Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers reluctant to adopt non-chemical alternatives to herbicides?

Implementation of integrated weed management (IWM) has been poor, with little evidence of concomitant reductions in herbicide use. Non-chemical methods are often adopted as a means of compensating for reduced herbicide efficacy, due to increasing resistance, rather than as alternatives to herbicides. Reluctance to adopt non-chemical methods is not due to a lack of research or technology but to a lack of farmer motivation and action. Justifiably, herbicides are often seen as the easier option - their convenience outweighs the increased complexity, costs and management time associated with non-chemical alternatives. Greater use of non-chemical alternatives to herbicides will only occur if the following seven aspects are addressed: (i) better recognition of the reasons why farmers are reluctant to use non-chemical alternatives; (ii) encouraging farmers to adopt a longer-term approach to weed control; (iii) changing farmers' attitudes to pesticides; (iv) paying more attention to the individual farmer's perspective; (v). greater involvement of economists, social scientists and marketing professionals; (vi) re-evaluating research and extension priorities; and (vii) changing the mindset of funders of research and extension. If 'persuasion' fails to deliver greater implementation of IWM, authorities may resort to greater use of financial and other incentives combined with tougher regulations.