Argentinean Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Collective Management of Herbicide Resistance

by Ariel Singerman and Sergio H. Lence

The 1990s marked a new era in weed management with the introduction of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant (HT) commercial row crops (Dill 2005). By planting glyphosate-resistant crops, farmers could manage weeds effectively with glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide that effectively eliminated the majority of weeds at that time (Swinton and Van Deynze 2017).

In the United States, HT soybean cultivation grew from 7% of the soybean area in 1996 to over 90% by 2007 (USDA-ERS 2023). In Argentina, HT soybean represented more than 90% of the soybean area just four years after their introduction (Penna and Lema 2003). Nowadays, the United States and Argentina rank as the second- and third-largest soybean producers globally (FAOSTAT 2024).

The widespread use of glyphosate-resistant crops led to a shift in weed management practices, from diverse mechanical, biological, chemical, and cultural methods to primarily relying solely on glyphosate applications (Duke and Powles 2008). However, by repeatedly using glyphosate without alternating modes of action, farmers unintentionally encouraged weeds to develop glyphosate tolerance, reducing the chemical’s effectiveness over time. The United States documented its first glyphosate-resistant weed in 2000 (VanGessel 2001), and Argentina reported its first in 2005. Both countries had documented 18 cases of glyphosate-resistant weeds as of 2023 (Heap 2023).

The issue of weed susceptibility to herbicides exhibits features of a public-good problem, necessitating diversified management actions among neighboring farmers—a strategy that may incur short-term costs but ultimately benefits all farmers in the area in the long term (Bagavathiannan et al. 2019). The need for a cooperative approach to curb resistance hinges on the pest's relative mobility (Miranowski and Carlson 1986). Therefore, managing the regional dimension of herbicide-resistant weed populations effectively would require farmers to adopt integrated weed management at the community level (Ervin and Jussaume 2014).

Based on data from farmer focus group meetings and a farmer survey, Jussaume and Dentzman (2016) find that while farmers were aware of the presence of herbicide-resistant weeds (over 90% expressed concern) and knew about various recommendations for controlling resistance, 59% of respondents believed that the likelihood of community-based action to adopt best management practices (BMPs) being effective was either “unlikely” or “neither unlikely nor likely (a 50/50 chance).”

Do the challenges and impacts of herbicide-resistant weeds affect farmers only in the United States?
We collected data from non-US farmers to assess whether the spread and impact of herbicide-resistant weeds, along with the responses to this challenge, mirror those observed in the United States. Specifically, we aim to determine whether the issues, attitudes, and behaviors observed among US farmers are unique or indicative of broader trends at the global level. We focus on Argentina due to its similar adoption rate of HT soybean, its comparable significance of soybean production, and its widespread adoption of no-till farming.

In March and May of 2023, we gathered data from two meetings hosted by AAPRESID (Asociación Argentina de Productores en Siembra Directa), the Argentinean Association of No-Till Farmers. Many experts credit AAPRESID's advocacy and support for driving the widespread adoption of no-till practices in Argentina. Notably, in the United States there is no national organization with similar characteristics and influence.

We gathered a total of 98 responses from farmers who collectively managed over 1 million acres, with 85% of these located in the province of Buenos Aires. While the sample does not represent all farmers in Argentina, it includes approximately 23% of the area corresponding to farm operations between 25,000 and 50,000 acres and 39% of the area of farm operations exceeding 50,000 acres in the province of Buenos Aires. Therefore, our sample provides valuable insights into the characteristics and behaviors of larger growers, who are likely to be influential industry leaders and trend-setters.

Figure 1, generated from an AAPRESID tool that monitors the distribution of various herbicide-resistant weed species across Argentina, clearly shows a significant rise in the spread of such weeds over the past decade. Our survey data reveals that respondents’ average affected area in their operations rose by 12% from 2019/20 to 2021/22, reaching nearly 50% in 2021/22. These data align with the broader trend depicted in figure 1 and underscore the severity of the issue among farmers in our sample.

