They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more.
You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
>You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
I have done and continue to do research in this field which is why I am perplexed by what you're saying; it doesn't make sense.
Applying more pesticide doesn't increase profit; it lessens due to the added cost and diminished returns. You'll be hard-pressed to find an agriculture operation applying more pesticide than absolutely necessary.
The advances in agriculture technology has lessened the amount of product application necessary, not increased it.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471...
> Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.