Ivo Brants_Tillage_Prague_June2011


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ivo Brants_Tillage_Prague_June2011

  1. 1. Roundup Ready® Maize and till d tillage practices ti Prague , June 2011 Ivo Brants Regulatory Sciences Lead, EMEA
  2. 2. Controlling weeds has been a challenge throughout the history of agriculture • Prior to chemical herbicides, tillage and other mechanical methods were the primary weed control tools • Extensive tillage was a contributing factor to the Dust Bowl in the 1930 s 1930’s which led to the formation of NRCS and the move towards conservation tillage1930’s 1940’s 1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s2 Photo courtesy of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
  3. 3. Technological advances have increased the number of tools available for controlling weeds • The invention of synthetic chemical herbicides in the 1950 s 1950’s and 1960’s offered 1960 s growers a new set of tools for controlling weeds • Roundup and other broad spectrum herbicides offered farmers a new burndown tool1930’s 1940’s 1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s3 Photos courtesy of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
  4. 4. Biotechnology has provided growers with additional too s their tools in t e quest to co t o weeds control eeds Herbicide tolerant crops have Growers have adopted these enabled growers to use broad crops broadly due to several spectrum herbicides in crop p p key benefits to their weed for greater weed control control systems Efficacy Convenience Cost1930’s 1940’s 1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s4
  5. 5. Adoption of Herbicide Tolerant traits (% surface cultivated, source USDA)100 Soja (31 M ha) 90 Cotton (3 M ha) 80 Maíze (32 M ha) 70 Sugar Beet (0,45 M ha) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
  6. 6. Role of Maize in the EU 27 Crop Rotation p Maize area % area Member State (1.000 (1 000 ha) corn after corn France 3127.6 31% Romania 2819.6 41% Germany 1738.9 19% Italy It l 1411.7 1411 7 43% Hungary 1308.5 14% Poland 656.7 30% Spain 507.4 29% Bulgaria B l i 380.9 380 9 35% Czech Rep. 281.3 11% Austria 252.5 21% Netherlands 249.1 66% Slovakia Sl ki 245.1 245 1 11% Belgium 215.0 32% Greece 200.0 29% Portugal 162.0 29%Analysis of the economic, social and environmental impacts of options for the longterm EU strategy against Diabrotica virgifera (Western Corn Rootworm), a regulated harmful organism ofmaize, to support the drafting of the Commission Impact Assessment. (Final report). European Commission, DG SANCO, Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels, 04.06.2009
  7. 7. Major Weeds in European Maize Production (Bi)Annual dicots Annual grasses Perennial dicots Perennial grassesAmaranthus retroflexus Alopecurus myosuroides Cirsium arvense Agropyron repensCapsella bursa-pastoris Digitaria sp. Convolvulus arvensis Cynodon dactylonChenopodium album Echinochloa crus-galli Cyperus rotundusDatura stramonium Poa annua Sorghum halepense g pGalium aparine Setaria sp.Lamium sp. Major weed control strategies in European maize production:MatricariaM t i i sp. • Around 50 maize selective active substances on Annex 1 of EU DirectivePolygonum sp. 91/414. General trend goes to less compounds in the future.Solanum nigrum • Between 14 and 33 active substances registered per member stateStellaria media • Herbicides are usually mixed to control the local weed flora • 1 or 2 (seldom 3) herbicide applications per maize cropVeronica sp. • Application timings differ widely. There is a tendency towards pre-Xanthium sp. emergence applications i S th li ti in Southern E Europe and t d towards post- d t emergence treatments in Northern Europe.Geranium sp.
