Agriculture without glyphosate - what are the consequences?

We have probably all noticed the sometimes-heated debate about the future of glyphosate in the EU. In the Danish Miljøstyrelse, which is the competent authority for pesticide approvals, the opinion is that the approved uses of glyphosate do not pose a problem for either human health or the environment. Not all EU countries agree and, as it currently appears, further debating can be expected between the countries that support a new glyphosate approval and those who will vote against. Glyphosate's current approval expires at the end of 2022, and it seems unlikely that one could end up again in a situation where there is no qualified majority for neither a ban nor an approval.

The prospect of losing glyphosate has led to studies in a number of countries looking at the cost of farming through a ban on glyphosate. In connection with the most recent distribution of funds from the Promilleafgiftsfonden, SEGES received a grant to look partly at the cost of a ban as well as alternative solutions for glyphosate. During the course of 2020, the results of this work will be published, but in the meantime you can take a overcross Østersøen, where the Swedish Jordbrugsverket in 2019 conducted a similar exercise. Southern Swedish agriculture is in many ways similar to eastern Danish agriculture, so it is relevant to look at the Swedish studies.

In the Swedish study, as has been done in analyses performed in other countries, the increased costs of mechanical tillage were calculated. Glyphosate has been called "much more than an herbicide" because it has made it possible to practice crop rotation and cultivation methods which are not possible without glyphosate. Therefore, the cost of a ban is not just increased costs for e.g. mechanical control, but also a loss of income as a result of a necessary change of seed change. Furthermore, it is to be expected that without glyphosate, perennial weeds will over time become a major problem and cause yield losses, which also the organic farmers, who cannot use glyphosate experience. These losses are included in the Swedish calculations, and thus the Swedish analysis appears very complete. Converted to Danish kroner, total losses amount to DKK 490-842 / ha and DKK 224-692 / ha respectively for a farm with a grain-rich crop change and a farm where sugar beet and winter rape are also cultivated. The variation reflects a long-term yield loss of 0 and 5%, respectively. Overall, a ban on glyphosate will result in a loss of income for Swedish agriculture of 5 - 8%. In addition, a ban on glyphosate will have negative environmental effects, as both nitrogen leaching and CO2 emissions will increase.

In Denmark, approx. half of the area of ??glyphosate every year, and a study on glyphosate consumption in the EU, which is currently carried out via the EU network ENDURE, has shown that Denmark is in the top 3 in terms of consumption of glyphosate per year per ha. This is partly due to natural conditions such as our climate, which do not leave much time between the crops, but also that other regulation, which should reduce the leaching of nitrogen, makes it difficult or impossible to control mechanical weeds. Danish agriculture therefore faces a number of challenges if

glyphosate is banned in the EU, and there is an obvious need to develop alternative solutions that can also interact with other environmental measures. Should glyphosate not be banned, it seems realistic that there will be restrictions in use to reduce high consumption, and alternative solutions will still be needed for many of the current uses.