So one strain of corn that they made does not yield more? So what? They make tons of superior products that increase food productivity with less fertilizer thus less pollution.

GMO seeds cost more. A farmer isn't going to plant them for the hell of it when there's plenty of non-GMO hybrid seed out there for the choosing.

Input costs vs output profits...that's all that matters to most farmers. There's many opportunities to spend or save money beyond putting a seed of choice into the ground. The types of herbicide/pesticide, amount of application, specialized equipment for type of application based on plant growth, and running the equipment + labor itself adds to these costs...along with GMO traits such as drought tolerance saving some farmers loot.

Also, there is no 1 GMO seed. GMO seed lines are continuously being bred/updated. The GMO seed you bought 5 years ago isn't the same GMO seed you're buying today. Plus, many different companies offer many different types of seed in the same plant line. This study did cover many years/types of GMO seed, though.

Fwiw, in this study BT GMO stack trait crops out performed all conventional varieties. It kills corn borer, a particularly pesky corn pest.

It is true more chemicals are being used, but it treats all chemicals as "chemicals." A lot more RoundUp is being used, but a whole lot less other (more toxic) pre-emergent herbicides and pesticides are being used.

Also, Vernon Bowman is kinda screwed in his Supreme Court battle. He's lost every step of the way though his case is a novel, yet weak legal experiment. He's arguing that by sidestepping the seed supplier (and patent holder) buying seed from grain elevators, he's no longer needing to license (which is more true than buying) the seed he's putting into the ground. It's akin to someone buying all the raw parts of an IPhone, putting them together themselves, and selling it as an IPhone. Our current patent laws and the legalese of GMO contracts are stacked heavily against Mr. Bowman.

https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf

Along with the text explaining the bit about BT and chemical costs, there's Table 2 explaining the cost/risk/profit probability that's in play.

As much as some people want to wax romantic about farming, it's a business and almost every farmer out there want to get the most $ out of each acre on an input (products/labor/cost in) vs output (eventual profit) basis.

GMO seed does not mean less sprays. It means way higher cost of seed and the same amount of sprays as before. Roundup ready field corn still need pesticides as well as chemical fertilizer and the Roundup. BT corn grows all around me yet the crop duster still sprays just as much pesticides as ever, plus roundup is applied before and after the crop much of the time.
You can find many articles that show that farmers are no better off than ever.

I have yet to see a GMO seed that requires no spraying of chemicals. That would be counterproductive to the big Ag companies wouldn't it? Meanwhile they can claim all they want to about needing GMO seed to feed the world and get rich, richer, richest while the farmers worldwide suffer.

If they no longer feel like contracting with that company nothing is stopping them.

No one is "enslaved" to a GMO crop. There are plenty of non-GMO hybrid options for a farmer to plant. It is a farmer's choice to go GMO. There's no grey area here. Farmers choose GMO out of profit. There's no use waxing romantic about it. A farmer signs a contract/license to grow a GMO crop. There's no trickery or forced hands involved.

If you read the study being touted you'll see how the money breaks down and favors GMO (especially Table 2 and the conclusion of the article). It's practically a pro-GMO study that some saw "reduced yields" as part of it and ran with it as a headline or conclusion. It's a case of less money in, more profit out...and that's what most farmers care about. Also, the BT crops out performed the conventional crops.

There are no GMOs that require no spraying of chemicals. I don't know where this notion comes from. Pre-emergents and early/mid-season sprayings of RoundUp are quite common on GMO RU-R crops.

This is about money per acre and a farmer's choice. This isn't about some "big bad company" forcing a farmer to do something. The GMO companies are getting richer and the farmers are making more money. They're in bed with each other, not one side shoving a gun against the other's head.

Well said, nc.

If a farmer can buy GMO seed at a higher price or conventional hybrid seed cheaper, there's a reason they're buying that GMO seed. Most of it has to do with a combination of less expensive chemicals being used in conjunction with the GMO, less equipment/labor running through the fields, less water, less pest control applications, less risk of loss, etc etc...

GMO corn gets the same subsidy as conventional corn...it's all corn on the market no matter how it's grown until you get to boutique market products like organic grown. The market only cares how many bushels/tons are produced. The farmer only cares how much $ it cost to produce that bushel/ton. There's many areas from the point a bag of seed is bought until it's harvested to save or spend money depending on the chosen cropping system for a given crop.

RU-R traits (GT, glyphosate tolerant) do very little to increase yields...what they do is let a farmers spray RoundUp all over the field when seeds/seedlings are already in the ground, killing weeds and stopping competition for nutrients/sun/water. It happens to be a cheap and easily applied herbicide compared to many others. It's especially easier/cheaper to apply RU while plants are already in the ground and at a smaller stage of growth. You can blanket an area without worrying about killing your crop.

A type of BT trait (Ebr) help against European Corn Borer...a huge risk/damage pest in corn. This trait, even without any other traits, would be one of the best protections against yield loss and comes without moving machinery through a field many times to apply it. BT applied manually doesn't stick around for a full growing season.

