Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:33:00.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in Herbicide Use after Adoption of HR Canola in Western Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

S. J. Smyth ,
M. Gusta ,
K. Belcher ,
P. W. B. Phillips  and
D. Castle
S. J. Smyth
Affiliation:
Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8
M. Gusta
Affiliation:
Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8
K. Belcher
Affiliation:
Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8
P. W. B. Phillips
Affiliation:
Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, 101 Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B8
D. Castle*
Affiliation:
ESRC Innogen Centre, University of Edinburgh, High School Yards, Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 1LZ
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the changes in herbicide use in relation to canola production in Western Canada, comparing 1995 and 2006. The commercialization and widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant (HR) canola has changed weed management practices in Western Canada. Before the introduction of HR canola, weeds were controlled by herbicides and tillage as the leading herbicides at that time required tillage to allow for soil incorporation of the herbicide. Much of the tillage associated with HR canola production has been eliminated as 64% of producers are now using zero or minimum tillage as their preferred form of crop and soil management. Additionally, there have been significant changes regarding the use and application of herbicides for weed control in canola. This research shows that when comparing canola production in 1995 and 2006, the environmental impact of herbicides applied to canola decreased 53%, producer exposure to chemicals decreased 56%, and quantity of active ingredient applied decreased 1.3 million kg. The cumulative environmental impact was reduced almost 50% with the use of HR herbicides. If HR canola had not been developed and Canadian canola farmers continued to use previous production technologies, the amount of active ingredient applied to control weeds in 2007 would have been 60% above what was actually applied.

Este artículo examina los cambios en el uso de herbicidas en relación a la producción de canola en el occidente de Canadá comparando 1995 y 2006. La comercialización y la amplia adopción de canola resistente a herbicidas han cambiado las prácticas de manejo de las malezas en el occidente de Canadá. Antes de la introducción de la canola resistente a herbicida, las malezas se controlaban por medio de herbicidas y labranza, ya que el herbicida principal requería la labranza para permitir la incorporación del herbicida al suelo. La mayoría de la labranza asociada a la producción de canola resistente a herbicida ha sido eliminada debido a que 64% de los productores prefieren usar labranza cero o mínima para el manejo del cultivo y del suelo. Adicionalmente, ha habido cambios significativos en referencia al uso y aplicación de herbicidas para el control de malezas en la producción de canola. Esta investigación muestra que cuando se compara la producción de canola en 1995 y 2006, el impacto ambiental de los herbicidas aplicados a la canola disminuyó 53%, la exposición de los productores a los químicos disminuyó 56% y la cantidad de ingrediente activo aplicado se redujo en 1.3 millones de kilogramos. El impacto ambiental acumulativo fue casi 50% menos con el uso de canola resistente a herbicidas. Si la canola resistente a herbicidas no hubiera sido desarrollada y los agricultores canadienses de este cultivo continuaran utilizando la tecnología previa de producción, la cantidad de ingrediente activo aplicado para el control de malezas en 2007 hubiera sido 60% más de lo que actualmente se aplicó.

Keywords

2,4-DclopyralidethalfluralinethametsulfuronglufosinateglyphosateimazamoximazethapyrsethoxydimtrifluralinBrassica napus L.Genetic modificationchemical toxicityenvironmental impact quotientactive ingredientland management practices
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 492 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., Hall, L. M., et al. 2006. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1243–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brimner, T., Gallivan, G., and Stephenson, G. 2005. Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management. Pest Manage. Science 61:47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. 2010. Global impact of biotech crops: environmental effects, 1996–2008. AgBioForum 13:76–94.Google Scholar
Canadian Wheat Board. 2006. The 2006 Western Canadian Growing Season in Review. http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/grain/crop/popups/110106.jsp. Accessed: July 24, 2010.Google Scholar
Canola Council of Canada. 2001. An Agronomic and Economic Assessment of Transgenic Canola. Winnipeg, MB prepared by Serecon Management Consulting and Koch Paul Associates, http://www.canolacouncil.org. Accessed: May 12, 2010.Google Scholar
Canola Council of Canada. 2009. Acreage and yield report. http://www.canolacouncil.org/acreageyields.aspx. Accessed: November 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Kleter, G. A., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., et al. 2007. Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Manage. Sci. 63:1107–1115.Google Scholar
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degnil, J., and Tette, J. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sci. Bulletin 139.Google Scholar
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degnil, J., and Tette, J. 2009. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides, Table 2, List of Pesticides. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ/files/EIQ_values_09.pdf. Accessed: April 28, 2010.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Beckie, H. J., Brenzil, C. A., Hall, L. M., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R., and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. Herbicide-Use Trends in Prairie Canola Production Systems. 2006 Soils and Crops Workshop [CD-ROM], Extension Division, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, March 2–3, 2006, 7 p.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Brenzil, C. A., and Beckie, H. J. 2004. Do Saskatchewan producers reduce in-crop application rates? Proceedings of the Canadian Weed Science Society Meeting. November 28–December 1, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. 2006. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/. Accessed: October 13, 2009.Google Scholar
Smyth, S. J., Gusta, M., Belcher, K., Phillips, P. W. B., and Castle, D. 2011. Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada. Agric. Syst. 104:403–410.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2006. 2006 Census of Agriculture. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ca-ra2006/index-eng.htm. Accessed: March 19, 2010.Google Scholar
Sydorovych, O. and Marra, M. 2008. Valuing the changes in herbicide risks resulting from adoption of Roundup Ready soybeans by U.S. farmers: a revealed-preference approach. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 40:777–787.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar