Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact

For Improving Pest Management In U.S. Agriculture

An Analysis of 40 Case Studies June 2002

Herbicide Tolerant Sugarbeet

Leonard P. Gianessi Cressida S. Silvers

Sujatha Sankula Janet E. Carpenter

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy

1616 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 328-5048 Fax: (202) 328-5133

E-mail: ncfap@ncfap.org Website: www.ncfap.org

Financial Support for this study was provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto, The Biotechnology Industry Organization, The Council for Biotechnology Information, The Grocery Manufacturers of America and CropLife America.

2

20. SUGARBEET

Herbicide Tolerant

Production

Sugarbeets are grown in twelve states on 1.5 million acres with a production value of $1.2 billion

per year. Table 20.1 shows a state-by-state breakdown of sugarbeet production in 1999. Sugar

recovery rate from sugarbeets is approximately 15%. In 2000, sugar produced from sugarbeets

totaled 4.4 million tons.

Sugarbeets are biennial and have a two-year life cycle [31]. In the U.S. sugarbeets are grown for

only the first year of the life cycle. During this time the crop is in a non-reproductive stage and

produces large storage roots that are harvested for sugar extraction. Generally, sugarbeets are

not allowed to develop seed. Sugarbeets grown specifically for seed are grown in Oregon.

Sugarbeet seed production in Oregon is located in the western part of the state in the Willamette

valley. No sugarbeets are produced in western Oregon for commercial use in producing sugar.

Sugarbeets are not edible when harvested. The majority of sugar produced from the U.S.

sugarbeet crop is sold within the U.S. for domestic use. More than one half of the sugar

produced in the U.S. comes from sugarbeets.

There are 28 sugarbeet processing plants in the U.S., all located in or near producing areas due to

the deterioration of sugar content after the beets are harvested and the high cost of transporting

fresh roots.

In recent years with oversupply and declining prices for sugar, average net economic returns

have declined for sugarbeet growers, and were negative for four of the last six years. (See Table

20.2.) As a result, sugarbeet processing plants in less efficient producing areas have closed

leading to a reduction in sugarbeet acreage in California and a complete withdrawal of sugarbeet

acreage in Texas. [22] (See Table 20.3.)

3

Each sugarbeet processing company maintains a list of approved varieties which the company

will accept for processing based on such key characteristics as root yield, sucrose content and

disease resistance [25].

Weed Species

Sugarbeet is a low growing crop, and many weeds grow taller than sugarbeets. Competition

from uncontrolled annual weeds can suppress sugarbeets so severely that no crop is produced.

Grass competition usually is not as serious as that from broadleaf weeds because the annual

grasses do not compete for light as effectively as broadleaf weeds. For example, one foxtail

plant per sugarbeet plant reduced yield by 26%, compared to 70% for one redroot pigweed plant

[7]. The actual economic losses from these two weed infestations would be greater than the

indicated yield reductions because the grassy weeds, as well as the broadleaf weeds, make

mechanical machine harvesting difficult or impossible [7]. Weeds should be controlled within

four weeks after sugarbeet emergence in order to avoid yield losses from weed competition.

Sugarbeet fields are infested with combinations of grasses and broadleaf weed species that vary

in their importance throughout U.S. growing regions [7]. Table 20.4 delineates the infestation

levels of thirteen weed species infesting U.S. sugarbeet acreage. Table 20.5 contains estimates

of the yield loss that would occur in sugarbeets if normal populations of each of the species were

left uncontrolled.

From the late 1800s until the 1950s, weeds were controlled in sugarbeets primarily through

mechanical implements, such as cultivators and rotary hoes and by workers with short-handled

hoes and handweeding by stoop labor [7]. The cost of weeding and cultivating an acre in 1892

represented about one-fifth of the total production cost of sugarbeets while in the 1950s the cost

of mechanical implements and handweeding represented about one-quarter of the total cost of

sugarbeet production [8].

Herbicide Use

In the early 1950s, with the increasing cost of hand labor for weeding and with the decreasing

availability of labor, the sugarbeet industry was faced with the absolute necessity of finding

alternative weed control techniques in order for growers to stay in business [9]. In the late

1940s, researchers had begun an evaluation of organic chemicals for chemical weed control in

4

sugarbeets. In the 1950s, mixtures of TCA plus endothall were used preemergence and

postemergence to control grasses and broadleaf weeds. Annual grasses were controlled

effectively postemergence for the first time with dalapon. During the latter half of the 1960s,

many compounds were evaluated. Broad spectrum weed control was achieved when cycloate

was applied preplant followed by postemergence desmedipham, phenmedipham or a mixture of

the two herbicides. In the mid-1950s, EPTC was developed as a preplant, soil-incorporated

treatment for control of many grassy weeds. Trifluralin was developed for use as a layby

treatment to provide late season weed control after sugarbeets were well established. In the mid-

1960s, researchers reported that pyrazon effectively controlled many broadleaf weeds when

applied preplant, preemergence or postemergence. In the 1970s, ethofumesate became available

for control of grasses and broadleaf weeds, when applied either alone or in mixtures (preplant,

preemergence or postemergence). In the mid-1980s, sethoxydim received registration for

postemergence use for grass control [7].

Beginning the early 1980s, the trend in herbicide usage in sugarbeets was to use fewer soil

applied and more postemergence herbicides.

Desmedipham and phenmedipham became the most widely used postemergence herbicides.

Mixtures of desmedipham and phenmedipham were often applied in two sequential applications

five to seven days apart. Split applications injure sugarbeets less than a complete full dose

application [7].

By the late 1980s, weed management systems, including cultivation, handweeding and

herbicides, had been developed that controlled 95 to 99% of the total weed populations in

sugarbeets. The most important weeds not adequately controlled by herbicides in the late 1980s

were pigweed, kochia, and smartweed [7]. Thus, handweeding remained an important part of the

weed control program for sugarbeets into the 1990s.

Between 1992 and 1997, sugarbeet growers significantly increased application of postemergence

herbicides due to the introduction of new active ingredients that broadened the weed control

spectrum and provided greater total weed control. Generally, the newly registered active

ingredients were used in various combinations with older postemergence products, such as

5

desmedipham, phenmedipham and ethofumesate. In the Red River Valley, sugarbeet growers

reported using 17 different postemergence treatment combinations in 1992, while in 1997, they

reported the use of 43 different postemergence combinations [11].

In 1992, sethoxydim was the only postemergence grass control herbicide available to sugarbeet

growers. In 1996, quizalofop and clethodim were registered and used by sugarbeet growers for

postemergence grass control. Their increased use resulted in some decrease in sethoxydim’s use.

Triflusulfuron was registered for sugarbeet growers in the mid-1990s. Triflusulfuron is selective

in sugarbeet and applied postemergence for control of many important broadleaf weeds and

suppression of several annual grasses. When applied with combinations of desmedipham and

phenmedipham, triflusulfuron improves control of important weeds in sugarbeets, such as

redroot pigweed, kochia, common mallow, velvetleaf and smartweed. Following triflusulfuron’s

widespread use in 1996 and 1997, sugarbeet growers reported a significant decline in the

importance of redroot pigweed as a problem [11]. Clopyralid was introduced for broadleaf

control, as well, in the mid-1990s. The addition of clopyralid improves control of Canada thistle,

common cocklebur, ragweed and nightshade.

The most popular postemergence combination reported in 2000 in the Red River Valley (on 76%

of the acres) was a combination of clopyralid, triflusulfuron, clethodin and desmedipham. This

combination provides good to excellent control of all common broadleaf weeds in sugarbeets.

(See Table 20.6.)

The increase in postemergence herbicide applications in sugarbeets in the 1990’s led to a

significant reduction in the number of acres that were handweeded. In the Red River Valley,

75% of the acres were handweeded in 1990 while only 25% were handweeded in 2000.