A second BT trait (Crw) helps against Corn Rootworm. This one isn't a major pest unless it's in the soil already. If it is present in the soil, it helps a lot. It's hard to apply this kind of BT control to the soil pre-planting and practically impossible once the plant is in the ground.

There's other traits such as drought resistance and other minor pest and disease control/resistance in many GMO trait stacks.

All of this together reduces costs and risks. A conventionally grown non-GMO crop may produce more with a best ideal practice (including herbicides and pesticides), but you're talking about more applications, more machinery use, more labor, and other things which raises the total cost of taking a plant from seed to harvest.

I'm not saying GMO seed cropping systems are the best or most Earth-friendly way to do it...just the cheapest. Costs vs profit realized...

nc-crn is in the Organic Gardening section posting massive pro-gmo arguments with excellent links to very specific agribusiness advertisements. I smell astroturf.

I'm just trying to help people understand why they're doing it. If you have a problem with it, your problem is with the farmers and businesses, not me.

You're not going to find a lot of organic corn or organic soy grown on 100-300+ acre farms.

These aren't "pro-GMO arguments"...it's a snapshot of what's going on out in the real world and why it's being done. It's a money thing.

Also, if you think a pro-GMO company would pay someone to talk to a couple dozen people on a message board...well, let's just say, no, no one is paying me to do anything. I'm just trying to tell people WHY farmers are choosing GMO.

A good activist, no matter what "side" they're on, needs to know why something is being done...especially when the numbers are so massively skewed on one side.

I'm not saying it's healthy, or awesome, or the only way to do it...I'm saying it's done because of reduced risk and profit. Like it or not, farmers aren't these salt-of-the-Earth romantic imaged, naive, tools of agribusiness. They sit down with ledger sheets crunching numbers and running the economic side of their farm/acreage with a mind on it that's just as important as what seed choice they're going to put in the ground that year. Many farmers play with an amount of money per year that many small businesses couldn't dream of touching. On a large farm it's not uncommon to have 100s of thousands of dollars of investment sitting in a field at the mercy of pests/weeds/weather/mechanical devaluation and "Acts of God."

"If GMOs give the most profit, why are organic products suddenly grabbing market share? Why are organic farms growing faster than conventional farms? Pfui. It's just how it's always been done, and now we're discovering it may not be the best. "

Hype. Greenguilt. Marketing.

Organic food is about marketing, not about health, not about science. Organic farming threatens our land with its low yield and relience on scarce fertilizers. 2% of our food is produced organically for good reason. If we switched to organic farming we would have to farm half the earths surface.

Organic food is no better for you and it is worse on the environment.....

These conflicted interests abound. The amazing revolving door between Monsanto, FDA, EPA.

Working hard to serve the best interest of the public!

People are a lot more willing to eat GMO (or rather, feed our animals cheap GMO feed) than pay a bit more for food. People want $1.50-$3 a lb. skinless chicken breasts...$1 a lb chicken leg quarters. A lot of our GMO crops go into animal-based food production vs the amount that ends up in corn chips, cereal, processed foods (not counting beet sugar).

IMO, the best weapon for the anti-GMO activists is going to be labeling. Once it's put in the consumer's face it's going to cause some people to choose differently, even if it costs a little more. It will force more non-GMO products on the market and therefore more non-GMO crops in the fields. That said, this doesn't mean organic...it just means different kinds of chemicals sprayed on crops/land to grow a crop. The health effects may be nullified at this point, but they won't have systemic GMO changes to the grains, themselves.

That said, the impact on GMO animal feed would still most likely be minimal because many people either don't know or don't care that meat/milk animals are eating GMO.

For every "GMO is bad!" study there's about a dozen+ "GMO isn't bad" studies...and our government isn't going to ban any GMO without a smoking gun. Even then, they'll probably only ban a certain trait insertion, not the entire process.

For those looking to end GMO...or lessen the amount of GMO...they're going to have to educate and go after the consumers for the most immediate change.

Our food supply is one of the greatest trading and national strength points. We could grow it differently, but ultimately the thing that matters the most from a national security standpoint is the amount of food (especially grains) we can surplus out of our land.

GMO labeling will come, but given that people even in California are scared by spending a little more on food it's going to take a while to go national. It's very important to get large markets to force labeling. A big state/population in an area forcing packaging changes would make it economically hard to push unlabeled packages on an area. It a company has to make 10 million boxes of something for distribution in an area and 6-7 million of those boxes need to go to a large population area then those other 3-4 million boxes will probably get the same labeling and go to non-labeling-required states. A market share that large would probably force a regional or national reformulation of the product in question, too. It's happened like this in other countries once labeling is required.

A lot of the GMO breakfast cereals eaten in the US are different non-GMO formulations in other countries...Australia for instance. They have mandatory GMO labeling laws and it's greatly effected where companies source their raw ingredients.

Fwiw, this case is about a farmer growing GMO crops. He just wants to circumvent the process of buying seed/license from a seed supplier by buying his "seed" from a grain elevator.

