to develop new training materials and refine the basic administration of the Pesticide Program. Over the next couple of months, many of you should see the fruits of our labors, and those of you who face recertification in 1999 will definitely experience a difference from years past. What follows is a review of what we have completed and a preview of what we hope to accomplish:
We reviewed all of our training materials this summer, publication by publication and category by category. Our advisory board, which is made up of industry, regulatory, and extension personnel, met in July and directed us to generally pare down the number of publications we use in our training program and to find contemporary materials. With this charge we moved forward to do just that.
In many of the categories we have moved from well over 20 publications to four or five category specific publications. This will especially be the case in lesser used categories like Public Health and Home, Industrial, and Institutional Pest Control. In the aerial applicator core category we brought in a 1998 training manual from Wisconsin that encompasses the latest information on drift management and Global Positioning Satellite technology. Our shelves are stocked and ready for 1999.
To complement our movement to a new curriculum we need to develop new tests to evaluate applicator competence. This is a daunting task and one that requires the most effort on our part. To aid us in this endeavor, we have obtained materials from other states and have enlisted the support of extension agents in the test review process. Two goals have directed us: Exams need to be relevant, and the questions need to be clear.
Approximately 30 to 35% of the test questions in specific certification categories will be from an actual pesticide label. We have graciously received specimen labels from Du Pont, Dow Agrosciences, Degesch (fumigant manufacturer), and Gustafson to incorporate into our tests. If you can read a label, you should be able to get at least a third of the questions completed without any difficulty.
Our other goal is to ferret out poorly written questions that are hard to understand. This is obviously easier said than done. Applicators have a wide range of educational backgrounds so one question may be a breeze for some and a nightmare for others. Also, the difference between a "trick" question and a fair question is basically a manner of opinion. Our tests are going through review to catch this, but ultimately bad questions will slip through. This is why we highly recommend you participate in trainings and take the tests immediately after or soon thereafter so the material will be fresh in your mind. Finally, our test monitors and extension agents are educators, not inquisitors, so draw upon these resources when taking your exams. They will not give you the answer, but they will help you understand the question so that you will be able to find the right answer.
I am delighted that Mary Beth Odegaard is on board and organizing many of the tasks that are required to administer the pesticide program. Over the last several months, she has been trimming our publication inventories, ordering new publications, directing our staff, and as always, answering millions of your questions. In this issue she outlines our new billing option which she secured for your convenience. We do take Visa and MasterCard. Cash and check still work just fine, but now you can use your credit card. This will also speed up our processing of your orders and registrations.
Arla Rudy continues to oversee the Financial Responsibility Law and refine our implementation of the law. We have learned a great deal about what works and what doesn't in tracking paper work, so I hope 1999 will go much smoother than 1998 has. Arla has also been involved in auditing our applicator databases for errors and obsolete records. This is especially important with our private applicators where we track records for more than 18,000 people across 53 counties and tribes.
This is still very much a work in progress, but we are moving ahead with this project. Our goals are to have all of our training and supporting materials on the web, have our training schedules and locations on the web, allow billing over the web, and finally, allow applicator information retrieval over the web. The last goal is the most ambitious. We hope that both our private and commercial applicator databases will eventually be accessible to the public. The information provided would enable the user to look up an applicator's status and in real time determine whether they are certified to purchase Restricted Use Pesticides. Other records about applicators like test scores and addresses would of course remain confidential and accessible only by the Extension Service and Department of Agriculture personnel. This will obviously require considerable time and resources, but I am convinced it can be done.
I hope my comments have given you a small picture of what we are working on in the pesticide training and certification arena. As always, I welcome comments from you, so do not hesitate to call or write.
All the best,
Andrew A. Thostenson
Mary Beth Odegaard, Pesticide Program Administrative Secretary
As of October 1, the NDSU Pesticide Program accepts credit card payment for commercial pesticide training and study materials. If you have Visa or MasterCard, you are now able to pre-register for training sessions and order study materials over the phone, via our web site www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pesticid/pesticid.htm, or over email pesticid@ndsuext.nodak.edu. You will also be able to charge for registration on site for your training.