Herbicides registered for use in sugarbeets have a narrow range of selectivity, and changes in

environmental conditions can heighten their phytotoxic effects. High temperatures and high

intensity light can increase injury following treatment with desmedipham and

phenmedipham [10]. Herbicide damage to the beet crop can occur from frost within two days of

treatment, too much rain or high winds. Sugarbeets are susceptible to injury from soil-applied

preplant/preemergence herbicides due to changes in environmental conditions (too much

6

precipitation); additionally, soil-applied herbicides are ineffective if there is inadequate soil

moisture, high organic matter in the soil, or if the weeds have already emerged. Because near

complete weed control is needed to avoid economic yield losses, rates of herbicides must be

applied precisely for soils and environmental conditions to achieve satisfactory weed control

without incurring injury [7].

Currently, sugarbeet growers have a very short window in which to control weeds. If any

environmental factor such as rain, wind, frost or excessive heat prevents the farmer from

applying herbicides on schedule, there is a risk of losing the field to weeds. The only remedy is

to use hand labor to rescue the field or simply disk it out.

Split applications with reduced rates has reduced sugarbeet injury and increased weed control

compared to single dose full applications.

Timing of the conventional sequential postemergence herbicide applications is extremely critical

for successful weed control in sugarbeets. A narrow time frame exists in which most broadleaf

weeds are susceptible to lower herbicide rates [18]. Only small weeds are controlled adequately.

A tank mixture of one of the grass control herbicides (sethoxydim, quizalofop, clethodim) plus

one of the broadleaf herbicides often will give less control of grasses than the grass herbicide

alone. The broadleaf herbicide antagonizes the grass control from the grass herbicide plus the oil

adjuvant needed for best grass control may cause excessive sugarbeet injury from conventional

rates of the broadleaf herbicides. Thus, a grower who wants to use a split application of

desmedipham and/or phenmedipham, and who also wants to use sethoxydim for wild oat control,

must treat weeds three times within a five to ten day period to achieve weed control and

minimize the risk of sugarbeet injury [7]. The micro-rate treatment includes the grass herbicide

plus adjuvant. Three applications of reduced rates (one-third rate) of grass herbicide plus

adjuvant has given excellent grass control. The effectiveness of five different herbicide

treatments in controlling the twelve weed species infesting sugarbeets is delineated in Table

20.6.

7

The buildup of kochia resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides is due to the widespread use of

these herbicides in most rotational crops and in sugarbeets. Triflusulfuron is an ALS-inhibiting

herbicide that gives excellent control of kochia that is not resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides,

but it will not control ALS-resistant kochia. A recent experiment determined that 98% of kochia

seed samples collected from sugarbeet fields in North Dakota and Minnesota produced plants

that were resistant to triflusulfuron [17].

Research indicates that the best kochia control (82%) from conventional herbicides would

include a soil-applied herbicide followed by three, and perhaps four, applications of

postemergence herbicides, including ethofumesate, at conventional rates [17].

Table 20.7 displays estimates of current herbicide use in sugarbeets by state. As can be seen,

individual herbicides commonly are applied more than once to a treated acre. On average, a

sugarbeet acre receives 11.7 herbicide acre treatments during the year. (An acre treatment is

defined as one treatment of one acre with a single herbicide. An acre treated with multiple

herbicides in combination is counted multiple times.) A total of 1.381 million pounds of active

ingredients were used in 2000, indicating an average use of 0.89 pound of active ingredient per

acre. Table 20.7 also shows estimates of current expenditures for sugarbeet herbicides.

Sugarbeet growers spent an estimated $115 million for herbicides in 2000 or $74 per acre.

Herbicide expenditures vary by state. Herbicide use survey data by state for 2000 were used to

derive estimates of herbicide acre treatments and expenditures by state as shown in Table 20.8.

As can be seen, Western sugarbeet growers (CA, CO, WA, WY) generally made significantly

fewer acre treatment applications (3-8) than Red River Valley growers (14). Herbicide

expenditures were lowest in Colorado and California ($30-38/A) and highest in Montana and

Washington (>$100/A).

In addition to herbicides, sugarbeet growers make extensive use of row cultivation and hand

labor for removing weeds. Table 20.9 contains estimates of the percent of sugarbeet acres by

state that are handweeded and cultivated. As can be seen, cultivation essentially is practiced

universally. Survey data from the Red River Valley indicates that the average acre is cultivated

from 1 to 3 times during the year. (See Table 20.10.) Table 20.11 summarizes sugarbeet weed

control costs by state.

8

Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Sugarbeet

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum non-selective herbicide that kills plants by binding to an enzyme

(EPSPS) which prevents the production of essential amino acids in the plants. An EPSPS gene

was isolated from a soil bacterium and it was determined that glyphosate would not bind to it.

Through the use of genetic engineering (agrobacterium), the gene from the soil bacteria was

inserted into the genome of sugarbeets [20]. When glyphosate is applied to the transgenic

sugarbeet, it binds to the original EPSPS in the plant. However, it does not bind to the

introduced EPSPS which continues to function and results in the production of the essential

amino acids. Glyphosate applied to a field of transgenic sugarbeets kills the weeds because they

have susceptible EPSPS while the sugarbeet plants remain unaffected. Field tests of transgenic

sugarbeets began in the U.S. in 1993 [20]. Approval for planting the glyphosate tolerant

sugarbeet seed with the associated use of glyphosate was granted in spring 1999.

Research in North Dakota and Minnesota demonstrated that two applications of glyphosate

produced less crop injury, equivalent control of ragweed and foxtail with higher sugarbeet yields

than three applications of desmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid plus one application of

sethoxydim [12] (see Table 20.12). A study including lambsquarters and cocklebur produced

similar results [15] (see Table 20.13). Experiments in North Dakota and Minnesota with ALS

resistant kochia indicated that two applications of glyphosate produced 100% control while three

applications of ethofumesate, phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron, clopyralid, and

clethodim provided 82% control. [13] (see Table 20.14) Two applications of glyphosate provided

100% control of wild oats and black nightshade [15, 17].

In Nebraska, sequential treatments of glyphosate provided similar weed control and less early

season crop injury than a conventional weed control program which consisted of phenmedipham

plus desmedipham plus triflusulfuron followed by phenmedipham plus desmedipham plus

triflusulfuron plus clopyralid followed by phenmedipham plus desmedipham plus sethoxydim.

[6]

In experiments at two locations over three years (1997-1999), it was determined that cultivation

of Roundup Ready sugarbeets that were cultivated two of five times with a row crop cultivator

9

never produced significantly more yield than uncultivated Roundup Ready sugarbeets [14].

Cultivation reduced sugarbeet yield in three of ten observations.

In Idaho, glyphosate treatments produced weed control equivalent to three applications of

ethofumesate combined with two applications of desmedipham and phenmedipham and

triflusulfuron [19]. In Oregon, two applications of glyphosate provided equal yield and weed

control in comparison to three applications of phenmedipham, desmedipham, and ethofumesate

[28].

Estimated Impacts

A recent economic analysis of alternative weed management systems in sugarbeets estimated the

technology fee for Roundup Ready seeds at $80/seed unit (100,000 seeds) [21]. Depending on

the seeding rate, the technology fee would average $41 to $57 per acre.

The use of glyphosate would allow sugarbeet growers to kill weeds at any growth stage, rather

than the current technique of precisely timed, sequential postemergence herbicide applications

for effective weed control. Glyphosate also has a broad weed spectrum, great crop selectivity

and provides control of weed biotypes resistant to other herbicides.

