Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment

Danne, Michael; Mußhoff, Oliver; Schulte, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.023

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences were also observed in terms of the acreage of each crop treated with glyphosate annually and the average glyphosate dose applied to a given crop. Factors that may explain the differences in glyphosate uses across countries include: more or less intensive cropping practices; the average farm size (less time for tillage operations/ploughing on larger farms) [37,42]; the percentage of arable cropping area under reduced tillage relying on glyphosate [43]; the percentage of crops with low herbicide inputs (such as permanent grassland) in the UAA; the status of herbicide resistance (e.g., in the UK, the development of herbicide resistance in black-grass resulted in increased glyphosate use [44]); the climatic conditions favourable for weed development; the preference for and availability of other herbicides; the use of non-chemical alternative weed management practices; the use of cover crops; the management of the intercropping period; and the treatment intensity (intra-row versus the whole surface) in perennial crops. Regarding the dose of glyphosate, it must not exceed the maximum application rate stated in the EU and national regulations.…”

Section: Factors Explaining the Differences Between Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glyphosate Use in the European Agricultural Sector and a Framework for Its Further Monitoring

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring pesticide use is essential for assessing farming practices and the risks associated with the use of pesticides. Currently, there are neither consolidated, public data available on glyphosate use in Europe, nor a standardized categorization of its major uses. In this study, data on glyphosate sales and use in Europe were collected from multiple sources and compiled into a dataset of the agricultural use of glyphosate from 2013 to 2017. The survey shows that glyphosate represented 33% of the herbicide volume sold in Europe in 2017. One third of the acreage of annual cropping systems and half of the acreage of perennial tree crops received glyphosate annually. Glyphosate is widely used for at least eight agronomic purposes, including weed control, crop desiccation, terminating cover crops, terminating temporary grassland and renewing permanent grassland. Glyphosate use can be classified into occasional uses—i.e., exceptional applications, triggered by meteorological conditions or specific farm constraints—and recurrent uses, which are widespread practices that are embedded in farming systems and for which other agronomic solutions may exist but are not frequently used. This article proposes a framework for the precise monitoring of glyphosate use, based on the identification of the cropping systems in which glyphosate is used, the agronomic purposes for which it is employed, the dose used and the rationale behind the different uses.

show abstract

Section: Factors Explaining the Differences Between Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glyphosate Use in the European Agricultural Sector and a Framework for Its Further Monitoring

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Schmitz and Garvert (2012) and Schulte et al (2017) used expert interviews to explore consequences of a glyphosate ban. Christensen et al (2011) and Danne et al (2018) conducted an experimental research design to investigate the importance of glyphosate use and farmers willingness to give up herbicide use. Aiming to combine biophysical and agronomic aspects like weed pressure and efficacy of weed control strategies with an economic decision model, Böcker et al (2018) developed a bio-economic modelling approach to investigate the effects of a glyphosate ban in maize production in Germany.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Herbicide free agriculture? A bio-economic modelling application to Swiss wheat production

Böcker

Möhring

Finger

2019

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, glyphosate-based herbicides are of enormous importance for farmers to make strategic decisions to reduce the economic losses due to weeds. Furthermore, due to its efficiency, farmers prefer the use of glyphosate to other alternatives, especially in large-scale fields (DANNE et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eco-friendly surfactants in glyphosate formulation

Pessagno

Grassi

Pedraza

et al. 2021

Rev. Ciênc. Agrovet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weeds affect various crops worldwide, causing low yields and, therefore, significant economic losses. These losses can be minimized by the use of herbicides such as glyphosate. However, the efficiency of glyphosate depends on the type of agrochemical formulations. The most widely used surfactant is polyethoxylated tallow amine. Nevertheless, the disadvantage of these compounds is that their toxicity is greater than that of glyphosate itself. Thus, this study aimed to develop an environmentally-friendly combination of surfactants that can increase the performance of glyphosate compared to other currently used formulations. Saponin (S) is environmentally friendly and has a unique ability to go through the waxy cuticle of the weed leaf. However, its interfacial properties are very poor. In contrast, the alkyl glucoside (AG) mixture has shown excellent interfacial properties, being an environmentally safe surfactant, but cannot pass through the cuticle. In the present study, we mixed both surfactants. Two formulations were made with 20% (F1) and 2% (F2) of S with 4% AG. To verify the usefulness of our formulations, they were compared against a commercial product. The results showed that the commercial product had better CMC 0.3±0.1% and pC20 1.155±0.099 than our formulations F1 and F2. Formulations F1 and F2 showed better gCMC than the commercial product 36.5±4.1 mN/m and 30.9±1.4 mN/m, respectively. Field tests showed that F2 was more effective than the commercial product in eliminating weeds at the end of the test at 30 days. Our results allowed confirming that the use of saponin improves the efficiency of glyphosate. The work showed that structures similar to cyclopentaneperhydrophenanthrene are very effective for introducing drugs into plants through the leaves. This is an advance in general and in particular for the increase of the yield in certain crops.

show abstract

Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment

Cited by 18 publications

References 64 publications

Glyphosate Use in the European Agricultural Sector and a Framework for Its Further Monitoring

Glyphosate Use in the European Agricultural Sector and a Framework for Its Further Monitoring

Herbicide free agriculture? A bio-economic modelling application to Swiss wheat production

Eco-friendly surfactants in glyphosate formulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About