Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:46:43.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact analysis of potential glyphosate regulatory restrictions in the European Union on Turkish hazelnut production and economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2020

Husrev Mennan Open the ORCID record for Husrev Mennan [Opens in a new window] ,
Mehmet Bozoğlu ,
Uğur Başer ,
Ivo Brants ,
Xavier Belvaux ,
Emine Kaya-Altop  and
Bernard H. Zandstra
Husrev Mennan*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Protection, Agriculture Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
Mehmet Bozoğlu
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
Uğur Başer
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
Ivo Brants
Affiliation:
Senior Stewardship Manager EMEA, Bayer Agriculture BVBA, Brussels, Belgium
Xavier Belvaux
Affiliation:
Stewardship Manager EMEA, Bayer Agriculture BVBA, Brussels, Belgium
Emine Kaya-Altop
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Protection, Agriculture Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
Bernard H. Zandstra
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Husrev Mennan, Department of Plant Protection, Agriculture Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55139Samsun, Turkey. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) is a native shrub on the steep slopes of the mountains and on the plains in the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Turkey is the world’s largest hazelnut producer and exporter, followed by Italy, Spain, the United States, and Greece. Within the scope of this project, a number of surveys were conducted in Turkey to understand the impact of a glyphosate ban on hazelnut production and the economy. Sixty farm surveys were conducted within the Black Sea region, and those data were used as primary information sources. Databases of institutions, theses, academic reports, and published articles were used as secondary data sources to determine the possible effects of a glyphosate ban on Turkish hazelnut production and economy. One of the most important findings of the study was that agricultural business and employment sustained by hazelnut production constitute a significant part of the rural economy. Tillage and mechanical strategies remain as the most sustainable alternative methods for controlling weeds. A potential glyphosate restriction may increase the demand for labor due to a higher need for mechanical strategies. The cost of these alternative methods are 80% more compared with glyphosate weed control systems. The benefit–cost model predicted that, in the case of no glyphosate use, total hazelnut production would decrease by 12% to 21% due to inefficient weed control. A glyphosate ban would result in a reduction in Turkish gross domestic product. Yearly, an average of US$2 billion in revenue is obtained from hazelnut exports, and this number corresponds to 1.37% of Turkey’s annual export value. The glyphosate ban would cause a US$240 to US$420 million loss in hazelnut export value and reduce production by 66 to 115 million kg. Global demand for hazelnut is believed to be on the increase, and world production depends largely on Turkey.

Keywords

Alternative weed control strategieseconomic effectsglyphosate restrictionshazelnut production
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 223 - 231
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: William Vencill, University of Georgia

References

Anonymous (2017) The Impact of a Glyphosate Ban on the UK Economy: Summary Report. Oxford, UK: Oxford Economics. Pp 1–15Google Scholar
Ashfaq, M, Razzaq, A, Shamsheer, UlH, Muhammed, G (2015) Economic analysis of dairy animal diseases in Punjab: a case study of Faisalabad district. J Anim Plant Sci 25:1482–1495Google Scholar
Belding, RD, Majek, BA, Lokaj, GRW, Hammerstedt, J, Ayeni, AO (2004). Orchard floor management influence on summer annual weeds and young peach tree performance. Weed Technol 18:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böcker, T, Britz, W, Finger, R (2018) Modelling the effects of a glyphosate ban on weed management in silage maize production. Ecol Econ 145:182–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozoglu, M, Baser, U, Topuz, BK, Eroglu, NA (2019) Market and policy in Turkey. KSU J Agric Nat 22:733–743Google Scholar
Brookes, G (2019) Glyphosate use in Asia and implications of possible restrictions on its use. AgBioForum Online Advanced Publication 1–26. http://www.agbioforum.org/v22n1/v22n1-brookes.htm. Accessed: October 26, 2019Google Scholar
Brookes, G, Taheripour, F, Tyner, WE (2017) The contribution of glyphosate to agriculture and potential impact of restrictions on use at the global level. GM Crops Food 8:216–228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buhler, DD, Gunsolus, JL, Ralston, DF (1992) Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicides inputs in soybean. Agron J 84:973–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comendant, C, Davies, P (2018) Economic Assessment of Paraquat Use in New Zealand. Environmental Protection Authority. Wellington, NZ: Sapere Research Group. P 31Google Scholar
Dijkhuizen, AA, Morris, RS (1997) Animal Health Economics: Principles and Applications. Sydney, Australia: Post Graduate Foundation in Veterinary Science, University of Sydney. P 30Google Scholar
Dill, GR, Sammons, RD, Feng, C, Kretzmer, K, Mehrsheikh, A, Bleeke, M, Honegger, JL, Farmer, D, Wright, D, Haupfear, EA (2010) Glyphosate resistance in crops and weeds: history, development, and management. Pages 1–33in Nandula VK, ed. Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds. Toronto: WileyGoogle Scholar
Duary, B. (2008). Recent advances in herbicide resistance in weeds its management. Indian J Weed Sci 24:124–135Google Scholar
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019) FAOSTAT. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed: November 17, 2019Google Scholar
Hooker, DC, Vyn, TJ, Swanton, CJ (1997) Effectiveness of soil applied herbicides with mechanical weed control for conservation tillage systems in soybean. Agron J 89:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer (2015) Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 112). Geneva: World Health Organization Press. https://monographs.iarc.Fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112.pdf. Accessed: September 01, 2019Google Scholar
Işık, D, Dok, M, Ak, K, Macit, İ, Demir, Z, Mennan, H (2014) Use of cover crops for weed suppression in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) in Turkey. Commun Aggric Appl Biol Sci 79:105–110Google Scholar
Johnson, WG, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Weller, SC (2009) Influence of glyphosate-resistant cropping systems on weed species shifts and glyphosate-resistant weed populations. Eur J Agron 31:162–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya-Altop, E, Haghnama, K, Sarıaslan, D, Phillippo, CJ, Mennan, H, Zandstra, BH (2016) Long-term perennial weed control strategies: economic analyses and yield effect in hazelnut (Corylus avellana). Crop Prot 80:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenkel, NC, Derksen, DA, Thomas, AG, Watson, PR (2002) Multivariate analysis in weed science research. Weed Sci 50:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkanthi, P, Sandareka, UG, Wijerathne, AW, Sivashankar, P (2019) Banning of glyphosate and its impact on paddy cultivation: a study in Ratnapura district in Sri Lanka. J Agric Sci (Sri Lanka) 14:129–144Google Scholar
Mennan, H, Ngouajio, M (2012) Effect of brassica cover crops and hazelnut husk mulch on weed control in hazelnut orchards. HortTechnology 22:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennan, H, Ngouajio, M, Isik, D, Kaya, E (2006) Effects of alternative management systems on weed populations in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) Crop Prot 25:835–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legere, A, Stevenson, FC, Benoit, DL (2005) Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting response across cropping systems. Weed Res 45:303–315Google Scholar
Pinior, B, Köfer, J, Rubel, F (2014) Methods for the economic evaluation of animal diseases. Pages 125–128in Clasen, M, Hamer, M, Lehnert, S, Petersen, B, Theuvsen, B, eds. IT-Standards in der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft Fokus: Risiko- und Krisenmanagement. Bonn: Gesellschaft für InformatikGoogle Scholar
Szmedra, P (1997) Banning 2,4-D and the phenoxy herbicides: potential economic impact. Weed Sci 45:592–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, SC, Cook, SK, Clarke, J (2014) Glyphosate use on combinable crops in Europe: implications for agriculture and the environment. Outlook Pest Manag 25:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar