Arable farming

Home

Buy the Book

How to Use This Site

Species Accounts

ID Keys

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Origins and Development

Agricultural Revolutions

The Biology of Arable Plants

Guide to Species Accounts

Deciding Which Plant it is

Plant Structure

Glossary

Mosses / Liverworts / Hornworts

Threats and Opportunities

Managing Arable Land

Managing Arable Flowers

Examples and Case Studies

Appendices

Selected Bibliography

Art & Photographic Credits

Useful Names & Addresses

Acknowledgements

Report a Species Record

Download PDF Version (2801KB)

Get Adobe Reader

Design, Programming & Database by Selenia Ltd 2003.
Search Species Accounts Identity Keys > Introduction
Introduction
A weed or not a weed?

The Arable Context

Farming past

Crossing continents

Well established

Cultural Links

Flanders Field

Garden flowers

Going, going ...

Uniform fields, uniform weeds

Survival

Hot spots

National and international policy

Arable farming has always been a struggle against the forces of nature. Early farmers had to deal with difficult climates, unfriendly soils and often steep slopes. Perhaps the greatest challenge though was the eternal battle with the many 'weeds' of the crop. These flowers shared the same ecological niche as the crop plants with which they cohabited: they thrived on regular disturbance and a short growing season.

A weed or not a weed?
A few weeds still cause major crop losses, and this might lead some arable farmers to wonder whether it is worth conserving any wild plants on arable land. Until very recently, only a few botanists were worried about the disappearance of these plants. But this has changed now that familiar plants such as Cornflower and Corn Marigold are now very rare, and the Corncockle is virtually extinct in the wild. Arable land also has a reputation for being a desert for wildlife, though well-managed arable farmland can be exceptionally rich in birds, mammals, insects and plants. This book will show how simple it is for arable flowers and modern arable agriculture to live happily, side by side.

The arable context
Arable land currently occupies approximately seven million hectares (nearly 30%) of Britain's land surface. Much of the arable land lies on the eastern side of Britain where it is warmer and drier, allowing it to be ploughed more easily. Permanent pasture is concentrated to the west of Britain and in Ireland.

Types of farming in Britain
(based on map p.5, Britain Today: Farming, Woodcock, R.,Wayland Books, 1994).
Farming past
Arable farming has been a feature of the British landscape for some 8,000 years. Around 6000BC, the hunter/rancher lifestyle, prevalent since the Ice Age, was gradually replaced by a culture, originating in the Middle East, which depended upon domesticated animals and cultivated crops.

Crossing continents
The wild plants that benefited from agriculture originated from a range of different habitats. Many were present in Britain before the introduction of arable farming. It is important to realise that, just like plant communities of grasslands and woodlands, arable plant communities have distinct relationships to soil, climate and management. They have not just been thrown together in recent centuries. Britain's arable plants are particularly important, as they occupy the north-western end of a range of communities spreading across Europe into Asia; most have declined over their whole European range during the last century.

Well-established
Arable plants are not the fly-by-night colonists that some might think. Some populations have been known from particular sites for many years. Even though individual plants are annual, arable plant communities are surprisingly stable. There is evidence that fields with a long history of arable cultivation have the richest communities of arable plants. Arable plants are best described as native to a particular land-use rather than a geographical region.

Cultural links
Throughout Europe, the flowers of arable crops have a special place in the public psyche. This connection goes back many centuries to a time when peasants worked with and against these plants every day. Even those arable plants that are now very rare must once have been familiar cornfield inhabitants.

Broad-leaved Cudweed (top), Ground-pine (middle) and Rough Marsh-mallow have been known from one field in Kent since the end of the 18th century. Corn Buttercup, Shepherd's-needle (bottom), Corn Cleavers and Spreading Hedge-parsley have occurred on the Broadbalk experimental plot at the Rothamsted Experimental Station since its inception in 1843.

Corncockle (left) and Darnel were among the most serious 16th century weeds, and feature in the works of William Shakespeare and John Donne. Even now, Cornflower is readily understood as a particular shade of blue. The use of arable flowers as literary metaphors shows how significant they were in former times. Few people now would know them as wild plants.



Flanders Field
The poppy has entered the cultural landscape perhaps more than any other arable plant and is still readily recognised throughout northern Europe. It has as great a cultural resonance as any other European plant, and has been a symbol of rebirth and new life since ancient Egypt. This symbolism entered new dimensions in the aftermath of the appalling destruction of the battles of Ypres and the Somme between 1914 and 1917. The battlefields bloomed with sheets of blood-red poppies (and several other arable species) in the summers following these battles, and have entered the literature, mythology and the traditions of a whole continent. In France, the Cornflower occupies a similar symbolic position. Paper poppies are still worn in Remembrance in Britain. Poppies also feature in works by the artists Claude Monet and August Renoir, amongst others.

Garden flowers
The poppy has also found its way into gardens in a variety of forms following many years of breeding. Other arable plants are also cultivated for ornamental purposes including Cornflower, Thorow-wax and Corncockle. Pheasant's-eye has been used as a cut-flower, with large quantities being gathered from the Sussex Downs at the end of the 18th century and sold at Covent Garden when it was known as Red Morocco'.

Artists such as E. McKnight Kauffer were commissioned to produce posters.This one - Flowers o' the Corn - illustrates that in 1920 cornfield flowers were still widespread compared with today. With kind permission of London's Transport Museum.

Going, going ...
The arable flora has undergone great changes throughout Europe since the end of the 19th century, and the losses accelerated towards the end of the 20th century. Most arable plants were overwhelmed by the massive revolution in arable farming methods, including:

more efficient seed-cleaning techniques;
the widespread adoption of herbicides;
the development of highly nitrogen-responsive crops;
the increase in nitrogen applications;
the near-complete mechanisation of farming;
changes in crop rotations; and
efficient field drainage.

As a result, arable land in Britain has lost most of its arable plants: several species have become extinct and many more are now rare. These include some that were once extremely common and caused serious farming problems. Cornflower is now one of Britain's most endangered plants, but until the mid- 19th century it was abundant, "a pernicious weed injurious to the corn and blunting the reapers' sickles". Corncockle and Darnel are now virtually extinct in Britain, although both remained locally common until the early 20th century.

