IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v100y2018i4p1136-1150..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has Resistance Taken Root in U.S. Corn Fields? Demand for Insect Control

Author

Listed:
  • Seth Wechsler
  • David Smith

Abstract

Corn farmers reported unexpectedly severe damage on fields planted with genetically-engineered rootworm-resistant (Bt-CRW) corn seeds during the 2009 growing season. Entomologists later determined that rootworms on these fields had developed resistance to the insecticidal proteins produced by Bt-CRW corn. This article explores what corn farmers’ seed and soil insecticide choices imply about rootworm resistance in the United States. First, a soil insecticide demand function is derived using a damage-abatement model. Next, this demand function is estimated using field-level data from 2005 and 2010. We find that rootworms (Diabrotica spp.) cost farmers approximately $1.3 billion in 2005 and $2 billion in 2010. When used, Bt-CRW seeds were very effective, reducing average yield losses by approximately five bushels per acre and providing over twice as much control (on average) as soil insecticides. We found no evidence that soil insecticide use was higher on fields where resistance was most likely to develop. However, we did find that demand for soil insecticides was elastic. These results suggest that rootworm resistance was not widespread in 2010, but that it could substantively increase soil insecticide use if it evolved and spread.

Suggested Citation

  • Seth Wechsler & David Smith, 2018. "Has Resistance Taken Root in U.S. Corn Fields? Demand for Insect Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1136-1150.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:4:p:1136-1150.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aay016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel C. Voica & Troy G. Schmitz, 2022. "Trading risk for ambiguity: Production versus health under pesticide application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1327-1342, August.
    2. Jonathan R. McFadden & Alicia Rosburg & Eric Njuki, 2022. "Information inputs and technical efficiency in midwest corn production: evidence from farmers' use of yield and soil maps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 589-612, March.
    3. Perry, Edward D. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2020. "Neonicotinoids in U.S. maize: Insecticide substitution effects and environmental risk," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Martina Kadoić Balaško & Katarina M. Mikac & Hugo A. Benítez & Renata Bažok & Darija Lemic, 2021. "Genetic and Morphological Approach for Western Corn Rootworm Resistance Management," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:4:p:1136-1150.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.