He's a GMO farmer. He's just testing the legality of buying cheap end-product GMO seed without getting a proper license. This is nothing more than a patent control case.

The current patent laws and the process of how GMO seeds are sold/licensed aren't on his side. It would be extremely shocking if this case was even close, much less him actually winning the case.

The only way to see around the conflict is that he was a lawyer for them during a non-GMO period in the company. He's used this excuse to rule on similar issues (such as the RU-R alfalfa case from a few years ago).

Still, justices have taken themselves off cases for less.

You're also not the spokesman of this board.

I'm adding to the information base on issues. No one is paying me for it. I'm not here to start trouble. I'm not spreading lies.

Hell, I just wrote a "how to take on GMOs" rant a few posts ago in this very thread.

Yeesh.

I'm in a position to add a voice to this discussion via my position within the industry, the people I work with on a daily basis, and my own personal love of all aspects of agriculture. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I've worked with more farmers in the past decade than you have in your entire life. I don't know this for sure, but unless you're going to come up with something close to a triple digit number then I got this one.

I'm not going to "just take" being demonized for bringing up rational/real views of how things work in the world. Understanding how something works, especially political/business things (which this very much is), is rarely idealistic or pretty. No amount of wishful thinking will make the points I've brought up not true. Wishful thinking doesn't get things done in the real world. If you don't like these things, you should work to change them. Ignoring them or refusing to accept it's existence changes nothing.

If you have an issue with something that's brought up you should attack the information, not the person. Points and counterpoints can be addressed and weighed.

Well, I'm a certified Permaculturist (design + core concepts) and I've taught/assisted others in core concept courses FREE OF CHARGE.

I've designed and implemented private and public (on city land, even schools) permaculture-style installations. My main areas of expertise include local/native plant guilds and design oriented water-runoff/channeling utilization.

My own garden isn't technically organic since I use small amounts of chemical fertilizer, but I rarely go to chemical control of pests (never for weeds) and I haven't had to use a chemical control in about 5 years because of how well I take care of my garden. In case you're wondering, I was gone for a couple of weeks and I came home to a non-larval stage infestation that meant "lose the crop" or "apply something"...and because I knew what I was doing I chose the least toxic means to do it and applied the smallest amount I needed to get the job done in a proper manner.

When I give information to locals about garden care it doesn't start with "Well buddy, you need to get 10 gallons of Kill-Dem-Bugs and 5 pounds of Chemical-Death-Powder." A well scouted home garden rarely needs harsh chemical pest control and a properly designed+mulched home garden rarely needs harsh chemical weed control.

Just because I happen to know and understand how genetic modification works, how the economic side of farming drives some farmer's decisions, and what most chemicals do in the air and soil...that doesn't mean I only know 1 thing and it's all chemical/GMO.

Agriculture is my job, my hobby, and my civic volunteer project. It's nice to do something you love for a living and have it be just as rewarding when you're not on the clock being paid to do it.

"Your problem with facts and educated opinions I'm presenting cannot be trumped by baseless blanket statements, conspiracy theories, and name calling.
You're also not the spokesman of this board. "

Well said, nc!!!

A littlescientific skepticism is great no matter what topic. If there is false info being stated (fallacy) it is good to show a little science.

Thanks for adding though.......

If you want to be a reactionary conspiracy theorist you're not getting anything done with those who actually push policy.

If anyone thinks this particular blog and it's occasional couple dozen of active people with few industry or activism links is a target of espionage and dis-information then you're thinking too hard about the entire issue. There's no need to act like a victim that's fighting back when you're not even being attacked.

No amount of wishing it wasn't true makes the supply of grain corn/soy/canola/cotton comeing from a 90%+ GMO supply not a reality. Sugar beet farmers are switching to GMO at a neck-break pace since it's approval (90-95% of supply in it's very short existence). Maybe it's better to concentrate on why farmers are choosing this (other than conspiracy theories). Maybe it's better to concentrate on the reality of large scale agriculture and it's economics rather than pretending it doesn't exist. It's really hard for some people (for some reason) to accept that farmers actually make a choice to grow these crops solely for the fact it makes them more money. There's not this much GMO choice going on because of bullying, conspiracy, lack of alternative choices, naive/stupid farmers, free masons, Illuminati, or etc...it's a money based choice. It's not 50/50...60/40...it's 90+/10-...that's heavily skewed and staring all of us right in the face.

In an ideal world we wouldn't have murder. Ignoring the fact murder happens doesn't make it go away. Understanding why murder happens make strategies to lessen it's impact become more clear.

If you choose to walk a path of ignorance because it's too hard to hear, that's up to you. It's that whole "Art of War" thing where you understand your enemy in order to best take them on. Pretending things that are happening isn't reality isn't understanding, it's ignorance. It's not only ignorance, it's one of the worst kinds of ignorance...self-imposed ignorance.

It's not like the things I'm saying aren't able to be cross-checked...it's not like the things I'm saying are even controversial...it's just hard for some people to accept for some reason.

Organics is a heart felt following that is comprised of both feelings and results. In both spiritual and organic things, it is often hard to quantify everything to a sceptic's satisfaction. On some things you just got to lead out in faith. The one thing that is sometimes difficult is keeping a balance between legalism and looseness. A legalistic person can become a grouchy crank and a too loose person might be sucked into something harmful.

I can see where nc has presented some good information and advice. If one only listens to the choir preacher, their knowledge probably has some holes in it.

May God bless the sincere in heart.

To some people, they've read information that leads them to believe this practice causes a loss of money. The reality of the economics of farming doesn't back this up, though. It leads some to believe farmers are being pushed into a corner and have GMOs forced upon them. Hearing that it's a farmer's choice breaks a mystique of the farmer to some people.

Even those that use GMOs are stewards of their land. Most care about the organic fraction of their soil and keeping it there. Most don't want it blowing away. Most want to put the least amount of inputs into their cropping system (mostly guided by costs, not sheer amount).

To those that believe GMOs have no place in any farming system of any size the use of them is unacceptable. The reality is...they exist and they're being chosen in extremely lopsided amounts.

IMO, if a person's goal is to lessen to amount of GMO planted and used by consumers...a good start is understanding the current playing field in order to change the game plan. I posted a rant about how labeling has changed ingredient sourcing in some areas, therefore influencing the amount of non-GMO crops grown. That's one more rant than I've read from my current critics in this thread that has a realistic chance of influence and a real life example of how it's changed the landscape of farming practices toward non-GMO sources.

however

“Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.”
��" J. Fernandez-Cornejo, W. D. McBride, The adoption of bioengineered crops, US Department of Agriculture

US farmers have grown increasingly concerned about the high price and poor performance of GM seed. A 2011 media report said that the seed companies had responded by withdrawing a high-performing non-GM variety of maize, which gave higher yields than GM varieties. The report added that the companies are hiking the prices of herbicides used by non-GM farmers to artificially increase the cost of non-GM production.128
Farmers have little choice but to tolerate such price hikes because of consolidation within the seed industry. In other words, the GM industry dictates which seed varieties are available. In 2008, 85% of GM maize patents and 70% of non-maize GM plant patents in the US were owned by the top three seed companies: Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. Even these three companies are not independent of each other but increasingly network to cross-license GM seed traits.131

The largest of the big three companies is Monsanto. In 2010 Monsanto raised its prices for its RR2 soybeans and SmartStax maize seeds so steeply that the US Department of Justice launched an investigation into the consolidation of agribusiness firms that has led to anti-competitive pricing and monopolistic practices. Farmers actively gave evidence against companies like Monsanto.132,133"

Monsanto is not going to share great profits with farmers but due to influence and underhanded tactics, keep them purchasing the GE seed no matter what they want.
Next year the patent is up on Roundup Ready soybeans1. It will be interesting to see what they do to not lose any profit there.

1- "The adoption of bioengineered crops" study is based on field data from 1997/1998. That data is practically useless today. The negative data in question only pertains to corn. Soy and cotton were both financial winners. Not only has corn gotten "better" with yields and genetic advancement...the important key financially is the patent of RoundUp expiring in 2000. That sent the price of it's generic...glyphosate...well into the profit realm, where it's stood for for corn for over a decade and much more for soy/cotton/etc. Within a couple of years of the patent expiring the price of glyphosate dropped 25% and it's close to 50% less expensive now. It's dropped so much in price that in 2010 US producers of glyphosate brought a trade argument to the government about China dumping huge amounts of it on the US market.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/759229/aer810g_1_.pdf

2- "Farmers have little choice but to tolerate such price hikes because of consolidation within the seed industry." + "Monsanto is not going to share great profits with farmers but due to influence and underhanded tactics, keep them purchasing the GE seed no matter what they want. " --- There is a huge amount of non-GMO hybrid corn/soy/etc seed out there, but it isn't favored by farmers over GMO...mostly for the profits gained by using a RU-R crop for the reasons listed in point 1 along with various BT trait stacks. There's non-GMO sourcing alternatives out there (Spectrum Seeds being an in-your-face option) and yet 90%+ of the farmers aren't tapping this seed supplier or it's alternative competitors (some of which are actually owned by Monsanto/Syngenta/etc and doing totally separate non-GMO breeding operations to provide non-GMO seed).

3- "I think the general style of large farmer now a days is one that would prefer the modern GMO style farming anyway- over improving the soil for the future or saving seed that does well for you." --- Hardly anyone is saving corn/cotton seed. Hybrid seed (even without GMO) outperforms conventional/heirloom seed, especially in major cropping systems. Soy has options, but many soy farmers...especially since it's a low-ground-growing crop...prefer a RU-R seed because it's a lot easier to dump a crapload of RU all over the ground over other forms of weed control in the pre-planting + early emergence stages.