Our survey found that 54% of individual farms are grappling with four or more species of herbicide-resistant weeds, and 65% of farmers expressed either considerable concern or very high concern about herbicide-resistant weeds in their locations. To address this challenge, farmers have adopted various practices. As figure 2 illustrates, 87% of farmers increased their use of herbicides other than glyphosate. This percentage combines the 78% of farmers who reported increasing the application of alternative herbicides with the 9% who changed the active ingredient they use. Interestingly, this response mirrors the approach taken by US farmers, as documented by Van Deynze, Swinton, and Hennessy (2022).

Figure 2 also reveals that 31% of farmers increased glyphosate application rates, the second-most common response to combat herbicide-resistant weeds. This finding aligns with Dover and Croft's (1986) assertion that pesticide resistance typically leads to heightened chemical use to counter reduced pest susceptibility, thereby exacerbating resistance and associated externalities. Figure 2 further illustrates that cover crops were the third-most adopted strategy among Argentinean farmers to manage herbicide-resistant weeds. However, notably, 16% of farmers returned to tillage to control herbicide-resistant weeds, making it the fourth-most prevalent approach. This shift is significant given that the surveyed farmers were members of AAPRESID, which promotes no-till practices. Consequently, the abandonment of no-till practices is likely more prevalent among other Argentinean farmers. Our survey findings align with those of Livingston et al. (2015), who observed similar responses among US corn and soybean farmers.

Challenges of best management practices and opportunities for collective action
Bagavathiannan et al. (2019) argue that existing BMP standards and research efforts to improve them are a key factor contributing to the ineffective control of weeds. Their contention is that BMPs often focus too narrowly on property-level decisions, overlooking the collective impact of individual actions on landscape-level outcomes. Additionally, they emphasize the potential of collective practices to enhance weed control.

The successful eradication program of the cotton boll weevil in the United States serves as a notable example of effective, well-coordinated, area-wide pest management (Ervin and Frisvold 2016). However, in most cases, implementing such programs faces obstacles related to methods, free riding, opposition from the public, and crucially, uncertainty surrounding stakeholder participation (Klassen 2000).

Ervin and Frisvold (2016) suggest a stronger emphasis on supporting collective action is needed, arguing convincingly that the strategy of encouraging farmers to adopt BMPs while offering technical support and industry subsidies has not yielded satisfactory results. To gauge the willingness of Argentinean farmers to participate in collective efforts aimed at managing herbicide-resistant weeds on a landscape scale, we posed such a question to them. According to figure 3, 76% of the farmers surveyed viewed this as either quite important or very important. Moreover, 95% of our sample answered affirmatively when asked if they would coordinate actions with neighboring farmers to address herbicide-resistant weeds. This finding reflects a notable contrast with US farmers regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness of collective action.

Our survey also inquired about farmers' concerns regarding potential barriers to coordinating actions among neighboring farmers for controlling herbicide-resistant weeds. The barriers examined included: (a) trusting others to coordinate; (b) the effort required for coordination; (c) the cost involved in coordination; (d) dependency on others for benefits; and, (e) program implementation. The results, as presented in table 1, indicate that 61% of respondents were either “quite concerned” or “very concerned” about two specific barriers: trusting others to coordinate and relying on others for benefits. These findings highlight strategic uncertainty as their primary worry, echoing similar observations by Singerman and Useche (2019) in their study on voluntary area-wide pest management efforts against citrus greening disease in Florida. Strategic uncertainty emerged as a key factor contributing to skepticism by both participants and non-participants in the program, and played a pivotal role in the collective action's failure.

