IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umaeth/307890.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A bioeconomic analysis of site-specific management and delayed planting strategies for weed control

Author

Listed:
  • Oriade, Caleb Adewale

Abstract

The potential economic and environmental benefits of two emerging tools for low input weed management are examined in this research. Site-specific weed management (SSM) prescribes herbicide treatment for only the portion of a field exposed to weed infestations, rather than the entire field. Delayed planting allows weeds to emerge prior to planting. Since these weeds are eliminated during pre-plant tillage operations, the potential for subsequent weed problems is greatly reduced. The potential benefits of these instruments are simulated using a variant of WEEDSIM, a dynamic bioeconomic weed management model. Differences in model performance under SSM and delayed planting strategies as compared to performance under standard practices impute value to these weed control tools. Simulations with the model were conducted within a deterministic framework. Simulated results suggest that patchiness in weed distributions is the most crucial factor justifying the use of SSM. Other factors such as weed populations and weed species mixes only play secondary roles. There is a substantial environmental gain from SSM practices under a considerably high degree of weed pressure and aggregation. However, the impact of such practices on profit is generally modest. For this reason, it is doubtful if farmers will be willing to adopt this strategy without some public support, particularly when cost and risk considerations are factored in. Outcomes from static simulation experiments for delayed planting strategy suggest that the practice can be a valuable instrument for optimizing net income and herbicide use, especially at high weed populations. The practice may lead to an effective control of pre-plant weeds through mechanical means to the extent that the use of pre-emergence herbicides is not required. Furthermore, the economic benefits of delayed planting strategies are not sensitive to hybrid varieties and rotational practices in the short run. In view of the desirable environmental attributes of these two strategies, their use deserves support. Cheap and affordable technology, cheap and easy access to information on weed population dynamics and crop yield-planting date relationships are means of enhancing the adoption of these environmentally-friendly practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Oriade, Caleb Adewale, 1995. "A bioeconomic analysis of site-specific management and delayed planting strategies for weed control," Faculty and Alumni Dissertations 307890, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:umaeth:307890
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.307890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/307890/files/Oriade%20Dissertation%20UMN%201995.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.307890?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. Pannell, David J., 1990. "An Economic Response Model Of Herbicide Application For Weed Control," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Kent D. Olson & Vernon R. Eidman, 1992. "A Farmer's Choice of Weed Control Method and the Impacts of Policy and Risk," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 125-137.
    3. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P., 1994. "A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 313-335.
    4. J. Pannell, David, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    5. Carlson, Gerald A., 1984. "Risk Reducing Inputs Related to Agricultural Pests," Regional Research Projects >1984: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 25-28, 1984, New Orleans, Louisiana 307236, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    6. Nielsen, Elizabeth G. & Lee, Linda K., 1987. "The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective," Agricultural Economic Reports 308032, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Raskin, Rob & Cochran, Mark J., 1986. "Interpretations And Transformations Of Scale For The Pratt-Arrow Absolute Risk Aversion Coefficient: Implications For Generalized Stochastic Dominance," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 11(2), pages 1-7, December.
    8. Erik Lichtenberg & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why Specification Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 261-273.
    9. C. Robert Taylor & Oscar R. Burt, 1984. "Near-Optimal Management Strategies for Controlling Wild Oats in Spring Wheat," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(1), pages 50-60.
    10. Moffitt, L. Joe & Hall, Darwin C. & Osteen, Craig D., 1984. "Economic Thresholds Under Uncertainty With Application To Corn Nematode Management," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-7, December.
    11. Nielsen, Elizabeth G. & Lee, Linda K., 1987. "The Magnitude And Costs Of Groundwater Contamination From Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective," Staff Reports 277938, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Robert P. King & Donald W. Lybecker & Anita Regmi & Scott M. Swinton, 1993. "Bioeconomic Models of Crop Production Systems: Design, Development, and Use," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 389-401.
    13. Gershon Feder, 1979. "Pesticides, Information, and Pest Management under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(1), pages 97-103.
    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. Jones, Randall E. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2000. "A Dynamic Optimisation Model of Weed Control," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123685, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. J. Pannell, David, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    3. D. J. Pannell, 1990. "Responses To Risk In Weed Control Decisions Under Expected Profit Maximisation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 391-401, September.
    4. Young, Douglas L. & Smith, Elwin G. & Kwon, Tae-Jin, 2000. "Aggregation Issues In Pest Control Economics: A Bioeconomic Approach," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36448, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Wu, JunJie, 2001. "Optimal weed control under static and dynamic decision rules," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 119-130, June.
    6. Pannell, David J, 1989. "A Model of Wheat Yield Response to Application of Diclofop-Methyl to Control Ryegrass (Lolium Rigidum)," Discussion Papers 232314, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Scott M. Swinton & Robert P. King, 1994. "The Value of Pest Information in a Dynamic Setting: The Case of Weed Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 36-46.
    8. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Loehman, Edna T. & Nelson, Carl H., 1992. "Optimal Risk Management, Risk Aversion, And Production Function Properties," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Bennett, Anne L. & Pannell, David J., 1998. "Economic evaluation of a weed-activated sprayer for herbicide application to patchy weed populations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-20.
    11. Pannell, David J., 1994. "The Value Of Information In Herbicide Decision Making For Weed Control In Australian Wheat Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P. & Lybecker, Donald W., 1992. "The Effect of Triazine Restriction Policies on Recommended Weed Management in Corn," Staff Paper Series 201160, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    13. C.S. Kim & C. Sandretto & N.D. Uri, 1997. "The Implications of the Adoption of Alternative Production Practices on the Estimation of Input Productivity in Agriculture," Energy & Environment, , vol. 8(2), pages 133-150, June.
    14. Carriker, Gordon L., 1993. "Factor Input Demand Subject to Economic and Environmental Risk: The Case of Nitrogen Fertilizer in Corn Production," Staff Papers 118154, Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    15. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P., 1994. "A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 313-335.
    16. Young, Douglas L. & Haantuba, Hyde H., 1998. "An Economic Threshold For Tick Control Considering Multiple Damages And Probability-Based Damage Functions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Regmi, Anita, 1990. "The value of information in integrated pest management of corn rootworm and European corn borer in Minnesota," Faculty and Alumni Dissertations 307267, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    18. Archer, David Walter, 1995. "Self-insurance and self-protection in weed control: implications for nonpoint source pollution," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000012033, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Woongchan Jeon & Kwansoo Kim, 2017. "Optimal Weed Control Strategies in Rice Production under Dynamic and Static Decision Rules in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    20. Swinton, Scott M. & Black, J. Roy, 2000. "Modeling Of Agricultural Systems," Staff Paper Series 11581, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    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:umaeth:307890. 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/daumnus.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.