Canola yields are affected by weather conditions as well as by genetics and management decisions. There are a number of ways that herbicide tolerant canola could increase crop yields. This should be obvious given the penchant for Australian growers to use Atrazine resistant canola. Firstly, better weed control by reducing competition would increase yields. Secondly, more-timely sowing due to not having to cultivate as often to control weeds will also increase yields.

The fact that you can’t see the increase in canola yields in Canada is because you are not looking. The highest ever average yield was 32.6 Bu/acre in 2005 (see http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html). The previous highest average yield was 28.2 Bu/acre in 1999. The four highest yield years all occurred since the introduction of GM canola into Canada. The highest pre 1996 yield was 25.4 Bu/acre in 1987.

If “The total yield data more accurately reflects the truth about yields”, is the Australian canola industry in trouble? According to Ausstats http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/pubscat?OpenView&StartKey=7121.0&ExpandView), the two best years for Australian canola yields were 1996/7 and 1995/6. On your arguments Australian canola yields have gone backwards over the last 7 years. Could it be due to failure to adopt GM canola do you think?

Farmers apply fertilizer to match the yield potential of the crop. More fertilizer means more yield potential. Too much fertilizer creates overly lush growth that uses water too fast and reduces yields. So growers of transgenic canola applied 7% more fertilizer (costing less than $2 an acre) for a 10% yield gain (worth $15 an acre). Seems a fair trade-off to me. If you had a higher yield potential, you too could apply more fertilizer.

The GM farmer "benefit" is only chemical resistance which allows post emergent spraying of a specific chemical that will not kill the crop. GM canola is resistant to glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup Ready) or glufosinate-ammonium (Bayer Cropsciences Invigor/Liberty) in the same manner that our non-GM canola is resistant to triazine (TT) or imidazolinone (Clearfield). Only one gene is transferred to produce chemical resistance.

So farmers need to compare the cost difference and effectiveness in weed control. Radish is our worst weed in canola and we know glyphosate is not very effective on radish and glufosinate ammonium doesn't kill it at all.

Farmers need to compare costs but Monsanto will not tell farmers what these costs are and Bayer Cropscience expects farmers to pay an astronomical $16/kg for seed and $72/ha for the chemical. We will be paying more to get less weed control.

You can't fight the facts Agronomist:

Statistics: Canada:
http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html

Yield/t/ha
1996-1.499
1997-1.299
1998-1.136
1999-1.398
2000-1.499
2001-1.299
2002-1.299
2003-1.400
2004-1.598

Canada: Since GM adoption 96-04, the average yield is 1.38t/ha with the highest (better seasonal conditions) being 1.598 t/ha.

Australian statistics:
http://www.australianoilseeds.com/info/industry_facts_and_figures

2000-1.26
2001-1.42
2002-0.81
2003-1.61
2004-1.36

Australia: 2000-2004, the average yield is 1.29t/ha with the highest (better seasonal conditions) being 1.61 t/ha.

Both Canada and Australia had excellent seasonal conditions this year and the yields are high but statistics are not yet released for Australia.

You will note that the yield for Canada is more consistent due to less variation in seasonal conditions but Australia has experienced a series of serious droughts that have slashed canola yields. Drought is nothing to do with GM.

An increase in costs rather than yields does not equate to a benefit to farmers!

We can't make decisions based solely on trial data where farmers have used more fertiliser, planted or slashed at inopportune times etc.

Do you agree that we need independent contained performance trials to assess GM canola against our commonly used varieties, using the same standard farming practices amongst the standard weeds we are likely to experience?

Geoffrey Carracher paid for further testing after the generous Greenpeace funded testing of his seed was positive (and slandered as a "publicity-stunt"). He did a tissue test so that he could find if the crop would be GM or not. If it was negative, he could sign his GM-free contract knowing he wasn't breaking the law and the GM seed was killed by the triazine he used. Unfortunately, it was positive which revealed that this was a gene-stacked crop where the GM contamination was now resistant to both glufosinate AND triazines (it would have died if it was not resistant to triazine).

Your comments claiming positive testing was a "setup" is ridiculous. Contamination of Grace was confirmed by the industry. The Victorian DPI revealed that the contamination of Grace occurred during the bulk up phase in Tasmania near OGTR trials of Topas19/2.