Current weed control costs on U.S. sugarbeet acreage averages approximately $136/A (see Table

20.11). Two applications of glyphosate at 0.75 lb/a per treatment are assumed to adequately

substitute for the currently used herbicides, cultivation and handweeding currently practiced for

weed control. No change in yield is expected from this substitution [27]. The cost of the

glyphosate is estimated at $10/lb.AI or $15/a for both treatments with an application cost of

$12/a for both treatments. The average technology fee is estimated at $49/a for the Roundup

Ready sugarbeets. These assumptions give a total cost of the Roundup Ready sugarbeet program

of $76/a, which is $60/a less expensive than the average cost of the current program. The

aggregate cost savings to U.S. sugarbeet growers is projected at $93.3 million/year on 1.56

million acres. Table 20.15 displays these potential cost savings by state. Current herbicide use

on U.S. sugarbeet acres averages 0.89 lb ai/a/yr. (see table 20.8). The substitution of two

glyphosate applications totaling 1.5 lb ai/a/yr implies an increase in herbicide use of

0.61lbai/A/yr. or 963,000 lbs/yr. Table 20.16 displays the projected change in herbicide use

10

amounts by state following the adoption of Roundup Ready sugarbeets. Instead of receiving

twelve treatments with individual herbicides, a sugarbeet acre will receive only two herbicide

treatments in the Roundup Ready system which represents a reduction of 10.6 million-herbicide

acre treatments/yr.

No sugarbeet processor has accepted transgenic sugarbeets through the 2001 growing season.

11

TABLE 20.1: Sugarbeets: Production and Value (1999) ACRES1 TONS VALUE STATE (000) (000) (Million $)

California 108 3,456 127 Colorado 68 1,459 46 Idaho 210 5,103 216 Michigan 190 3,534 116 Minnesota 470 9,447 347 Montana 62 1,468 59 Nebraska 66 1,258 42 North Dakota 247 5,138 195 Ohio 2 33 1 Oregon 20 494 20 Washington 27 825 27 Wyoming 57 1,205 47

Total 1,527 33,420 1,243 Source: [1], [2] 1 Harvested TABLE 20.2: Sugarbeet Production Economic Costs and Returns (U.S.)

($/A) Production Economic

Year Value Cost Return 2000 786 876 -90 1999 805 852 -47 1998 803 843 -40 1997 802 852 -50 1996 747 792 -45 1995 759 800 -41 1994 848 785 +63 1993 724 757 -33

Source: [3] [29]

12

TABLE 20.3: Sugarbeet Acres Harvested

(000) Year TX CA

1990 41 168 1991 30 158 1992 40 150 1993 39 136 1994 24 141 1995 19 114 1996 13 82 1997 13 99 1998 15 99 1999 0 108 2000 0 39 2001 0 55

Source: [1, 22] TABLE 20.4: Weed Infestation: U.S. Sugarbeet

% ACREAGE REQUIRING WEED SPECIES CONTROL

Broadleaves Pigweed 98 Lambsquarters 96 Kochia 61 Mustard, Wild 54 Nightshade 41 Buckwheat,Wild 41 Smartweed 25 Thistle, Canada 15 Cocklebur 13

Grasses Foxtail 55 Wild Oat 32 Barnyardgrass 14 Quackgrass 8

Source: [24]

13

TABLE 20.5: Weed Species and Potential Sugarbeet Yield Losses % Yield Loss Species If Uncontrolled

Barnyardgrass 10 Buckwheat, Wild 10 Cocklebur, Common 20 Foxtails 15 Kochia 75 Ladysthumb (Smartweed) 10 Lambsquarters, Common 15 Quackgrass 20 Mustard, Wild 20 Nightshade, Eastern Black 10 Oat, Wild 15 Pigweed, Redroot 20 Thistle, Canada 15

