IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi16/244761.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Ökonomische Bewertung Von Glyphosat Im Deutschen Ackerbau

Author

Listed:
  • Schulte, Michael Clemens
  • Theuvsen, Ludwig
  • Wiese, Armin
  • Steinmann, Horst-Henning

Abstract

Der weltweit am häufigsten eingesetzte Herbizidwirkstoff ist Glyphosat. Während die ökonomische Relevanz des Wirkstoffes beim Anbau von gentechnisch veränderten Organismen in zahlreichen Publikationen thematisiert wurde, ist seine wirtschaftliche Bedeutung für den europäischen Ackerbau nur unzureichend erforscht. Die vorliegende Studie stellt einen Beitrag dazu dar, diese Forschungslücke zu schließen. Mithilfe von Szenarioanalysen wird der ökonomische Wert von Glyphosat für drei in Deutschland typische Fruchtfolgen bestimmt. Die Annahmen für die Berechnungen beruhen auf den Ergebnissen einer Umfrage unter 2.026 Landwirten sowie auf Experteninterviews mit Anbauberatern. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass ein Glyphosatverzicht – je nach Fruchtfolge und bestehendem Bodenbearbeitungsregime – zu unterschiedlich hohen Rückgängen der direkt- und arbeitserledigungskostenfreien Leistung führen würde. Betriebe, die allgemein durch eine intensive Bodenbearbeitung (bspw. einen häufigen Pflugeinsatz) gekennzeichnet sind, verzeichnen bei einem Glyphosatverzicht die geringsten wirtschaftlichen Einbußen; Mulchsaat-Betriebe hingegen wären stärker betroffen. Ferner scheint die konservierende Bodenbearbeitung ohne den Einsatz von Glyphosat unter Risikogesichtspunkten dauerhaft nicht möglich zu sein, sodass eine Intensivierung der Bodenbearbeitung und ein erhöhter Einsatz alternativer Herbizide mit entsprechenden Mehrkosten die Folge wären. Falls die Intensivierung der Bodenbearbeitung jedoch zu Ertragszuwächsen oder weniger Aufwendungen anderer Pflanzenschutzmittel, etwa Fungiziden oder Molluskiziden, führen würde, könnten die Mehrkosten zumindest teilweise kompensiert werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Schulte, Michael Clemens & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Wiese, Armin & Steinmann, Horst-Henning, 2016. "Die Ökonomische Bewertung Von Glyphosat Im Deutschen Ackerbau," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244761, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi16:244761
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.244761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/244761/files/Schulte.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.244761?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. Heinrich, Barbara, 2012. "Calculating the 'greening' effect: A case study approach to predict the gross margin losses in different farm types in Germany due to the reform of the CAP," DARE Discussion Papers 1205, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Heinrich, Barbara, 2012. "Calculating The ‘Greening’ Effect: A Case Study Approach To Predict The Gross Margin Losses In Different Farm Types In Germany Due To The Reform Of The Cap," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 187445, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    3. Heinrich, Barbara, 2012. "Calculating The ‘Greening’ Effect: A Case Study Approach To Predict The Gross Margin Losses In Different Farm Types In Germany Due To The Reform Of The Cap," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187445, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Heinrich, Barbara, 2012. "Calculating The ‘Greening’ Effect – A Case Study Approach To Estimate The Gross Margin Losses In Different Farm Types In Germany Due To The Reform Of The Cap," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137155, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Danne, M. & Musshoff, O. & Schulte, M., 2019. "Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 189-207.
    2. Böcker, Thomas & Britz, Wolfgang & Finger, Robert, 2017. "Modelling the Effects of a Glyphosate Ban on Weed Management in Maize Production," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 261982, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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. Louhichi, Kamel & Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Colen, Liesbeth & Perni, Angel & Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "The Impact of Crop Diversification Measure: EU-wide Evidence Based on IFM-CAP Model," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211542, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2017. "EU-wide Economic and Environmental Impacts of CAP Greening with High Spatial and Farm-type Detail," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 651-681, September.
    3. Louhichi, Kamel & Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Colen, Liesbeth & Perni, Angel & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "EU-wide individual Farm Model for CAP Analysis (IFM-CAP): Application to Crop Diversification Policy," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Francesco Diotallevi & Emanuele Blasi & Silvio Franco, 2015. "Greening as compensation to production of environmental public goods: how do common rules have an influence at local level? The case of durum wheat in Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Amanda Sahrbacher & Jordan Hristov & Mark V. Brady, 2017. "A combined approach to assess the impacts of Ecological Focus Areas on regional structural development and agricultural land use," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 111-144, December.
    6. Solazzo, Roberto & Pierangeli, Fabio, 2016. "How does greening affect farm behaviour? Trade-off between commitments and sanctions in the Northern Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 88-98.
    7. Kamel Louhichi & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Espinosa & Angel Perni & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2018. "Economic impacts of CAP greening: application of an EU-wide individual farm model for CAP analysis (IFM-CAP)," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(2), pages 205-238.
    8. Gava, Oriana & Andreoli, Maria & Bartolini, Fabio & Brunori, Gianluca, 2015. "CAP post-2013: alternative greening designs in Tuscany (Italy)," 2015 Fourth Congress, June 11-12, 2015, Ancona, Italy 207359, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    9. Louhichi, Kamel & Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Colen, Liesbeth & Perni, Angel & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "Farm-level economic impacts of EU-CAP greening measures," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205309, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Crop Production/Industries; Farm Management;
    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:gewi16:244761. 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/gewisea.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.