When using your credit card you must be prepared to give us the following information:
Your name, address and phone number; what training and location you are registering for or what materials you are requesting; credit card information, Visa or MasterCard card number, expiration date, and card holder name.
If you are giving us this information over the phone, please be complete and speak in a clear voice. If we do not receive all of the information or can not understand the message you leave, your request may not be correctly processed, if at all. All the information given us will be documented. You will receive confirmation if your account is charged.
Please note that this credit card system is for commercial training and study materials only. Private applicator training and publications are still on a cash, check, or money order basis.
Actually it never left us. In order to maintain commercial certification status or to obtain certification, ALL commercial applicators must provide proof of financial responsibility ANNUALLY. Failure to comply with this law will result in denial of certification or revocation of certification by the Department of Agriculture. More details concerning this law will be sent to applicators through direct mailings in November and in the January 1999 issue of the Pesticide Quarterly Newsletter. Watch for them.
At the time of this writing, there has been considerable discussion and even heated debate by members of the legislature, regulators, and industry concerning revisions, additions, or outright repeal of this law during the 1999 North Dakota Legislative Session. These are only discussions at this point and changes, if any, will likely not come into effect before the 1999 certification year. Therefore, we in the NDSU Pesticide Program and the Department of Agriculture are proceeding with the assumption that the financial responsibility requirement needs to be fully complied with, as is, in 1999. Proof of financial responsibility will need to be provided in order to maintain certification or to obtain certification.
Timothy Esser, Attorney at Law
Reprinted from the December 1997 issue of Wheat Life,
Washington Association of Wheat Growers
A recent lawsuit tried in Adams County Superior Court illustrates the unique rules that apply to the aerial application of pesticides. In Ebert v. Lund Flying Service, et al., Adams County Superior Court Case Number 96-2-00044-6, Judge Richard Miller ruled that the defendant flying service and the farmer who hired it were liable for damage caused to the neighbor's canola fields.
The Eberts have farmed for many years in Adams County between Washtucna and Ritzville. In the fall of 1993, Ebert seeded two fields with winter canola. In the spring, a pilot for Lund Flying Service applied the herbicide Ally, a sulfonylurea (SU) on three quarters of a section of wheat fields owned by Eberts' neighbor and located adjacent to Eberts' canola fields. By the date of the pesticide application, the canola field had begun to bloom. Over the next ten days, Eberts noticed that the blooms failed to intensify in color and upon investigation the distinctive symptoms of SU damage were observed: distortion of buds, abortion of flowers, exotic coloration of leaves, general lack of plant vigor. The symptomatology increased and at the time of harvest Eberts' expected yield was reduced by approximately seventy-five percent.
At trial, the defendants presented scientific evidence in an effort to prove that insufficient herbicide could drift a half mile and still do the damage reported. However, a study conducted by Oregon State University (OSU) on test fields near Pendleton, while offered by the defendant, in fact was strong evidence in support of the Eberts' claim that it was the defendant's spray that caused the damage. The OSU study determined that application of only one-tenth of a gram of SU chemical (there are twenty-eight grams in an ounce) distributed in a water medium over an acre of canola resulted in a twenty-eight percent reduction in crop yield. Thus, a pinpoint of chemical distributed evenly over an acre can cause significant damage.
The defendants conceded that the Ebert field showed signs of SU damage, but argued that their application was not its cause. Judge Miller determined that the defendants' application indeed was the cause based on a number of factors: the defense application was the closest to the canola field; timing — the symptoms appeared one to two weeks after the application which is to be expected according to the Ally label; and the timing ruled out SU applications made by other crop dusters in the area. Critical evidence included the wind direction being toward the Ebert field at the time of application.
Of particular interest was the evidence presented that a low (two to four miles per hour), steady wind is the most dangerous for spray drift. A higher wind would more likely dissipate the chemical.
