Estimating the Theoretical Impacts of Pesticide Removal on the Top Three U.S. Commodity Crops
Pesticides have helped farmers prevent yield losses and have reduced costs associated with mechanical weed control. However, there are some concerns of harmful effects arising from improper use of these chemicals. Researchers investigated the theoretical consequences of removing pest control chemicals from agriculture. They found that without pesticides, achieving the same crop yield would produce more greenhouse gas emissions and require more land, water and energy.
The Problem
While pesticides have been reported to help prevent yield losses and have reduced costs associated with mechanical weed control, concerns about potential harmful effects have led to global conversations around advocacy for reduced pesticide use. To evaluate the relative value of pesticides, including fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, a study was performed to investigate the potential impact of removing chemical pesticides from agricultural production.
The Work
Marty Matlock, a professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering with the University of Arkansas and the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, and his team dedicated three years to performing a life cycle assessment of corn, soybeans and cotton. The life cycle assessment quantified the impacts of removing pesticides on short-term climate change (100 years), fossil and nuclear energy use, land use measured as land occupation and biodiversity, and water consumption. To collect this information, researchers obtained data on six county-level growing seasons for corn, soybeans, and cotton in the nation’s top agricultural-producing states.
CropLife America, which represents pesticide makers, prompted and provided funding support for the life cycle assessment.
“They have a vested interest in advocating for the use of chemicals. We do not,” Matlock said. “They came to us because we’re independent scientists and wanted to know if we could answer the question: ‘Is it bad to take these things out of these three crops from a sustainability perspective?’
Matlock said talk of removing pesticides from agriculture prompted the study’s question, centered around a conversation of sustainability and regenerative agriculture.
The Results
The study revealed that pesticide use advances sustainable agriculture. To continue producing enough food for the growing global population with the currently available land and resources, the researchers propose that chemical pesticides are necessary. Without the chemical control from pesticide use, the effects were strongest on soybeans due to insects causing yield loss. The second and third most substantial effects were weed impacts on soybeans and insect impacts on cotton. Within the study, lack of weed and insect control also led to corn production seeing the most loss.
“There is a cost, a risk, associated with the use of pesticides, and there’s a cost, a risk, associated with not using the pesticides,” Matlock said. “What happens when you take them out? What we showed is that it’s really bad. The impacts were increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased water use, increased land use and increased energy use.”
The Value
The work shows that proposals for blanket removal of pesticides from agriculture could prove devastating and make farming less profitable, effectively disincentivizing farming from a business perspective. The life cycle assessment was peer-reviewed and consistent with International Standard Organization standards. The work is to be submitted for journal publication, which will come with additional peer review.
Read the Research
Life Cycle Assessment of Impacts of Eliminating Chemical Pesticides Used in the Production of U.S. Corn, Soybeans, and Cotton (2024)
Final Report
Supported in part by
CropLife America, whose member companies create, sell or circulate pesticides and biotechnology products applied by American farmers.
About the Researcher
Marty Matlock
Professor in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
Ph.D. in Biosystems Engineering, Oklahoma State University
M.S. in Plant Physiology, Oklahoma State University
B.S. in Soil Chemistry, Oklahoma State University
Other Collaborators
The lead author of the study was Greg Thoma, director of agricultural modeling and lifecycle assessment at Colorado State University. Other co-authors of the report included Kyle Lawrence, a biological engineering research technician at the University of Arkansas; Jacob Hickman, a University of Arkansas engineering graduate research assistant; and Brandon Taylor, a research assistant in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department.
More Research Highlights
