Glyphosate Ban Could Cost Illinois Farmers $609M
31 August 2026, Illinois: A complete ban on glyphosate in Illinois could reduce annual farm revenue from corn and soybean production by an estimated $300 million to $609 million, primarily because farmers would face higher weed-management costs and modest yield losses, according to a new study published in Weed Technology.
The research, conducted by scientists from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the Illinois Soybean Association, examines what could happen to one of the United States’ most important row-crop production systems if glyphosate were removed from the market. Rather than arguing for or against the herbicide, the researchers assessed the economic consequences of replacing it with alternative weed-control programs.
The study estimates that the impact would amount to roughly 1.8% to 3.6% of annual corn and soybean farm revenue in Illinois. Researchers conclude that a glyphosate ban would not necessarily trigger a collapse in crop production, because growers would adapt, but the transition would make weed management more expensive and operationally complicated.
Illinois Agriculture Highly Exposed to Glyphosate Changes
Illinois provides an important case study because of the scale of its corn and soybean sector. The state devotes approximately 8.6 million hectares to the two crops, with annual crop values exceeding $17 billion. Much of this production has benefited from glyphosate-based weed-management systems and conservation tillage.
Glyphosate, classified as a Group 9 herbicide, has played a central role in modern corn and soybean production. Its broad-spectrum weed control has helped support conservation tillage, while reducing fuel and labor requirements and contributing to production efficiency.
However, regulatory scrutiny, litigation, consumer concerns and the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds have increased uncertainty around the future availability of glyphosate. The researchers say this dependence creates potential vulnerability if farmers are forced to transition rapidly to alternative weed-management systems.
Farmers Used an Estimated 11.55 Million Kilograms of Glyphosate
For its baseline analysis, the study estimated glyphosate use in Illinois using planted area, application frequency and application-rate assumptions.
For 2023, estimated use totaled approximately 11.55 million kilograms of glyphosate acid equivalent across corn, soybean and fallow or other agricultural land.
Corn accounted for about 5.53 million kg, while soybean production accounted for approximately 5.89 million kg. Fallow and other agricultural land contributed another estimated 124,000 kg.
The researchers estimated that Illinois farmers spent between approximately $97.3 million and $186.4 million annuallyon glyphosate. Soybean production represented the larger share of expenditure because of its higher estimated total application volume.
The authors note that these figures are estimates rather than direct state-level sales data, because farm-level glyphosate transaction data are not publicly available. The analysis therefore combines federal acreage information with application assumptions and farm-gate price benchmarks.
Removing Glyphosate Without Substitution Could Cause a Major Short-Term Yield Shock
The researchers first modeled an extreme short-term scenario in which glyphosate was completely prohibited and farmers did not immediately substitute another weed-control method.
Using evidence from previous agronomic and economic studies, they adopted a 9% central yield elasticity for both corn and soybean. Under the study’s assumptions, this would translate into approximately a 9% yield reduction if glyphosate disappeared without replacement.
For corn, the modeled yield reduction was approximately 887 kg per hectare, producing an estimated statewide gross revenue loss of about $651 million.
For soybean, the modeled yield reduction was approximately 409 kg per hectare, corresponding to a gross revenue loss of roughly $629 million.
Together, the gross revenue loss was estimated at approximately $1.28 billion annually. After accounting for savings from no longer purchasing glyphosate, the estimated net revenue loss was approximately $1.15 billion per year.
The researchers emphasize, however, that this is an upper-bound short-run scenario. Farmers would be expected to respond by adopting alternative weed-management programs.
Substitution Would Reduce Yield Losses but Increase Costs
The more realistic part of the analysis examines what happens when farmers replace glyphosate with other weed-control strategies.
Potential alternatives considered in the study include glufosinate, 2,4-D choline, dicamba, ACCase-inhibiting herbicides such as clethodim, and mechanical weed-control strategies.
The study finds that these alternatives could substantially reduce the yield losses associated with a complete loss of glyphosate. However, most would require more products, additional applications or tighter management, increasing the cost of weed control.