Negligence is the most common standard of liability applied by courts — essentially that the defendant was careless. However, when it comes to the aerial application of pesticides, Washington state applies a rule of strict liability. A plaintiff that claims damage need only prove that the drift came from the defendant's spray operation. It is no defense that the applicator was careful. And because strict liability is applied, the courts consider both the applicator and the farmer who hires him liable, even though the applicator is an independent contractor and not an employee of the farmer.
Should a claim be made, the farmer who contracts with the applicator should immediately notify his own insurer. In the Ebert case, the applicator's insurer at first denied coverage, claiming that there had been a delay by the defendants in notifying it of the claim.
Coordinators Note:
In North Dakota the concept of strict liability has been successfully tested. Moreover, the theory of joint liability — both the applicator and the farmer who hires him — has also been effectively argued. Finally, North Dakota law demands notice of loss within 60 days of the incident, otherwise the ability to recover damages is forfeited by the injured party.
Water runoff has been considered a primary pathway of herbicide movement from crop fields, and the subsequent cause of human health concerns, but a recent Lethbridge Research Center project in southern Alberta has found that wind erosion is potentially a much greater factor.
According to the first major study of herbicide transport on wind-eroded sediment in Western Canada, herbicide losses due to wind erosion are potentially over 30 times higher than losses due to water runoff. That's of particular concern in southern Alberta, where chinook winter winds (40 to 50 degree F) and freeze/thaw winters can combine to create erosion-prone conditions.
In an experiment near Lethbridge, an average 4.5 percent of applied amounts of four different surface applied herbicides were transported on wind-eroded sediment. Average loss of two soil-incorporated herbicides was 1.4 percent. By contrast, studies on pesticide and herbicide loss from irrigation runoff consistently report losses of between 0.2 and 1 percent.
"The magnitude of the wind erosion losses is really surprising," says researcher Dr. Frank Larney. "And it's something most people may not be aware of because it has never really been looked at in the past.
"The greatest loss in the Lethbridge experiment was of diclofop herbicide (Hoelon) at 6.4 percent. A study in Saskatchewan measured diclofop losses from irrigation runoff at only 0.2 percent – a 32-fold difference.
Diclofop is less susceptible to surface breakdown and therefore more likely to be carried in wind-blown particles, explains Larney, but loss levels for all herbicides studies have potential environmental significance.
"If you've got dust blowing around in the environment, that makes for a natural pathway for herbicides into the air and into waterways," he says. "That opens up potential problems like having herbicides in drinking water, or having people breathing in dust that is carrying herbicides."
The impact of wind-eroded dust particles alone on air quality has sparked recent scientific interest in human health implications, and the Lethbridge study significantly adds to that concern, he says.
Wind erosion risk has dropped across the prairies with the move to conservation tillage practices, but irrigated southern Alberta has been slow to adopt no-till. That, combined with the region's chinook winds and freeze/thaw winters makes wind erosion a greater concern.
Prevention is currently the best way to deal with herbicide transport by wind, says Larney. Producers should manage soils to prevent erosion, and avoid applying large amounts of herbicide on erosion-prone soils.
"The key is to stop erosion in the first place," he says. "Because if you do get wind erosion and see dust blowing off your fields, chances are that the dust is carrying herbicides as well."
Dr. Carol Weisskopf, Analytical Chemist, Reprinted from June 1998 issue of Agrichemical and Environmental News, Washington State University
The past several weeks for Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory employees have been more interesting than usual. We became involved in a local well water contamination dilemma that had the potential to become a major public health problem. An employee at the WSU Prosser Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center (IAREC) noticed discoloration of his well water. In trying to determine the cause, the governmental agencies he contacted suggested that he have the water analyzed. Chemical screens can be prohibitively expensive; the cost can be reduced substantially by narrowing down possibilities before sample submission. Experts in a wide variety of fields staff the Prosser station; two went to look at the area around the well. They noticed that some soil on the adjacent property looked peculiar, and that the oddness extended to the roadside.
The IAREC scientists then conducted a very sophisticated test: when they touched the dirt and spat on their hands, the dust turned yellow. Since this is not a typical response from normal soil, they collected some soil and sent it to us.
Identification of an unknown is frequently a difficult process. In this case, it was easy. We were assisted by the fact that we were dealing with a colored compound at high concentrations; we could see where it was going in various solvents and sample manipulations. It was also one of those days when all of the equipment was working as it should. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) of a sample extract produced no significant peaks. GC-MS is used most frequently for compound identification, because it produces a spectrum that can be matched by computer to spectra in libraries. However, a chemical must be volatilized easily into the gas phase for analysis. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) indicated a single compound present at high concentrations with a molecular weight within the range typical of most pesticides. With LC analysis, the chemical only has to dissolve in the liquid phase for analysis. LC-MS is less useful in identifications, because the spectra depend on operating conditions and can vary widely.
For GC-MS identification, we needed to make the chemical volatile. LC-MS indicated that the volatility problem was not the result of an extremely high molecular weight (it wasn't too heavy). Highly polar compounds, such as alcohols and acids, are not very volatile. We knew the unknown was polar because it was water soluble. Because methylation can reduce polarity and increase volatility, we treated the extract with a strong methylating reagent.
GC-MS resulted in a single peak with a spectrum easily matched to one in the library. It will be no surprise to anyone familiar with pesticide colors and properties that our yellow, polar unknown was the herbicide dinoseb. In fact, it was one of the two compounds the IAREC scientists suspected.
Scientific instrumentation is fine, but experience and common sense can get you further, faster and cheaper. Sometimes you just have to spit on your hands. One thing instrumentation can do well is figure out how much of something is there. The soil contained dinoseb at 400 to 600 ppm (0.04 - 0.06%). A sample of water from the well the IAREC employee used contained 500 ppb dinoseb.
Dinoseb is classified as a nitro-phenol (a type of alcohol). It was also the subject of an EPA emergency suspension of use in 1986 because of its toxicological effects (see next article ). The toxicological testing necessary for its original registration, and which had indicated it was safe, was evidently conducted by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (Rachel's Hazardous Waste News, 12/02/86, http://www.envirolink.org/pubs/rachel/rhwn002b.htm). When doubts arose about studies performed by Industrial Bio-Test, subsequent retesting resulted in the suspension. You may recognize Industrial Bio-Test from my article last month. This lab almost single-handedly caused implementation of EPA's Good Laboratory Practice standards. The potential link between poor toxicity testing and groundwater contamination via improper storage or disposal of suspended products was one consequence of fraudulent laboratory testing I hadn't previously considered. The coincidence between the subject of last month's newsletter column and a player in this month's chemical crisis was remarkable.
As we were conducting our initial tests, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) was also focusing on the problem. As one can imagine, the area of groundwater contamination and the number of households with affected wells were of concern. We had received the soil sample on a Monday. By Friday, Ecology delivered eight water samples to us for analysis. One of these samples, taken from a well more than a mile from the first, contained dinoseb at 100 ppb. The residents had also collected a water sample a month before, when they noticed discoloration of their well water, and had stored it in their refrigerator. That water sample was also analyzed and contained dinoseb at 300 ppb.
Pesticides in groundwater are generally found at low concentrations, and analytical methods usually focus on achievement of low detection limits. Detection of dinoseb is not unusual. It was reported in 2% of the Central Columbia Plateau ground-water samples tested between 1992 and 1995 (USGS circular 1144). Concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 1 ppb. The Department of Ecology's own laboratory looks for dinoseb at a detection limit of 0.063 ppb. These low detection limits take time as well as skill. Sometimes it's smarter to be only good enough. We developed a method with a 2 ppb detection limit that was not only fast and accurate but so simple as to be idiot proof. This was our equivalent of spitting on our hands. One of the pleasures of our laboratory work is that we know what the data are to be used for. With a drinking water quality standard of 7 ppb and wells contaminated at 100 to 500 ppb, speed was more important than finesse; our detection limit was good enough. Ecology investigators agreed, and we proceeded with analyses.
During the next eight days we looked at water from 100 wells. Fortunately, at press time only the two originally identified wells had been found to contain dinoseb at a concentration greater than 2 ppb. Because of our ability to give Ecology results from water analyses within 12 to 36 hours, the residents could be notified quickly that their water was uncontaminated. That the first well was contaminated was unsurprising; it was adjacent to a site of high-level soil contamination. The contamination source for the second well, more than a mile from the first, was more confusing. A number of wells between and around the two sites contained no detectable dinoseb. Department of Ecology sleuthing led to a transport hypothesis based on a highly unlikely concatenation of events. A water pipe near the contaminated site broke in winter. The water flowed for more than a month, flooding the site. Contaminated water ran into an empty irrigation canal. The irrigation system was filled with water in preparation for summer. Water flowed down a nearby irrigation diversion pipe and delivered contaminated water directly to the second well, which had a casing in poor condition. This rapid transit system accounting for recent, simultaneous contamination of two isolated wells by a substance that was banned 12 years ago may seem improbable. It has, however, been supported so far by sediment residue data and is probably the way it actually happened.
The story is not yet over. The landowner will clean up the contaminated site. The Department of Ecology will install monitoring wells and continue to monitor the area downstream of the irrigation diversion pipe. However, after a week and two weekends of hard work, Ecology and FEQL cooperation helped solve the contamination riddle and assure affected individuals of the safety of their water.
Dr. Allan S. Felsot, Environmental Toxicologist, Reprinted from June 1998 issue of Agrichemical and Environmental News, Washington State University
Any astute student of biology who has had the fortitude to weather a biochemistry class can recite line and verse how a chemical known as dinitrophenol can adversely affect the energy generating reaction in a cell. No cell will live very long under the influence of high concentrations of dinitrophenol. Reduce the dose enough, however, and dinitrophenol can cause a body to burn enough energy to result in weight loss. And so it was during the 1930's that physicians unwittingly prescribed certain types of dinitrophenols as diet pills.
But these chemicals also had uses as pesticides. One chemical form known as DNOC had been discovered and patented in Germany in 1892 as an insecticide. By 1925 it was used as a herbicide and soon fungicidal properties were discovered. Dow Chemical changed the basic structure of dinitrophenol slightly to produce dinoseb, which was marketed in 1948. Dinoseb was widely used as a contact herbicide against broadleaf weeds with many registered uses in numerous minor crops.
Dinitrophenol pesticides cause toxicity the same way in plants, animals, and fungi because all cells contain very similar biochemical pathways for creating energy from the breakdown of sugars. Furthermore, photosynthesis in plants relies on an energy transfer system that is also inhibited by dinitrophenols.
Unfortunately for humans, DNOC and dinoseb have a propensity to be easily absorbed by the skin. Consequently, not only is it considered hazardous following ingestion, its toxicity is equally high from dermal exposure. Indeed, both herbicides are Category I poisons, a class reserved for chemicals with an oral LD50 (lethal dose to 50% of test animals) in the neighborhood of 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), and a dermal LD50 of 200 mg/kg or less. Cases of worker poisoning and deaths have been attributed to the dinitrophenol herbicides. It is rare for chemicals used as herbicides or fungicides to be that acutely toxic.
Given the high toxicity of dinoseb and related dinitrophenols, perhaps the EPA had good reason to ban it in 1986. But acute toxicity alone rarely causes regulatory action to suspend a pesticide. One notable exception was the organophosphate (OP) insecticide Phosdrin, whose registration was suspended following poisoning incidents in Washington State during 1993. Nevertheless, many OP insecticides are considered Category I poisons and are still widely used. The straw that broke the camel's back on dinoseb came in the mid 1980's from studies reporting birth defects in rabbits and rats born to females fed comparatively low doses (10 mg/kg/day) between day 6 and 18 of pregnancy. Other chronic toxicological effects at low doses could be described as endocrine disrupting-abnormal sperm and decreased weight of thyroid gland.