Source: [23, 25, 26] TABLE 20.6: Control of Weeds by Postemergence Herbicides

SPECIES

Sethoxydim or

Clethodim or

Quizalofop

Desmedipham & Phenmedipham

Desmedipham & Phenmedipham

& Ethofumesate

Clopyralid

Desmedipham & Clethodim & Clopyralid & Triflusulfuron

Buckwheat, Wild N F F-G F-G G-E Cocklebur, Common N P-F F E E Foxtail E F F-G P E Kochia N F F-G N E* Ladysthumb (Smartweed) N P F-G P-F G-E Lambsquarters, Common N G G-E P-F G-E Mallow, Common N P P P G-E Mustard, Wild N G-E G P E Nightshade, Eastern Black N F-G G F-G G-E Oat, Wild E N N N E Pigweed, Redroot N G G P G-E Thistle, Canada N N N G-E G-E

E = Excellent * Only if the kochia is not ALS-resistant. If it is, kochia control is only P-F. G = Good F = Fair P = Poor N = None Source: [4]

14

TABLE 20.7: Herbicide Use in U.S. Sugarbeets: 2000

Active Ingredient

% Acres Treated

# of Applications

Lb AI/A/Yr

Lb AI (000)

$/Lb AI1

$/Yr (Million)

Clethodim 46 2.5 0.11 77 95 7.31 Clopyralid 74 2.8 0.09 102 168 17.14 Cycloate 5 1.0 1.84 139 10 1.39 Desmedipham 94 2.8 0.18 270 78 21.06 EPTC 6 1.0 2.64 230 5 1.15 Ethofumesate 37 2.1 0.14 82 32 2.62 Glyphosate 13 1.1 0.43 86 14 1.20 Phenmedipham 80 2.6 0.14 170 78 13.30 Pyrazon 6 1.0 0.85 76 18 1.37 Quizalofop 10 1.6 0.06 9 148 1.33 Sethoxydim 11 1.7 0.33 56 50 2.80 Trifluralin 5 1.0 0.66 55 9 0.50 Triflusulfuron 83 2.7 0.02 29 1,525 44.22 Total 1,381 115.39

Source: [5] 1 Source [6] TABLE 20.8: Sugarbeet Herbicide Use by State HERBICIDE USE Acres Lbs/Yr # Acre State (000) Lbs/AI/A (000) Treatments/Acre $/A

CA 98 0.92 90 3.5 38CO 72 0.56 41 4.7 30ID 212 1.57 333 13.1 93MI 189 0.74 140 8.0 51MN 490 0.73 358 14.4 86MT 61 0.90 54 13.3 100NE 78 0.88 68 7.6 61ND 258 0.66 169 14.4 75OR 16 1.44 22 10.6 79WA 28 2.28 64 8.6 106WY 61 0.70 42 7.9 52U.S. Total 1,563 0.89 1,381 11.7 74

Source: Derived from [5]

15

TABLE 20.9: Other Weed Control Practices in Sugarbeet: 1999 %ACRES Handweeding Row Cultivation California 90 100 CO/NE/South WY 68 100 Idaho 88 100 Michigan 58 98 MT/North WY 31 98 Red River Valley 24 99 U.S. 47 99 Source: [24] TABLE 20.10: Postemergence Row Crop Cultivations: 2000 (Red River Valley)

# %

1 21 2 55 3 21 4 3

Source: [11]

16

TABLE 20.11: Cost of Sugarbeet Weed Control by State Acres Cultivation1 Handweeding2 Herbicides3 Applications4 TOTAL State (000) (000$) (000$) (000$) (000$) (000$) $/A

CA 98 1,372 4,802 3,724 1,176 11,074 113CO 72 1,008 2,664 2,160 864 6,696 93ID 212 2,968 10,176 19,715 5,088 37,918 178MI 189 2,646 6,048 9,639 3,402 21,735 115MN 490 6,860 6,370 42,140 11,760 67,130 137MT 61 854 1,037 6,100 1,464 9,455 155NE 78 1,092 2,886 4,758 1,404 10,140 130ND 258 3,612 3,354 19,350 6,192 32,588 126OR 16 224 768 1,268 288 2,548 159WA 28 392 1,344 2,968 504 5,208 186WY 61 854 2,257 3,172 1,098 7,381 121