Another ridiculous statement "there is no longer a need for anyone to test unless they think GM is above that level. Problem solved.". How exactly would we know if it is above that level without testing and what tests? ABB and the Grainpool policy confirm some markets prefer no GM and this is a market advantage. Testing will be far more rigorous if GM is introduced but accepting contamination means we need to now pay to test to find what level is present.

Unfortunately, there are no field tests available to quantify the amount of GM contamination present, yet farmers are already required to sign contracts guaranteeing we do not have any GM contamination or no contamination beyond a certain level. Farmers are doing testing because like any sensible person, we don't sign contracts with a statement we are not sure about especially if we are to accept liability if our guess is wrong. Why should we be expected to sign contracts blind? Why should we accept contamination if we are to be liable for it?

What piffle!

Average canola yields in Canada in the 7 years from 1999, when GM canola became 50% of all canola grown, to 2005 were 26.7 Bu/acre including the drought years of 2001 and 2002. This equates to 1.50 T/ha in your terms. Average canola yields in the 10 years prior to the introduction of GM canola in 1996 was 22.8 Bu/acre. That is more than a 15% increase. Yields of canola have increased in Canada and some of that increase is a result of the adoption of GM crops. 2005 was the best ever year with 32.6 Bu/acre - this is 1.83 T/ha.

Australian canola yields sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (perhaps you could explain to me why the Australian Oilseed Federation should be preferred to Government statistics? Particularly when it is not stated how the former were obtained):

1995/1996 1.48 T/ha
1996/1997 1.53 T/ha
1997/1998 1.22 T/ha
1998/1999 1.36 T/ha
1999/2000 1.29 T/ha
2000/2001 1.22 T/ha
2001/2002 1.32 T/ha
2002/2003 0.67 T/ha
2003/2004 1.41 T/ha

It seems to me that canola yields in Australia are lower now than they were in 1995-1997, unlike the situation in Canada.

Agronomist-Crabtree, even your own 2003/2004 statistics (?link). This years yields do not support your claim that yields are declining, it only proves your unwillingness to face the truth. Graph the data for clarity.
Seasonal conditions account for the major drop in yields we have seen in Australia as we have had serious drought during the years of low yield, it is nothing to do with not being GM. I know farmers that have yielded around 3t/ha this year and I have not heard of any real failure areas so this years statistics will be well above our previous averages.
New varieties are released every year claiming to be better than the last, we need to look at why GM would actually give a yield advantage.
The new Non-GM Triazine tolerant hybrids will probably have more vigour than the Bayer Cropscience GM hybrid (claimed to be less vigour than conventional non-GM hybrids) and the chemical will probably be more effective on weeds.
With Roundup Ready GM, a gene is added to an existing variety and you only have resistance to chemical and it is only weed control that will be improved. "The Scientist" explained that Roundup Ready varieties experience a yield penalty as the chemical sits in the meristems and remains active affecting reproduction. Trials of the variety before and after adding GM and one/two/three applications of glyphosate will assess exactly how much yield penalty is associated with this.
If a farmer controls their weeds properly now, they shouldn't see any improvement in weed control but you will probably see an increase in radish which markets object to. What chemical would you recommend to control radish post emergent in a GM crop?
Do you agree that we need small scale independent trials to assess yield comparison? Trials of current popular varieties (not old superceded varieties) that will be planted at normal times using normal farming practices and not involving planting Non-GM twice as thick to hamper production, not watered, not swathed at inopportune times etc.
Are you for or against independent performance trials, you refuse to answer the question?

You can find the link at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/pubscat?OpenView&StartKey=7121.0&ExpandView. I gave this two posts back.

Even in 2003/2004, average yields of Australian canola had not reached the levels from the mid 1990s. Yields in Canada are going ahead despite droughts. How do you explain the discrepancy?

Either "The Scientist" is wrong or you have misconscrued what they have said. Roundup Ready canola contains a gene for an enzyme that breaks down glyphosate (http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/ofb-094-325-a.pdf). There would be no glyphosate left to build up in the reproductive tissue.

I absolutely agree that trials need to be conducted. This is done every year in Canada and the US and the GM varieties come out on top every year. Why don't you allow them this year? Perhaps you should also let some farmers in Australia see the trials as well so they can make up their own minds?