| Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola was approved by Federal regulation but blocked by State moratoriums in all canola growing states. Monsanto has since withdrawn their GM canola program from Australia.
Roundup Ready canola is developed by adding a gene construct derived from soil bacteria to the DNA of conventional non-GM plants. Any improvement is only due to the trait that is introduced which is to enable this plant to be resistant to glyphosate.
Yields:
Monsanto's RR varieties appear to have reduced yields. The Scientist magazine (here) confirmed a reason for yield penalty associated with post emergent glyphosate. The glyphosate lodges in the meristems and affects reproduction, therefore reducing yields. This would explain the disappointing yield performance of the trials performed to date. Until recently removed, the best yield reported on Monsanto's website was 1.055tonne/ha which is 17% below the national average.
A study in Canada by Fulton and Keyowski finding that whilst Roundup Ready canola offered lower input costs of around US$5.00 per acre compared to conventional varieties, it was also associated with lower yields of around 7.5 percent.
Although weeds will be controlled by the application of post emergent glyphosate, the overuse of glyphosate will rapidly increase the development of glyphosate resistant weeds. Some weeds will only be suppressed by glyphosate, therefore the overuse of glyphosate will give these weeds a selective advantage. To compensate for this, a resistance management plan is to be integrated, however this resistance management plan will impose additional costs and the increased use of additional more toxic chemicals (such as the use of undesirable chemicals 2-4,D and Sprayseed).
The additional costs are still confidential and deemed "commercial in confidence" but Canadian farmers pay an increasing and hefty user fee cost. Add the additional costs for resistance management and volunteer control, add the liability insurance (if available) for adverse impacts on neighbours, add the additional costs for segregation and identity preservation (estimated at 10% of product value) and it is obvious that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
Monsanto is planning to implement an end-point-user fee for their Roundup Ready canola. There is serious concern that the positive/negative lithmus test could lead to a deduction of patent royalties from the income of non-GM farmers if contaminated non-GM seed is found. As low as 0.5% contamination could trigger a positive test and a deduction of a user fee on 100% of the seed delivered.
There are further concerns reported from those growing GM crops:
Extract from article below:
- The types of concern raised by growers vary from year to year depending on the crop and the environment, but include perceptions of increased sensitivity to diseases, increased fruit abortion, reduced pollination efficiency, increased sensitivity to environmental stress, and differences in yield and agronomic characteristics between transgenic and sister conventional varieties.
- Because glyphosate is rapidly translocated to and accumulates in metabolic sink tissues, reproductive tissues and roots are particularly vulnerable. Increased sensitivity to glyphosate in reproductive tissues has been documented in both glyphosate-resistant cotton and maize, and results in reduced pollen production and viability, or increased fruit abortion. Glyphosate treatments have the potential to affect relationships between the GR crop, plant pathogens, plant pests and symbiotic micro-organisms, although management practices can also have a large impact.
Julie Newman
References:
"The germination, seed dormancy and fitness traits such as sensitivity to other herbicides disease resistance, stress adaptation, and competitiveness for Roundup Ready canola fall within the range of conventional canola varieties. The genetic modifications do not provide Roundup Ready canola with an ecological advantage over conventional canola except in the presence of glyphosate."
pg. 83: 296. "... Monsanto has indicated that results of field trials in Australia and commercial release in other countries, show no differences between Roundup Ready canola and conventional canola in ability to resist drought, heat and frost."
pg 84 "302. Prior to the introduction of herbicide tolerant varieties, canola volunteers in subsequent seasons did not represent a significant issue because they would be completely controlled by non-selective herbicide application.
303. In contrast, in situations where a herbicide tolerant variety has been grown the persistence of volunteers in subsequent seasons will become apparent if the same herbicide is used for weed control because these volunteers will escape control. This has particularly been the case where glyphosate is relied on for weed control in minimum tillage situations (Derksen et al. 1999). Glyphosate has provided ineffective weed control because of Roundup Ready® canola volunteers, even several years after the canola crop."
pg 139 "636. The increased adoption of zero and minimum tillage systems (see below) in many marginal cropping areas throughout Australia, particularly Western Australia, has increased the use of non-selective herbicides, such as glyphosate and paraquat, for pre-sowing ‘knock-down’ weed control while simultaneously reducing soil erosion and related costs. Major disturbance of soil through tillage is decreasingly popular. With decreasing use of cultivation as a weed control strategy, glyphosate is the cheapest, and considered the most benign, of the available non-selective herbicide options. In Australia, glyphosate is the most frequently used herbicide (as much as 90%) for this purpose (Neve et al. 2003b).
