GM Foods and what they are doing to us...

[wildthing]

Does planting GMO seed boost farmers' profits?



By Mike Duffy, Associate director and agricultural economist, and
Matt Ernst, Research assistant


Genetic modification of crops has taken the national and international spotlight in recent months. Depending on your perspective, crops classified as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be the only hope to feed a hungry world, or an inappropriate use of technology that should be halted. In Iowa, the latest wave of discussion occurred when some major United States grain trading companies, reacting to European resistance to GMOs, announced that they would only accept crops that can be certified as GMO-free.

Fueling this furor is a debate over the relative merits and safety of GMO crops-a debate that is far from being settled. Without arguing the pros and cons of genetic modification, this report describes Iowa cropping practices in 1998.

The 1998 Iowa crop survey
Information was collected by the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service as part of its annual Cost and Return survey. The Leopold Center funded an expansion of the USDA's cropping practices survey to provide more reliable estimates.

This information was gathered in the late fall and early winter of 1998 during personal interviews with approximately 800 Iowa farmers. They were asked what crops they grew, and whether the seed they planted had been genetically modified. The results presented here represent a random selection of 62 continuous corn fields, 315 rotated corn fields, and 365 soybean fields. These numbers and the selection methods employed provide statistically reliable estimates at the state level.

It is important to emphasize that this is only a cross-sectional survey. It does not represent a side-by-side comparison of GMO and non-GMO crops. It represents a picture of what Iowa farmers experienced, under varying conditions and situations, during the 1998 crop year.

Genetically modified soybeans
Just over 40 percent of the Iowa acres planted to soybeans last year were GMO varieties. The number of soybean acres that a producer farmed had no relationship to whether or not GMO varieties were used.

When asked why they planted GMO soybeans, 53 percent of the farmers cited increasing yields through improved pest control. Another 27 percent listed decreasing pesticide costs, 12 percent said increased flexibility in planting, and 3 percent listed adoption of a more environmentally-friendly practice. The remaining farmers listed some other reason.

Farmers who did not use GMO varieties in 1998 reported a slightly higher yield than those who used GMO varieties. The average yield for non-GMO soybeans was 51.21 bushels per acre; the average yield for GMO soybeans was 49.26.

Farmers who used GMO varieties experienced significant savings in herbicide costs, spending nearly 30 percent less than farmers who grew non-GMO soybeans. Farmers using GMOs held a cost advantage in all aspects of weed management.

Costs differed in other areas, too. The biggest difference was in seed cost. Farmers who planted GMO varieties reported an average seed cost of $26.42 per acre, compared to $18.89 per acre for non-GMO varieties. Total costs without land or labor were $115.11 for GMO soybeans, and $124.11 for the non-GMO soybeans.

To estimate returns, we used the 1998 yearly average price of $5.27 per bushel. Figure 2 shows that returns to land and labor were essentially identical for GMO and non-GMO soybeans. GMO soybeans had a return of $144.50 per acre versus a return of $145.75 for non-GMO soybeans.

Results from these 365 soybean fields indicate that 1998 yields from GMO soybeans were slightly lower than conventional varieties, but so were the costs. According to this analysis, Iowa farmers had identical returns in 1998, whether they raised GMO or non-GMO soybeans.

Bt corn
Another genetic modification that is being used is the addition of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to corn to fight a major pest, the European corn borer. Last year almost a fourth (23 percent) of Iowa corn contained the Bt gene. The overwhelming majority of farmers (77 percent) said they planted Bt corn to increase yields. Only 7 percent said that they planted it to decrease pesticide costs, and the remaining 16 percent gave a variety of other reasons. Of the Bt corn fields, 7 percent were continuous corn while 93 percent were corn following some other crop.

Iowa farmers were right about yields. In 1998, the average yield for Bt corn was 160.4 bushels per acre. The average yield for non-Bt corn was 147.7 bushels per acre.

Use of Bt corn didn't necessarily reduce insecticide costs. Farmers applied insecticides on 12 percent of their Bt corn fields at an average cost of $17.56 per acre. They applied insecticides on 18 percent of their non-Bt corn fields at an average cost of $14.94 per acre.

The biggest cost difference between Bt and non-Bt corn was in seed. Seed for Bt corn averaged $39.62 per acre, compared to $29.96 per acre for non-Bt corn. Bt fields had slightly higher weed control costs, averaging $2.82 per acre. Fertilizer costs were $5.02 per acre higher than non-Bt corn.

When comparing gross revenue, total costs, and the return to land and labor between Bt and non-Bt corn, corn was valued at the 1998 average price of $1.90 per bushel. The total difference in return to land and labor was only $3.97 per acre.

