Comparative Advantage of Using Biopesticides in Ukrainian Agroecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of unsustainable levels of chemical fertilizers and plant protection chemicals has resulted in a steady decline in soil and crop productivity the world over. Soil biology has undergone irreversible damage, coupled with a high concentration of toxic chemical residues in plant tissues and human bodies. Agricultural practices must evolve to sustainably meet the growing global demand for food without irreversibly damaging soil. Microbial biocontrol agents have tremendous potential to bring sustainability to agriculture in a way that is safe for the environment. Biopesticides do not kill non-target insects, and biosafety is ensured because biopesticides act as antidotes and do not lead to chemical contamination in the soil. This article is part of a larger study conducted in Ukraine by researchers at the Université de Montréal with the support of Mitacs and Earth Alive Clean Technologies. The responses of farmers who use biofertilizers (“user farmers”) and those who do not (“non-user farmers”), along with the responses of manufacturers or suppliers of biofertilizers, and research and development (R&D) scientists are captured to demonstrate the advantages of applying microbial biopesticides to field crops. Participants reported a 15-30% increase in yields and crop production after the application of biopesticides. With the use of biopesticides, farmers cultivated better quality fruits, grains, and tubers with a longer shelf life. Moreover, while the risk of crop loss remains high (60-70%) with chemically grown crops, this risk is reduced to 33% on average if crops are grown using biopesticides. The findings indicate that a large proportion of farmers would prefer to use biopesticides if they are effective and high quality products. In this context, the quality and effectiveness of products is therefore very important. Despite their benefits to soil, human health, and ecosystems, biopesticides face significant challenges and competition vis-à-vis synthetic pesticides for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the development of biopesticides must overcome the problems of poor quality products, short shelf life, delayed action, high market costs, and legal/registration issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".