Technology that allowed better seed-cleaning caused an initial decline in arable plants in the late 19th century, but herbicide development in the 1940s was catastrophic for many more. Corn Buttercup and Shepherd's-needle were both abundant until the early 1950s; indeed, both are listed in early weedcontrol handbooks with recommendations for their control. Hefty increases in nitrogen application and the development of highly competitive crop varieties placed additional pressure on many arable plants and may have been the major factor in the extinction of Small Bur-parsley and Lamb's-succory.

The plants of irregularly cultivated field edges, and other places which are disturbed from time to time, have also suffered from increasingly efficient farming methods. Their plight may be even greater than that of more conventional arable plants, as their special requirements are less well understood. These plants cannot compete under the shade of an arable crop and have life-cycles that do not fit well with the timing of farming practices. Many have always been restricted to south-facing chalky slopes in the warmer parts of southern England, and include such rarities as Ground-pine and Cut-leaved Germander. The dry, sandy soils of the East Anglian Breckland are also good for these plants.

Uniform fields, uniform weeds
Arable land has become increasingly uniform, due to:

the continual use of one type of crop;
the use of herbicides; and
massive increases in the applications of nitrogen.

Climatic, soil and management factors, which once led to diversity of arable habitats, are now much less important. The formerly common suite of arable plants has all but gone, replaced by a small but pernicious gang including Blackgrass, Cleavers and Barren Brome. These have thrived under intensive management and now occur over large areas of Britain.

Arable flowers have declined across a range of scales: at the country level, the farm and even the field scale. On conventional farms, almost all uncommon arable plants are confined to the 4m strip along the field edge. This is due to the irregular application of herbicide and fertiliser, the less efficient drilling of the crop and the effects of soil compaction. So, even where arable plants have survived, they are confined to tiny areas.

This restriction to field margin refuges renders them vulnerable to yet another threat. Hedgerows and other field boundaries have been removed on a massive scale in Britain and the rest of Europe to facilitate the use of large machinery. Only half the length of hedgerow present in Britain in 1945 was still present in 1990. Not only has this removed the physical boundaries, but also the strip of less-intensively farmed land alongside the boundary where the more diverse flora can survive.
Farmland birds
Other farmland wildlife has also suffered in recent years. Birds have been particularly well-studied, and of the 26 species listed as priorities in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), 13 are predominantly species of lowland farmland.These include the Grey Partridge,Turtle Dove,Tree Sparrow, Skylark and Corn Bunting, all of which have declined catastrophically.

The major reasons that have been identified for these declines on arable land are:

reduction in the area of spring-sown cereals, and the loss of crop stubbles in the winter and bare ground in the spring;
loss of mixed farming due to simplification of crop rotations and regionalised specialisation;
increased use of pesticides and fertilisers; and
loss of field boundaries.

These have removed nesting sites and reduced availability of food during the breeding season (e.g. food for chicks) and over the winter.


Corn Bunting (above) and Skylark (below).


1 East Anglian Plain 2 Breckland
3 East Anglian Chalk 4 West Anglian Plain
5 Chilterns 6 London Basin
7 North Downs 8 Wealden Greensand
9 South Downs 10 Hampshire Downs
11 South Wessex Downs 12 Thames and Avon Vales
13 Mid Vale Ridge 14 Cotswolds
15 Severn and Avon Vales 16 Wessex Vales
17 Mid Somerset Hills 18 Cornish Killas and Granites

The best areas in England for arable plants.
Survival
Despite all the pressures under which the arable flora has suffered, there are some areas of Britain where uncommon arable plants still persist.

The majority have retreated from the north of the country, and few can now be found north of Yorkshire. A few, like Corn Marigold, are still relatively widespread particularly in western Scotland.

Hot spots
The richest areas are in the south-east of England, particularly where soils are light and chalky. Fields around the coasts of southwest England and Wales can, however, also be very rich in arable plants of both calcareous and acidic sandy soils: a National Trust property in north Cornwall is one of Britain's few arable plant reserves. The heavy calcareous soils of the mid- Somerset hills have several sites for uncommon arable plants like Spreading Hedgeparsley and Broad-leaved Spurge, and one of these is managed as a Somerset Wildlife Trust reserve. There are outstanding areas for arable plants on the chalk between Salisbury and Basingstoke, and in south Cambridgeshire. The Breckland of Suffolk and Norfolk is unique in Britain with its sandy soils and continental climate; it is home to an extraordinary variety of arable plants, several of which are found nowhere else in Britain.

National and international policy
The politics of agricultural production has had a direct effect on the fortunes of arable plants. In recent years, the emphasis on economic planning after the Second World War resulted in the 1947 Agriculture Act. This was superseded on Britain's accession to the Common Market by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The overall effects of the Agriculture Act and the CAP have been to encourage the intensification of arable farming by subsidising production and guaranteeing markets for surpluses. This resulted in the rapid development of agrochemicals, artificial fertilisers and farm mechanisation, and led directly to the removal of hedgerows and field boundaries in the name of efficiency - all to the detriment of Europe's arable flora and other arable wildlife.

Attempts to redress the effects of intensification began in Britain in the late 1980s with the introduction of pilot agri-environment schemes. These measures were subsequently subsumed into the government-run Environmentally Sensitive Area and Countryside Stewardship Schemes. The prospects for arable plants now look even better following the recent introduction of Arable Stewardship. Under this option of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, farmers can be paid to manage their land to encourage the development of arable plant communities.

Further attention has been directed towards the biodiversity of arable land as a result of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP). This was published in 1995 as the UK government's response to the Biodiversity Convention, which was signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Twelve arable flowering plants and three mosses are included on the list of species of priority concern in the UKBAP (Appendix 3). In addition, cereal field margins are included as a habitat in need of urgent conservation action. A nationally-costed Action Plan is now in place for each of the species and for cereal field margins.


A typical weedy field margin.

Volume 8 // Number 4 // Article 6
Back Issues Index

The Farm-Level Impact of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in Romania
Graham Brookes
PG Economics, LTD
This paper examines the farm-level impact of use of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GM HT) soybeans in Romania. It covers the context of soybeans in Romania, weeds, conventional control measures, and the impact of using herbicide-tolerant technology. Impact on yields, costs of production, and profitability are examined; GM HT technology is shown to have had a significant positive impact on yields and profitability. Estimates of the production impact at a national level and the environment are also made. The adoption of the technology has delivered major improvements in farm income, mostly from yield enhancements associated with improved weed control.
Key words: cost, environment, gross margin, herbicides, herbicide tolerant, weeds, yield.Introduction
The commercial planting of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GM HT) soybeans has been permitted in Romania since 1999. This paper examines the farm-level impact over the period 1999-2003. The research used a combination of desk research/analysis and field work in Romania. Interviews were undertaken with agricultural input distributors, scientists, academics, and farmers. In particular, farmers in two of the main soybean-growing counties of Romania (Calarasi and Ialomita) were interviewed. In total, the farmers interviewed accounted for about 13% and 24%, respectively, of total soybean plantings and Roundup Ready (RR) soybean plantings in 2003.1 The field research took place in May 2003.
Soybean Plantings
In recent years, the area planted to soybeans in Romania has fluctuated considerably. At the beginning of the 1990s and immediately after the collapse of the Communist system, soybean plantings were about 190,000 ha. This area declined until the middle to late 1990s; since then, there has been significant annual fluctuation in plantings and harvested areas. In 2003, the area planted was 120,000 ha. Genetically modified HT soybeans were first grown commercially in 1999 (15,500 ha). Since then, the area planted has increased to about 70,000 ha in 2004.
Weed Pressure in Romania
Weeds are a major problem faced by all arable crop farmers in Romania. Weeds contribute significantly to reduced yields and to downgrading of crops sold because of the presence of weed material in deliveries to buyers and users. Although there is a lack of data relating to the estimated impact of weeds on soybean yields in Romania, it is probable that the level of average yield loss caused by weeds in the Romanian soybean crop is significantly higher than the estimated average loss recorded in other countries (e.g., in the United States, despite the use of herbicides, weeds were estimated to cause a 7% yield loss in 1994; Gianessi & Carpenter, 2000). This weed problem in Romania reflects the natural conditions (warm climate and fertile soils conducive to weed growth) coupled with the effect of 10-plus years of very limited herbicide use.
Following the collapse of the Communist regime and the fundamental economic changes that have taken place as the Romanian economy moves to a more market-oriented system, the agricultural sector has undergone major changes. Farm profitability has been very low, production of most crops has fallen, and subsistence farming has dominated. As a result, few farmers can afford to buy the latest high-yielding certified seed varieties, use fertilizers, or buy crop protection chemicals. Significant areas of land have been abandoned, and on much of the cultivated land, the main form of weed control has been hand weeding and hoeing. The weed seed bank has expanded so rapidly that by the late 1990s, weeds had become the most important problem for arable crop farmers, including soybean producers. The main problem weeds faced by growers of soybeans in Romania include Abutilon (velvetleaf), Xanthium, Sorghum halepense (Johnsongrass), and Cirsium (thistle).
Control of Weeds in Conventional Soybeans
Hand weeding and hoeing dominates in the subsistence agriculture sector, with the use of herbicides being limited mostly to commercial farmers. Nevertheless, even on commercial farms the use of herbicides has been and continues to be less than in most other soybean-producing countries. Drawing on the limited data available on herbicide use on soybeans in Romania (Table 1), several key points have been identified.

Table 1. Soybean herbicide use in Romania, 2002.
Active ingredients
Spray areaa (ha)
Base areab (ha)
Average number of sprays
Imazethapyr
12,930
12,930
1
Trifluralin
11,070
11,070
1
Bentazon
4,430
4,430
1
Acetochlor
5,840
5,840
1
Dimethenamid
3,510
3,510
1
Metribuzin
2,920
2,920
1
Acifluorfen
3,820
3,820
1
Quizalofop-p-ethyl
990
990
1
Fomesafen
180
180
1
Total use on conventional soybean crops
45,690
45,690
1
Glyphosate
61,920
40,430
1.52
Total all crops including RR soybeans
107,610
86,120
1.25
Note. Data from AMIS Global (personal communications, 2000-2002).a Spray area = total area sprayed.b Base area = base or crop area on which spraying occurred with each active ingredient.
The commercial farmers interviewed cited active ingredients such as mesafen, fluazfop, and imazetapyr as postemergent products commonly used to deal with weed problems. Johnsongrass, in particular, was cited as the most problematic and difficult-to-control weed, with most herbicides (except glyphosate) not fully effective against it. Farm survey data for 2002 (Table 1) shows that the main herbicides used (apart from glyphosate) on soybeans are trifluralin, acetochlor, dimethenamid, and metribuzin (preemergent) and imazethapyr, bentazon + acifluorfen, quizalofop, fluazifop, and fomesafen (postemergent).
The full and recommended control practices for weeds in soybeans includes three to five spray runs, based on one preemergent spray, followed by three or four postemergent runs to deal with different weeds and the different timing of germination of these weeds. Not all farmers operate to the full or recommended use of herbicides, mainly because of financial constraints. As a result, commercially grown soybean crops in Romania have been treated with a range of no herbicide spray runs at all to upwards of three to four spray runs (i.e., some farmers spray only once or twice and use only the least expensive—usually broad-leaved—herbicides available).
Impact of Using Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in Romania
Nature of GM HT Soybean Users and Farms
Soybeans in Romania are grown almost entirely by commercial farmers, not subsistence farmers; the average size of all soybean-growing farms is about 400 ha. The average size of farms growing RR soybeans is about 500 ha; the range varies widely between 300 and 20,000 ha. There is, however, no correlation or relationship between size of farm and adoption of the technology—none of the farmers interviewed referred to the cost of the technology as a factor affecting adoption, although some indicated that the availability of the technology on credit (until harvest) was an incentive for adoption.2
The proportion of total arable land planted to soybeans each year varies by farm. For the average farm growing GM HT soybeans, a typical area planted to soybeans is 20-25% of the total arable area. Many farmers growing GM HT soybeans plant only GM HT varieties. These farmers experimented with GM HT soybeans in earlier years (perhaps 10-30% of their total crop in year one) and then moved to total adoption in later years following satisfactory experience with the technology.
A typical arable crop rotation in Romania includes maize, wheat, sunflower, soybeans, and possibly lucerne, peas, or oilseed rape. Soybeans are mostly grown as a break crop before maize.
Cost of the Technology
Genetically modified HT soybean technology is sold as a package of seed plus Roundup herbicide (4 L supplied for a recommended application of 2 L/ha in two spray runs). The recommended price of this package to farmers was originally set at about $160/ha in 1999 and 2000.3 Since then, the recommended price fell to $148/ha in 2001, $135/ha in 2002, and about $130/ha in 2003. The actual price paid by farmers for the package, however, varies according to how the package is purchased, who it is purchased from, and the volume required. The range of prices paid by the farmers interviewed was €135-148/ha when purchased from input distributors (applicable to most farmers), although large farms (i.e., over 5,000 ha) were able to obtain substantial discounts and purchase at wholesale prices of about €110/ha.
These prices compare with conventional soybean seed costs as follows: Conventional local soybean varieties from the Funduela Institute (e.g., Danubiana) cost about $6-8 per 20-kg bag. This is equal to a seed cost of $24-32/ha at a seed rate of 80 kg/ha or $36-48/ha at the more commonly applied seed rate of 120 kg/ha. The largest farms (which are able to obtain discounts for volume purchases) access conventional local seed at about $30/ha. Conventional non-Romanian seed varieties that are multiplied up in Romania (supplied by companies such as Pioneer and Monsanto) typically sell at $14-16 per 20-kg bag, equal to a seed cost of $56-64/ha at a seed rate of 80 kg/ha or $70-80/ha at the more commonly applied seed rate of 100 kg/ha.
Roundup herbicide purchased independently from GM HT seed (i.e., for independent use on weeds and not part of the package described above) cost between $10/L (recommended prices) and $7-8/L in 2003 for large-scale purchasers able to negotiate discounts. In the last two to three years, generic glyphosate products have also become registered and available to farmers in Romania. These generics trade at prices of $3-5/liter. Since 1999, the price of herbicides in general has remained broadly stable. However, with the recent availability of generic glyphosate in the market, the price of glyphosate has fallen. For example, the recommended price for Roundup was $10/L in 2003, compared to $15/L in 1999.
Impact on Yield
The key finding of this research was that GM HT soybeans are and have been delivering a yield gain relative to conventional varieties. This gain falls within a range of 0.4-1 t/ha and represents a yield increase of 16-50% (average 31%) relative to average base yields for the growers interviewed of 2-2.5 t/ha. The yield gain has therefore been a major benefit of adoption and contrasts with findings in the United States, Argentina, and Canada (Brethour, Mussell, Mayer, & Martin, 2002; Carpenter & Gianessi, 2001, 2002; Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride, 2000; Marra, Pardey, & Alston, 2002; Qaim & Traxler, 2002), where the evidence of average impact has shown to be yield neutral.
The positive yield response in Romania has occurred for several reasons. First, weed control is significantly improved. As indicated earlier, conventionally grown soybeans in Romania suffer major weed infestation problems as a result of a combination of a buildup in the weed seed bank (due to the limited use of herbicides following the breakdown of the communist system and the subsequent economic difficulties associated with transition to a market economy), continued limited use of herbicides to date (i.e., where herbicides are used, the average level of use is usually well below requirements for effective control), and poor control of well-established weeds such as Johnsongrass.4 Second, GM HT technology results in reduced soybean crop injury (e.g., leaf yellowing, burning, speckling, retarded growth) that may occur when some non-glyphosate-based products are applied. It should also be noted that most of the farmers interviewed indicated that their harvested yield quality was improved as a result of lower levels of weed impurities in the seed. This resulted in price premia being obtained from oilseed crushers (or reduced levels of price discount being applied), which averaged 2-3% on the average per-tonne price in previous years.
Impact on Costs
The improved weed control has also enabled most growers using the technology to derive reduced costs of production. The precise impact on variable costs of production varies by user according to several factors, including the extent of weed problems suffered, the effectiveness (or otherwise) of conventional control measures, the extent to which herbicides have been used relative to full recommended levels, and the type of conventional seed used (e.g., local varieties from the Funduela Institute, more expensive varieties from international seed companies like Pioneer and Monsanto, or farm-saved seed).
Findings relating to farm-level costs of production (Table 2) show that almost all farmers are deriving cost-saving benefits from reduced herbicide use and fewer spray runs. For farms up to 5,000 ha in size, the average cost saving has been €61.5/ha with a range of €32-91/ha. This average cost saving is equal to a reduction of 29% of the variable costs referred to. For farms larger than 5,000 ha, the average cost saving has been €44.4/ha with a range of €11-78/ha. This average cost saving is equal to a reduction of 28% of the variable costs referred to. The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (i.e., using three or four spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a cost increase). For example, for farms smaller than 5,000 ha, the breakeven point for use of the technology (in the absence of any yield gain) is between €135/ha and €148/ha; any farmer currently spending less than this on seed and herbicides would not gain from lower production costs by using RR soybeans. There are probably some farmers who have lower costs of production than this and/or some who do not suffer significant yield loss from weed competition. For such farmers, adoption of the RR soybean technology would deliver no significant cost saving and/or yield gain. Although it is probable that some farmers may fall within this categorization, the evidence identified in the course of this research suggests that these are likely to be a small minority of soybean farmers.

Table 2. Impact of using GM HT soybeans on key variable costs of production in Romania, 2002-2003 (€/ha).
Farms smaller than 5,000 ha
Farms larger than 5,000 ha
Conventional
GM HT
Conventional
GM HT
Seed
45 (40-50)
Not applicable
40.5 (27-54)
Not applicable
Herbicide
152 (124-180)
Not applicable
109.5 (91-128)
Not applicable
Total cost of seed and herbicide
197 (164-230)
141.5 (135-148)
150 (118-182)
110
Cost of spraying
12 (9-15)
6
10.5 (9-12)
6
Total
209 (173-245)
147.5 (141-154)
160.5 (127-194)
116
Note. Values are based on fewer estimates of impact applicable for 2003 and actual input in 2002. All farmers also indicated that these values are broadly representative of previous years (i.e., the magnitude of changes has been similar in earlier years of adoption). Ranges are shown in parentheses.
Impact on Profitability
Analysis of the impact of using GM HT soybeans on the profitability of growing soybeans in Romania is presented in Tables 3 and 4. For farms using certified seed, an average 2% higher price associated with cleaner harvested seed, coupled with average yield gains of 29% (farms smaller than 5,000 ha) to 33% (farms larger than 5,000 ha), resulted in average revenue gains of €139/ha (32%) for smaller farms and €147/ha (35%) for larger farms. Table 3 indicates average variable cost savings of €44.5-61.5/ha (16.5-19%) and average gross margin improvements of €191.5-200.5/ha (+127-184%). Due to the variability in performance of different farms around these average figures, there are some farmers who will have derived greater increases in gross margins than the levels suggested in Table 3 and others who will have derived smaller increases in gross margins.

Table 3. Impact of GM HT soybeans on average soybean gross margins in Romania, 2002-2003 (€/ha).
Farms smaller than 5,000 ha
Farms larger than 5,000 ha
Conventional
GM HT
Conventional
GM HT
Price
182.5
186.0
182.5
186.0
Yield
2.4
3.1
2.3
3.1
Revenue
438.0
577.0
420.0
567.0
Variable costs
Seed
45.0
See herbicide
40.5
See herbicide
Fertilizer
10.0
10.0
52.5
52.5
Herbicide
152.0
141.5
109.5
110.0
Other crop protectiona
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cost of spraying
12.0
6.0
10.5
6.0
Irrigation
110.0
110.0
56.5
56.5
Total variable costs
329.0
267.5
269.5
225.0
Gross margin
109.0
309.5
150.5
342.0
Note. RR soybeans sold as a package with herbicide.a One or two farmers indicated that occasionally they spray for some pest problems (e.g., spider mites) but this has been rare, hence no costs are cited for other crop protection.
Farms using farm-saved seed experienced revenue gains of 35%, cost savings of 43%, and gross margin improvements of 185% (Table 4). These gains—higher than those of certified seed users—move the use of farm-saved seed from delivering similar (or marginally lower) returns than certified seed users of conventional seed to a position where farm-saved seed of GM HT varieties delivers the highest level of returns (i.e., higher than returns from use of certified seed). Given this, it is not surprising that trade sources estimate that the level of farm-saved seed of GM HT varieties has increased significantly in the last two years.

Table 4. Estimated impact of farm-saved seed of GM HT soybeans on soybean gross margins in Romania, 2002-2003 (€/ha).
Conventional
RR
Price
182.5
186.0
Yield
2.1
2.8
Revenue
378.0
512.0
Variable costs
Seed
19.0
8.0
Fertilizer
52.5
52.5
Herbicide
109.5
18.0
Other crop protection
0.0
0.0
Cost of spraying
10.5
6.0
Irrigation
56.5
56.5
Total variable costs
248.0
141.0
Gross margin
130.0
371.0
Note. Farms using farm-saved seed are assumed to be large farms (larger than 5,000 ha) planting 1,500-2,000 ha of soybeans, all of which are farm-saved seed. Yield performance of farm-saved seed is assumed to be 10% less than certified seed. Costs of farm-saved production (for 1,500-2,000 ha planted area) are based on costs of conventional soybean production plus 40% for fixed costs. Farm-saved seed yield is assumed to be 2.3 t/ha for conventional seed, of which 80% is usable as seed.
Other Impacts and Issues
Convenience and Increased Management Flexibility
Some of the farmers interviewed indicated that adoption of GM HT soybeans had increased management flexibility through a combination of the ease of use associated with glyphosate and the larger time window for spraying. In addition, treatment can be made with less risk of crop damage when the crop is well established and less vulnerable to the herbicide. Although this impact was cited by some farmers, it appears to be less important to Romanian farmers than their counterparts in the United States, Argentina, and Canada (Brethour et al., 2002; Carpenter & Gianessi, 2002; Qaim & Traxler, 2002; United States Department of Agriculture, 1999)—this probably reflects the more limited historic use of herbicides in Romania.
Facilitation of Low/No-Tillage Husbandry
In North and South America, low- or no-tillage husbandry has been cited as an important reason for adoption by many farmers—it provides cost savings through reduced labor and fuel costs associated with plowing. In Romania, however, adoption of GM HT soybeans has not contributed to any increase in the use of low/no-tillage systems. None of the farmers interviewed cited this as a benefit of adoption. Romanian farmers have not adopted low/no-tillage systems because few can afford the specialized equipment and machinery required. Furthermore, many farms are located on clay soils that are difficult to apply low/no-tillage systems to without additional specialized equipment or machinery.
Reduced Harvesting Costs
Some of the farmers interviewed indicated that they had reduced their harvesting costs by a small amount as a result of using GM HT soybeans. This saving arose from having less weeds in the crop, which facilitated quicker harvesting. None of the farmers were, however, able to estimate a monetary value to this small saving.
Benefits to Follow-On Crops
Benefits to follow-on crops were cited as a major benefit of using GM HT soybeans by most farmers. These benefits essentially arise from improvements in control of difficult weeds that would have otherwise adversely affected follow-on crop establishment and yields. In particular, follow-on crops of maize were benefiting from the adoption of GM HT soybeans, because the fields were cleaner and required reduced levels of herbicide application on the maize crops. Against the baseline of average per-hectare herbicide expenditure on maize by commercial maize growers of about €70/ha, the perceived savings were anywhere between €10/ha and €70/ha. In addition, most farmers are using GM HT soybeans as a general "cleaning" crop for their farms, rotating the area planted to soybeans around the farm over a number of years as an effective way of improving whole-farm weed control.
Marketing of the Crop
All of the farmers interviewed indicated that their GM HT soybean crops were sold via normal marketing channels without any requirement to segregate GM from non-GM crops. There is no apparent market differentiation between GM and non-GM soybean crops in Romania and hence no price differentials between the two crops. Although it is probable that there is some demand for non-GM and/or organic soybeans in Romania (including possible demand for export markets), the evidence gathered in the course of this research suggests that such a market is currently small.
Environmental Impact: Use of Herbicides
Examination of the impact of GM HT soybeans on the use of herbicides on arable crops in Romania is difficult because of the limited availability of consistent data on herbicide use and the impact of recent and continued economic transition to a market economy on the structure and practices of agriculture. In particular, over the last 12-13 years there has been limited use of conventional weed control practices (i.e., herbicides) because of low levels of profitability, limited access to financial resources, restructuring in the input supply and distribution chain, and the breakup of state farms, which has resulted in an increase in land being either left idle or farmed on a subsistence basis. In addition, the area planted to soybeans has fluctuated significantly over the last five years, which means that data relating to areas sprayed and kilograms of herbicide product used has also varied (Table 5). The available information on soybean herbicide use in Romania since 1996 shows few clear trends apart from the increase in the use of glyphosate from zero use in 1996 to being the main product used on soybean crops in 2002. Thus, some positive environmental benefit may have accrued through the displacement of some herbicides that are more persistent and residual in the soil than glyphosate.