Conclusions
Based on a cross-sectional examination of Iowa cropping practices in 1998, genetically-modified crops provided farmers with no significant difference in returns. Remember, this is not a comparison of genetically-modified crops with their conventional counterparts, but a look at the bottom line last year for Iowa farmers-both those who raised GMO crops and those who did not.

Some producers said they used GMO soybeans to increase their flexibility during planting season. The value of this feature when evaluating use of GMO and non-GMO crops cannot be determined from the data available. It is interesting to note, however, that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GMO soybeans, yet yields were actually lower.

Use of genetically-modified seed didn't appear to impact a farmer's bottom line for either corn or soybean production, but the reasons were different. In soybeans, GMO yields were lower but so were costs. In corn, yields and costs were higher when GMO seed was used.

Genetic modification, and the controversy surrounding it, will likely continue for many years to come. Based on what happened in 1998, Iowa farmers will find returns per acre relatively unaffected whether or not they plant the GMO corn and soybeans currently available. Marketing may be more of a problem with GMO crops, but using GMO crops has not affected profitability. Farmers will choose to use or not use GMO corn or soybeans based on their own situation and view of the issues, but profitability does not appear to be a decisive factor.



So much for solving world short falls by GMO's

 

[wildthing]

An excerpt from:

Family Farms in an Era of Global Uncertainty

Professor Emeritus John Ikerdii


The agribusiness corporations that increasingly control American agriculture have no
commitment to stewardship of the land or to being good neighbors or good citizens; their
priorities are profits and growth. Industrial farmers have no love for any particular piece of land;
most don’t even own most of the land they farm. They can’t really know the land because they
are trying to farm too much of it to know any of it very well. Many don’t know how to take care
of the land; they depend on prescribed regimens of pesticides, fertilizers, and other fossil energy
inputs to achieve productivity. Industrial farmers can’t afford to love their neighbor because
sooner or later they will need their neighbor’s land to grow. The corporations for whom they
produce have no commitment to any particular nation; they operate globally and have
stockholders scattered all around the world. Industrial farmers can’t afford to love anything more than the economic “bottom line” if they expect to stay competitive in the global economy.

Thankfully, a new breed of farmer is emerging in America. They are given a lot of different
labels, such as organic, biodynamic, holistic, bio-intensive, biological, ecological, permaculture,
innovative, practical, or just family farmers. These farmers all share a common commitment to
creating an agriculture that is capable of maintaining its productivity and value to society and
humanity indefinitely. They understand that farms must be ecologically sound and socially
responsible if they are to be economically viable over the long run. They know they must meet the needs of the present without compromising the opportunities of the future. They are creating a new sustainable American agriculture. They also understand, intuitively if not explicitly, that sustainable systems of farming and food production ultimately must rely on renewable solar energy and renewable human energy for long run economic viability.

These farmers use crop rotations, cover crops, intercropping, managed grazing, and
integrated crop and livestock systems to manage pests and to maintain the natural fertility of
their soil. They capture solar energy to renew and maintain soil organic matter and the natural
productivity of the soil. As they build soil organic matter, they are not only storing solar energy
for future use but are also sequestering atmospheric carbon in the soil. Many have grass-based
and free-range livestock and poultry operations, which rely more heavily on solar energy and
avoid the negative ecological impacts of confinement animal feeding operations.

Many of the new farmers produce raw or minimally processed foods for local customers,
saving much of the fossil energy typically consumed in processing, packaging, storage, and
transportation and reducing the corresponding emissions of greenhouse gasses. As they develop local markets, they are also developing personal relationships with their customers and their neighbors and helping to restore a sense of community. They aren’t trying to drive other farmers out of business and don’t exploit their neighbors or customers to increase their profits. They are regenerating and renewing both physical and social energy by leaving their land and their communities as least as healthy and productive as when they found them.


This above is an excerpt from:


A Prepared for presentation at the 2008 Shivvers Lecture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, February 24, 2008.
ii
John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable
Capitalism, http://www.kpbooks.com , A Return to Common Sense, http://www.rtedwards.com/books/171/, Small
Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA , http://www.acresusa.com/other/contact.htm,and Crisis and Opportunity:
Sustainability in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press http://nebraskapress.unl.edu;
Email: [email protected]; Website: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/.
.


Full text is for the above excerpt is found here: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/pastevents/ikerd/familyfarms.pdf

 

[seedcorn]

Wild thing;;that is a 1998 report. couple of changes since then..

