resistance management and sustainable use of agricultural biotechnology 4 th annual berkeley...
TRANSCRIPT
Resistance Management and Resistance Management and Sustainable Use of Sustainable Use of Agricultural BiotechnologyAgricultural Biotechnology
44thth Annual Berkeley Bioeconomy Conference in conjunction with Annual Berkeley Bioeconomy Conference in conjunction with the NC-1034 Research Conference the NC-1034 Research Conference University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley March 24-6, 2011 March 24-6, 2011
George FrisvoldGeorge Frisvold
Department of Agricultural & Resource EconomicsDepartment of Agricultural & Resource Economics
University of ArizonaUniversity of Arizona
11
Problem StatementProblem Statement
Transgenic crop varieties with insect Transgenic crop varieties with insect resistant (IR) and herbicide resistant resistant (IR) and herbicide resistant (HR) traits can provide significant (HR) traits can provide significant economic and environmental benefitseconomic and environmental benefits
Benefits will be short-lived if Benefits will be short-lived if resistance not delayedresistance not delayed
22
Problem StatementProblem Statement
Despite 3 documented cases of field-Despite 3 documented cases of field-evolved resistance, there have been no evolved resistance, there have been no economically significant field control economically significant field control problems for IR Bt cropsproblems for IR Bt crops
Glyphosate-resistant weeds Glyphosate-resistant weeds havehave become an economically significant become an economically significant problem in the SE USproblem in the SE US
What accounts for the difference? What accounts for the difference?
33
What’s at Stake?What’s at Stake?
Loss of economic benefitsLoss of economic benefits
Loss of environmental benefitsLoss of environmental benefits
Negative demonstration effect for Negative demonstration effect for biotechnology biotechnology
44
Adoption of genetically modified (GM) crop varieties (as a share of world
hectares and as a share of hectares in approving countries)
CottoCottonn
MaizeMaize CanolCanolaa
SoybeanSoybeanss
Total World Hectares Planted to Total World Hectares Planted to GM Varieties (%)GM Varieties (%)
49%49% 23%23% 27%27% 66%66%
Hectares Planted to GM Hectares Planted to GM Varieties in Countries Where GM Varieties in Countries Where GM Varieties of Crop Have Been Varieties of Crop Have Been Approved (%)Approved (%)
78%78% 60%60% 72%72% 90%90%
Crop Hectares in Countries Crop Hectares in Countries where GM Varieties of Crop where GM Varieties of Crop Have Been Approved (% of total)Have Been Approved (% of total)
63%63% 39%39% 37%37% 74%74%
Crop Hectares in Countries Crop Hectares in Countries where GM Varieties of Crop where GM Varieties of Crop Have Have Not Not Been Approved (% of Been Approved (% of total)total)
37%37% 61%61% 63%63% 26%26%
55
Difference in ResistanceDifference in Resistance
Depends on attributes of Bt and HR Depends on attributes of Bt and HR crop technologiescrop technologies Consistency with IPM principlesConsistency with IPM principles Diversification vs. concentration in Diversification vs. concentration in
pest controlpest control
And on regulatory and institutional And on regulatory and institutional settingsetting This also depends on attributes of This also depends on attributes of
technologytechnology66
Properties of IR and HR Properties of IR and HR CropsCrops
IR CropsIR Crops HR cropsHR crops
SpectrumSpectrum NarrowNarrow BroadBroad
Target pest mobilityTarget pest mobility HighHigh LowerLower
ExternalitiesExternalities Bt microbial Bt microbial sprays / organic sprays / organic
agricultureagriculture
Initially none / Initially none /
Potential loss of Potential loss of conservation conservation
tillagetillage
Management intensityManagement intensity HighHigh LowLow
Compatibility with IPM Compatibility with IPM or IWMor IWM
HighHigh Low thus farLow thus far
77
Properties of IR and HR Properties of IR and HR CropsCrops
IR CropsIR Crops HR cropsHR crops
Availability of Availability of substitutessubstitutes
No close substitutes No close substitutes for Btfor Bt
Price signals Price signals suggest no scarcitysuggest no scarcity
Resistance Resistance managementmanagement
Federally regulatedFederally regulated Decentralized, Decentralized, voluntaryvoluntary
Scientific Scientific understanding of understanding of
RM strategiesRM strategies
Relatively highRelatively high LowerLower
Costs of RMCosts of RM Low for many Low for many growersgrowers
Prevention costs Prevention costs similar to ex post similar to ex post mitigation costsmitigation costs
Ability to monitor Ability to monitor RMRM
HigherHigher LowLow
88
Organization of Resistance Management
Miranowski & Carlson, National Academy book chapter (1986) Predicts organizational form of RM Useful starting point One would expect voluntary, monopolist
