Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:21:21.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Evaluation of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Sugar Beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew R. Kniss ,
Robert G. Wilson ,
Alex R. Martin ,
Paul A. Burgener  and
Dillon M. Feuz
Andrew R. Kniss*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Paul A. Burgener
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Dillon M. Feuz
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: akniss@uwyo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted near Scottsbluff, NE, in 2001 and 2002 to compare economic aspects of glyphosate applied to different glyphosate-resistant sugar beet cultivars with that of conventional herbicide programs applied to near-equivalent, non–glyphosate-resistant conventional cultivars. Glyphosate applied two or three times at 2-wk intervals, beginning when weeds were 10 cm tall, provided excellent weed control, yield, and net economic return regardless of the glyphosate-resistant sugar beet cultivar. All conventional herbicide treatments resulted in similar net economic returns. Although the conventional sugar beet cultivars ‘HM 1640’ and ‘Beta 4546’ responded similarly to herbicide treatments with respect to sucrose content, ‘Beta 4546RR’ produced roots with 1% more sucrose than ‘HM 1640RR’. When averaged over herbicide treatments, a producer planting Beta 4546RR could afford to pay US $185/ha more for glyphosate-resistant technology as could a producer planting HM 1640RR. When averaged over cultivars and herbicide treatments, it is estimated that a producer could afford to pay an additional US $385/ha for glyphosate-resistant technology without decreasing net return.

Keywords

Glyphosatesugar beet, Beta vulgaris (L.) ‘Beta 4546’, ‘Beta 4546RR’, ‘HM 1640’, ‘HM 1640RR’Herbicide-tolerant cropstechnology feeweed managementclopyraliddesmediphamethofumesatephenmediphamtriflusulfuronDES, desmediphamfb, followed byPHEN, phenmediphamRG, gross returnTRIF, triflusulfuronY, root yield
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 388 - 396
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.)

Footnotes

∗ A contribution of the University of Nebraska Agricultural Research Division, Lincoln, NE 68583. Journal Series 14086.

References

Literature Cited

Burgener, P. A. 2001. Economics of sugarbeet production. in Wilson, R. G., ed. Sugarbeet Production Guide. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. Pp. 189–196.Google Scholar
Burgener, P. A., Feuz, D. M., and Wilson, R. G. 2000. Economics of transgenic sugarbeet production. Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, June 29–July 1, 2000. Vancouver, Canada: Western Agricultural Economics Association. 12 p.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1974. Full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 22:330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Smith, L. J. 1999. Influence of Cultivation on Yield of Roundup Ready and Liberty Link Sugarbeets. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, North Dakota State University: Web page: http://www.sbreb.org/research/weed/weed99/99p100.htm. Accessed: June 26, 2003.Google Scholar
Eshel, J., Zimdahl, R. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1978. Uptake and translocation of ethofumesate [herbicide] in sugar-beet plants. Pestic. Sci. 9:301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianessi, L. P., Silvers, C. S., Sankula, S., and Carpenter, J. E. 2002. Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture: An Analysis of 40 Case Studies. Washington, DC: National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy.Google Scholar
Guza, C. J., Ransom, C. V., and Mallory-Smith, C. 2002. Weed control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L). J. Sugar Beet Res. 39:109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlin, W. G. and Groskurth, D. C. 2002. 2002. Nebraska Agricultural Statistics. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Agricultural Statistics Service. 144 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, M. J. 2003. Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 142:41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, D. and Appleby, A. P. 1981. Effect of a pre-irrigation period on the activity of ethofumesate applied to dry soil. Weed Sci. 29:712–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, D. and Appleby, A. P. 1984. Activity loss of ethofumesate in dry soil by chemical degradation and adsorption. Weed Sci. 32:468–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Mesbah, A. O. 2000. Weed control and sugarbeet response with micro-rates of postemergence herbicides. Proc. Western Soc. Weed Sci. 53:73.Google Scholar
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002a. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002b. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:388–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, C. A., Mesbah, A., and Miller, S. D. 2001. Economic evaluation of weed management systems in sugarbeets. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 31:64.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. The SAS System for Windows. Version 8e. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. (online version.).Google Scholar
Schneider, K., Shcafer-Pregl, R., Borchardt, D. C., and Salamini, F. 2002. Mapping QTLs for sucrose content, yield and quality in a sugar beet population fingerprinted by EST-related markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 104:1107–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1999. Novartis Seeds and Monsanto Co.; availability of determination of nonregulated status for sugar beet genetically engineered for glyphosate herbicide tolerance. Fed. Reg. 64:1177–1178.Google Scholar
University of Nebraska. 2002. 2002. Guide for Weed Management in Nebraska. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC-130-D. 133 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1999. Micro rates of desmedipham plus phenmedipham for weed control in sugarbeet. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:155.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Yonts, C. D., and Smith, J. A. 2002. Influence of glyphosate and glufosinate on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield in herbicide tolerant sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 16:66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar