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

Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Chloro-s-triazine Herbicides to U.S. Corn, Sorghum, and Sugarcane Producers

Listed author(s):
  • Mitchell, Paul D.

    (University of WI)

U.S. crop producers derive substantial economic benefits from the chloro-s-triazine herbicides atrazine, simazine and propazine. These triazine herbicides generate yield gains for U.S. crop farmers, and in many cases, also reduce total costs for herbicides. Atrazine, the most widely used triazine herbicide, is the keystone of herbicide-based weed control in corn and other regionally important crops in the U.S. Corn acreage, yields and prices have increased over time so that the three-year average value of corn produced in the U.S. has increased more than 2.7 times, from $18.6 billion in 1990-1992 to $50.9 billion in 2007-2009. Over this same period, crop production practices also evolved, including the widespread adoption of transgenic crops and reduced tillage systems. Given these and other changes since previous economic assessments of the producer benefits from triazine herbicides, an update assessment seems warranted. The primary benefit of atrazine and the other triazine herbicides to farmers is improved weed control that increases harvested yields and usually reduces costs, as alternative herbicides are less effective and/or more expensive. Based on yield loss and herbicide cost changes estimated using models, the economic value of the yield losses prevented by the triazine herbicides are estimated to range between $3.0 and $3.3 billion per year for U.S. corn, sorghum, sweet corn, and sugarcane farmers. Most of these benefits accrue to Midwestern field corn farmers using atrazine, but farmers in other regions and growing these other crops also derive substantial benefits. The annual yield benefits and net herbicide cost savings from triazine herbicides are worth an estimated $2.36 to $2.65 billion for U.S. field corn growers, $341 million for U.S. sorghum growers, $210 million for U.S. sweet corn growers, and between $60 and $120 million for U.S. sugarcane growers. Atrazine and the other triazine herbicides generate other types of benefits for farmers not accounted for in these reported values. Atrazine works well with other herbicides, often enhancing the value of less efficacious herbicides. Atrazine also increases the value of crop rotations by reducing weed populations and weed seed banks in crops commonly rotated with atrazine-treated crops. Atrazine also serves as an important tool for managing herbicide resistance, helping to preserve future weed control benefits for other herbicides. Finally, atrazine provides effective weed control that has aided adoption of conservation tillage and no-till systems in corn and other crops. Reducing or eliminating tillage reduces soil erosion and associated negative environmental impacts of agriculture, which improves water quality and further enhances the sustainability of U.S. crop production. Because specific dollar-denominated estimates of the value of these benefits to farmers are not included in this assessment, the estimated $3.0 to $3.3 billion in benefits per year should be considered a lower bound on the full value of the benefits generated by atrazine and the other chloro-s-triazine herbicides in U.S. crop production.

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 University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics in its series Staff Paper Series with number 564.

in new window

Date of creation: Nov 2011
Handle: RePEc:ecl:wisagr:564
Contact details of provider: Postal:
427 Lorch Street, Madison, WI 53706-1503

Phone: 608-262-8966
Fax: 608-262-4376
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. Gorddard, Russell J. & Pannell, David J. & Hertzler, Greg, 1996. "Economic evaluation of strategies for management of herbicide resistance," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 281-298, July.
  2. Horowitz, John K. & Ebel, Robert M. & Ueda, Kohei, 2010. ""No-Till" Farming Is a Growing Practice," Economic Information Bulletin 96636, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  3. Russell J. Gorddard & David J. Pannell & Greg Hertzler, 1995. "An Optimal Control Model For Integrated Weed Management Under Herbicide Resistance," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(1), pages 71-87, April.
  4. Gehlhar, Mark J. & Somwaru, Agapi & Somwaru, Agapi, 2010. "Effects of Increased Biofuels on the U.S. Economy in 2022," Economic Research Report 96758, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  5. Pannell, David J. & Stewart, Vanessa & Bennett, Anne & Monjardino, Marta & Schmidt, Carmel & Powles, Stephen B., 2004. "RIM: a bioeconomic model for integrated weed management of Lolium rigidum in Western Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 305-325, March.
  6. Fuglie, Keith O., 1999. "Conservation Tillage And Pesticide Use In The Cornbelt," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(01), April.
  7. Claassen, Roger & Breneman, Vincent E. & Bucholtz, Shawn & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert C. & Morehart, Mitchell J., 2004. "Environmental Compliance In U.S. Agricultural Policy: Past Performance And Future Potential," Agricultural Economics Reports 34033, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  8. Fuglie, Keith O., 1999. "Conservation Tillage and Pesticide Use in the Cornbelt," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(01), pages 133-147, April.
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:ecl:wisagr:564. 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: ()

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.