Australian yields are static because of drought, not because of plant breeding. Graph average yields and you will find them similar to Canadian yields. Graph state yields and you will find states like Victoria yield higher than Canadian yields. Canadian yields are traditionally more stable due to a more reliable seasonal conditions but Australian yields are quite variable. It is nothing to do with GM although Canada's yields dropped when they adopted GM canola. As already explained, Australian farmers have adopted more suitable non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties and do not need GM. Since adoption, Canada's main market is America (sold processed) which is not GM sensitive but Canada lost their significant premium (averaged US$32.68/tonne) and now fluctuate between similar to grossly under the value of Australian canola. Blind freddy can see there has been a significant price penalty yet the blind freddies of the pro-GM camp are still yelling "no difference". Why? Because they expect to con non-GM farmers into thinking that there is no need for coexistence simply because it will be too difficult and too expensive to try.
It is normal pro-GM practise for ridiculous namecalling terminology like "luddite" or "zealots" or accusations like I am pushing a pro-organic line when we are large progressive conventional farmers and were contract crop sprayers for 20 years. This tactic is usually rolled out when the pro-GMers refuse to indulge in simple debate about benefits, alternatives, risks and risk management needed for GM crops. Non-GM farmers should not be adversely impacted by the introduction of GM crops and it is not unreasonable to insist on fair risk management. Any other business would have good recourse if a business was allowed to be introduced that could devalue their product and impose unrealistic costs on that business to try to protect themselves. No amount of namecalling should influence government decisions. Our group is influential because we give solid facts.

Cotton in its peak was only grown on 300,000ha, which is only 30 times the area of our farm (certainly not a major crop for Australia). It is declining rapidly as it is mainly irrigated from the Murray Darling and irrigation is being radically restricted. Yes, those that relied on profiting from the GM cotton industry would be desperately looking for another avenue. Australian cotton yields are usually the highest in the world and farmers can counter the additional costs but broadacre crops do not yield comparitively high and our costs are high enough now making net profits minimal and vulnerable to be eroded by GM. Farmers would not be able to afford additional costs but many are being promised lucrative funding if GM is introduced. Who pays? It is only farmers! What benefit? Very little and comparing yields of unsuitable TT varieties in Canada is irrelevent to Australian yields. We need independent performance trials in Australia.
What connection to Greenpeace is there to hide? Talk about transparency... why doesn't Agronomist admit who he is? It is obvious by the bitterness expressed, the debating tactics used, the terminology and wording he uses that it is the writer of the original article (Ian Edwards) but he refuses to admit it because readers will realise his massive vested interest.
Why has Judy got a conflict of interest? The only pro-GM excuse given is that she was quoted on the Greenpeace booklet but she was not paid for it. She is a genuine scientist with genuine concerns.
RobW, the debate is not about mutagenesis, it is about GM. Canada however regulates mutagenesis in the same manner as GM as all Canadian herbicide tolerant varieties are regulated (including non-GM with novel traits). I am keen to avoid additional problems for farmers, not introduce problems. It is comical how the GM process is claimed to be "precise" but the precise technology has not even been developed yet.
Percy was not forced to pay for the use of the RR technology because he did not use it.... its no spin, its fact.

Julie, as usual you avoid reading what is written. The yield values I gave you were averages over the last 9 years for both Canada and Australia. If you want to see a graph, GMOPundit has one. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

The two droughts in Australia have impacted yields, but Canada also had droughts in 2001 and 2002. Looking through the yield data I have, the 3 highest yielding years for Canadian canola have been the last 3, 2004, 2005 and 2006. For Australia they were 1993, 1990 and 1996 in that order. Are you now going to suggest Australia has had 10 consecutive years of drought? In the 9 years prior to GM canola introduction in Canada, yields averaged 1.27 t/ha in Canada and 1.25 t/ha in Australia. Since GM canola was first grown in 2006, average Canadian canola yields have increased and average Australian canola yields have decreased.

What is this rubbish about “comparing yields of unsuitable TT varieties in Canada is irrelevent to Australian yields”? I didn’t mention yields of TT canola varieties in Canada because they have not been seriously grown there for many years. The comparison I made was Australian research conducted in Australia. You can read the abstract here http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/40/paper/AR01159.htm.

Oh, and I found this bit on trials with InVigor canola in Australia. http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/2005%20InVigor%20hybrid%20canola%20research%20and%20innovation%20trial%20results.pdf Note how well the InVigor did in the herbicide systems trials. I assume the atrazine resistant did better than the conventional because of lack of weed control in the latter.

