IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/upaewp/206520.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the Value of Glyphosate in the South African Agricultural Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Gouse, Marnus

Abstract

This study assessed the value of glyphosate in the South African agricultural sector with focus on the 2012/13 agricultural season. Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in South African and in 2012 more than 23 million litres of glyphosate was sold at an estimated value of R641 million. Glyphosate is a highly effective broad spectrum herbicide and the only herbicide on the market with a systemic mode of action. Glyphosate is considered to be, based on numerous scientific studies environmentally and toxicologically safe when used according to label instructions. Glyphosate is marketed under more than twenty trade-names in SA and is extensively used in the timber, horticulture, sugar and viticulture industries. The main users of glyphosate in SA are however maize, wheat and soybean farmers and in 2012 these farmers used 65% of all glyphosate sold in SA. Making use of ‘with and without glyphosate’ scenario comparisons the assessment showed that glyphosate is immensely valuable to the agricultural sector. In monetary terms and depending on rather conservative yield assumptions the value of glyphosate in the maize sector was estimated to be between R525 million and R2.203 billion in 2012 with genetically modified herbicide tolerant and stacked gene maize farmers enjoying the biggest benefit. Assuming a yield loss of 10% in a withoutglyphosate scenario for only farmers who make use of herbicide tolerant maize varieties, the value of glyphosate is estimated at R1.328 billion. Glyphosate’s value for wheat farmers was estimated to be between R123 million and R485 million with the higher adoption usage rate (75%) and 10% potential damage scenario presenting a realistic value estimation of R335 million for the 2012 season. Soybean farmers making use of conservation tillage practises value glyphosate highly and under a withoutglyphosate scenario stand to lose between R148 million and R693 million with the most probable value estimated at around R412 million. Adoption of conservation tillage practises have increased considerably in SA since the introduction of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in 2001 and maize in 2003. Implementation of different degrees of reduced tillage practises have brought about substantial environmental benefits not only infield (soil) but also in the decreased emission of greenhouse gasses. The study showed that by using glyphosate instead of mechanized weed control, maize and soybean farmers (and wheat farmers to a lesser extent) where able to save about 23 million litres of diesel with a yearly CO2 emission equivalent of 12 thousand average cars. Determining the socio-economic impacts of glyphosate us in SA requires a larger and more in-depth assessment. However, the majority of the surveyed large-scale farmers planting HT maize and soybeans indicated the ease of weed control and management as the main benefit. A study of smallscale HT maize adopting farmers also showed the ease of weed control to be a major benefit with especially female household members being able to spend less time doing arduous manual weeding. The confirmed immense value glyphosate has as a production tool in the South African agricultural sector serves as backdrop to the problem of weed resistance to glyphosate. Worldwide 31 weed species have been reported to be resistant to glyphosate. Three of the 31 reported glyphosate resistance weeds occur in South Africa and resistance has been proven in parts of the Western Cape. With increased adoption of glyphosate tolerant crops and increased sector wide use of glyphosate due to its environmental safety, relative affordability and efficacy, responsible use and stewardship have become even more vital to preserve glyphosate’s value for the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Gouse, Marnus, 2014. "Assessing the Value of Glyphosate in the South African Agricultural Sector," Working Papers 206520, University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:upaewp:206520
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.206520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/206520/files/2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.206520?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Hendricks, Chad & Mishra, Ashok K., 2005. "Technology Adoption and Off-Farm Household Income: The Case of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Karinne Ludlow & Stuart J. Smyth & José Falck-Zepeda (ed.), 2014. "Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation," Natural Resource Management and Policy, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4614-9440-9, December.
    3. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Klotz-Ingram, Cassandra & Jans, Sharon, 2002. "Farm-Level Effects Of Adopting Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans In The U.S.A," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Gardner, Justin G. & Nelson, Carl H., 2007. "Genetically Modified Crops and Labor Savings in US Crop Production," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34919, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Matin Qaim & Greg Traxler, 2005. "Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 73-86, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    2. Frisvold, George, 2010. "Resistance Management and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biotechnology," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188091, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    3. Wechsler, Seth J. & McFadden, Jonathan R. & Smith, David J., 2016. "Into the Weeds: A Structural Model of Herbicide Demand and Glyphosate Resistance on U.S. Corn Farms," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235998, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Sylvie Bonny, 2011. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Hurley, Terrance M. & Mitchell, Paul D., 2015. "Value of Insect Pest Management to U.S. and Canadian Corn, Soybean and Canola Farmers," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205129, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Mehta, N., 2015. "Changing Inter-Sectoral Linkages: Role of Technology Adoption in Agricultural Growth," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 28(Conferenc).
    7. Bonny, Sylvie, 2009. "Issues, impacts, and prospects of the first transgenic crops tolerant to a herbicide. The case of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51449, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.
    9. Seixas, Renato & Silveira, José Maria, 2014. "More of Less isn’t Less of More: Assessing Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified Seeds in Brazilian Agriculture," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170226, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Joshua D. Detre & Hiroki Uematsu & Ashok K. Mishra, 2011. "The influence of GM crop adoption on the profitability of farms operated by young and beginning farmers," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(1), pages 41-61, May.
    11. Smyth, Stuart J. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Ludlow, Karinne, 2016. "The Costs of Regulatory Delays for Genetically Modified Crops," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Oliver Musshoff & Norbert Hirschauer, 2011. "A behavioral economic analysis of bounded rationality in farm financing decisions," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(1), pages 62-83, May.
    13. Mehta, Niti, 2015. "Changing Inter-Sectoral Linkages: Role of Technology Adoption in Agricultural Growth," MPRA Paper 68078, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gomez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodriguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2011. "Adoption of GMHT Crops: Coexistence Policy Consequences in the European Union," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114227, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Wechsler, Seth James, 2012. "Fifteen Years Later: Examining the Adoption of Bt Corn Varieties by U.S. Farmers," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Heng, Dora, 2015. "Incentives, Institutions and Investment in Private Agricultural Reasearch in Asia," SS-AAEA Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 2015, pages 1-25.
    17. Gedikoglu, Haluk & McCann, Laura M.J. & Artz, Georgeanne M., 2011. "Off-Farm Employment Effects on Adoption of Nutrient Management Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-14, August.
    18. Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele C., 2007. "A Genetically Engineered Crop's Impact on Pesticide Use: A Revealed-Preference Index Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    20. Sadashivappa, Prakash & Qaim, Matin, 2009. "Effects of Bt Cotton in India During the First Five Years of Adoption," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 49947, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health Economics and Policy; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:upaewp:206520. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daeupza.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.