The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Costly harvest of ignorant GM campaign > Comments

Costly harvest of ignorant GM campaign : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 16/12/2005

Jennifer Marohasy argues misinformation about genetically modified crops can have a significant effect on costs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All
Haven't you read the report? You have not taken into account the other issues when looking at the "benefit" to farmers. The benefits are net farm receipts and includes off-farm income and also includes subsidies. Keep in mind the top 3 crops subsidised are soy,corn and cotton (the GM crops) and account for 80% of the total US subsidies. The report explains quite clearly that the key benefit of GM soy to farmers is off-farm income. In other words, the benefit is that farmers leave their farms to work to prop up their farming enterprise that was previously self-supporting. At a cost of US $123.50/ha for GM soy seed, it is understandable why farmers have trouble breaking even.
Bringing that into an Australian perspective it is highly unlikely to have a net benefit. We are one of the lowest subsidised farmers in the world (with NZ) and it is unlikely that governments will pay subsidies when GM comes in. our subsidies are fuel rebates and research and development assistance (doesn't go to farmers, it goes to researchers and commercial arms who develop and sell innovative products). We live in far more isolated conditions and there is not even enough full time off-farm employment to employ the offspring of farmers never mind farmers ourselves.
Compare apples with apples. If GM canola was so good for Australia, the GM companies would not be so frightened to participate in independent performance trials. Why is that do you think? What have they got to hide?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 8:57:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer, I am coming more and more to the opinion that you know next to nothing about farming in North America. Many farmers in the US and Canada have other businesses associated with the farm. These are varied and may include such things as contract harvesting, certified seed production, seed cleaning, consulting, feedlots, local trucking and so on. Don't Australian farmers do the same? I have met some that do.

Surely farmers should assess their time as one of their costs? If the use of new technology allows them to plant fewer acres, maintain their farm income and put extra time into their farm-associated businesses, is that not an economic benefit to the farmer?

My understanding was that the GM companies did want to run trials in NSW, but that the Network of Concerned Farmers was responsible for stopping that happening.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 3 June 2006 8:39:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, I am quite familiar with your tactics to accuse me of not knowing something when you are pulled up for misrepresenting one of your own references. The report stated quite clearly the increase on off-farm income and the main off-farm income was as a wage earner, not as operating an additional business. The report also stated quite clearly that this off farm income was the main contributing economic "benefit" for farmers growing GM crops. With the GM crops being the main subsidised crops, the additional income from taxpayers is also included. It is obvious however that Australia is not going to introduce subsidies and it there is not enough employment opportunities available in Australian rural areas except at seeding and harvest when we can not get enough labour. Subsidies and off-farm income may be a benefit for US farmers, but it will not be an applicable benefit for Australian farmers.

Your information re the trials in NSW is wrong. The NCF was not responsible for stopping performance trials as we have always encouraged small scale independent trials. Monsanto pulled out when States imposed moratoria and Bayer Cropscience refused to participate in NSW trials stating a concern for drought. Bayer Cropscience have refused to participate in independent performance trials since and we have been told by a number of people pushing GM that this would be considered unfair as their varieties would not be able to compete against our existing varieties at the moment.

Bayer Cropscience do however want large scale commercial release in the form of 5,000 ha trials in order to promote contamination before non-GM farmers have protective legislation in place.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tell me where it says anything about farmers earning wages. I have copied out the relevant material from the article below to help you out.

“Adoption of HT soybeans is associated with increased household income.
Recent ERS research showed that adoption of HT soybeans was associated with a significant increase in off-farm household income for U.S. soybean farmers. On-farm household income is not significantly associated with adoption but total farm household income is significantly higher for adopters, suggesting that most managerial time saved by adopters is used in off-farm work (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2005).”

This says nothing about earning wages. Indeed, in places like Smith County, Kansas there is simply nowhere to go to earn wages. Some farmers may choose to do that if they can, but it is hard and ineffective to be a weekend farmer.

Farm subsidies in the US are equal for both GM and non-GM growers. If GM offered no financial benefits to farmers, they would simply grow non-GM and make the money anyway. There simply has to be a benefit for the farmers to grow these crops otherwise there would be no reason for the high levels of adoption. 90% of US soybean growers can’t be idiots.

I thought I had a copy of an advertisement from the NCF calling on Mr Carr to ban trials in NSW. I will see if I can find it and post the text for you
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 4 June 2006 9:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You've got it wrong again Agronomist, the NCF ad was to call a moratorium against commercial release (including the 5,000ha proposal) not to stop small scale performance trials.

There are quite a few USDA ERS reports that explain the added off-farm income that would be able to help you get more of an idea of US farm incomes. Perhaps where you are getting it wrong is that you have excluded the spouses so I would suggest the "Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report" http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/ "About 44% of all farm households were dual - career in 2003, with a spouse working off-farm and the principal operator engaged in farming (with or without off farm work)."

There are quite alot of differences between US and Australian farmers. One I find surprising is that most reasonable sized farmers rent land. That would explain why they do not own the machinery we own and rely on contractors to do the bulk of the work.

The key difference regarding GM crops is that Australians will not be subsidised and I found it very interesting that the top 3 crops that are subsidised (accounting for 80% of subsidies) just happen to be soy, corn and cotton - the GM crops. If they were as economically beneficial as we are led to believe, you would think that they would be able to at least pay their own way. At US $123.50/ha GM soy (the most popular GM crop) is an extremely expensive option. It appears the taxpayers are paying the multinationals for the high costs of using this technology. In Argentina on the other hand, the government is not recognising Monsanto's patent and the growers don't need to pay these high costs and don't lose the right to replant their own seed.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 4 June 2006 3:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good basic chart for you Agronomist:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/incomeinperspective.htm#income
Composition of Farm Household Income
"Off-farm wages and salaries is the dominant source of income for both the average farm and average U.S. household."
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 4 June 2006 3:49:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy