28 November 2004

Will GM canola yield more in Australia?

SUMMARY  There is no evidence that GM canola crops yield more but there is evidence they yield less. Although Monsanto claim a 40% yield increase with Roundup Ready canola, their best on their website for Australian trials reveal yields are 17% less than our national average. Bayer Cropscience trial yields are also not comparing well against non-GM varieties.

After researching trial data provided by the companies themselves, the best yield advertised by Monsanto's for Roundup Ready was under 1.7tonne/ha, the best yield for Invigor was 2.166 tonne/ha. Neither of these are fantastic yields considering they were grown in a top growing season in a prime canola growing location. The main point of interest is that their non-GM trial comparisons perform badly which could be influenced by poor swathing timing. 

Alternatively, non-GM trials performed in similar conditions during the same season and similar areas far outyielded the GM trials.

Monsanto: Despite claims to the contrary, it appears there are yield penalties with glyphosate resistant crops. A reason "Roundup Ready" crops have reductions in yield has been explained in an article by Charles Q Choi (here)   "The Scientist" quoting Henry Daniell, professor of molecular biology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando"Currently, Roundup Ready plants do not detoxify glyphosate, but rather overproduce EPSPS to resist lethal glyphosate levels, Daniell said. In these plants, the herbicide still accumulates in meristems, where it may interfere with reproductive development and lower crop yield."

A study by Fulton and Keyowski found Roundup Ready canola in Canada was associated with lower yields of around 7.5 percent. 

 ^{(Reference: Fulton, M. and Keyowski, L. “The Producer Benefits of Herbicide Resistant Canola.” AgBioForum, Vol 2 No 2, 1999, as reported in Stone,S. Matysek, A. and Dolling, A. Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade . Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, October 2002, at 32. )}

Bayer Cropscience:  Promotes yield increases due to hybrid breeding but this is not as a result of the GM breeding - extract from quote from Bayer Cropscience in OGTR Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan DIR 021/2002 75.356 "It is important to note that the hybrid vigour displayed in F1 RF x MS hybrids is not a function of the genetic modification but is a result of the breeding of the two genetically distinct parents."

A typical misleading statement is: "Monsanto Australia managing director Terry Bunn was cited as saying trials of the genetically modified canola showed yield improvements of between 20 and 40 per cent against the most commonly grown canola in Australia." (more)

Monsanto's Australian trials revealed the real performance of GM Roundup Ready compared with unnamed non-GM canola varieties (and perhaps deliberately selected low yielding varieties). The best yields revealed on Monsanto's website (here) are dismal by any farmers comparison (1.055tonne/ha) and actually equates to 17% less than the Australian average canola crop (1.27tonne/ha) and at least half the yields of the better non-GM varieties.

The best of Roundup Ready yielded 1.055t/ha compared with Clearfield at 1.144t/ha, conventional at 0.922t/ha and Triazine Tolerant at 0.8t/ha. The oil content only ranges from 43-43.52%. More specifically, only 1 Roundup application was applied in all trials despite being labelled 2 Roundup applications. Trials yielded 1.055t/ha, 0.977t/ha and 0.966t/ha with all Roundup applications being applied on the same date 1/8/01. There is no 2002 data available on Monsanto's site which may be due to the drought and we should expect far higher yields in 2003 due to the exceptional season in some trial areas.

These 2001 yields are well below the expectation of conventional crops and are certainly not 20-40% better than what would be expected of a conventional crop grown in the prime canola trial sites. Monsanto's more recent trials have yielded slightly more due to excellent season but as yet there has been no verbal claims of yields over 1.5tonne/ha. The average non-GM canola yield around trial areas in even the lowest yielding state (WA) is at least 1.5t/ha (more for 2003) and yet the common non-GM Triazine tolerant variety used in trial comparisons only yielded 0.8t/ha. Why?

Extensive worldwide research on pro-GM sites shows no scientific data proving GM canola yields more: See (here) (note NO canola yields are presented in the list of pro-GM research data)

Monsanto no longer claims higher yields and instead has focussed on weed control benefits. Even trial results have been removed from their website.

The best yield for Bayer Cropscience's Invigor canola is 2.166tonne/ha which is certainly not better than non-GM variety trials grown in similar areas during this season.

Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola is claiming the hybrid breeding will improve yields but hybrid breeding can and has been produced by non-GM plant breeding techniques. The GM process just makes it easier to produce a hybrid using male sterile and fertility restorer lines. This is a benefit to the plant breeder rather than the farmer. Invigor canola is also resistant to glufosinate, however this chemical is quite selective in it's weed control and very expensive.