The baseline glyphosate-based weed-management program was estimated at approximately $40-$77 per hectare.
By comparison, glufosinate-based programs were estimated at approximately $82-$153 per hectare, while programs based on 2,4-D choline or dicamba were estimated at $47-$89 per hectare.
A clethodim-based program, when combined with broadleaf and residual herbicides, was estimated at approximately $54-$116 per hectare. Other multi-pass ACCase inhibitor programs were estimated at $69-$124 per hectare.
The difference is significant because glyphosate is not simply being replaced by another single product at an equivalent cost. In many cases, farmers would need a multi-product program combining residual herbicides, post-emergence treatments and additional field passes.
Weed Control Could Become More Complex
The economic impact extends beyond the price of individual herbicide products.
The study points to increased application requirements, narrower application windows and greater attention to weather and environmental conditions as important operational considerations. Some substitute programs could require one or two post-emergence applications instead of a relatively simple glyphosate-based program.
For farmers, that could mean additional costs associated with machinery, fuel, labor and application timing.
The study estimates that replacing glyphosate would increase statewide production costs by approximately $238.5 million to $448.5 million per year under current substitute-input prices.
For corn, average additional weed-management costs were estimated at $26.4-$45.3 per hectare, translating into approximately $119.5-$205.3 million statewide.
For soybean, the average increase was estimated at $28.4-$58.1 per hectare, corresponding to approximately $119.0-$243.2 million statewide.
Substitute Herbicide Prices Could Rise
The researchers also considered what could happen if demand for alternative herbicides increased sharply following a glyphosate ban.
Two scenarios were modeled: a 15% increase and a 30% increase in substitute weed-management costs.
Under the 15% price-increase scenario, additional costs were estimated at approximately $35.8-$67.3 million statewide. When combined with substitution costs and a modest yield penalty, total annual revenue losses reached approximately $300 million to $541 million.
Under the 30% scenario, additional costs increased to approximately $71.6-$134.6 million, pushing total estimated annual revenue losses to approximately $336 million-$609 million.
These figures form the study’s preferred estimate because they incorporate farmer adaptation, higher demand for substitute products and a modest yield reduction.
Researchers Model a 2% Yield Penalty Under Substitution
The analysis does not assume that alternative weed-management systems would completely fail to maintain crop yields.
Instead, the researchers used a 2% yield reduction for both corn and soybean under substitution. This was described as a conservative assumption based on reported yield-penalty ranges in Midwest Extension literature.
The study notes that typical yield penalties reported for substitute programs can range from 0%-5% for corn and 2%-8% for soybean, with smaller losses more likely under well-managed conditions.
Under the study’s 2% assumption, yield-related revenue losses were estimated at approximately $25.6 million statewide—far smaller than the losses in the no-substitution scenario.
This illustrates one of the study’s central findings: farmer adaptation could absorb much of the potential yield shock, but the economic burden would shift toward higher production costs.
Herbicide Resistance Adds Another Layer of Risk
The transition away from glyphosate would also take place against a backdrop of existing herbicide resistance.
The study highlights resistant waterhemp populations in Illinois and notes that some farmers are already using alternative weed-management programs because of resistance to glyphosate.
Researchers caution that expanding reliance on any single replacement herbicide or mode of action could increase selection pressure and accelerate the evolution of resistance to those products as well.
The study cites evidence of waterhemp populations in Champaign and McLean counties resistant to multiple herbicide site-of-action groups. It also notes variable control from some residual herbicide treatments, highlighting the difficulty of relying on a single chemical solution.
This makes diversification increasingly important. A transition away from glyphosate would therefore not simply involve selecting a replacement active ingredient; it could require broader integrated weed-management programs.
Conservation Tillage Could Also Be Affected
Glyphosate’s role extends beyond chemical weed control.
