Potential Short-Term Economic Impact of Losing Glyphosate in North Carolina
go.ncsu.edu/readext?1071517
en Español / em Português
El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.
Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.
Português
Inglês é o idioma de controle desta página. Na medida que haja algum conflito entre o texto original em Inglês e a tradução, o Inglês prevalece.
Ao clicar no link de tradução, um serviço gratuito de tradução será ativado para converter a página para o Português. Como em qualquer tradução pela internet, a conversão não é sensivel ao contexto e pode não ocorrer a tradução para o significado orginal. O serviço de Extensão da Carolina do Norte (NC State Extension) não garante a exatidão do texto traduzido. Por favor, observe que algumas funções ou serviços podem não funcionar como esperado após a tradução.
English
English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.
Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.
Collapse ▲Glyphosate has long been a cornerstone herbicide for weed control across a range of cropping systems. However, its widespread use has also brought increased legal scrutiny. Under pressure from ongoing lawsuits, Bayer has announced it may halt glyphosate production unless it receives legal protection. Given this possibility, Derek Washburn, Farm Management Extension Associate, and I analyzed the potential short-term economic impact of losing glyphosate in North Carolina.
Our analysis focused solely on projected changes in herbicide programs if glyphosate were no longer available. It’s important to note that this estimate does not account for several indirect costs, such as increased tillage (and the resulting negative effects on soil health and water quality), or increased hand-weeding, which depends heavily on weed species and pressure, as well as labor availability and cost.
Grass control, especially in corn, would be more challenging without glyphosate.
Burndown Programs
In current burndown applications, the average North Carolina farmer uses a combination of glyphosate, 2,4-D, and flumioxazin (Valor or generics). Without glyphosate, most farmers would likely turn to paraquat (Gramoxone), increasing the cost of burndown by approximately 62%. This translates to an added cost of $6.50 per acre. Including crops like tobacco, sweetpotatoes, peanuts, and small grains—where glyphosate is used preplant but not in-season—this would represent an additional $17 million in costs statewide.
Corn
Corn producers stand to see the largest cost increase due to limited alternatives for grass control. Without glyphosate, they would need to adopt more expensive preemergence herbicide programs (three or four active ingredients). For postemergence grass control, options like nicosulfuron (Accent Q) or other ALS-inhibitor mixtures would likely be used. Overall, we estimate that weed management costs in corn would rise by 73%, or $38.35 per acre—totaling around $34 million in additional expenses for North Carolina growers.
Cotton
In cotton, farmers would likely need to add two residual herbicides—one preemergence and one postemergence. To replace glyphosate postemergence, clethodim (Select Max and generics) or similar grass herbicides like sethoxydim, fluazifop, or quizalofop would be required. These changes would increase weed control costs in cotton by 24%, or about $14.85 per acre, adding up to $6 million statewide.
Soybeans
Similar to cotton, soybean producers would need to include an additional preemergence residual herbicide and replace glyphosate postemergence with clethodim or related products. These changes would increase weed control costs by $15.10 per acre—a 38% rise. With 1.6 million acres of soybeans in North Carolina, this equates to an additional $25 million in costs for the state’s farmers.
Summary
In total, we estimate the immediate economic impact of losing glyphosate in North Carolina would be approximately $82 million. This figure is conservative and based only on predicted changes to herbicide programs, using projected 2025 herbicide prices. If glyphosate were withdrawn from the market, demand—and prices—for alternative herbicides would liley rise further.
The bottom line: glyphosate remains a vital tool in modern agriculture. Its loss would be a major disruption, both economically and operationally, for North Carolina farmers.