Bayer Cropscience claim: (here).  "Costs and management undertakings with GM canola will be outweighed by the agronomic, economic and environmental benefits delivered in the harvested grain and the weed management responses." "Our trials to date indicate 10% to 20% increases over open pollinated varieties and more than 20% increases over triazine tolerant varieties."

Practical experience in Canada has shown that Invigor canola is only a minor crop which indicates the benefits are not substantial and less than the more popular Roundup Ready. If yields were impressive, they would have been used constantly as promotional material, however the actual trial yields in tonne/ha figures have been deliberately omitted from promotions (here) The trials promoted are the best varieties selected out of hundreds of trialled varieties.

Why then is Bayer Cropscience not advertising yields in tonne/ha?

The varieties used in comparisons trials are Dunkeld (1993 variety), Hyola 60 (2000 variety), ATR Grace (2000 variety), Pinnacle (1996 variety) and Rainbow (1993 variety). Individual variety comments in the Department of Agriculture WA 2003 Crop Variety Guides explain yields of these older varieties are not comparitive to newer varieties. Comparitive yield comments on these non-GM varieties claim "Performance has been overridden by new varieties" and "beginning to be superceded by new Triazine Tolerant varieties". While some States have better performance for these older varieties, they are certainly not high yielding new varieties that should have been used in trial comparisons. Bayer Cropscience has used these varieties to compare hundreds of their own, select their best and use these results in comparison to conventional.

In the WA Agricultural Department latest crop update, oilseeds section (page 6)  shows trials undertaken in Calingari WA in 2003: using the older variety Rainbow as a base with a figure of 100, Surpass 501TT yielded 110 and GM Invigor 40 yielded 110. This reveals yields for Invigor 40 were the same as the most popular triazine tolerant canola that is claimed to have depressed yields.

These crop updates also referenced trials in NSW/Victoria/SA in 2001-02 with Rainbow at 100, the non-GM hybrid Hyola at 120 and GM Invigor 40 at 109. This again confirms the yields are not as promised and are less than the non-GM hybrids.

Even West Australia, the lowest yielding state, has farmer trials revealing yields well above both Bayer Cropscience Invigor canola and Monsanto's Roundup Ready trial yields.

Farmer quotes: Extracts from the latest new WA "Stubby" non-GM canola variety promotion:

Non-GM"Stubby was our best yielding Triazine variety, outyielding Surpass 501TT by more than a quarter of a tonne per hectare and with 44% oil,.." Guy Coxon, Farm Manager, C&E Henderson, Varley.

Non-GM "Stubby looked magnificent through the growing season, and at harvest outclassed the Pacific variety by nearly a tonne to the hectare, my gross margin on Stubby was well over $150/ha ahead of the other variety." Scott Drage, Northampton.

Non-GM "My demo crop of Stubby yielded 2 tonnes/ha with respectable oil, compared to my Surpass 501TT Crop which only achieved 1.3 – 1.5tonnes/ha." Lindsay Smoker, Corrigin.

Non-GM "So easy to harvest, Stubby yielded 1.4tonnes/ha with 46% oil. My crop of Surpass 501TT only yielded 1.2tonnes/ha. " Phil Innes, Kellerberrin.

or with the new WA varieties Trilogy, Tribune and CBWA-002 (reported in the Countryman 11.12.03):

Non-GM Trilogy: "It is the highest yielding early maturing variety - 15-30 percent higher yielding than Surpass 300TT in the same very early maturity group"

Non-GM Tribune: "...had 10 per cent higher average yields than Surpass 501TT and was up to 38 per cent higher yielding than Karoo at medium rainfall sites."

Non-GM CBWA - 002 "is an early TT canola with consistently high yield and oil content, and moderate resistence to blackleg."

These statements are common with all new non-GM varieties and these claims are more credible to farmers because they are made from reputable farmers, not just the canola breeder or those with vested interests. It must be noted that non-GM Surpass is a good canola in its own right and WA is the lowest yielding state but has "only yielded" between 1.2 - 1.5t/ha while newer varieties yielded up to 1 tonne more. This is far superior than the results achieved in GM. 

When GM trials comparisons are made, they should be made with the newer non-GM varieties, however the varieties used in GM trial comparisons are often well outclassed by the newer non-GM varieties available which distorts the results even further.

