Agricultural Studies

The context by which the following decision was based was the problem regarding the use of pesticide by land owner 2 that affected the boarder farm of landowner one. In the course of pesticide application of farmer 2, it happened that some amount of pesticide have been drifting on to farmer 1s area. Farmer 2 was aware of the drifting chemicals as well as of the organic methods of farming that farmer 1 employed in his farm but farmer 2 apparently allowed such chemicals waste so that it affected farmer 1s farm. According to Pimentel and Lehman (1993), damage to crops may occur even when recommended dosages of herbicides and insecticides are applied to crops under normal conditions (p. 61). They asserted that heavy dosages of insecticides used in crops have been reported to suppress growth and yield in both cotton and strawberry crops (p. 61). It has been established that crops are lost when chemical drift from the target crops to non-target crops located as much as several miles downwind (Pimentel  Lehman, p. 61).

Analysis of the case 

         In the given situation it appears that farmer 1 has the right to sue farmer 2 because of the potential losses he might incur or has incurred as result of chemical drift. Furthermore, beyond of the issue of crop loss, organic farming is considered as a philosophy of life which holds that soil holding a key position in the balance of life, demands special attention, and it is believed that all measure to introduce non-living amendments such as fertilizers or pesticides that may upset the balance of life either positively or negatively are fraught with danger (Allison 1973). Given this argument, it appears that farmer 1 has a solid ground to pursue the case unless he is satisfied with the decision. However, since farmer 2 employed the use of chemical in his farm as necessitated by his crops, he also has the right to use pesticide to insure good harvest and therefore profits. Since it has been established that chemical could indeed affect non-target crops within a mile distance from the boarder, and that farmer 1 admits to have allowed such chemical drift, he is liable for farmer 1s losses. However, because it was necessary for his crop to use pesticide and herbicide, he could not be compelled to stop using such chemicals.

            Upon careful analysis of the given the situations, I finally came to a decision that farmer 2 should pay for the crop losses of farmer 1 within half a mile distance from their boarder since the drift has started to affect farmer 1s crops. In this case, crop losses mean the actual crop loss and not just the estimated losses. The following compromises are also suggested. First, since they have engaged two sharply contrasted farming methods, they should be mutually responsible to protect each side. In this case, they need to jointly construct high wall that would serve as protector on the part of farmer 1 and freedom from liabilities resulting from chemical drift. Second, farmer 2 should never use aerial equipment for chemical application to his farm. Finally, the third compromise suggestion is that farmer 2 should secure license from the government agencies dealing with chemical use. The law that regulates the use of pesticide is Federal Insecticide, fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Avent (2003) noted that this important because it provides necessary training on pesticide application (170). 

            The case above is quite complex as the two farmers are engaged in farming methods that are sharply in contrast with each other. Since farmer 1 has committed a clear violation of Farmer 2s rights by allowing pesticide drift to affect farmer 1s crops, he justly needs to pay for such lost crops. However, farmer 2 has the right to use pesticide especially if he has license to do so. In order to avoid more serious legal confrontation in the future, both sides should reach compromises that are hereby suggested above. Finally, as Taylor (2003) suggest, farmer 2 should inform farmer 1 of the scheduled pesticide application so he can prepare what is necessary and available to protect his crops (p. 341).