Thanks Bugsy - interesting! However, it does not really alter the point of my argument. In fact, it begs the question of why there is not more in-field-use data comparing the productivity of GM and non-GM crops. Also shows that genes fit into a web of interactions in the plants and that alterations are not "cost free". In this case they needed to add Manganese to correct for the effect of the modification in order to reinstate full productivity.

Its really quite simple. Follow the money and propaganda or SPIN trail.

1. http://www.seedsofdeception.com

What ABARE has done is appalling but in line with the governments stance to provide a public relations exercise to capitalize on the governments investments in GM.
Government institutes such as CSIRO have admitted it is best to get in bed with GM companies as it makes life easier for them. But who pays for the change from public to corporate plant breeding?
Everybody from scientists, to the seed industry to governments, to industry, to the GM companies are planning on making more money but where does it come from? Consumers don't want GM and those market that will tolerate it will do so if it is cheaper.
Farmers will need to pay more costs but get paid less for the product.
Non-GM farmers also have to market as GM because coexistence is not possible under the existing protocols that put all the costs and laibilities onto non-GM farmers.
The assumption is that there is a yield advantage with GM but there is not.
ABARE's main "profit" was presuming a yield advantage for GM wheat but no market in the world wants GM wheat. Both non-GM and GM farmers will be presumed to be GM unless we prove a GM-free status which will not be possible. Therefore, no matter how good the GM wheat plant is, if it causes all farmers to lose wheat sales it is a massive cost and a massive risk.
ABARE came up with an outrageous "benefit" figure to attract investors as investors calculate their profit potential on 100% or more of the "benefit" gained.
Its time government started doing more than protecting their own investments.
A good start is to stop lying to consumers claiming GM canola is proven to be safe when the oil has not been tested and the remaining meal escapes regulation because FSANZ has no authority over stock food.

What benefit? The "advantage" of RR is over as the canola has reached 6 leaf stage.

What a joke! Farmers are now realising the limitations of GM canola.

Roundup Ready canola is bred by transferring a gene from soil bacteria to the DNA of canola to make the canola plant resistant to glyphosate. Although this can be done very easily by non-GM means (our weeds develop natural resistance to glyphosate with overuse) GM allows Monsanto to retain a patent over the crop and its progeny. Farmers become contract growers to the patent owner.

For the first time, Roundup Ready canola has been grown commercially in Victoria and New South Wales.

The first year is to be the honeymoon phase but costs are already excessive:

Roundup Ready seed has cost at least twice the price of non-GM.
An upfront stewardship fee of $1,000/property is charged (half price this year).
A "discounted introductory fee" of $10.20 per tonne on all canola delivered for the 2008 season (in the form of an end point royalty system).
Legal fees if required to assess two contracts before signing.
In the following season, the farmer will also need to:
- regularly scout and control unwanted volunteer canola plants
- must add further chemicals to glyphosate in order to kill unwanted GM glyphosate tolerant canola volunteers
- will need to limit glyphosate use in following rotations and tillage or the more toxic paraquat/diquat chemical is recommended as alternatives.
So what is the benefit? Only broadleaf control for 6 weeks?

Glyphosate (for which Roundup Ready is bred to be resistant to) has no residual weed control and because good weed control is essential to control grasses on emergence, an alternative chemical (trifluralin) is recommended to control grasses. This gives residual grass control for the season.

Broadleaves will be controlled by the application of glyphosate but can not be applied after 6 leaf stage (around 6 weeks after planting and the plant is as high as your workboot).

Makes a mockery of the pro-GM public relations exercise of painting GM farmers up to be "progressive" doesn’t it?

They'll do their sums, just like everyone else. If it's being grown this year, maybe after the end of the season they can tell all the other farmers what happened. GM will continue or fall on its own merits.

And in the meantime, non-GM farmers lose their ability to market what GM sensitive markets want... a GM-free product.
If non-GM farmers follow the ridiculous pro-GM coexistence protocols, they will be left with massive costs and liabilities and a product that will be contaminated.
Why should an industry have the right to vandalise our profits and put a range of costs, responsibilities and liabilities onto the opposition?
Why should we be forced to compensate the GM industry for their incompetence at controlling their unwanted product?
Why should non-GM farmers accept economic loss for a product we don't want?
GM farmers had better be prepared for legal action to recover any losses they cause by wanting to give GM a try because that is our only recommended legal recourse.