  8. 8. Weeds represent a significant threat to agricultural productivity and cause losses even with control efforts Potential and Actual Production Losses from Weeds • Potential crop losses for Corn, Soybeans and Cotton Globally from weeds have been 100% estimated to be 30-Percent of Attainable Production n 90% 40% of total 80% productivity for corn, 70% soybeans and cotton 60% 50% 40% • 8-10% of productivity 30% is lost using current 20% weed control practices f 10% 0% Corn Cotton Corn Cotton oybeans oybeans So So Potential Loss from Weeds Actual Loss from Weeds Loss from Weeds Production Potential Net of Loss to Weeds Source: Adapted from E.-C. Oerke Rhienische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet Bonn, 8 Crop losses to pests, 2006, J. of Agricultural Science
  9. 9. Roundup Ready® Maize Weed Control Concept 1 2. Roundup (max. 1080 g ae) 1. residual herbicide pre-emergence 3 6 8 corn leaf stage g weed sensitive period1. Apply any registered residual maize herbicide at reduced rate before emergence of corn2. Control later emerging weeds with Roundup (max 1080 g ae) by respecting a) ) weed height: less than 10 cm g b) corn growth stage: latest at 3 leaf stage 9
  10. 10. Weed control in Roundup Ready® Maize in Southern Europecomparison of pre-emergence and post program (3 trials, Spain 2009) pre emergence % control t /ha
  11. 11. Trials with RR-maize in Malpica (Toledo), Spain. June 4th, 2006 37 DAT Harness GTZ 4,5 l/ha 10 DAT Roundup 3 l/ha
  12. 12. Roundup Ready® Maize Weed Control Concept 2 2. Roundup (max. 1080 g ae) 2 R d 1. tank mix Roundup (max. 1080 only if neccessary g ae) and residual herbicide 3 6 8 corn leaf stage weed sensitive period1. Apply a tank mix of Roundup and a compatible residual maize herbicide (at reduced1 rate) at 3 leaf stage of corn2. In case of high weed pressure apply Roundup again In both cases the application timing is triggered like in concept 1 by weed height (less than 10 cm) and crop growth stage 12
  13. 13. Weed control in Roundup Ready® Maize in Northern Europecomparison of pre-emergence versus full post program (5 trials, CZ 2009) pre emergence % control t /ha
  14. 14. Roundup Ready® Maize Weed Control Concept 3 2. 2 Roundup 1. Roundup (max. 1080 g ae) (max. 1080 g ae) 3 6 8 corn leaf stage weed sensitive period 1. Apply Roundup at 3 leaf stage of corn 1 2. Depending on weed pressure apply Roundup a second time latest at 8 leaf stage of corn In both cases the application timing is triggered by weed height (less than 10 cm) and crop growth stage(the pure Roundup concept is a prerequisite to register Roundup over the top in Roundup Ready maize) 14
  15. 15. Roundup Ready® Maize Weed Control Concept 4 Roundup (max. 1440 g ae) 8 corn leaf stage weed sensitive periodEspecially in warmer climates the late control of perennial weeds like Convolvulus arvensis isa major concern in maize productionThe Roundup Ready system in maize offers a new solution for this problem Start with concept 1 to 3 at max 720 g ae of Roundup at the 1st application Apply 1440 g ae of Roundup latest at 8 leaf stage of corn when perennial weeds have sufficient leaf area for take up of glyphosate 15
  16. 16. Potential Partner Herbicides for Roundup Ready® maize in EuropeBrand name(s) Active ingredient  HRAC / Herbicide class  Company Harness, Guardian Acetochlor K3 / Chloroacetamides  Monsanto / DowDual Gold  s‐Metolachlor K3 / Chloroacetamides  Syngenta Spectrum, Frontier  Dimethenamid‐p K3 / Chloroacetamides BASFSuccessor Pethoxamid / K3 / Chloroacetamides Staehler Int.Click, Chac,…. Terbuthylazine C1 / PS II Inhibitor severalClio Topramezone F2 / Inh. of 4‐HPPD  BASFMerlin / Emerode / Isoxaflutol F2 / Inh. of 4‐HPPD  / BayerBanvel Dicamba O / Benzoic acid SyngentaStomp SC  Pendimethalin K1 / Dinitroaniline BASF 16
  17. 17. The Positive impacts of no-till system ‐ 90% less soil erosion. ‐ 40% less fuel use. ‐ Maintenance or improvement of the soil organic matter. ‐ Increase in soil fertility /biodiversity (chemical, physical and biological). ‐ Higher water use efficiency Higher water use efficiency. ‐ Lower production costs. ‐ Higher production stability and yield potential. TANGIBLE BENEFITS FOR THE FARMER‐ Better soils, higher capability to produce food and energy.‐ Less competition for drinkable water (strategic resource). p ( g )‐ Higher water quality (lower erosion and contamination risk).‐ GHG emissions reduction, positive impact on climate change.‐ Less pressure on HCV and fragile areas (by production increase).‐ Possibility of producing in degraded and/or fragile lands without the known risks of Possibility of producing in degraded and/or fragile lands  without the known risks of conventional tillage. BENEFITS TANGIBLE FOR THE SOCIETY  Certified Agriculture The evolution of NT
  18. 18. Roundup® and Roundup Read® crops have enabled the broad expansion of conservation tillageHerbicide U Data d Conservation TillH bi id Use D t and C ti Tillage Ad ti i U S Adoption in U.S. Corn, Soybeans and Cotton – 1990-2008 • Conservation tillage acres in corn, soybeans and cotton have grown by 40M acres between 1990 and 2008 while herbicide use remained flat • This has dramatically shifted the face of agriculture with fewer passes in the field, less fuel usage, and reduced erosion Sources: GfK, Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)18
  19. 19. Tillage Practices Before and After Adopting Roundup Ready Crops by Cropping System1 Before Roundup Ready After Roundup Ready % of Growers % of Growers 16 20 29 29 25 32 No-Till 37 43 40 11 54 28 43 44 51 35 Reduced 50 73 26 42 47 43 37 28 27 24 Conv. 20 15 18 13*Conventional crop was generally corn or rice1Roundup Ready Crops: Corn, Cotton, Soybean, Source: 2005/2006 Grower Survey
  20. 20. Evolution of Conservation Tillage in Brazil70% of crops in Brazil use the s stem Bra il se system.50% of the ~1.1 million hectares of cotton use the system today30% of the 13 million ha of maize use the system80% of the 20 million ha of soy use the system 25,500 GMO 25,500 23,600 +17% 21,900 20,200 20 200 18,700 17,400 14,300 13,400 11,300 11 300 5,500 8,800 5,500 575 85/86 95/96 05/06 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 (in thousand hectares)Source: FEBRADP - Brazilian Federation of No-till Farmers 20
  21. 21. Evolution Direct Drilling in Argentina 1990/91-2008/0930 Million of ha2520 GMO151050 Source : Aapresid
  22. 22. Introduction and adoption of technologies in agriculture in Argentina (1980-2000) (1980 2000) 100 Adoption of GM varietiesPlanted ar (%) 80 rea Agro-chemical g 60 use No-tillage 40 20 Precision Agriculture 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: Viglizzo, 2006; adapted from Satorre, 2005
  23. 23. Roundup Ready® Maize in Argentina‐ Adopted by small (< 500 ha), medium, and large farmers (>  5000 ha), since 2004.‐ 70% of the crops in Argentina are under no‐till.‐ 47% of the corn is RR (mainly NK‐603, and the rest is GA‐21),  offered by around 10 seed companies. y p
  24. 24. Roundup Ready corn weed control program Argentina FALLOW PLANTING DEVELOPMENT HARVEST V4-V5 Glyphosate Residual herbicide (atrazine, acetochlor) Certified Agriculture The evolution of NT
  25. 25. GAP 1: No Tillage (residue cover) Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Why? GAP 2: Crop rotation: GAP 2: Crop rotation GAP 2: Crop rotation: rotation: Because there are scientific fundamentals that  Diversity and intensity correlate soil health indicator values with  agronomical practices GAP 3: Balanced crop nutrition GAP 3: Balanced crop nutrition ControlNitrogen +Phosphor +Ph hSulphur GAP  4: Integrated pest  management. GAP 5: Efficient and responsible management of agrochemicals Courtesy Agustín Bianchini Aapresid
  26. 26. A Sustainability Index y Environmental Index Topsoil/output Water use/outputA recent survey of C Canadian difarmers planting herbicide-tolerantcanola using conservation tillagepractices found that 86 per cent h i f d h havereduced soil erosion and 83 per centindicated greater soil moisture.Source : Smyth et al 2011, Agricultural Systems 104 (2011) 403–410 26
  27. 27. A Sustainability IndexEnvironmental Index Topsoil/output Water use/output Inputs use/output Land use/output Energy use/output Biodiversity yOverall acres convertedto/from productionGrower economic indexAbility to meet global demand 27
  28. 28. Our Vision: Monsanto is the farmer’sleading provider of the most effective, Efficacyaffordable, convenient, and sustainablesolutions for weed control in Monsanto’sseed & trait systems. Convenience Cost Sustainable 28
  29. 29. Thank you !