1) RR beans HAD a 5 bu/acre yield drag, they were new then. In NE Indiana we only used about 10% RR beans then. That were fields that were going to wheat that fall because of the lack of chem carryover in fields so the wheat was significantly better or the field had an out of control weed problem. In 2008 it's 90+% RR beans as the yield issue is gone. In fact, I know of NO farmer in the state of Indiana that uses nonRR soybeans. The seed is significantly higher priced so if it was close to being as good, don't you think the farmer would use nonRR beans??? Do you think he WANTS to spend another $20/acre on seed?

2) There is NO reason Bt corn would have higher chem or fert. costs except that the higher producing farmers were using Bt corn. Again Bt was new and very few good products were available. Today in Iowa about 70% is Bt corn (by federal control it can never be over 80% Bt.

3) RW didn't even exist.

4) Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakato were the first states to really use RR corn. It's only become a major player in Indiana/Ohio in last year or two.

Why do you think farmers are buying GMO corn? They want to give a chem company (Monsanto is not the only company developing GMO corn) more $$$$. It's because the GMO's are outperforming the non-GMO's. GMO's are costing anywhere from $5-$50/acre more to buy. There are chem and insecticide savings.

 

[seedcorn]

The agribusiness corporations that increasingly control American agriculture have no
commitment to stewardship of the land or to being good neighbors or good citizens; their
priorities are profits and growth. Industrial farmers have no love for any particular piece of land;
most don’t even own most of the land they farm. They can’t really know the land because they
are trying to farm too much of it to know any of it very well. Many don’t know how to take care
of the land; they depend on prescribed regimens of pesticides, fertilizers, and other fossil energy
inputs to achieve productivity. Industrial farmers can’t afford to love their neighbor because
sooner or later they will need their neighbor’s land to grow. The corporations for whom they
produce have no commitment to any particular nation; they operate globally and have
stockholders scattered all around the world. Industrial farmers can’t afford to love anything more than the economic “bottom line” if they expect to stay competitive in the global economy.


Understand he's a professor, it is his view. He had never better say that to any farmers I know. As a general group of people, you will never work with a kinder, more gentle group of people. There is story after story of farmers when one of their own goes down, they take their time, equip whatever and go farm for their neighbor so his wife/family have an income coming in. They refuse to take one single dime......Can you say that about yourself??? When a neighbor is sick, do you pay his bills??? When anyone including people that are telling them they are heartless and loveless, break down, you can walk up to any farmer and they will help you out. I find this individual very insulting and while he has a degree beyond contempt. So much so that I'm going to type him a letter asking him to restate his views.... (it's now done)

 

[DuckyBoys]

Quote:
We have 8 corporate farms that I work with for my job. Only one of them is a jerk who thinks like this guy says and he just went out of business. So in my professional experience - the corporate farmers aren't some good for nothing stereotype - in fact two of my corporate farms are actually owned by local families - they just happen to be so successful in their business that they must be named corporate farms due to numbers.

The guys running my farms are wonderful people who very much want to do the right thing. Even the employees of the jerk who went out of business were trying to do the right thing - the boss just wouldn't give them money any more.

So once again - Seedcorn I agree. I've met some nasty Ag people but they are the minority. And not all the nasties belong to Big Ag - lots of them are just old cranky farmers who refuse to change.

 

[Reinbeau]

Quote:
It happens in many feedlot operations and you know it - steer raised for meat are fed grain, something they can't properly digest, it rots in their rumen and to keep them alive to market size they're fed a steady diet of antibiotics to fight the infection. Read The Omnivore's Dilemma and tell me what's described there is the right way to raise a beef steer for market. Cows are supposed to eat grasses, not grain, it's a way to get them bigger for market sooner, at the detriment to their health - and a detriment to our own when we eat that meat full of the wrong kind of fat and inflamation from constant infection.

We've all seen the video of the downer cows they're hoisting around, still alive, by forklifts - those aren't supposed to be used for food, either, but they do it anyways (nevermind the obvious suffering, or are you one of the ones who claim animals don't feel pain?). As for standing in thir hocks in manure, that's also been obvious in videos shown on the national news when covering various stories.

You have far too much invested in turning a blind eye to what's wrong with agribusiness today. You're the one who needs to broaden his own education regarding what's going on in the industrial food chain. I'm trying my best to remove myself and my family from that chain by eating as organically as possible, raising my own food, and buying from local farmers (there's a great resource called Local Harvest that those of a like mind might enjoy exploring) whevever possible. I am willing to pay the price for good quality food. More and more are starting to do the same, because they have educated themselves, opened their eyes, and don't like what they see.

