Submitted by Robert McNabb to the 9th Annual Manitoba-North Dakota

Zero Tillage Workshop---January 22 & 23, 1987, Regina

A no-till farmer faces a number of formidable challenges. After nine years of zero-tillage on our farm near Minnedosa, Manitoba, I feel that we have come to grips with many of the physical problems in producing oilseed and cereal grains under a no-till format.

Having said that, this afternoon's discussion on "Making Zero-Till Affordable" is uppermost in my mind. Chemicals, involving their rates and timing of application along with pricing is the one aspect of no-till production that, without question, generates the most concern with respect to affordability.

I am pleased that a representative of Agriculture Canada, involved in the pesticide registration process has ventured west to share ideas on the chemical issue today.

Ultimately, I believe all of us would welcome the advance of biotechnology and integrated pest management techniques that would eliminate or reduce the reliance on and use of pesticides.

Given sufficient, research, there is no doubt? that at some point in the future this may occur, however, the immediate future would indicate a continuance of pesticide usage in order to sustain production.

The elimination of tillage exposes the no-till farmer to at least one more application of a pesticide. This is virtually the main difference in chemical usage between no-till and conventional till. Most of the following comments will centre around one predominate chemical that is used to replace tillage; however the general comments will apply to all chemicals used by all farmers in both production methods.

Of primary importance in the usage of chemicals is to have a thorough understanding of the chemical to be used and with all of the environmental impacts including human toxicology that it may possess.

Equally important in making no-till affordable is to know the pest or weed that you are attempting to eliminate. There is no point in using higher priced chemicals if control can be achieved with cheaper chemicals.

It is absolutely vital that a producer become keenly aware of his weed spectrum.

In our operation, the most commonly used herbicide to replace tillage is glyphosate. It is used as a burn-off at seeding time as well as controlling annual and perennial weeds. At times it is used in combination with phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-0 or Dicamba.

Glyphosate has proven to be effective in controlling a broad spectrum of weeds when applied in sufficient concentrations and appropriate timing for particular weeds.

The implication of 'sufficient concentrations of glyphosate" is now the focus of attention because there is a price to be paid. The necessity of higher concentrations for that shift to. a harder to control weed spectrum directly correlates to higher costs.

When many of us started into no-till, glyphosate accounted for approximately 25 % of our herbicide bill. We know find that to do the same job, glyphosate will make up about 50 % of the bill.

This can shift the economic scale in favor of tillage but before we hook up the cultivator let's explore a few more possibilities.

Reduced rates of glyphosate with the addition of additives may help to keep the cost down. We have used rates as low as 3 oz. active/acre with the addition of 1 to 3 lb./ acre of ammonium sulfate plus 0.5 % by volume of an agriculturally approved nonionic surfactant.

This was found on our farm to give good control of volunteer grains and wild oats in the 2-3 leaf stage; however those tougher to kill grasses such as quackgrass and brome grass showed no suppression. These weeds were found to require a minimum of 12 oz. of glyphosate/acre at a cost in 1986 of approximately $23/acre.

Well, we now felt that our experience showed that glyphosate was environmentally safe to use, fit well with any crop rotations because of no residue and could be quite effective on those tougher weeds at the higher concentrations and corresponding higher price.

Why not approach the manufacturer about the possibility of lowering that price? This suggestion was countered by the manufacturer to the effect that glyphosate wasn't overpriced and that for every one dollar a farmer spends on glyphosate he will get better than a four dollar return. The manufacturer also stated that glyphosate was "priced to value" which in layman's terms means all that the traffic will bear.

So, no change in pricing policy---what about the expiry of the seventeen year glyphosate patent in 1990 and the possibility of effective competition? .

We now find that a policy entitled "P.S.R." or Product Specific Registration will have a bearing on the introduction of effective competition for most chemicals in the market place at the end of their 17 year protection periods.

A brief description of P.S.R. shows that it was implemented by Ag Canada in 1980. P.S.R. policy differed from the previous alternate technical review system in that P.S.R. required the complete replication of the entire original data package before registration would be granted to a competing product.

The consequences of this policy were summarized as follows in AG Canada Memorandum R-l-219 (February 1, 1984) "Current P.S.R. policy has awarded an unreasonable amount of data protection to basic manufacturers. In effect, their data is protected in perpetuity and there is no incentive to update data bases. In addition, this policy has virtually halted registration of alternate (new) sources of active ingredients, thereby limiting competition within the industry".

From this statement it can be seen that the unreasonable amount of date protection has been directly translated into "market protection" through the blocking of compassion within the industry.

As a result, a revised P.S.R. policy known as P.S.R 85 has been introduced. It would appear that P.S.R 85 simply perpetuates this same market protection through a "modified" form of data protection as compared to the original.

Well, it would now appear that all P.S.R. policies both past and present have and will continue to be detrimental to any hope of the farmer having effective competition at the send of what seems to me, a long and sufficient seventeen year period of exclusivity.

There is a definite need to update data bases supporting the safety of older active ingredients and there is also a requirement for modern state of art data, in order to confirm and document the safety of pesticides in use. Policies such as P.S.R. must be neutral to the market place in the attainment of this data.

There is no question of the necessity of reasonable protection for the innovator; however, the economic survival of our farmers and their top-soil should not be held ransom to policies such as P.S.R.

The absence of effective competition for long periods only serves to retard the advancement of newer technologies.

As farmers we must strive to ensure that those in the political environment devise and implement policies that obtain equitable results for all parties.

In conclusion, the pesticide industry has come under some scrutiny by the public in North America. As farmers we must apply and dispose of chemicals with the highest degree of safety possible. Public trust of our use of all chemicals MUST be gained or the time may come when politics and not science will determine the future of these products.