Total 1,563 21,882 41,706 114,995 33,240 211,873 136

1 Calculated at two cultivations per acre at a cost of $7 per cultivation per acre. 2 Handweeding an acre is estimated to cost $55 per acre. Only a portion of each state’s acres are handweeded. (See Table 20.9: California 90%; Colorado/Nebraska/ Wyoming 68%; Idaho/Oregon/Washington 88%; Michigan 58%; Montana 31%; and Minnesota/North Dakota 24%.) 3 Average per acre herbicide costs (See Table 20.8) times the number of acres in the state. 4 An herbicide application is estimated to cost $6 per acre per application. Based on the number of treatments per acre (See Table 20.8.), each state has been assigned an average # of applications per acre: California/Colorado 2; Michigan/Nebraska/ Oregon/Washington/Wyoming 3; and Idaho/Minnesota/Montana/North Dakota 4.,

17

TABLE 20.12: Weed Control in Transgenic Sugarbeet in North Dakota and Minnesota, 1997 Sugarbeet Ragweed Foxtail Beet Injury Control Control Yield Active Ingredient (%) (%) (%) T/A Glyphosate – 2X 0 100 100 27.1 2pt/A Desmedipham +) Triflusulfuron + ) 3X

6 100 100 24.3

Clopyralid + ) Plus Sethoxydim 1X

Source: [12] TABLE 20.13: Herbicides in Roundup Ready Sugarbeet, 1999 % Control, One Month Following Last Treatment

Active Ingredient Injury (%) Ragweed Foxtail Lambsquarters Cocklebur

Glyphosate 2X 0 85 93 97 100 Desmedipham +) Triflusulfuron + ) 4X 6 80 95 98 100 Clopyralid + ) Clethodim )

Source: [15] TABLE 20.14: Kochia Control in North Dakota and Minnesota, 1999

Active Ingredient % Kochia Control

Glyphosate – 2X 100 2pt/A Ethofumesate + Phenmedipham + ) Desmedipham + Triflusulfuron + ) 3X 82 Clopyralid + Clethodim )

Source: [13]

18

TABLE 20.15: Production Cost Impacts of Adoption of Roundup Ready Sugarbeets

WEED CONTROL COSTS Acres ($ per Acre) Aggregate (million $/y)

State (000) Current* RR Current* RR

CA 98 113 76 11.1 7.4 CO 72 93 76 6.7 5.5 ID 212 178 76 37.9 16.1 MI 189 115 76 21.7 14.4 MN 490 137 76 67.1 37.2 MT 61 155 76 9.5 4.6 NE 78 130 76 10.2 5.9 ND 258 126 76 32.6 19.6 OR 16 159 76 2.5 1.2 WA 28 186 76 5.2 2.1 WY 61 121 76 7.4 4.6

Total 1,563 136 76 211.9 118.6 *(See Table 20.11)

19

TABLE 20.16: Herbicide Use Impacts of Adoption of Roundup Ready Sugarbeets

HERBICIDE Acres (lb/A) Aggregate (000 lb/yr)

State (000) Current* RR Current RR

CA 98 0.92 1.5 90 147 CO 72 0.56 1.5 41 108 ID 212 1.57 1.5 333 318 MI 189 0.74 1.5 140 284 MN 490 0.73 1.5 358 734 MT 61 0.90 1.5 54 91 NE 78 0.88 1.5 68 117 ND 258 0.66 1.5 169 387 OR 16 1.44 1.5 22 24 WA 28 2.28 1.5 64 42 WY 61 0.70 1.5 42 92 .