At some point the people that don't already believe it are going to have to accept that farmer choice is behind many of these decisions rather than a company forcing it onto farmers. They are not blindly choosing to lose money by choosing GMO (because most aren't), nor are they being forced into a corner with no options for seed. The savings are realized or they wouldn't participate in the system. The notion that there are no other options can be dispelled with a trip to a farm-scale seed supply store or an online catalog that supplies large scale farms. Spectrum Seeds would be a good place to start if you need a few million seeds. Hell, if a farmer needs a 100 million non-GMO corn seeds they can hook them up. They're out there waiting for any farmer's business and they're just a single example. Spectrum Seeds, alone, sells a lot of their excess/old seed off to animal feed operations when it gets too old to sell. It's out there...waiting.

The ugly truth about many farmers complaining about GMO seed prices is that they want to use GMO seed, but don't like how 6 major corporations (Monsanto/Syngenta/DuPont/Dow/BASF/Bayer) control most of the seed supply...not that they don't have non-GMO options. The popularity of a particular seed supply goes between companies depending on what field trials show who has the best seed. Monsanto isn't even king of corn anymore. They're king of soy. They used to be king of corn, but they've had issues the past many years providing a superior corn compared to Syngenta/Dow. They will probably be king again one day. It all hops between 6 different major companies depending on who has the best seed at a given moment.

On the non-financial and choice side...RU-R is not sustainable. RU-R crops are being used too much. That's why 2,4-D GMO crops are being developed. They'll probably develop something else after that, too. The "future" of GMO weed control is using a rotation of herbicide tolerant RU-R/2,4-D/??? seed crops so you can wipe out "superweeds" from a field year-to-year by using a different herbicide.

On the subject of BT resistant pests...This is being handled way better than herbicide/weed issues. Insect Resistance Management (IRM) is currently an important part of almost every GMO cropping system for many years now (though it wasn't in the past). Along with traditional methods of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) this involves the planting of refuge/trap crops. These refuge crops (which can be up to 20%+ of a field planting) involves planting of crops which do not contain BT traits (though most have RU-R traits -if- a farmer desires). This forces a diverse population of insect breeding to greatly slow the emergence of "superpests" which are tolerant of BT. Also, the reason newer formulations of SmartStax BT resistant corn is so expensive is that their refuge plantings in most areas only require a 5% refuge area. Those enhanced genetics are part of why that particular trait stack is higher in price compared to other GMO trait stacks.

An argument about GMO good vs evil is one thing. An argument about the economics of why so many farmers are using GMO (especially herbicide traits GMOs) is another thing.

I'm not saying everything GMO is great and awesome...as I've stated before in this thread. I'm trying to paint a picture of why we have such a huge amount of farmers choosing to use this type of cropping system.

The consumers are the future of GMO balance. As we've seen with "pink slime" mechanically separated meat...consumers can kill an industry through choice no matter how many studies back up it's safety. If anyone is waiting on "superweeds," GMOs being financially unwise for farmers, or our government deciding all these US companies that own patents on GMO technology need to go...you're betting on the wrong horse.

;)

http://www.dailybarometer.com/guest-speaker-explains-why-farmers-choos e-gmos-how-companies-fit-in-1.2990764

Through these statistical analyses, Kalaitzandonakes found yield differences between conventional and round-up ready soybeans were roughly the same, and the cost to implant roundup ready soybeans and the continual upkeep of traditional methods were roughly the same. So, why are some farmers making the switch?
When asked on surveys, farmers throughout the United States who had partial farms ��" half genetically modified and half conventional ��" said switching to GMO farms provided convenience, management and peace of mind.
This was said by a pro-GMO speaker. Even he admits it doesn't increase profit.

http://oregonstate.edu/orb/sites/default/files/fft/2013/nk_osu_seminar _feb_14_2013.pdf

On slide 18 you'll see the economic data that shows cost associations for GMO soy vs conventional. You'll see the .55 cent per acre higher cost for GMO for the data year 2005.

On slide 32 you'll see something that may look a little odd the surface...a huge spike in 2009 in the use of GMO soy after a lull in 2007 when economic reports about GMO costs affected the market demand. The reason for the 2006 raise over 2005 is because these reports generally come out in spring/summer of the following year so these financials were reported when farmers who didn't "learn a personal lesson" had already bought seed. The lull in 2007 was a direct result of those 2005 financials reported in 2006.

Around late-2007 and into 2008 Chinese manufacturers of glyphosate started flooding global markets, including the US, with really cheap glyphosate. In 2010 US manufacturers of glyphosate filed a trade complaint against China over this (which has gone practically no where or had any effect so far through 2012/2013).

This extremely huge spike in 2009 corresponds directly with that cheap glyphosate availability.

Farmers pay attention to these reports. In 2007 RU-R soy took a hit based on 2005 financial surveys (reported in 2006). In 2009, thanks to cheaper glyphosate, RU-R soy rebounded strongly to an all-time high.

It's all about money and the cost of inputs driving the markets.

To take a turn...on the subject of corn in the mid-west, there's a lot of farmers who have sat through a couple years of drought who are going to be less likely to spend more money on GMO corn when it's water limiting their profits over pests/herbicide-costs. There's been a change to the subsidy program for eligible crops (such as corn) where cheap/subsidized insurance has now taken on a greater "hand out" subsidy value over rewarding the market in order to increase grain prices. Thanks to the drought...planting corn is a lot like planting an ATM machine right now. It's a huge reason a lot of foreign investors are snapping up irrigation-water-rights farm land right now...which is another issue, in itself.

"But Monsanto said its Roundup business is under federal investigation. The company said the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating customer incentives Monsanto paid out for its Roundup business during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The SEC has subpoenaed Monsanto, seeking documents related to the incentives, and Monsanto said it is cooperating.

During a conference call with investors, CEO Hugh Grant refused to elaborate on the investigation "out of respect for the SEC and their process." He declined to say what kind of incentives are under investigation, or what kind of regulatory action Monsanto might fact, if any, saying only that the investigation was in its "early days."
Grant has said previously that it's critical to get the more expensive seeds planted on farmers' acres so they can see the economic benefits of the crops, even if Monsanto has to discount its prices. Once the new lines of seeds get a foothold in the market, Monsanto will be able to charge more for them, Grant said. Shifting to new seed lines is important to Monsanto because the patent on its most popular trait, which makes plants resistant to the popular herbicide Roundup, is set to expire in 2014. "
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/genetically_alter ed_seeds_boos.html

Frankly, I think the general conventional farmer loves the idea/myth of less work with higher yield of GMO seed without having the courage to test anything else. I am not saying they are stupid or lazy but I do think they are prone to believe what the seed company says and think yield is pretty good. I believe the yield could be just as good and the expenditure much less with non GMO seed.

It really shows the changing of the guard with modern farmers. My grandma and dad farmed together when I was a kid. As I grew older I realized my dad was a right wing, gun carrying, hunter/trapper, interested in crop profit and not interested in a sustainable future. He believed wars and disease were good to thin the population from time to time. His mom was an old DFLer, more concerned with husbandry and working with the land, not prone to believe things that sounded too good to be true. If they were alive today I know exactly where each would stand on GMO seed and can hear the arguments over which was a better idea for the future.

What I explained in my last post isn't even referencing that report you just linked. It's referencing the link about Dr. K which you were citing and a quote from his lecture. I gave you slides of his lecture and pointed out some things...and why those things happened. It's not theory.

"Frankly, I think the general conventional farmer loves the idea/myth of less work with higher yield of GMO seed without having the courage to test anything else. I am not saying they are stupid or lazy but I do think they are prone to believe what the seed company says and think yield is pretty good."

But, you are calling them stupid. I don't know how much you know about the economics of large scale farming, but it usually involves taking out massive yearly loans that total in the 10s-100s of thousands of dollars. These are not off-the-cuff or casual decisions. A modern large crop farmer spends as much time with his/her books as they do putting their crop in the ground. To minimize this process as something they're "tricked" into isn't something that can persist for nearly 2 decades.

Here are some more things to consider.
Well, so farmers are poisoning the hell out of their food and their fields. But with Monsanto’s super-duper GMO technology, the crop yields are still much bigger than they would be without the GMO seeds, right?
The Institute for Responsible Technology cites and quotes three reports on that score.
An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development study, signed on to by 58 governments and 400 scientists, states that GMO crop production is “highly variable,” and in some cases it has “declined.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, “Failure to Yield,” emphatically stated: “Commercial GE [genetically engineered] crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yields of any crop.”
A US Dept. of Agriculture report: “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential. In fact, yield may even decrease…”

It's all about money. If a conventional system (which doesn't mean they're magically using safe/friendly chemicals) gets you more yield per acre...it doesn't matter if to get that yield the $ realized on the extra production doesn't cover increased cost to obtain it. Farmers pay attention to how much $ it takes to produce a crop and weigh their choices. It's not the 10th thing on their "to do" list...it's pretty much the first choice made before putting a chosen cropping system in action.

Almost every field in the US contains superweeds because of overuse of RU in RU-R crops.

That said, you're still talking about extremely small amounts of weeds. 1% in Iowa over all cropland, though well over 50% of the fields in Iowa have superweeds present.

It's not as huge of a problem as some are led to believe, though it needs to be taken care of before it does become a huge problem. RU overuse has been border-line irresponsible, but it's been a money driven issue over stewardship. For some farmers, it's already a big problem, but it's largely localized rather than widespread.

Aside from that, it'll probably infuriate or interest you to know that GMO 2,4-D crops are soon to be released which will give problem fields and preventative options for crop rotation severely suppressing/eliminating superweed evolution and genetic spread. Along with that companies are also working on herbicide tolerant GMOs of other herbicides like Callisto (mesotrione). In a few years farmers will have 3+ choices for GMO herbicide rotations.

Also, hardly anyone in the US uses Paraquat/Gramoxone anymore. It's toxic as all hell. It's more commonly used in countries in South America + Asia + Africa with lax worker safety laws. There have been "safer" versions of Gramoxone rolled out recently, but it's done very little to gain users in the US. It's reputation hasn't been good for decades.