Table 5. Herbicide usage on soybeans in Romania, 1996-2002.
1996
1998
2000
2002
Area treated (sprayed area, hectares)
Glyphosate
0
15,000
45,590
61,920
Other herbicides
169,100
219,400
164,150
47,360
Total area treated
169,100
234,400
209,740
109,280
Area harvested
80,180
144,300
90,708
66,000
Product used (kg)
Glyphosate
0
16,200
37,260
54,140
Other herbicides
67,660
100,850
119,280
34,340
Total
67,660
117,050
156,540
88,480
Average volume of product sprayed (kg/ha)
0.40
0.50
0.75
0.81
Average number of sprays per hectare harvesteda
2.11
1.62
2.31
1.66
Note. Data from AMIS Global (personal communications, 2000, 2002); Produce Studies Research (personal communication, 2003). The two sources of data used are not consistent. AMIS Global is based on farmer surveys, which, since they began in 2000, cover about 60-65% of the total soybean crop area in the country. Produce Studies Research (Sigma) data is estimated on the basis of herbicide product sales information obtained from input suppliers. It has not been possible to derive herbicide use per base area of crop planted because there is no information on what proportion of the total crop is treated with herbicides. Inevitably some of the crop area probably receives no herbicide treatments at all, some receives one treatment per year, and others receive higher numbers of treatments.a Average number of sprays per hectare is probably overstated, because the area planted is usually higher than the area harvested. However, the difference between the area planted and harvested varies each year according to weather factors (e.g., drought) and access to irrigation. There is no consistent data available on areas planted.
No conclusions should be drawn from the data relating to the average volume of product sprayed per hectare or on the average number of treatments per hectare because of disparities between the sources used (their methodologies), the lack of information relating to the proportion of the total crop that receives no herbicide treatments at all, and a lack of information on areas planted (as distinct from areas harvested). Nor should firm conclusions be drawn from examining trends in herbicide usage since 1996 because of the effect of economic shock adjustments in the Romanian economy and agricultural sector. Specifically, the base years presented for the pre-GM HT soybean usage (1996 and 1998) were years in which herbicide use was probably significantly below the norm that might otherwise have been used if the agricultural sector had not been undergoing fundamental structural change; it is not possible to assess what level of herbicides might otherwise have been used in 2002 if GM HT soybeans had not been introduced in 1999.
National-Level Impact of Using GM HT Soybeans
Production
The estimated impact on Romanian soybean production is summarized in Table 6. Assuming a base area of 120,500 ha is planted to soybeans, of which 70,000 ha are GM HT soybeans (the 2004 plantings) and the estimated benefit of the technology is +29-33% of yield, the net impact is likely to result in additional production of about 47,600-54,600 t, or a 17-19% increase. In value terms (at the farm level), this is equal to an additional €87.1-99.9 million.

Table 6. Aggregated impact on Romanian soybean production of using GM HT soybeans, 2004.
Yield effect +29%
Yield effect +33%
Area of GM HT soybeans (ha)
70,000
70,000
Average yield conventional soybeansa (t/ha)
2.35
2.35
Yield impact of GM HT soybeans (t/ha)
+0.68
+0.78
Impact on production (t)
+47,600
+54,600
% change in total production (2003 crop area and average conventional yield = baseline)
+16.8%
+19.3%
a Average yield is based on farmer interviews.
Farm-Level Income
The positive contribution of the technology to adopting farmers' gross margins is €191.5-200.5/ha. If these benefit levels are applied to the estimated area planted to GM HT soybeans in 2004, this produces a positive contribution to farm income of GM HT soybeans of €13.4-14 million for the year.
Impact on the Economy
On the basis of the additional production of soybeans generated from using GM HT soybeans shown in Table 6, the additional annual production of soybeans is equal to about 14-17% of total soybean use in 2004-2005. This additional production is therefore contributing to reducing the import requirement for the domestic crushing and user sectors. Using the average European import price for soybeans in 20055 of about €225/t as a benchmark price, this equates to an annual import substitution value of €10.7-12.3 million.
Endnotes
1 This included farmers growing both Roundup Ready and conventional soybeans.
2 By contrast, most other seeds and herbicides are not widely available on long-term credit arrangements.
3 Seed supplied on the basis of four 20-kg bags of seed, equal to 80 kg/ha recommended seed rate.
4 Glyphosate has proven to be the only consistently effective control measure for well-established Johnsongrass.
5 CIF Rotterdam.
References
Brethour, C., Mussell, A., Mayer, H., & Martin, L. (2002). Agronomic, economic and environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario. Guelph, ON: George Morris Centre.
Carpenter J., & Gianessi, L. (1999). Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum, 2(2), 65-72. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
Carpenter J., & Gianessi, L. (2001). Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. Washington, DC: National Center for Food & Agriculture Policy.
Carpenter J., & Gianessi, L. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. Washington, DC: National Center for Food & Agriculture Policy.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (2000). Genetically engineered crops for pest management in US agriculture: Farm level benefits (Agricultural Economics Report No 786). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (2002). Adoption of bio-engineered crops (Agricultural Economics Report No. 810). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
Gianessi, L., & Carpenter, J. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology: Benefits of transgenic soybeans. Washington, DC: National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy.
Marra, M., Pardey, P., & Alston, J. (2002). The pay-offs of agricultural biotechnology: An assessment of the evidence. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Qaim, M., & Traxler, G. (2002, July). Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level, environmental, and welfare effects. Paper presented at the 6th International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy.
United States Department of Agriculture. (1999). Farm level effects of adopting genetically engineered crops—Preliminary evidence from the US experience. Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology (Agriculture Information Bulletin No. AIB762). Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib762/aib762d.pdf.
Suggested citation: Brookes, G. (2005). The farm-level impact of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Romania. AgBioForum, 8(4), 235-241. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
In This ArticleTable 1Table 2Table 3Table 4Table 5Table 6EndnotesReferences
About AgBioForumWelcome to ABFEditorial BoardPrivacy PolicyCopyright Policy
Author ServicesSubmission GuidelinesManuscript FastTrack™
Member ServicesBecome a MemberMembership Benefits
FeedbackContact UsComment on ABF
© 2005 AgBioForum Design and support provided by Express Academic Services Contact ABF: editor@agbioforum.org

Nigeria's Agriculture Sector

Opportunities in Nigeria's Agriculture Sector (Reviewed, 31st Oct 2005) Tell your friends about this page! Email it to them.
Introduction
Brief History
Nigeria's Agricultural land Area
Nigeria's Crops
Livestock
Fisheries
Land Tenure System
Investment Opportunities
Contacts
Agriculture Data (Separate Page -152kb)
Agriculture (including hunting, forestry and fishing) contributed an estimated 32% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1998 to the Nigerian economy. An estimated 35.2% of the labour force was employed in the sector in that year. The principal cash crops are cocoa (which accounted for only 0.7% of total merchandise exports in 1995), rubber and oil palm. Staple foods include rice, maize, taro, yams, cassava, sorghum and millet. Timber production, the raising of livestock (principally goats, sheep, cattle and poultry), and artisanal fisheries are also important. According to World Bank estimates, agricultural GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.9% in 1990-98.
The sector remains the largest contributor to the Nigerian economy, accounting for over 38% of the non-oil foreign exchange earnings, and employing about 70% of the active labour force of the population. Although, the sector has suffered much neglect by the Federal Government since the discovery of petroleum in commercial quantity in 1958, but its importance cannot be over emphasised in the Nigerian economy.
Brief History
The agricultural history of Nigeria is intertwined with its political history. This can be assessed from the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial periods. Before the British conquest the pre-colonial society strived on agriculture as the main stay of the traditional economy. The period of the colonial administration in Nigeria, 1861 – 1960, was punctuated by rather ad hoc attention to agricultural development. During the era, considerable emphasis was placed on research and extension services. But of importance to the writer is the post-colonial period.
The 1962-1968 development plan was Nigeria’s first national plan. Among several objectives, it emphasised the introduction of more modern agricultural methods through farm settlements, co-operative (nucleus) plantations, supply of improved farm implements (e.g. hydraulic hand presses for oil palm processing) and a greatly expanded agricultural extension service.
Some of the specialised development schemes initiated or implemented during this period included:
Farm Settlement Schemes; and
National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), launched in 1972.
There were also a number of agricultural development intervention experiments, notably
Operation Feed the Nation, launched in 1976;
River Basin and Rural Development Authorities, established in 1976;
Green Revolution Programme, inaugurated in 1980; and
The World Bank-funded Agricultural Development Projects (ADP).
While each of the above programmes sought to improve food production, the ADPs represented the major practical demonstration of the integrated approach to agricultural development in Nigeria.
In spite of the growing importance of oil, Nigeria has remained essentially an agrarian economy, with agriculture still accounting for significant shares in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and total exports as well as employing the bulk of the labour force. Available data show that at independence in 1960 the contribution of agriculture to the GDP was about 60%, which is typical for developing agrarian nations. However, this share declined over time to only about 25% between 1975 and 1979, this was due partly to the phenomenal growth of the mining and manufacturing sectors during the period and partly as a result of the disincentives created by the macroeconomic environment.
Similarly, the growth rate of agricultural production exhibited a downward trend during the period. Thus, between 1970 and 1982, agricultural production stagnated at less than one percent annual growth rate, at a time when the population growth was between 2.5 to 3.0 per cent per annum. There was a sharp decline in export crop production, while food production increased only marginally. Thus, domestic food supply had to be augmented through large imports. The food import bill rose from a mere N112.88 million Naira annually during 1970-74 to N1, 964.8 million Naira in 1991.
The years since the early 1960s have also witnessed the establishment of several agricultural research institutes and their extension research liaison services. Some of the major institutions are:
1. Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Service (AERLS) at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria established in 1963;
2. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), at Ibadan and;
3. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA).
Nigeria’s Agricultural Land Area
Nigeria’s total land area is 92.4million hectares. Of this area 91 million hectares is adjudged to be suitable for cultivation. Approximately half of this cultivable land is effectively under permanent and arable crops, while the rest is covered by forest wood land, permanent pasture and built up areas. Among the States which have the most abundant land areas are Niger (7.6 million hectares) and Borno (2.8 million hectares). See table at: Agriculture dataNigeria's Crops
In 1996, a total of 33 million hectares were cultivated to crops generally; out of which 17.7 million hectares were for staples and 4.9 million hectares were for industrial crops.
Agriculture crops in Nigeria are grouped into the following:
· Cereals (guinea corn "Sorghum spp", millet, maize "Zea mays" and rice "Oryza sativa")
· Root and tuber crops (cassava "Manihot esculenta", yam "Dioscorea spp", cocoyam, and potatoes (sweet and irish))
· Grains legumes and other legumes (cowpeas "Vigna unguiculata", locust bean "Parkia clappertoniana", soyabean "Glycine max" and other beans such as groundnut "Arachis hypogeae", pigeon pea "Cajanus cajan", bambara nuts "Voandzeia subterranean")
· Oil seeds and nuts (melon "Cococynthys citrullus", benniseed "Sesannum orientae or S indicum", kolanut "Cola nitida or C. acuminata", coffee "Coffee Arabic")
· Tree crops, and (cocoa "Theobroma cacao", oil palm "Elaeis guineensis" and rubber "Hevea brasiliensis")
· Vegetables and fruits (vegetables: onions "Allium cepa", African spinach "Amaranthus spp", Indian spinach "Basella rubra", Pumpkin "cucurbita pepo", Sweet pepper "Capsicum annum", Hot pepper "Cinetum africanum", Water leaf "Talinum triangulare", Carrot "Daucus carota" and Lettuce "Lactuaca sativa"; fruits: pineapple "Ananas comosus", Pawpaw "Carica papaya", Mango "Magnifera indica", Banana/plantain "Musa spp", Citrus "Citrus spp" and Guava " psidium guajava")
Nigeria’s Livestock
Cattle rearing has been given the greatest prominence in discussions of Nigeria’s livestock industry. The country’s cattle territory is essentially in the Sudan Savannah where the limiting factors are the amount of water supply available as one moves north from the Middle Belt or Guinea Savannah towards the Sahara and the existence of tsetse-fly infested forests to the south. This main cattle territory contains about 90% of the country’s cattle population. The two other cattle-producing areas are the southern forest zone where the Muturu cattle which is tolerant to typanosomiasis is found, and the Guinea Savannah where the Ndama cattle and crosses of Muturu and northern Zebu cattle are found. These two lesser areas contain the remaining 10% of the country’s cattle population.
In the cattle territory is found also about 70% of the country’s population of sheep and goats that have adapted to the ecological contraints. In the Guinea Savannah and Southern forest zones, there is found the remaining 30% made up of the indigenous dwarf breeds of sheep and goats. Various exotic breeds of pigs are found in different areas of the country. All over the country, there is a very large population of poultry, especially the local breeds reared under free-range conditions. Commercial production of poultry and pigs takes place in various states of the federation.
Nigeria’s Fisheries
Fishery in Nigeria is mainly done by the artisanal sector. The coastal and brackish waters constitute the major areas of production, followed by inland rivers and lakes. No attempt has yet been made at separating the production into coastal and brackish water sources because the species of fish utilised are closely similar and also because it is difficult to separate the fishing communities into those that operate at sea and those that fish in the lagoons, creeks and other brackish water environments.
Production from aqua culture is still low. Production from industrial fishing, which comprises the commercial trawlers, is also low compared to the artisanal. On the whole, fish production in Nigeria is still largely dependent on the small-scale fishermen. The demand for fish in Nigeria today is certainly greater than the total production from her domestic sources. Thus imports account for about 50% of fish consumption in the country.
The long-term approach, however requires substantial modernisation of the fishing industry to enable it make more positive contribution to the nation’s economy. Here, five essential inputs must be made available. These are:
Capital for development.
Fishing terminals that are fully equipped and modernized.
Fishing equipment such as vessels, canoes, outboard engines, nets, ancillary gear such as warps, floats, lead and twines, etc.
Trained and competent manpower, and
Meaningful additive research results to ensure continuity and progress.
Post-harvest fish processing is another area of investment to which efforts must be devoted in order to guard against fish losses. Moreover, aqua cultural development should be intensified so that pressure on coastal waters, rivers and lakes will be relaxed. At present, there is over-fishing in most of the inland waters. Fishermen should be kept abreast of technologies in aqua culture (like the tank system and cage culture), which can increase the nation’s fish production significantly.
Land Tenure System In West Africa
Land tenure in West Africa is defined as the system of land ownership or acquisition by individual, family, community or government agency either for temporary or permanent use. The system varies from tribe, community and state. It can be classified into the following groups:
Communal land tenure; a situation where land belongs to the entire community. Every member of the community has the right to use the land for agriculture, but cannot sell any portion of it.
Inheritance land tenure; land is inherited from one’s parent or from one generation to another. In Nigeria, land for agricultural activities is mainly acquired through inheritance because the owner has complete freedom on the land.
Leasehold System; this requires the payment of certain amount of money for the use of the land over a stated period of time.
Rent land tenure; this system allows for a farmer to rent a land for use over a short period of time during which certain amount of money is paid as rent for the use of it
Land tenure by purchase or freehold; an outright purchase of land for agriculture.
Land tenure by free gift or pledge; land given as gift.
Individual land tenure; land belonging to an individual through either freehold ownership or rent tenancy.
Tenancy at the will of government.
Opportunities in the Agricultural Sector
With the right technological base, investors can get good return on investments in livestock and fish production which studies have shown to be viable, storage facility services is another unexplored area, efficient distribution network, oil palm products – palm oil, palm kernel cake, cooking oil, vegetable ghee, shortenings, margarine, CBS, CBE, ice cream, dough, creaming, coating and other specialty fats -, food processing is still under-utilised especially the exportation of Nigeria’s local delicacies and food stuffs – beans flour, yam flour, fufu flour, poundo yam flour, cassava flour, plantain flour, melon, ogbono -, also sea foods either dried in whole or blended – shrimps, crayfish, crabs etc, mechanised and plantation farming and cash cropping in cocoa, groundnut, rubber, cotton and timber are also area for exploration.
For Further information on investing in Nigeria’s agricultural sector, you may contact:
Federal Ministry Of Agriculture And Rural Development
Headquarters: Block A, FCDA Secretariat Complex, Garki Area 11 P.M.B 135, Garki Abuja. Tel: +234 (09) 3142622, 3146509, 3142914
Minister: Malam Adamu Bello
+234 (09) 3141931
Minister Of State: Mr Bamidele Dada
+234 (09) 3142405 Permanent Secretary: Alhaji Umaru Alkaleri
Lagos Liaison OfficeGlass House (5th floor) Former National Assembly Complex Tafawa Balewa Square P.M.B. 12613, Lagos
Tel: +234 (01) 2632880, 2636473
Picture: A rural farm settlement near Abuja, Nigeria's Federal Capital Territory
© NigeriaBusinessInfo.com