led RM for HR crops Expect more regulatory approach for IR
crops
3 3 Documented cases of Documented cases of field-evolved resistance to field-evolved resistance to
Bt cropsBt crops Spodoptera frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) (fall armyworm)
to Cry1F toxin in Bt corn in Puerto Ricoto Cry1F toxin in Bt corn in Puerto Rico
Busseola fuscaBusseola fusca (maize stalk borer) to (maize stalk borer) to Cry1Ab in Bt corn in South AfricaCry1Ab in Bt corn in South Africa
Helicoverpa zeaHelicoverpa zea (cotton bollworm) to (cotton bollworm) to Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in Bt cotton in the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in Bt cotton in the U.S. Southeast U.S. Southeast
Possible 4Possible 4thth case: (pink bollworm) in case: (pink bollworm) in IndiaIndia
1010
Bt crop resistance & Bt crop resistance & susceptibilitysusceptibility
5 studies from China and India with 5 studies from China and India with ambiguous evidence of resistance of ambiguous evidence of resistance of Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigera to Cry1Ac in Bt to Cry1Ac in Bt cotton. cotton.
No increase in resistance for 7 pestsNo increase in resistance for 7 pests
H. zeaH. zea and and H. armigeraH. armigera still susceptible still susceptible across many areasacross many areas
1111
Resistance has not led to field Resistance has not led to field level control failureslevel control failures
Chemical control of target pests still Chemical control of target pests still effective effective
Introduction of crops with multiple Bt Introduction of crops with multiple Bt toxinstoxins
But . . . 2010 saw increase in bollworm / But . . . 2010 saw increase in bollworm / budworm spraying and damages in MS budworm spraying and damages in MS DeltaDelta 1212
Acres treated trending up in LA & MS
Percent Cotton Acres Treated for Bollworm / Budworm in Delta
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AR LA MS
2007
2008
2009
2010
Applications up in all 3 states
Applications per Treated Acre for Bollworm / Budworm in Delta
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
AR LA MS
2007
2008
2009
2010
Greater losses per acre in 2010
Bales Lost per Acre Infested by Bolloworm / Budworm in Delta
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
AR LA MS
2007
2008
2009
2010
Weed species with glyphosate Weed species with glyphosate resistantresistant populations states with populations states with
glyphosate-resistant weed glyphosate-resistant weed populationspopulations
1616
Populations, blue
States, red
Costs of HR weedsCosts of HR weeds
Weed management cost estimates in US Weed management cost estimates in US range from $30-$160 per hectare range from $30-$160 per hectare
Severe cases have led to crop Severe cases have led to crop abandonment abandonment
Regarding Palmer amaranth Regarding Palmer amaranth “there are no economical programs to “there are no economical programs to manage this pest in cotton (Culpepper manage this pest in cotton (Culpepper and Kichler, 2009)” and Kichler, 2009)”
1717
Rise in Glyphosate, Loss of Diversity of Mode of Action
Percent of Total Herbicide Acre-Treatments from Phosphinic Acid Family
0
20
40
60
80
1996 2005 1996 2006 1996 2007
Corn Soybeans Cotton
Corn Reliant on Glyphosate and Triazine HerbicidesPercent of Total Corn Herbicide Acre-Treatments from the Phosphiniic Acid and Triazine Familieis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1998 2005
Triazine
Phosphinic acid
Price Indices for Agricultural Inputs Price Indices for Agricultural Inputs in the USin the US
2020
Herbicides
Insecticides
Fertilizer Fuels Labor
Tractors
Production Items
1997 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001999 97 108 87 89 110 106 932001 96 111 102 114 119 110 1012003 96 112 102 132 128 113 1042005 99 111 136 204 134 123 1182007 104 114 179 249 144 133 1342009 121 124 227 215 152 148 153
2010 115 126 203 267 151 154 157
Percent Change
1997-07 4% 14% 79% 149% 44% 33% 34%2007-10 10% 11% 14% 7% 7% 14% 17%
2121
0
20
40
60
80
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Cost of Herbicides / Cost of All Production Inputs
Cost of Glyphosate / Cost of All Production Items
Herbicide Prices Have Fallen Relative Herbicide Prices Have Fallen Relative to Other Inputsto Other Inputs
Special Issue: Herbicide Resistant Crops: Diffusion, Benefits, Pricing, and Resistance Management
Volume 12 // Number 3 & 4 // 2009
2222
Percent of growers often or always Percent of growers often or always adopting resistance management adopting resistance management practicepractice
2323
US Cotton
Source: Frisvold, Hurley, and Mitchell, 2009
Percent of Percent of growers often or growers often or always adopting always adopting resistance resistance management management practicepractice
2424
Corn
Soybeans Cotton
Plant Breeders to the Rescue?Plant Breeders to the Rescue?