Key findings and implications for policy

Our findings indicate that the challenges and impacts posed by herbicide-resistant weeds are not exclusive to US farmers—Argentinean farmers also grapple with similar issues and have adopted practices akin to those used by their US counterparts. Addressing herbicide-resistant weeds may require collective action, but the presence of strategic uncertainty, particularly in voluntary efforts, undermines the trust required for successful action. The central challenge lies in the interdependence of farmers’ rewards, which introduces strategic risk. The provision of a public good involves such risks as it requires a critical mass of participants for success—failure to achieve this threshold diminishes rewards for contributors. Interestingly, Argentinean farmers expressed near-unanimous willingness to coordinate actions with neighbors, which suggests a more positive perception of collective action effectiveness compared to US farmers’ views (as reported by Jussaume and Dentzman in 2016).

In contexts where coordination is pivotal, public signals play a role in shaping outcomes beyond their informational content by conveying strategic insights into others' beliefs (Morris and Shin 2006). Integrating public research and extension services, alongside appropriate incentives, into initiatives aimed at fostering collective action could potentially bolster trust and mitigate the adverse effects of strategic uncertainty. The recently introduced "coordination frontier," a tool developed by Lence and Singerman (2023), offers a valuable framework to assess conditions under which varying levels of voluntary coordination can succeed, as well as to determine the financial incentives needed for effectiveness. Therefore, the "coordination frontier" holds promise in alleviating concerns related to strategic uncertainty and encouraging collective efforts. Additionally, extension services can play a vital role in reducing strategic uncertainty and promoting collective action by facilitating: (a) dialogue among stakeholders to foster cooperation; (b) reciprocal cooperation; and, (c) enhanced investment returns in public goods.

Implementing collective action to address herbicide-resistant weeds may face a nontrivial challenge related to land tenure issues—land renters may prioritize short-term profits, which could make them less inclined to use practices where benefits may not directly accrue to them, including those related to herbicide-resistant management (Norsworthy et al. 2012). If that is the case, this potential barrier could hamper successful collective efforts. However, Frisvold et al. (2020), analyzing national-level data for US corn and soybean from 2010 to 2012, find no statistically significant differences in herbicide use or weed management practices between rented and owned land. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge that growers now have more experience with herbicide-resistant management and are increasingly concerned about weed resistance to herbicides. If land tenure proves to hinder collective action, providing renters with subsidies could be a viable solution to facilitate collective action practices.

One potential solution to address the challenges presented by herbicide-resistant weeds involves technological innovation. Certain companies are already marketing an artificial intelligence tool designed to be towed behind a tractor, capable of identifying and removing weeds using laser technology. Although this innovation necessitates a substantial initial investment, it reduces herbicide usage and, importantly, mitigates the externalities associated with their applications. However, widespread adoption of such advancements may not occur as swiftly and extensively in other regions as in the United States. In countries like Argentina, where access to credit is limited or available at prohibitively high interest rates, farmers may be hesitant to embrace such technology on a large scale in the near future.

