Scholarlink

<p>The ban on glyphosate use in France has long been a controversial issue between agricultural stakeholders and public health authorities. Some politicians and scholars have characterized sloping vineyards and low-till crops as dead-end situations: i.e., highly dependent on glyphosate due to the lack of viable alternatives, both from technical and socioeconomic perspectives (mechanization costs, labor constraints). Most agronomic research has focused on developing technical alternatives to glyphosate. We propose shifting from the dominant R&amp;D-centered approach to studying farm-led innovations to investigate ways to overcome these dead-end situations. Using the innovation-tracking approach, we analyzed 16 French case studies. Through semi-structured interviews, we collected data on farmers’ practices and their logic (i.e., the meaning farmers give to their practices within their situations). The results demonstrate six archetypes of glyphosate-free management logics for weeds and cover crops. Winegrower practices include adjusting the frequency and type of mechanical weeding, using equipment adapted to slope conditions (steep slopes, terraces). This equipment can be combined to manage both inter-row cover crops and under-vine weeds. Practices of low-till crop farmers involve integrating preventive and curative weed management strategies with various cover crop termination techniques (livestock grazing, mechanical methods), often linked to the level of farm diversification. We showed for the first time how winegrowers and low-till crop farmers combine the implementation of practices with innovative equipment use and participation in collective action to phase out glyphosate. These systemic innovations allowed farmers to overcome the increase of mechanization costs and workload through the sharing and development of equipment and work organization, ensuring timely weeding during vulnerable stages of the weed life cycle. Therefore, stopping glyphosate use requires a profound re-design of weed and cover crop management throughout the crop cycle. Finally, we argue that studying local innovations challenges how R&amp;D stakeholders characterize dead-end situations regarding alternatives to pesticides.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On-farm systemic innovations to overcome dead-end situations and support glyphosate-free agriculture in France

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月28日

查看全文
  • Priscila Duarte Malanski,
  • Marie Thiollet-Scholtus,
  • Bruno Chauvel,
  • Annabelle Revel,
  • Chloé Salembier

摘要

The ban on glyphosate use in France has long been a controversial issue between agricultural stakeholders and public health authorities. Some politicians and scholars have characterized sloping vineyards and low-till crops as dead-end situations: i.e., highly dependent on glyphosate due to the lack of viable alternatives, both from technical and socioeconomic perspectives (mechanization costs, labor constraints). Most agronomic research has focused on developing technical alternatives to glyphosate. We propose shifting from the dominant R&D-centered approach to studying farm-led innovations to investigate ways to overcome these dead-end situations. Using the innovation-tracking approach, we analyzed 16 French case studies. Through semi-structured interviews, we collected data on farmers’ practices and their logic (i.e., the meaning farmers give to their practices within their situations). The results demonstrate six archetypes of glyphosate-free management logics for weeds and cover crops. Winegrower practices include adjusting the frequency and type of mechanical weeding, using equipment adapted to slope conditions (steep slopes, terraces). This equipment can be combined to manage both inter-row cover crops and under-vine weeds. Practices of low-till crop farmers involve integrating preventive and curative weed management strategies with various cover crop termination techniques (livestock grazing, mechanical methods), often linked to the level of farm diversification. We showed for the first time how winegrowers and low-till crop farmers combine the implementation of practices with innovative equipment use and participation in collective action to phase out glyphosate. These systemic innovations allowed farmers to overcome the increase of mechanization costs and workload through the sharing and development of equipment and work organization, ensuring timely weeding during vulnerable stages of the weed life cycle. Therefore, stopping glyphosate use requires a profound re-design of weed and cover crop management throughout the crop cycle. Finally, we argue that studying local innovations challenges how R&D stakeholders characterize dead-end situations regarding alternatives to pesticides.