Pyramiding multiple Bt toxins in single Pyramiding multiple Bt toxins in single crop varietiescrop varieties
Stacking traits – Crops that are resistant Stacking traits – Crops that are resistant to multiple herbicidesto multiple herbicides Allows rotating herbicides with different Allows rotating herbicides with different
modes of actionmodes of action Homogeneous blends – mixtures with Homogeneous blends – mixtures with
different modes of actiondifferent modes of action Quick registration of blends anticipated Quick registration of blends anticipated
2525
Top-Down vs. Bottom Up Top-Down vs. Bottom Up Approaches to RM Approaches to RM
Top-DownTop-Down Less management intensiveLess management intensive Relies on a small number of traits (are Relies on a small number of traits (are
these enough given resistance to these enough given resistance to individual traits?)individual traits?)
Growers passively selecting products Growers passively selecting products off the shelfoff the shelf
Relies on technology to keep one step Relies on technology to keep one step ahead of resistanceahead of resistance
Treadmill continues in different form?Treadmill continues in different form?2626
Top-Down vs. Bottom Up Top-Down vs. Bottom Up Approaches to RM Approaches to RM
Bottom UpBottom Up Active grower involvement in Active grower involvement in
cooperative RM cooperative RM Education to combat common pool Education to combat common pool
externalities externalities Two way flow of information between Two way flow of information between
growers and scientists / regulatorsgrowers and scientists / regulators
2727
Lessons from Arizona Lessons from Arizona
Bt cotton introduced into mature area-Bt cotton introduced into mature area-wide IPM programwide IPM program Heavy reliance on scientific Heavy reliance on scientific
informationinformation Insecticide use on target pest (PBW) Insecticide use on target pest (PBW)
and for all pests has declinedand for all pests has declined No increase in resistanceNo increase in resistance PBW Eradication under way with Bt PBW Eradication under way with Bt
cotton as a centerpiececotton as a centerpiece2828
Total AZ Cotton Insecticide Total AZ Cotton Insecticide Applications Trending DownApplications Trending Down
2929
Figure 6. 10-Year Moving Average of Arizona Cotton Insecticide Applications
0123456789
10
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Ap
plic
atio
ns
per
Acr
e
Pink Bollworm & CottonBollworm
All Cotton Pests
Source: Frisvold, 2009
Trend ContinuesTrend Continues
3030
10-year moving average of AZ cotton insecticide applications
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ap
pli
ca
tio
ns
pe
r a
cre
PBW& Cotton Bollworm
All Cotton Pests
3131
Summing UpSumming Up Failure to develop successful RM strategies will deprive Failure to develop successful RM strategies will deprive
current adopters of the benefit of crop biotechnology & have a current adopters of the benefit of crop biotechnology & have a negative demonstration effect negative demonstration effect
Key factors determining RM success are technology attributes Key factors determining RM success are technology attributes and institutional capacityand institutional capacity
Public and private plant breeding can play a critical role in Public and private plant breeding can play a critical role in developing stacked traits that reduce over-reliance on single developing stacked traits that reduce over-reliance on single chemical compoundschemical compounds
IR and HR crops will be more sustainably deployed if embedded IR and HR crops will be more sustainably deployed if embedded in IPM / IWM programs with strong, outward extension in IPM / IWM programs with strong, outward extension linkages to farmers and backward linkages to research linkages to farmers and backward linkages to research institutionsinstitutions
Role of ExtensionRole of Extension Information provisionInformation provision Can facilitate farmer collective action for area-wide RMCan facilitate farmer collective action for area-wide RM Provide government agencies with information needed to Provide government agencies with information needed to
increase the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of resistance increase the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of resistance management regulationsmanagement regulations
3232