IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Ist Eine Reduzierung Des Pflanzenschutzmitteleinsatzes Im Freilandgemüsebau Möglich? Ergebnisse Eines Bioökonomischen Simulationsmodells

Listed author(s):
  • Dirksmeyer, Walter
Registered author(s):

    In field vegetable production pesticide a levels are very high although pest control technologies are known, which require much less pesticides than the commonly applied control technologies. A stochastic bio-economic simulation model is used to determine the net return derived from the application of different pest control technologies in carrot, leek and onion production. Following the concept of stochastic dominance efficient technologies can be identified. Results reveal that it is possible to reduce pesticide use levels in field vegetable production if alternative control technologies are applied. This is possible without losses in net return on farm level and without increasing risk of field vegetable production. Der Einsatz von chemisch-synthetischen Pflanzenschutzmitteln ist im Freilandgemüsebau sehr hoch. Obwohl Pflanzenschutzverfahren bekannt sind, die deutlich weniger PSM benöti-gen, als dies bei den Standardverfahren der Fall ist, werden sie häufig nur von einem kleinen Kreis der Produzenten angewandt. Mit Hilfe eines stochastischen bioökonomischen Simulationsmodells wird die Verteilung des Nettoertrages ermittelt, die von der Anwendung verschie-dener in der Produktion von Möhren, Porree und Zwiebeln eingesetzter Pflanzenschutzverfah-ren zu erwarten sind. Unter Verwendung des Konzeptes der stochastischen Dominanz können effiziente Verfahren identifiziert werden. Die Simulationsergebnisse zeigen, dass es durch den Einsatz alternativer Pflanzenschutzverfahren im Freilandgemüsebau möglich ist, die PSM-Einsatzmengen zu reduzieren, ohne betriebswirtschaftliche Einbußen oder ein erhöhtes Risiko in Kauf nehmen zu müssen.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA) in its series 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 with number 7592.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 2007
    Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi07:7592
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig

    Phone: 0531 / 596 5501
    Fax: 0531 / 596 5599
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Pannell, David J., 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), August.
    2. Alfons Oude Lansink & Alain Carpentier, 2001. "Damage Control Productivity: An Input Damage Abatement Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 11-22.
    3. J. C. Headley, 1968. "Estimating the Productivity of Agricultural Pesticides," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 50(1), pages 13-23.
    4. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    5. Atanu Saha & C. Richard Shumway & Arthur Havenner, 1997. "The Economics and Econometrics of Damage Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 773-785.
    6. de Buck, A. J. & Schoorlemmer, H. B. & Wossink, G. A. A. & Janssens, S. R. M., 1999. "Risks of post-emergence weed control strategies in sugar beet: development and application of a bio-economic model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 283-299, March.
    7. Oriade, Caleb A. & Dillon, Carl R., 1997. "Developments in biophysical and bioeconomic simulation of agricultural systems: a review," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 17(1), pages 45-58, October.
    8. David Sunding & Joshua Zivin, 2000. "Insect Population Dynamics, Pesticide Use, and Farmworker Health," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 527-540.
    9. Bor, Yunchang Jeffrey, 1995. "Optimal pest management and economic threshold," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 113-133.
    10. Jean-Daniel M. Saphores, 2000. "The Economic Threshold with a Stochastic Pest Population: A Real Options Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 541-555.
    11. Swinton, Scott M. & Williams, Mollie B., 1998. "Assessing The Economic Impacts Of Integrated Pest Management: Lessons From The Past, Directions For The Future," Staff Papers 11636, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. Alain Carpentier & Robert D. Weaver, 1997. "Damage Control Productivity: Why Econometrics Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 47-61.
    13. Katherine H. Reichelderfer & Filmore E. Bender, 1979. "Application of a Simulative Approach to Evaluating Alternative Methods for the Control of Agricultural Pests," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 258-267.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gewi07:7592. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.