You keep on trotting out this stuff about non-GM farmers being adversely impacted. What are the adverse impacts? They seem to be figments of your imagination. ABARE continually states that price premiums for non-GM canola are not apparent in the market. There is not a single Canadian source providing data for a price loss for canola on adopting GM.

Julie, why does it matter who I am? I am not claiming to represent the views of anybody except myself, unlike you. I don’t stand to make a single dollar out of GM crops, but the farmers I work with do.

Ian Edwards (Agronomist), you have again ignored the issue and it is laughable that you have been so insistent on "transparency" but too afraid to admit who you are and explain your vested interest and your dismal disapointment in not getting corporate investment finance and alliances for your GM wheat.
Non-GM farmers do not want contamination with a product that markets are rejecting. We do not want our existing supply chain (that we paid for through CBH tolls) to be taken over by GM while we are forced to provide a separate supply chain for non-GM. We know that it will be impossible to have a GM buffer zone (where all produce must be marketed as GM) on our non-GM property. How exactly can we manage that? Any ideas welcome!
Coexistence is therefore nothing but a lie!
If GM is introduced, we will get contamination and as there are price penalties associated with this, we want compensation for the difference not some cock-and-bull story claiming there is no premium... there may not be but there certainly is a price penalty and market access denial associated with GM.
Considering we also pay GRDC levies for plant breeding, pay for the seed and pay royalties on harvested seed, we also do not want non-GM varieties to be denied to us because of alliances and promises made to the GM companies (ie, if GM is offered, we want the new plant breeding varieties minus the gene that makes it GM).
We certainly do not want the right to replant our own seeds denied to us. I realise that you as a plant breeder wanting the promised profit increase do but we can't afford this additional cost.
Pay your own way.

There was no graph on your link but info is available on the USDA website. As I mentioned, Canada is now experiencing their highest yields ever (not due to the GM herbicide tolerant GM gene though) and yet they introduced subsidisies then.
When Australia has a drought our yields plummet to a fraction of our average where Canadian yields only show a slight variation. Check the figures!
Your ridiculous statement "These tests contained no Atrazine resistant varieties, which we know yield an average 26% lower than the conventional varieties." is very unscientific. Assuming a drop in yield due to archaic yield trials is not scientific or reasonable! Do the independent performance trials and get some decent data, don't just assume a yield advantage. Compare GM hybrids with non-GM hybrids, compare GM Ht varieties with Non-GM Ht varieties. Of course the GM companies don't want to do these trials, they know that their GM crops will not compete anywhere near the hype those of you with a vested interest are claiming.
The Canadian trial data you gave stated "Ht varieties were not sprayed with their companion herbicide" therefore the yield penalty normally associated with Ht crops was avoided.
The Australian trial data also stated "weed free sites selected, no Liberty applied". It appears Bayer is avoiding revealing the yield penalties and lack of adequate weed control problems.
Why avoid revealing the yield penalties associated with Ht? Trials must show yields of Ht crops as they would be reasonably grown in the paddock using the trait they are advertised for.
Bayer also claimed that the 2004 trial data was not included as it was subject to drought conditions. If it performed better not worse in drought, they would have included it. We also need independent trials including drought conditions not selective biased data.

Julie, you do like to charge off without properly reading things don’t you? You just go ahead making any claims you want in your funny little world. You didn’t read the bit where I said I don’t stand to make a single dollar out of GM crops. That would of course mean that I don’t have GM wheat to sell. I don’t think that I have been particularly promoting transparency here, I am not against it of course, but I don’t see that I have been particularly strong on it, unlike R. Roush.

I don’t understand your complaints. Why would you want to particularly sell your crop as non-GM? Surely you would sell to the highest buyer, whether they are a GM buyer or not? What markets are rejecting GM canola except for Europe? How much canola have you sold to Europe lately? Do you realise that Europe has been buying GM canola oil from Canada? Why are you expecting to have a GM buffer zone on your property?

There are no obvious price penalties associated with GM canola on the world market. ABARE keeps looking at this and keeps coming to the same conclusion. From their 2007 report “Based on world import data, the conclusion of the analysis reported here is that the great bulk of GM canola is sold at very similar prices to conventional canola in most major canola markets throughout the world.” http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

I am sure GMOPundit had a graph. Here it is: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-price-premium-in-australia-but-big.html

Julie, I did point you specifically to the herbicide systems trial where herbicides were used, specifically because the real importance to farmers is the combination of yield and weed control.

Perhaps you might explain how glufosinate use results in a yield penalty with InVigor canola?

I think Bayer would be quite happy to have ever so many trials conducted with their InVigor varieties. They have at least 9 years experience of having the highest yielding variety in Canadian trials.