References

Bagavathiannan, M.V., S. Graham, Z. Ma, J.N. Barney, S.R. Coutts, A.L. Caicedo, R. De Clerck-Floate, N.M. West, L. Blank, A.L. Metcalf, M. Lacoste, C.R. Moreno, J.A. Evans, I. Burke, H. Beckie. 2019. "Considering Weed Management as a Social Dilemma Bridges Individual and Collective Interests." Nature Plants 5:343-351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0395-y.
Dill, G.M. 2005. "Glyphosate-Resistant Crops: History, Status and Future." Pest Management Science 61(3):219-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1008.
Dover, M.J., and B.A. Croft. 1986. "Pesticide Resistance and Public Policy." BioScience 36(2):78-85. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310107.
Duke, S.O., and S.B. Powles. 2008. "Glyphosate: A Once-in-a-Century Herbicide." Pest Management Science 64:319-325. 
Ervin, D., and G.B. Frisvold. 2016. "Are Community-Based Approaches to Manage Herbicide Resistance Wisdom or Folly?" Choices 31(4). https://www.choicesmagazine.org/UserFiles/file/cmsarticle_548.pdf.
Ervin, D.E., and R. Jussaume. 2014. "Herbicide Resistance: Integrating Social Science into Understanding and Managing Weed Resistance and Associated Environmental Impacts." Weed Science 62:403-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-13-00085.1.
FAOSTAT. 2024. Soybean Producing Countries. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/.
Frisvold, G.B., J. Albright, D.E. Ervin, M.D.K. Owen, J.K. Norsworthy, K.E. Dentzman, T.M. Hurley, R.A. Jussaume, J.L. Gunsolus, and W. Everman. 2020. "Do Farmers Manage Weeds on Owned and Rented Land Differently? Evidence from US Corn and Soybean Farms." Pest Management Science 76(6):2030-2039. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5737.
Heap, I. 2023. "Herbicide Resistant Weeds in Argentina and the United States." The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. Available online: https://www.weedscience.org/.
Jussaume, R., and K. Dentzman. 2016. "Farmers’ Perspectives on Management Options for Herbicide-Resistant Weeds." Choices 31(4). https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/herbicide/farmers-perspectives-on-management-options-for-herbicide-resistant-weeds.
Klassen, W. 2000. "Area-Wide Approaches to Insect Pest Management: History and Lessons." In Proceedings: Area-Wide Control of Fruit Flies and Other Insect Pests. International Conference on Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests, and the 5th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, 28 May-5 June 1998, Penang, Malaysia. Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 21–38.
Lence, S.H., and A. Singerman. 2023. "When Does Voluntary Coordination Work? Evidence from Area-Wide Pest Management." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 105(1):243-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12308.
Livingston, M., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. Unger, C. Osteen, D. Schimmelpfennig, T. Park, and D.M. Lambert. 2015. "The Economics of Glyphosate Resistance Management in Corn and Soybean Production." Economic research report ERR-184. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45354/err-184.pdf?v=8927.3.
Miranowski, J.A., and G.A. Carlson. 1986. "Economic Issues in Public and Private Approaches to Preserving Pest Susceptibility." In Board on Agriculture (ed.) Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 436-448.
Morris, S., and H.S. Shin. 2006. "Global Games: Theory and Applications." In M. Dewatripont, L.P. Hansen and S.J. Turnovsky (eds). Advances in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, 56-114.
Norsworthy, J.K., S.M. Ward, D.R. Shaw, R.S. Llewellyn, R.L. Nichols, T.M. Webster, K.W. Bradley, G. Frisvold, S.B. Powles, N.R. Burgos, W.W. Witt, and M. Barrett. 2012. "Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations." Weed Science 60(SP1):31-62. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-11-00155.1.
Penna, J.A., and D. Lema. 2003. “Adoption of Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans in Argentina: An Economic Analysis.” In N. Kalaitzandonakes (ed.) Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agrotechnology. New York: Kluwer-Plenum, 203-220.
Relevamiento de Tecnología Agrícola Aplicada (ReTAA). 2023. Prácticas Ambientales En La Producción Agrícola Argentina 2021/22. Informe Mensual 65.
Singerman, A., and P. Useche. 2019. "The Role of Strategic Uncertainty in Area-Wide Pest Management Decisions of Florida Citrus Growers." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(4):991-1011. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaz006.
Swinton, S.M., and B. Van Deynze. 2017. "Hoes to Herbicides: Economics of Evolving Weed Management in the United States." The European Journal of Development Research 29:560-574. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0077-4.
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). 2023. "Recent Trends in GE Adoption." Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-u-s/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/.
Van Deynze, B., S.M. Swinton, and D.A. Hennessy. 2022. "Are Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds a Threat to Conservation Agriculture? Evidence from Tillage Practices in Soybeans." American Journal Agricultural Economics 104(2):645-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12243.
VanGessel, M.J. 2001. “Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed from Delaware.” Weed Science 49(6):703-705. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4046416.

Suggested citation

Singerman, A., and S.H. Lence. 2024. "Argentinean Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Collective Management of Herbicide Resistance." Agricultural Policy Review, Fall 2024. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/fall-2024/argentinean-farmers-attitudes-toward-collective-management-herbicide-resistance/.