Bayer and Embrapa highlight that Integrated Weed Management generates savings and sustainability

According to an article recently published by Embrapa, the estimated total annual cost of weed resistance to control methods in Brazil reaches R＄9 billion in herbicide use and loss of productivity (Adegas et al, 2019). The adoption of Integrated Weed Management (IMPD) strategies is a sustainable alternative to reduce this cost, while increasing the productivity and profitability of rural producers.

Since 2017, Bayer and Embrapa have jointly conducted several studies on Integrated Weed Management, including mapping resistant populations and platform studies, in different production systems in the country.

The platforms consist of comparing different management strategies, starting with methods with lower investment and increasing complexity (with a consequent increase in investments in subsequent treatments). In low investment strategies, we consider the use of a single mechanism of action, with applications of herbicides in post-emergence of weeds and use of a second mechanism of action or mechanical control, only as interventions in case of need (generally when the resistant populations prevented activities such as planting and/or harvesting from being carried out); The medium investment consisted of rotating two to three mechanisms of action, in addition to the inclusion of pre-emergent herbicide applications. The high investment strategies included a greater number of action mechanisms, four to five, including pre-emergence applications, mechanical control of surviving plants after applications and introduction of cover crops into the system, highlighting the planting of Brachiaria ruziziensis .

Therefore, it is clear that weed resistance burdens field operations, harming herbicide and seed technologies and threatening agriculture itself. On the other hand, it is common knowledge that MIPD strategies can delay the development of resistant biotypes and guarantee the full performance of chemical and genetic tools. So why aren't MIPD strategies adopted massively by the majority of farmers? How can we convince them of the benefits of MIPD strategies?

Part of the goals of our platform studies is to answer these two questions. The first is cultural, most farmers have to see it to believe it, that is, they want instant results; and this is something unattainable in the short term for MIPD, it takes time and investment to see and enjoy its benefits. This brings us to the second question: How to convince them? In these long-term platform studies we evaluate not only weed control, seed bank and resistance development, but we also address an issue of great relevance to farmers, productivity and cost/revenue. With this information, we not only show the benefits of MIPD in the field, but also where it really matters to farmers, their pockets. As the harvests progress, when comparing different management strategies, we can observe a clear trend towards a reduction in resistant populations and an increase in productivity and profitability in areas where MIPD strategies were adopted.

Below we share with you the profitability graphs of different production systems studied on our Platforms in Brazil, including Soy/Wheat, Soy/Corn and Soy/Cotton. We compared three levels of investment in weed management (Low, Medium and High). In short, in the long run, MIPD pays off and farmers can see it in their fields and pockets!

Daniel Nigro, manager of agronomic solutions at Bayer, and Décio Karam, researcher Embrapa Corn and Sorgo