I obtained my data from the Environmental Working Group. They are against agricultural subsidies because they believe subsidies only help the largest farmers. They may be right, but in any case, they have no particular reason to under-report subsidies. Importantly, nobody in the US is disputing their claims, which suggests they are near the mark..

The data I could find at the OECD only goes up to 2003 with provisional figures for 2004. This includes estimates of all types of producer price support from disaster payments to payments for commodity production, on-farm extension services, pesticide residue testing, animal health testing, income support and conservation reserve programs.
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,2340,en_2649_33775_35009718_1_1_1_1,00.html.

It is nowhere as easy to get through, as the commodities are all split up. The Producer support estimate (PSE) for 2004 for corn was 18% of the total and for soybeans 11%. Cotton and canola were not listed separately, but oilseeds (which would include both these and other crops like sunflowers) was 11%. Wheat was 7%. The total PSE for the US as a % of gross farm gate was 18%, for the EU, which grows very little GM crops it was almost double (33%) in 2004.

It is the commodity support figures you need Agronomist as the commodity support counters high costs and lower commodity prices.

It appears the Environment group are using out of date information. US tried cutting back subsidies but they have since increased them again (as you noticed on the OECD report). USDA also have figures on commodity based subsidies that confirm that subsidies have gone up.

The most up to date information was supplied at Grains Week, Canberra direct from USDA. They very very clearly showed a graph with the current allocation of commodity based subsidies and the top 3 crops account for a fraction under 80% of the total subsidies and just happen to be soy, corn and cotton (the GM crops). I confirmed this with the speaker directly after her presentation. I again had this confirmed during question time with the USDA person pushing GM. USDA is going to release their newest report in the next day or so.

US are the main consumers of GM foods and also the main importer of Canadian canola (processed plus unprocessed) and are fighting labelling desperately to prevent consumers in US knowing if a product is GM. They know the market rejection associated with GM food products.

US have increased subsidies and so have Canada. Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay are not paying royalties as their government does not recognise Monsanto's patent. Well that rules out the supposed success for the top GM growing countries doesn't it? If governments don't prop up farmers incomes or assist farmers to pay less, there is no profit for GM growers and the non-GM growers that are forced to market on a consumer rejected market.

New from CSIRO. Bt Cotton uses 10% less water than conventional cotton. So much for NonGMFarmer's allegation that GM cotton in Australia uses more water than non-GM.

http://www.pi.csiro.au/enewsletter/previousEditions/015story1.htm

Insect-resistant cotton also water efficient

Preliminary results from CSIRO research in Narrabri have shown that genetically modified insect-resistant cotton may also be more water efficient.

Two years of field experiments by CSIRO Plant Industry's Mr Dirk Richards and Mr Stephen Yeates, show that under normal full irrigation, Bollgard® II cotton used ten per cent less water than an equivalent conventional variety and had higher yields.

Bollgard® II makes up most of the Australian cotton crop and has reduced pesticide use by up to 80 per cent.

Research is now optimising agronomic management of Bollgard® II as it tends to produce bolls earlier than conventional cotton because insect damage does not delay early crop growth.

Bollgard® II and conventional cotton extract soil water at a similar rate, but Bollgard® II has a more compact growing season so uses less water overall for the same or higher yields.

Bollgard® II had lower yields only when it was moisture stressed from peak flowering to the end of flowering when boll filling started.

Soil moisture stress applied to conventional cotton at the same time did not affect yield as much, due to later flowering and a better ability to compensate later in the season.

This research is helping growers fine tune their water management strategies for Bollgard® II.

This research is supported by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation and the Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research Centre.

Bt corn success in the Philippines

RP can achieve corn sufficiency with expansion of hybrid, Bt corn areas

http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2006/09/04/BSNS2006090473441.html

By MELODY M. AGUIBA

The Philippines can achieve sufficiency in corn in one or two years if high-yielding hybrid corn including the genetically modified (GM) Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn can be intensively expanded on just an additional 200,000 hectares.

Jet G. Parma, Pioneer Hi-Bred Philippines Inc. (PHBP) country manager, told a press briefing the country needs to focus on propagating the use of hybrid corn that the country will no longer need to import corn.

"Hybrid corn area has stayed at 500,000 to 600,000 hectares over the past years. We only need five to six milllion tons of corn. If we can raise yield by five tons per hectare, we only need to expand hybrid corn on (an additional) 200,000 hectares to raise production by one million tons," he said.

…

The Philippines is expected to import at least 1.4 million MT of corn and corn substitute this year. Importation of corn is placed at more than 250,000 MT this year while corn substitute wheat’s importation may reach to 1.2 million MT, traders said.

…

The industry is also foreseeing an expansion in the corn borer-resistant Bt corn area by the end of 2006 to 70,000 hectares, up by 40 percent from abou 50,000 hectares in 2005, according to Benigno Peczon, Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines executive director.

At this expanded rate, Bt corn has a lot of room for growth with its more non-polluting impact on the environment along with the tremendous increase in income it brings to farmers, even despite higher Bt corn seed’s price compared to open pollinated varieties.

"Definitely (we have achieved a level of success in Bt corn propagation). We’re now at 80,000 hectares, and we’re getting positive feedback. It’s very encouraging," Parma said.

…

Peczon explained that if there was opposition on the use of Bt corn from environment-lobbying organizations like Greenpeace, this is not based on science.

"Opposition to Bt corn is ideologically-based and does not have a scientific basis," he said.