Good point! Simple economics. The GMO uses say 1/2 the fertilizer to grow say 7/8 as much as the other crop would.

Now thats good!

A lot of this GMO corn/soy/cotton/etc is grown "no till"...spraying a field with RU doesn't require tilling in the herbicide like some other herbicides...any time you run a piece of equipment through a field you're spending money in equipment depreciation + fuel + labor + "attachments" for doing it. Some farmers rent some or all of this equipment rather than owning it. Either way there's a cost involved using it.

When plants are in the seedling-to-small-plant stage additional herbicide can be blanket applied without killing the crop which means you can use far less expensive methods for early season weed control...or in some cases saving $ on herbicide + labor costs by not having to send people through fields to hand-apply spot applications of herbicide so it doesn't effect the crop.

Now the BIG question is, why would people protest something that can feed many people and is better on the environment....

They don't necessarily use less fertilizer...a lot depends on seed/variety selection. For the most part they use a similar/same amount of fertilizer to the point it's a moot point of comparison.

Less fuel is used in GMO cropping systems because most of it can be grown no-till and RU can be blanket applied over a field rather than applied and tilled in. Less machinery/hard-work dragging disc plows through a field. Also, less additional herbicide/pesticide applications need to be used.

As far as better for the environment...if you're one that believes we shouldn't be eating or introducing plants into fields that naturally contain BT or can uptake RU into cells without it killing the plants (and therefore humans/animals eating the residues of it) then how better it is for the environment on whole is up for debate.

It appears that there is at least one scientist that disagrees with the quoted statements. " The beneficial effects of organic agriculture are reflected on the environment, on the livestock, on the economy and society [7, 5]. " A difference is that this group documents their statements.

Quote taken from:
http://agronomyjournal.usamv.ro/pdf/vol55/Art53.pdf

---------------------------------------
Regarding the second statement: " Now the BIG question is, why would people protest something that can feed many people and is better on the environment...."

------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. I will take one specific example that in its introduction mentions many other examples. Please note this is real world "history".
(Since someone wonders why I cite papers, in this case I expect that most of the material in the following 2013 paper will come as a surprise to the casual American reader that has been exposed to mainly GMO industry sponsored "facts".)

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone/Kudlu and Stone 2013.pdf

Organic systems are generally better for the environment given proper sourcing, pathogen/pest, and runoff management, but the economic effect fails unless you believe there's a health risk that leads to higher healthcare costs...which is an ill understood effect and sketchy at best given the current state of published research.

The economics of going all-organic would lead to higher produce + meat supply prices...and gas mixture prices given how we (foolishly, imo) use some of our corn supply.

There's a reason a pound of processed snack food costs about as much as a single organic apple. People like their $1.50-$3 a lb. boneless/skinless chicken breasts.

It may not be healthier depending on what studies you read, but the economics are clear.

We don't have enough purchasers of organic products to support a heavy or full organic production system even though organic produce/meat fetches a higher price on the market.

H.Kuska comment. No literature citations are given to support the "economics are clear" statement,

This link is for a full 2013 review type scientific paper. The final part of their conclusion is given below.

"It should be noted that it is practically impossible to quantify or predict the long-term consequences
arising from the widespread use of GM crops. However from the present literature review, at this point
in time, genetically modified crops are not a suitable tool for sustainable agriculture due to specific environmental, economic, and socioeconomic reasons."

This is all debatable.

Environmental... Is it better to grow a crop using more harsh and environmentally dangerous cocktails of herbicides/pesticides, or is it better to use less harsh chemicals and have the plants produce BT + have genetic resistance to less harsh herbicides such as RU/2,4-D/etc.? Insect resistance to BT crops are being addressed with Insect Resistance Management plans which include planting a percentage (5-30%+) of crops which do not contain BT. It gives breeding pests genetic diversity. RU-R crops are very soon to get 2,4-D resistant crops and other herbicide resistant crops are in the pipeline. "Superweeds" are going to have an extremely hard time thriving when they're trying to face a more traditional herbicide scheme of seeing different herbicides every year...it's soon to be 2, and followed by 3+ options. The point of "superweeds" is a huge part of this paper and that's soon to be moot. Love it or hate it...RU is widely accepted as one of the safest herbicides on the market. It's a "once in a century" agricultural tool. If farmers aren't using RU...they're using another chemical herbicide unless they're part of the very small portion of the organic corn/soy/cotton/sugarbeet/etc farmers...

Economic... This has been rehashed in this thread a dozen times already. The economics are very clear or we wouldn't have 70-90%+ of corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, etc GMO in the US. Farmers are not in the business of losing money and consumers are not snapping organic produce/meat off the shelf at a pace to demand a huge market share (mostly due to price). Read above for many points given. The treatment by some non-farmers that farmers are naive people who can't understand math or are bullied by corporations hugely underestimates a business that may, individually, take out loans for 10s-100s thousand of dollars a year just to put a crop into the ground (which, in turn, would make a lot of banks very naive, too). Farming 100s-1000s of acres is every bit of a business as any other person's business. They're not growing a home garden. Every acre, every input, and every output is what they do for a living. GMO yellow squash exists and it's planted by less than 5% of yellow squash farmers. Should we assume yellow squash farmers are super-intelligent whereas corn/soy/cotton/etc farmers are dumb as dirt...or might it have to do with an economic cropping decision? I'll answer that one...the only farmers using GMO yellow squash are those that insist on planting in virus infected fields and they plant virus-resistent GMO varieties.

