Pesticide Productivity and Transgenic Cotton Technology: The South African Smallholder Case
By B. Shankar, Colin Thirtle. 2005
122 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Business and International Management, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Plant Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40b00e7940cae0e0f34cc4a2c56b175fb3544dbd
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Business and International Management
In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
In Plant Science
Citations in the corpus
- Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change (2010, background): “, 1994); reducing machinery, labour and fuel costs (Shankar and Thirtle, 2005); and second-round or multiplier effects on total production and demand for goods and services and resultant welfare impacts as seen in India (Qaim, 2003; Qaim and Zilberman, 2003) and China (Huang et al.”
- EU Food Safety Standards, Pesticide Use and Farm‐level Productivity: The Case of High‐value Crops in Kenya (2009, background): “Following the work of Lichtenberg and Zilberman (1986), Ajayi (2000), Huang et al. (2002), Qaim (2003), Qaim and Zilbermann (2003), Pemsl (2006) and Shankar and Thirtle (2005), this study takes the ‘damage control’ approach to establishing pesticide productivity and computing economic optima for…”
- Water management and crop production for food security in China: A review (2009, background): “For instance, GM cotton requires much less pesticide and has only a small impact on yields (Huang et al., 2002a; Shankar and Thirtle, 2005).”
- Quantifying pesticide overuse from farmer and societal points of view: An application to Thailand (2013, unknown): “6 as a damage-control agent rather than a regular growth-stimulating input avoids overestimating the efficiency of pesticide use, a phenomenon confirmed by successive studies (Chambers and Lichtenberg, 1994; Praneetvatakul et al., 2003; Shankar and Thirtle, 2005).”
- A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops (2011, unknown): “Shankar and Thirtle [33] observed that smallholders are offsetting the higher seed cost of GM by lowering the seeding rate per hectare.”