pg 142 "656. As outlined above, models developed in Australia to simulate the evolution of glyphosate resistance in L. rigidum predict that the introduction of glyphosate tolerant canola into the zero tillage cropping system currently used in Australia would significantly increase the rate at which glyphosate resistance evolves compared to rotations incorporating conventional canola varieties (Neve et al. 2003b; Preston et al. 1999)."
pg 142. "658. Herbicide resistance management strategies include the use of alternative non-selective herbicides for pre-seeding weed control thereby eliminating glyphosate application in some phases of the crop rotation, full soil disturbance at seeding and the sequential use of glyphosate followed by paraquat pre-seeding (the ‘double knockdown’). Neve et al. (2003b) predict that to eliminate the increased probability of resistance with the introduction of Roundup ReadyŇ canola, an integrated approach incorporating high crop seeding rates and removal of weed seeds at harvest combined with the ‘double knockdown’ preseeding would be required."
pg 145. "673. Monsanto recommends that glyphosate not be applied in the year following Roundup ReadyŇ canola since glyphosate would be ineffective in controlling Roundup ReadyŇ canola volunteers. However, where this is not feasible or practical, Monsanto’s RRCRMP indicates that a number of additional management practices must be implemented. Monsanto also recommends that glyphosate not be used for the control of annual ryegrass in areas where resistant populations are suspected."
Trial areas grown to date: pg. 17. "16. The first release in Australia of lines covered by this application was in 1997. All previous releases have been carried out under conditions to limit spread or persistence of the GMO in the environment. Roundup Ready® canola GT73 has been grown in various Australian locations and conditions in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. In the largest approved trial, the planting area was 150 hectares. No adverse effects on human health and safety or the environment were reported for any of these releases.
17. On 22 August 2002 the Regulator issued a licence (DIR 011/2001) to Monsanto for a limited and controlled release of Roundup Ready® canola in two consecutive winter seasons. In the winter of 2002 the total trial area was a maximum of 4 hectares on 4 sites in 3 shires in Victoria and South Australia with no one site having an area greater than 1.2 hectares. In the winter of 2003 the total trial area was 32.8 hectares at a maximum of 25 sites in 13 shires in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia with no one site having a greater area than 5 hectares."
Technical performance of some commercial glyphosate-resistant crops
March 2005
Pest Management Science Volume 61, Issue 3
Wendy Pline-Srnic *
Syngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell,
Berkshire RG42 6EY, UK
email: Wendy Pline-Srnic (wendy.pline-srnic@syngenta.com)
*Correspondence to Wendy Pline-Srnic, Syngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, UK Paper presented at the symposium Herbicide-resistant crops from biotechnology: current and future status, held by the Agrochemicals Division of the American Chemical Society at the 227th National Meeting, Anaheim, CA, 29-30 March 2004, to mark the presentation of the International Award for Research in Agrochemicals To Dr Stephen O Duke.
Conference: Herbicide-resistant crops from biotechnology: current and future status, Anaheim, CA, USA, 29 March 2004 to 30 March 2004. Agrochemicals Division of the American Chemical Society.
Abstract
Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops have been sold commercially in the USA since 1996. The use of glyphosate alone or with conventional pre- and post-emergence herbicides with different modes of action gives growers many options for affordable, safe, easy, effective wide-spectrum weed control. Despite the overwhelming popularity of this technology, technical issues have surfaced from time to time as US growers adopt these crops for use on their farms. The types of concern raised by growers vary from year to year depending on the crop and the environment, but include perceptions of increased sensitivity to diseases, increased fruit abortion, reduced pollination efficiency, increased sensitivity to environmental stress, and differences in yield and agronomic characteristics between transgenic and sister conventional varieties. Although several glyphosate-resistant crops are commercially available, maize, soybean and cotton constitute the largest cultivated acreage and have likewise been associated with the highest number of technical concerns. Because glyphosate is rapidly translocated to and accumulates in metabolic sink tissues, reproductive tissues and roots are particularly vulnerable. Increased sensitivity to glyphosate in reproductive tissues has been documented in both glyphosate-resistant cotton and maize, and results in reduced pollen production and viability, or increased fruit abortion. Glyphosate treatments have the potential to affect relationships between the GR crop, plant pathogens, plant pests and symbiotic micro-organisms, although management practices can also have a large impact. Despite these potential technical concerns, this technology remains popular, and is a highly useful tool
for weed control in modern crop production.
Source: Agnet
|
