Economic Benefits of Practicing Resistance Management Strategies

The development of herbicide-resistant weeds is an easy way to cause headaches and wreak havoc on a field.  If for only this reason, proactive resistance management is a wise investment.  However, there are additional economic benefits to practicing resistance management strategies. This article from Delta Farm Press states that it is a better economic choice to practice proactive rather than reactive management strategies.  In the article, Ray Massey, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, supports this conclusion with results from a study conducted on tall waterhemp in Missouri.  The study found that over a 25-year period, the added cost each year to be proactive against resistance would still cost less than it would to wait until resistance developed in year 26 and pay for it then.

At the Syngenta Learning Center Demonstration Days this summer, discussions took place about techniques to maximize yield in corn and soybeans. Studies conducted at the centers in previous years found that using a 2-pass system increased yields and provided an average increase of 28.4 bu/A in corn by managing early-season weeds.  Implementing the 2-pass system is also a resistance management strategy by incorporating multiple modes of action in the field, reducing reliance on glyphosate. It also eliminates weed competition, contributing to a healthier crop.  See the image below for more details about this study.

This article from Delta Farm Press also discusses the benefits of controlling weeds early, and the consequences of herbicide resistant weeds in crops.  In cotton, for instance, glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed has the potential to greatly harm the industry.  According to the article, studies have found that one Palmer pigweed plant per 20 feet of row resulted in a 6 to 7 percent yield loss.  With such significant yield loss potential, the up-front cost of reducing the risk of glyphosate resistance development outweighs the potential loss in revenue caused by resistant weeds.  North Carolina State Weed Scientist John Wilcutt speaks about “checkbook resistance,” explaining that although inputs may cost more, yield will be preserved and profit earned will offset the cost of herbicides.

Convincing growers that the economic benefit to practicing resistance management programs is worth the upfront investment has been widely adopted. However, as more and more glyphosate-resistance weeds surface and threaten the convenience of current management programs, more people are looking at how to attain yield potential in their fields and delay the onset of further resistance.  Has glyphosate resistance changed management practices for growers in your area? Have you implemented resistance management practices on your fields? What convinced you to change, or not change, practices?