The study notes that glyphosate-based systems have helped facilitate conservation tillage by reducing the need for mechanical weed control. A shift toward greater mechanical control could therefore introduce additional labor, equipment and fuel requirements.
The researchers did not fully quantify these effects in their preferred scenarios. They identify tillage and cover crops as important areas for future analysis because these approaches have their own costs, equipment requirements and potential yield implications.
As a result, the study’s economic estimates should not be interpreted as a complete accounting of every possible consequence of a glyphosate prohibition.
Impact Would Vary Among Farms
The statewide figures also mask differences among individual producers.
The researchers acknowledge that farms differ in size, labor availability, equipment, management capacity and reliance on custom application services. These differences could determine how easily individual operations adapt to a glyphosate-free production system.
Some growers may already have diversified weed-management programs because of herbicide resistance, meaning the incremental cost of a formal ban could be lower for them.
Indeed, the study says that because some Illinois producers have already shifted toward alternative programs, its estimates may represent an upper bound on the incremental revenue effect of a formal ban for those growers.
What the Findings Mean for U.S. and Global Agriculture
Although the analysis is specific to Illinois, its implications extend beyond the state.
Illinois is a major producer of corn and soybeans, commodities that are deeply integrated into feed, food, biofuel and global agricultural markets. A major change in weed-management costs or productivity in a production region of this scale could have implications beyond individual farm balance sheets.
However, the researchers explicitly caution that their analysis does not estimate impacts on the broader agrifood supply chain, commodity prices, environmental outcomes or human health. Those questions require separate data and analytical approaches.
For global agriculture, the study nevertheless highlights a broader policy challenge: removing a widely used agricultural input may not eliminate the underlying production problem. Instead, farmers may replace one input with a more expensive and operationally complex combination of products and practices.
That transition could also shift demand across the agricultural-input industry, potentially increasing demand for alternative herbicides while creating new resistance-management challenges.
Early Adaptation Could Help Farmers Manage the Transition
The researchers argue that proactive adaptation could help producers reduce the economic disruption associated with reduced glyphosate availability.
Testing alternative herbicide programs, diversifying weed-control strategies and adjusting operational practices before a regulatory change occurs could help farmers understand the costs and performance of different systems.
The study also emphasizes integrated weed management, combining chemical and nonchemical approaches, as an important strategy for limiting yield losses and reducing dependence on individual herbicide modes of action.
For policymakers, the findings provide an economic benchmark for evaluating potential restrictions. For farmers and crop advisers, they highlight the importance of planning for both the direct cost of replacement products and the operational complexity associated with their use.
Glyphosate Ban Would Mean a Costly Transition, Not a Production Collapse
The study’s central conclusion is that Illinois agriculture could adapt to the removal of glyphosate, but adaptation would come with measurable economic costs.
Without substitution, the modeled impact is severe, with an estimated net revenue loss of approximately $1.15 billion annually. Once farmer adaptation is incorporated, the estimated impact falls substantially, but remains significant at approximately $300 million-$609 million per year, or 1.8%-3.6% of current corn and soybean revenue.
The findings therefore shift the focus from whether farmers could survive without glyphosate to how much it would cost to transition and how effectively alternative systems could maintain productivity.
For Illinois growers operating on tight margins, even a relatively small percentage reduction in revenue can be meaningful. The researchers conclude that farmers can adapt, but the resulting production system would likely involve higher input costs, greater management complexity and careful planning.
The study provides a state-specific economic benchmark rather than a universal prediction for glyphosate restrictions. Nevertheless, it illustrates the broader challenge facing agricultural policy: changing the availability of a foundational crop-protection input can trigger a chain of effects involving yields, input markets, farm costs, resistance management and production practices.
For agriculture policymakers and producers considering the future of glyphosate, the key issue may therefore be less about a simple replacement and more about designing resilient weed-management systems capable of maintaining productivity while reducing dependence on any single chemistry.
Also Read: Glyphosate Use in Caldor Fire Restoration Draws Strong Opposition at Lake Tahoe Meeting
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
