I’ve lost count, but over the last five years I’ve probably sat through 45 presentations on the herbicide resistance crisis in North America.
The first 10 were fascinating, the next 15 provided adequate fodder for an article and the remaining 20 anesthetized about 80 million synaptic connections in my brain. Like any crisis, whether it’s global overpopulation, wetland destruction or rhinoceros extinction, the shock wears off once you’ve heard the same story 25 times.
By now, every farmer in North America should be very familiar with the glyphosate resistance narrative.
In short form: it has devastated cotton production in Arkansas, will soon ravage the Midwest and will eventually destroy grain and oilseed production in the northern Plains.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
To convey the threat to farmers who weren’t dealing with glyphosate resistant weeds, scientists and agronomists frequently used amplified language with an Armageddon-like tone, such as:
– Stop rearranging the deck chairs. Your farm is sailing straight towards an iceberg.
– Get help now. Glyphosate is more addictive than heroin.
– Did we mention the “end of the world is nigh?”
Last fall a group of weed scientists gathered in Washington, D.C., for a herbicide resistance summit. Many experts acknowledged that their Old Testament communication strategy, with prophecies of doom, gloom and locusts wasn’t working so well.
Most American and Canadian farmers were ignoring the warnings. They continued to apply glyphosate at a record pace because it’s extremely cheap and remained highly effective at killing weeds on their farm.
Apparently, “good and cheap” in the present trumps a potential future of pestilence and plague.
Several weed scientists at the Washington meeting said it’s time to adopt a less menacing message, or something more pragmatic, around herbicide resistance.
Peter Sikkema, a University of Guelph weed scientist who attended the D.C. event, provided a flawless example of the new communications approach at Crop Connect, an ag conference recently held in Winnipeg.
For 45 minutes, Sikkema spoke about effective weed control in Roundup Ready soybeans, where he laid out the on-farm economics of several strategies:
• One pass with glyphosate.
• Two applications of glyphosate.
• Pre-emergent residual herbicide followed by glyphosate.
Sikkema provided data on the level of weed control with each approach and cost estimates for the three strategies.
After laying out the information, Sikkema offered his conclusion: the financial return from a residual herbicide and glyphosate is comparable to two doses of glyphosate.
Sikkema then added, in a “by the way” tone, that using a residual herbicide reduces the likelihood of glyphosate resistance developing on your farm by 95 percent.
Therefore, given the economics and the additional benefits, residual herbicides probably make the most sense.
This sort of straightforward, economic argument for sustainable weed control should be more successful than the old message of “do this or you’re all dead.”
Most humans, including me, don’t worry about horrific things that might happen in five, 10 or 15 years.
If we did, Wendy’s would never have introduced the Ultimate Canadian Combo, which features a Baconator, poutine and a refreshing barrel of cola.
Contact robert.arnason@producer.com