Trials must be independently monitored to ensure accurate results are given. A contract swather (name witheld by request) commissioned to swath a trial site explained how he was asked to delay swathing on a comparison trial which would have encouraged seed loss by shedding and this could have resulted in lower yields for the non-GM varieties trialled. During our Network tour a farmer (wishing to remain anonymous) stood up at a public meeting in NSW claiming he saw GM trials watered during the 2002 drought.

Even an extremely pro-GM activist Rick Roush from the University of California is aware of the importance of non-GM breeding in his presentation to a Perth conference reported by Farm Weekly on 24th June, 2004. "Mr Roush went on to explain he did not believe GM-based biotechnology would be the silver bullet for the future of agriculture. "It is important that classical breeding and GM breeding should work in together," he said. "GM breeding alone would not work as the inserted genes still need to sit well with the rest of the plant's genome."

What are the real yields and net returns?

WILL GM AND NON-GM YIELDS IMPROVE?

In order to be more competitive, Monsanto will need to use a top yielding Australian non-GM variety as the base for their GM Roundup Ready trait. (A non-GM variety provides the base of around 30-40,000 genes and Monsanto will add one gene in order to make it GM Roundup-Ready.) Pioneer seeds negotiated earlier deals with Monsanto in USA to pay royalties for their technology. (more)  Monsanto has been negotiating deals with major Australian seed companies in order to use their seed to obtain royalties for their GM product.

It is likely that the Australian company negotiating partnership is Pacific Seeds as indicated by their website:  "The purpose of this breeding program is to incorporate the RoundUp Ready technology developed by Monsanto. This confers tolerance to RoundUp herbicide into existing Pacific Seeds canola varieties that have been bred for Australian conditions. This work is still in the R&D stage. All canola varieties currently marketed by Pacific Seeds are conventionally bred." (more)

Direct contact with Pacific Seeds has revealed they have not yet signed a deal with Monsanto and they implied other seed companies may have been approached also. Does this mean that the variety advertised and trialled as "Roundup Ready" is not the variety that will be released if commercial release is granted? Wouldn't the advertising campaign quoting performance trials be considered deceptive conduct if the product is different to what will be sold?

If an Australian bred variety is used, it is very likely that the research and development into this variety was funded by grants from GRDC (Grains Research and Development Corporation) which is mainly funded by farmer levies. The variety is usually developed by GRDC and then tendered to other companies at a fraction of the cost of development with a restriction to collect royalty fees for GRDC. Will farmers be happy if a top variety is restricted to only be used in a GM variety? Farmers must insist that any variety used in GM must also be available to farmers as non-GM and these varieties should be used in comparison trials in order to gain a true understanding of any claimed benefits of GM.

GM crops are not necessary to "feed the world", there is significant evidence to prove that the GM process has actually declined yield (particularly in soybeans). Alternately, new non-GM breeding techniques are consistently producing increasing yields and conditional tolerances and will continue to feed the world.

It appears our economic reports to date have been based on a furphy that GM crops yield more. Is the truth being modified more than the genetics? 

Julie Newman

Network of Concerned Farmers

Newdegate, WA

Good farmers prefer Non-GM canola - Julie Newman in an exceptional NON-GM chemical resistant (501) canola crop near Newdegate WA.

"There is more than enough evidence of the unacceptable risks involved with GM canola but no evidence that GM canola will be of more benefit to farmers."

We invite brief public comment from those wishing to debate this issue and if relevent to topic and approved, we will post short comments and if necessary update document. We will give priority posting to Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience. Please forward your comments to julie@non-gm-farmers.com

-------------

Reference for CSIRO data: "Farming Ahead with Kondinin Group - " January 2004 edition. pg. 35-36 "Control disease to maximise canola yield". Source quoted from CSIRO Plant Industry and Sustainable Ecosystems. Figure 1 : Historical variation in canola yield potential 1957-2001 and Table 1: Yield of disease -free canola compared with potential yield (NSW) - 2001 Yield (t/ha) measured.

THE FEED THE WORLD CLAIM IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO CLAIMS OF YIELD INCREASES:

The "Feed the World" claim ignores worldwide economics and the lack of proof of increased yields. Populations are hungry, not because there is not enough to eat but because there is not enough money to buy the food. There are even hungry in America, but not due to lack of food.

Quote from Sharma, India. "I come from a country that has the dubious distinction of producing a surplus of 65 million tons of food, yet has the largest population of malnourished in the world," he said, adding that the "surplus" rice and wheat is in fact exported to developed countries, largely for animal feed, so that India may earn hard currency. (more)