What’s in it for me? | Agronomist suggests emphasizing the economic benefits of weed management
WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s not easy to get people to do something that costs more and is more complicated.
It likely explains why weed scientists and farm extension personnel are struggling to convince North American farmers to reduce their dependence on glyphosate and adopt more sophisticated weed control methods.
How to accomplish that task was the primary focus of a herbicide resistance summit held in Washington in September.
“What this summit is about, this is not about reviewing the BMPs (best management practices),” said David Shaw, a weed scientist with Mississippi State University.
Shaw said a crop production system with more diverse weed management will be required to halt the rapid spread of herbicide resistance in North America.
“Today, we’re here to talk about the human dimensions. We’re not here to talk about the biology (of weeds),” he said.
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
“We will be taking a strong look … at the sociological and economic di-mensions of herbicide resistance.”
None of the 175 participants at the meeting said it out loud, but several comments suggested that previous communication efforts had failed.
Weed experts and crop production specialists have rang alarms over the last several years, telling farmers that weeds with glyphosate resistance and resistance to multiple herbicides would soon reach critical levels in North America.
Growers have largely ignored those warnings, many crop experts say.
Peter Sikkema, a University of Guelph weed scientist, said the messaging needs to shift from what might happen to the on-farm economics of managing weeds.
“I think it’s a solvable problem. I think it may take a different approach to getting us from where we are today to where we want (to be),” he said.
“Rather than this elusive idea of herbicide resistance developing on the farm, which may or not occur in the next one to 20 or 50 years … if we focus on maximizing farm profitability through integrated weed management, I think we will get greater adoption by growers.”
Robert Nichols, an agronomist and weed expert with Cotton Inc., a re-search and marketing company for the cotton industry, agreed that ex-perts must emphasize the economics of herbicide resistant weeds.
In other words, farmers need to know the cost of preventing herbicide resistance compared to the cost of doing nothing.
“We need to develop hard data for people to grasp this (concept) before the fact,” Nichols said.
George Frisvold, a University of Arizona economist, said crop production advisers may want to promote herbicide resistance management as insurance.
“Doing some of these practices may cost a little more in the short run … (but) if you don’t have a diverse (weed control) program, you will eventually get resistance. Weed control (becomes) less effective, you have higher costs and lower yields.” he said.
“We see over and over again, if you don’t have diverse programs, this happens eventually.”
The tricky part is knowing how much insurance is enough, Frisvold said.
Do farmers have to completely overhaul their weed management practices, or can they make a few minor adjustments at a minimal cost?
Either way, growers will have to invest more money and time in weed control.
“Having people get over that hurdle of making that initial investment to protect against some kind of future risk is often hard … because the costs are costs you bear today and they’re certain,” he said.
“The benefits are more uncertain. You don’t know exactly when you’re going to have a risk that’s avoided, so it’s little bit of a harder sell.”
Nichols said selling insurance isn’t an easy gig, but proving out the economics of sustainable weed management and supplying that information to growers is the way to go.
“Growers … really respond to economic incentives,” he said.
“If we can provide them with information about economic impact … we believe this would incentivize people … to try and manage ahead of the problem, rather than suffering the consequences of the problem and having to deal with it from a defensive position.”