Total 1,563 0.89 1.5 1381 2344

*(See Table 20.8)

20

References

1. USDA, Sugar and Sweetener: Situation and Outlook Report, Economic Research

Service, January 2001. 2. USDA, Crop Values: 2000 Summary, National Agricultural Statistics Service, February

2001. 3. USDA, Sugar and Sweetener: Situation and Outlook Report, Economic Research

Service, May 2000/September 1996/September 1995/September 1997. 4. 2001 Sugarbeet Production Guide, Cooperative Extension Service, North Dakota State

University and University of Minnesota. 5. USDA, Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2000 Field Crops Summary, National Agricultural

Statistics Service, May 2001. 6. 2000 Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops, University of Minnesota,

Extension Service, BU-3157-S. 7. Schweizer, Edward E., and Alan G. Dexter, “Weed Control in Sugarbeets in North

America,” Reviews of Weed Science, 1987, 3:113-133. 8. Bohmont, D.W., et al., Chemical Weed Control in Sugarbeets, University of Wyoming,

Circular 65, April 1957. 9. Fults, Jess C., Weed Technology in Colorado – and a Program for Research, Colorado

State University, General Series 779, July 1962. 10. Bethlenfalvay, G., and R.F. Morris, “Desmedipham Phytotoxicity to Sugarbeets Under

Constant Light Versus Variable Light, Temperature and Moisture Conditions,” Weed Science, 1977, 25: 407-411.

11. Dexter, Alan G., et al., “Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices on Sugarbeet

in Eastern North Dakota and Minnesota,” Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports 1991/1997 separate volumes, North Dakota State University.

12. Dexter, Alan G., and John L. Luecke, “Weed Control in Transgenic Sugarbeets in North

Dakota and Minnesota, 1997” In 1997 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, North Dakota State University.

13. Dexter, Alan G., and John L. Luecke, “Kochia Control with Liberty, Roundup and

Conventional Herbicides, 1999” In 1999 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, North Dakota State University.

14. Dexter, Alan G., et al., “Influence of Cultivation on Yield of Roundup Ready and Liberty

Link Sugarbeets” In 1999 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, North Dakota State University.

21

15. Dexter, Alan G., and John L. Luecke, “Herbicides in Roundup Ready and Liberty Link

Sugarbeets, 1999” In 1999 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, North Dakota State University.

16. Wilson, Robert G., “Glyphosate and Glufosinate for Weed Control in Herbicide Tolerant

Sugarbeet” In 1998 Proceedings Western Society of Weed Science. 17. Dexter, Alan G., et al., “Postemergence Herbicides in Sugarbeets, 2000” In 2000

Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, North Dakota State University. 18. Young, Steve, et al., “Weed Emergence and Control in Sugarbeets” In 1998 Proceedings

Western Society of Weed Science. 19. Morishita, Don W., et al., “Weed Control in Glyphosate Resistant Sugarbeets” In 1999

Proceedings Western Society of Weed Science. 20. Doley, William P., “Field Tests of Glyphosate Tolerant Transgenic Sugarbeets in the Red

River Valley,” paper presented at 28th Biennial Meeting of the American Society of Sugarbeet Technologists, 1995.

21. Rice, Charles A., et al., “Economic Evaluation of Weed Management Systems in

Sugarbeets,” paper presented at the 30th Biennial Meeting of the American Society of Sugarbeet Technologists, February 2001.

22. “California Beet Producers Say Goodbye,” Capital Press, December 8, 2000. 23. Dexter, Alan, North Dakota State University, personal communication, May 1996. 24. Jacobsen, Barry J., et al., “Survey of Pesticide Use, IPM Practices and Pests of

Sugarbeets in the USA for 1998 and 1999,” paper presented at the 30th Biennial Meeting of the American Society of Sugarbeet Technologists, February 2001.

25. Renner, Karen, Michigan State University, Personal Communication, 26. Morishita, Don, University of Idaho, Personal Communication, 27. Ransom, Corey, Oregon State University, personal communication, June 2001. 28. Guza, Cory J., et al, “Weed Control In Roundup Resistant Sugarbeets”, Malheur

Experiment Station, Oregon State University, 1998. 29. Ali, Mic, “1999-2000 Sugarbeet Costs and Returns”, 2001 Sugarbeet Research and

Extension Report, North Dakota State University.