What Would a Future Without Glyphosate Look Like?
There is no doubt that crop production was drastically changed when glyphosate herbicide/weed killer first became available. Since its labeling nearly 50 years ago [1974], it has proven to be an effective and cost-efficient weed control tool. Its use over that span enabled farmers to adopt conservation tillage methods on millions of crop acres in the U.S. Also, it has continually been deemed safe over the span of its use–i.e. there are no risks to human health when it is used according to its label.
Now, after nearly a half century of use, many are asking what a future without glyphosate would look like. This precipitated a report titled “A Future Without Glyphosate” by Aimpoint Research. The following are major points presented in that publication.
• This report was commissioned by Bayer, but was prepared independently by Aimpoint Research because “glyphosate remains the target of several advocacy groups seeking to restrict or prevent its use through state and federal policy influence”.
• Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. It is highly effective at killing most broadleaf and grass weed plants when appropriately applied in agricultural settings. It is used on almost 90% of corn, soybean, and cotton acres in the U.S., and has enabled farmers to use conservation agricultural practices such as reduced tillage and cover crops.
• Two developments have been associated with glyphosate use: 1) GMO crops have been developed that are tolerant of glyphosate; and 2) overuse of glyphosate has resulted in the development of resistance to it in several weed species.
• If glyphosate was no longer available to be used by crop producers, they would adapt by substituting other herbicides for weed control and adjusting production practices such as tillage intensity. However, this would be done at a substantial cost to them [because of increased input costs] and the environment [reversal of the positive effects from decades of conservation farming practices].
• Many of the herbicides that would be used as alternatives to glyphosate 1) would be expected to leach into and thus contaminate groundwater because of their lower adsorption coefficient, 2) are not labeled for all parts of the U.S., 3) cannot be applied as over-the-top applications, and 4) are not registered for both broadleaf and grass weeds.
• Since glyphosate is an important component of herbicide tank mixes and pre-mixes with multiple modes of action that are applied to thwart resistance to glyphosate that has developed in some weed species, it remains a significant herbicide tool for weed control, especially in conservation agriculture systems.
• Reduced tillage and no-till correspond to glyphosate use–i.e., if glyphosate becomes unavailable to crop producers, they likely will revert to increasing tillage for weed control. This would significantly increase soil disturbance, which in turn would negatively affect the positive components of a healthy soil and increase erosion potential.
• The unintended environmental impacts from not having glyphosate include: 1) alternative products that would be used in lieu of glyphosate have less favorable environmental profiles, and greater health risks; 2) an increase in soil tillage over time, which would result in less carbon sequestration in soil, increased fuel use resulting from performing more field operations with larger equipment, and more carbon emissions; 3) reduced cover cropping and other conservation practices which would subsequently result in increased erosion, increased sediment loading into water bodies, reduced water quality, and decreased carbon capture; and 4) a deterioration in soil health.
• Finally, the authors of this report conclude “that if glyphosate were no longer available markets would adapt through substitution and adjusted practices, but at a substantial cost to farmers and the environment. U.S. farmers would bear the burden of increased input and operating costs with small farmers disproportionately affected. Further analysis reveals a cascading chain of likely higher order effects and unintended consequences, the most impactful being the release of additional greenhouse gases and the reversal of decades of conservation and sustainability gains. The loss of glyphosate would not be trivial.”
Midsouth soybean producers are encouraged to let their voices be heard to ensure that glyphosate continues to be available to them for the foreseeable future.
Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, July 2023, larryh91746@gmail.com