How did I miss this: On 30th August there was an article in the West Australian titled 'Libs flag new GM crop trials' in which the Western Australian Opposition was reported to be calling for wide-scale commercial trials of genetically modified (GM) canola with a view to lifting the current moratorium banning GM crops in that state.
The WA Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance had already responded to the Libs new found enthusiasm for GM by detailing in a media release how Western Australia's canola growers are now receiving premium prices for their crops because of the State's GM-free status.
But David Tribe asks whether farmers are better off with the $1 a tonne premium if the GM canola is higher yielding.
Anyway, it is significant that a State Opposition is finally taking on the GM issue and that there is at last some sort of evidence of a price premium for non-GM canola.
'where sweet pototo doesnt grow well' - Detribe
Which areas did you mean and in what way are they more suited to rice?
'You'd probably be surprised at how much I've thought about them though' - Detribe
Are you sure? Since you have so much trouble discussing a relatively simple matter of yields and agronomics, I fully intend to cover the more complex issues such as trade, economics and the WTO in order to broaden your horizons. :o)
I certainly find it amusing that Detribe can wander off topic and thread in his posts but wishes to restrict the content of my posts to his specific requirements..... like thats going to happen.
Unfortunately for Detribe and his disingenuous 'vile scenario' comment, I have submitted a post that shows the vile scenario actually being carried out by a biotech company, unfortunately Jennifer's spam filter doesn't like posts with links in them, so up until today a number of my posts have got stuck in limbo for varying lengths of time (from hours to days).
My format will therefore change, in future I will concentrate more on quotes than links.
I apologise to any readers who found the links helpful but I am trying to work efficiently within the existing system. Anyone wishing to refer to the more important links will find that an edited anthology of my GMO rebuttals will appear on my blog in a couple of days.
'If your wondering why I'm not responding to your insights perhaps you could try makinging them relevant to canola hybrid yield data.' - Detribe
GM biotech companies are deliberately skewing canola hybrid yield research into canola hybrid yield improvemnts in favour of GM canola hybrid product by monopolising certain canola hybrid market places as demonstrated by the canola hybrid yield data supplied by Dr Tribe.
I wonder if I mentioned canola hybrid yield enough for Dr Tribe this time? Probably not. :o)
'Constructed a vile scenario' - Detribe
No, just extrapolating from existing biotech corporate behaviour in other markets -
'During the early years of introducing transgenic soybean into Argentina, Monsanto did not charge farmers royalties to use the technology. But now that farmers are hooked, the multinational is pressuring the government for payment of intellectual property rights, despite the fact that Argentina signed UPOV 78, which allows farmers to save seeds for their own use. Nevertheless, Paraguayan farmers have just signed an agreement with Monsanto to pay the company $2 per tonne.
- Prof. Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Prof. Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6435
http://bittergreensgazette.blogspot.com/2005/04/monsanto-marches-on.html
There are none so blind as though who will not see.
Life for me is actually a very beautiful experience, marred by corporate greed.
NASUS: Detribe's strident advocacy for a GM solution to vitamin A deficiency conveniently ignores the fact that there are conventional crop solutions to the problem
detribe
Certainly the sweet potato option you allude to should be encouraged, but isn't it premature to conclude it is a complete solution; Golden rice might indeed help complement it in area where sweet pototo doesnt grow well and provide greater vitamin security?
Nasus
Cynics might suspect that free distribution of a patented crop that farmers can be charged for in the future might have something to do with the 'generosity'of Syngenta's free distribution. It also has the additional benefit for the biotech industry of contaminating the food chain in new areas with patented GM product.. Lets have a closer look at the small print: Syngenta's commercial business model etc etc
detribe:
Nasus since you refuse to accept Potrykus, Beyer and Syngenta's clear statement that the Golden rice will be made available free to poor farmers and have constucted a vile scenario in which you imagine they will revoke their donated efforts, there is no point in discussing Golden Rice with you except to simply note that yours is the same mindless lack of charity and willingness to promote delay that is evident in Greenpeaces attitudes to the Golden Rice project.
Yes Nasus you are indeed a morose cynic. Life for you must be a miserable experience
PS
Nasus: There is one other aspect of GM traits where a intrinsic and definite yield increment is offered by GM crops.
We currently grow large areas of triazine herbicide tolerant TT (non GM canola) especially in West Australia.
TT canola suffers from a yield penalty (values given in R Norton's report (~8% from memory).
Rounduup ready canola (GM) does not bear this yield penalty so replacement of TT with RR canola would boost yields from the discontinuation of the TT mutant allele which impairs photosynthetic efficiency. It also allows triazine (atrazine) herbicide to be replaced with glyphosate which is an environmenmtal plus.
"GM yields are now starting to equal or exceed conventional crops in markets where GM crop take up is highest. This has nothing whatsoever to do with an intrinsic superiority of GM over conventional crops. It is based on a very simple cause.
Scientific focus for improving yields is concentrated on the strains with the highest sales. So when Monsanto et al. ensure (as they have now managed to do in certain markets) that the majority of sales are of GM seed then all scientific focus for increased yield is on GM strains not conventional strains; ipso facto GM strains then start to produce higher yields than conventional ones because little or no research is being done on the conventional strains to increase yields because 'not enough' conventional product is being sold in those markets."NASUS
detribe:
There aspects of what you say here that are useful, but I didn't see these statements as particularly compelling or original, or indeed cover the full story. I see the actual situation as bit different from how you interpret it, just as I see Robert Nortons report differently to you, but it is rather pointless to think you'll listen to my arguments. They are don't relate to the main point that GM canola hybrids give a yield boost whwen you dont address.
It's well known takes a while for the GM trait to be backcrossed into the best germplasm, and that one can cogently argue that in the early days of trait introduction the GM trait is often not in the best germplasm, so one has to wait and see a few seasons to pass for realistic yields. I've heard this a few times in Australia and South Africa.
And yes from GM there is not always a significant yield increment - herbicide tolerance largely just saves money, labour, diesel fuel and helps conservation tillage and build up of soil carbon. Just those significant financial and environmental benefits.
I don't in fact argue that GM traits will necessarily or always improve yield, but they can reduce losses and enhance stress tolerance and minimise variability in yield, and save on pesticide sprays . This is certainly true with Bt cotton in India - in the case of Bt and cotton in India for example, the GM trait does reduce losses so in practical terms yields are improved.
However the fact remains when it come to canola hybrids the GM hybrids seems to be much more practical than other Brassica systems and the GM hybrid canola thus offers intrinsic yield improvement over non hybrids. That the issue you first bought up and you don't discuss the data that relate to it.
Its interesting though that your arguments have some force in that Australia is now effectively currently cutting itself off from Canadian GM germplasm , so it is now more difficult to use the best Canadian stock as it is largely GM, and genetic resources resources for Australian breeders are now less extensive
If your wondering why I'm not responding to your insights perhaps you could try makinging them relevant to canola hybrid yield data.