EPA concluded that the doses causing the birth defects and the endocrine disrupting effects were close to worker exposure levels. Thus, under emergency order issued in October of 1986, EPA suspended dinoseb with an intent to cancel its registration. Dinoseb was not associated with cancer nor was it found to cause gene mutations.
Any time a pesticide, banned or not, is found at levels of hundreds of parts per billion (ppb) in wells, a potential health hazard exists that demands immediate attention. Thus, the finding of two wells in the Yakima Valley with dinoseb levels between 100-500 ppb resulted in great concern among the hundreds of homeowners in the vicinity of those wells. Fortunately, dinoseb contamination has been limited to those two wells, but questions were raised of possible effects if dinoseb-contaminated water had been used, even though it was not found at the time of sampling. Obviously, pregnant women should not be exposed to those high levels of dinoseb, but what hazards would others face?
The silver lining in the cloud for dinoseb is that cancer is not considered a hazard. EPA considered the toxic effects of dinoseb to have a threshold, and the agency calculated a "safe" exposure level that depended on the length of time of exposure. Known as health advisory levels, these safety standards range from 300 ppb for a ten-day exposure to a 22-pound child to 10 ppb for a 7-year exposure. For a lifetime exposure, the regulatory level was set to 7 ppb. Thus, exposure to 7 ppb over an average 70-year life span would not be expected to produce adverse effects.
Fortunately, no one seems to have been drinking the contaminated water for very long. A public health crisis seems to have subsided, but monitoring of the contaminated wells will have to continue.
At right is a partial list of our training opportunities for the coming year. More information and registration materials will be forthcoming through direct mailings in November and in the January 1999 issue of the Pesticide Quarterly Newsletter.
For those individuals who are interested in attending the training on November 5, 1998, we will send out a direct mailing of registration materials to applicators in those categories in October. You can obtain more information about all of these programs by calling the NDSU Pesticide Program at 701-231-7180.
Certification Category * Date Location Site and Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HII, PH Nov 5, 1998 Fargo NDSU Campus –
(Recertification ONLY) Interactive Video Network
link with SDSU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG, ROW, ST, AIR, RD Dec 1-2 Fargo Fargodome – NDAA Ag Expo
(Recertification ONLY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROW Jan 5-7 1999 Mandan Seven Seas –
(Recertification ONLY) NDWCA Annual Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT (Initial and Jan 15 Fargo Doublewood Inn —
Recertification) NCTGA Annual Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG, ROW, ST, AIR, RD Feb-Mar Statewide Multiple locations, dates
(Recertification ONLY) and sites to be announced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG, ROW, ST, AIR, RD Feb 8-9 Grand Forks Westward Ho
(Initial Certification ONLY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG, ROW, ST, AIR, RD Feb 23-24 Dickinson Knights of Columbus
(Initial Certification ONLY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG, ROW, AIR Mar 1-2 Bismarck Radisson Inn –
(Initial and NDAAA Annual Meeting
Recertification for
Ag Pilots ONLY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUM (Initial and Mar 10 Mandan Seven Seas
Recertification)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUM (Initial and Mar 11 Fargo Doublewood Inn
Recertification)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG, ROW, ST, AIR, RD Mar 24-25 Fargo Doublewood Inn
(Initial Certification ONLY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Aerial = AIR, Agricultural Pest Control = AG, Fumigation = FUM,
Home, Industrial, Institutional = HII, Ornamental and Turf = OT,
Public Health = PH, Research and Demonstration = RD,
Rights-of-Way = ROW, Seed Treatment = ST
Volume 16, No. 4, October 1998
NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture cooperating. Sharon D. Anderson,
Director, Fargo, North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the
Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our
programs and facilities to all persons regardless of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam era
veterans status, or sexual orientation; and are an equal
opportunity employer.
This publication will be made available in alternative format for
persons with disabilities upon request 701/231-7881.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service