 

[Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay]

Quote:
With all due respect, Reinbeau but you have NO CLUE of which you speak. How many of these feedlots have you seen "South of Boston"?

As to the constant infections, once again you don't know of what you speak. Unfortunately the propaganda campaigns by organization, PETA, and the Radical "Organic"/Anti-Agriculture must be working their magic in the New England. If the animals are constantly sick, the farmer and feedlot operator will NOT be profitable or remain in business.

I find it reuplsive that people feel they can dictate to Agriculture that we must revert to outmoded, less efficient production practices because of someones nostalgia for what they FEEL is better or simpler. Why don't we force Ford to revert back to the Model T or the Edsel?

Jim

 

[MayberrySaint]

I have been lurking on this thread and biting my tongue for the last several days but finally have to give my opinion...

I have been a family farmer (20 sows, 50 ewes, flock of chickens, etc.) and also a corporate executive for the world's largest producer of pigs and pork products. This gives me the ability to see both points of view.

Number one problem is that the majority of people GENERALIZE when it comes to corporate agriculture vs family farmers. There are good family farmers and bad family farmers...just as there are good corporate agribusiness firms and bad agribusiness firms. Some of the worst cases of animal abuse I have ever seen have been on "family" farms.

The reason that corporate farms have risen in prominence is because of economics. The bigger you are, the more buying power you have thus your input costs are going to be lower than a small farmer. Most corporate farms started as family operations run by "business-minded" people who understood the power or economy of scale and implemented it. It was survival of the fittest or smartest. Farmers that understood financial statements and could analyze their operations grew and were successful...those that wouldn't keep records or resisted modernization failed. It is the same in any business...

Successful smaller farmers today emulate their corporate brethren...they keep detailed production and financial records...they cooperate with other farmers to create buying or marketing cooperatives to compete with the corporate giants.

While many of you may not agree with corporate farming practices...you probably do not understand the effect they have on the cost you pay for food...let's get nostalgic and go back 100 years and see what percent of a families income went to purchasing food...people were starving in the US in the 1930's. The vast majority of people in the US do not care if hens are kept in cages...steers in feedlots...pigs in confinement pens, etc. They care about how much they have to spend in the store to feed their family.

Whether you believe in God or not...domestic farm animals have been developed and are raised not to be pets, but to feed humans. Our responsibility is to provide them care to do that efficiently whether they are on a corporate farm or in a backyard flock. The world's population is growing at an extraordinary rate and without advances in agriculture, millions of people will starve. While I will never again take a paycheck from an agribusiness giant for philosophical reasons, I thank them for helping feed the world and keep our standard of living one of the best in the world.

 

[menkot]

We must have unusual farmers here also. The ones I know would NEVER try to take land from each other. They would also bend over backwards for each other and others. They are the salt of the earth and most (yes, there are bad apples) would give you the shirt off their back.

We butcher our own meat. We always feed ours the last few weeks with mostly grain. I have never seen any problems with this. We like the grain fed taste better. There are no drugs whatsoever pumped in our animals and they fare very well.

I would also like to say please be careful with your generalizations. This is a very diverse board and you don't know who you might be insulting. I know some really good people who work in agribusiness and are on this board. I also know some really nice farmers that are on this board. We all do the best we can with what we have.

I do not agree with all that some agribusiness giants do but it is what we have right now and until something better is developed then we just do the best we can.

For the record, agribusiness pays our bills. I happen to know a lot of really good people who work in the industry including my husband, so please do not paint them all with the same brush. We have to eat too.

 

[kstaven]

There are some extreme positions on both sides of this fence in the form of studies, reports, advertising and general literature. I for one welcome much of it, because it effects a response and causes people to look deeper into subjects they may otherwise ignore. Wether we like it or not, those extreme points of view have been the springboard for some of our greatest advances and unfortunately some of our biggest blunders. But in all that, it has got us where we are today and will no doubt propel us into more study, research and thus change. Through that process what is believed as an absolute truth in many circles today may or may not be proven true in the future.

We appear to be at a point in history where our people are stressed, the food system is on an edge in almost every way, along with our monetary system. Historically it has been during periods like this that society as a whole takes a major swing in focus, quick changes occur and for better or worse we move in a new direction.

Lazy J In many ways the masses have always dictated to agriculture and always will. They do it through the price they are willing to pay and the day to day buying choices that they make. In the end that will determine the face of agriculture in the future, more so than what individual companies or farmers envision and want. So in the end the more exposure the public has to agriculture and its issues the better off we all are.