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