IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v47y2020i2p371-402..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic and environmental assessment of a glyphosate ban for the example of maize production
[Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays)]

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Böcker
  • Wolfgang Britz
  • Niklas Möhring
  • Robert Finger

Abstract

We aim to contribute to a more informed discussion of the economic and environmental effects of a glyphosate ban in European agriculture. As real-world observations of weed control under a glyphosate ban are not available, we develop a normative modelling approach based on damage abatement functions considering production risk and farmers’ risk preferences. Different sources of risk are included by incorporating uncertainty of both attainable yield level and weed pressure. Results for a case study of silage maize cultivation in 377 municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, show that a glyphosate ban causes a shift towards more mechanical weed control, but not to more pronounced use of selective herbicides. The ban slightly reduces net profits and yields, leads to a significant reduction of the overall toxicity of pesticide use, but increases energy consumption of the agricultural system. The magnitude of these effects is found to be critically dependent on output price levels and yield expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Böcker & Wolfgang Britz & Niklas Möhring & Robert Finger, 2020. "An economic and environmental assessment of a glyphosate ban for the example of maize production [Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 371-402.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:47:y:2020:i:2:p:371-402.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jby050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Walsh, Alison & Kingwell, Ross, 2021. "The Future of Glyphosate in Australian Agriculture," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 29(4), November.
    2. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    3. Koppenberg, Maximilian & Hirsch, Stefan & Finger, Robert, 2023. "Effects of the debate on glyphosate's carcinogenic risk on pesticide producers' share prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    4. Möhring, Niklas & Finger, Robert, 2022. "Pesticide-free but not organic: Adoption of a large-scale wheat production standard in Switzerland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Mack, G. & Finger, R. & Ammann, J. & El Benni, N., 2023. "Modelling policies towards pesticide-free agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    6. Florence Jacquet & Nathalie Delame & Jesus Lozano Vita & Christian Huyghe & Xavier Reboud, 2021. "The micro-economic impacts of a ban on glyphosate and its replacement with mechanical weeding in French vineyards," Post-Print hal-03318887, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:47:y:2020:i:2:p:371-402.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.