Socioeconomic... This is subjective. There's no clear winner on either side of the argument and both sides have valid points depending on where their focus lies.

Along with all of this...GM isn't "done." GM is constantly doing new things and it's impossible to say what's going to be bad or great about it until it exists. Who's to say a GM tomato that never drops bloom in extreme heat or a broccoli you can grow in 90F temperatures without it bolting or flowering is going to be bad (btw, I know of no research or development being done in this area) until it exists...or at least the pathway for development is understood? What about taking drought resistance from a naturally drought resistant grain and imposing that into corn as we increasingly are concerned about water use in food production? The socioeconomic impact of this increased efficiency in water use could be a positive in Iowa for those that farm as well as non-farmers who have wells or buy water from the city, while it may be moot-to-negative in Florida.

H.Kuska comment: If the post had stopped there, I would not have a problem with it. However, the following was later stated:
"Economic... This has been rehashed in this thread a dozen times already. The economics are VERY clear or we wouldn't have 70-90%+ of corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, etc GMO."

In scientific discussions I expect references for points being made.

Nature is complex, The so called improvements listed can be viewed by some as the companies attempts to correct for their oversimplistic "solutions" of the past. For example a Bt-cotton developed from a good line for one area failed badly in parts of India as it was not suited for the local climate.

This is actual history (but very recent history).

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-09/india/33118430_ 1_cotton-seeds-bt-cotton-cotton-growing-states

-------------------------------------------------

The following may help understand what is actually happening NOW and what are the near term concerns.
"Though, India ranks second in the world in cotton production after China, even its best productivity of 566 kg/ha, places it at 24th rank in the list of 80 cotton producing countries. Despite the good progress made by public and private sector research and development, it is a matter of concern that productivity started to decline from 566 kg/ha in 2007 to 522 kg/ha in 2008, 486 kg/ha in 2009 and 475 kg/ha in 2010.".......(Please read the actual article for the possible non Bt factors)....."With intensive selection pressure of Bt toxins used in more than 90% area of Bt crops, and less adoption of refugia and declining area of inter crops in cotton cropping systems, development of bollworm resistance to the Bt toxins is an emerging concern. Resistance has the potential to diminish the benefits of Bt cotton."
The above quote taken from:
http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Lecture_Notes_Organic_Cotton.pdf
------------------------------------------------------

How about a decade of experience in this field, working with 100+ farmers, and actually doing this for a living?

If that doesn't work then fire up Google and type "percentage of GMO" and follow it with "corn" "soy" "sugar beets" etc...not only will it provide you with multiple links rather than an isolated study, it will show you 70-90%+ figures.

If you want to believe that farmers are in the business of losing money, that they're stupid as hell, they don't understand math, and there's lots of banks out there lining up to loan money to farmers so they can lose it for them then that's your "thing." This isn't "Monopoly money" they're playing with...it's what they do for a living and there's a reason they choose certain cropping systems. Just because someone has an ideological problem with it, doesn't make it any less of a reality. I have no idea why it's hard for some people to believe that many farmers have profit-per-acre as a near-top concern when choosing a cropping system...that if they're choosing a system someone else has an ideological problem with it has to involve trickery or stupidity. Why does the business of farming have the reputation/wishes of it not actually being a business to some people? Corn and soy...ALONE...accounts for nearly 60-75 BILLION DOLLARS of value per year (depending on market value, crop availability, and world demand).

Also, there's no law that someone has to implement a pest/crop management system. The US is doing a far better job of planting refuge cropping systems to keep BT-resistent pests from blowing up compared to other areas. If a farmer chooses to plant 100% BT crops then they're gambling with their environment and the cheap method of a cropping system that they're currently using. Cotton specifically...in some areas they recommend 20-30% refuge cropping for pest management and in Georgia it's as high as 50%. A lot of these farmers choose 100% GMO herbicide for their crop, but only 50-80% it contains BT genes.

As far as global GMO use...there's some countries that shouldn't even have farmers using them. Some areas that pay 10-20-30% of what you can get in the US for a crop probably shouldn't be using a lot of seed they can't even legally save...even if the GMO seed is cheaper via government/seed company subsidy.

As far an GMO cotton in India (the only GMO crop they allow so far)...you should understand how the seed trade works there. The lack of regulation there is astounding. Whether it should be the government or the companies doing it is up for debate, but restraint and wisdom in the use of GMO is in short demand and less in application. The amount of illegal seed (and fake seed) sold there is astonishing. It probably doesn't help that a single company (Monsanto-partnered) has a monopoly on GMO seed there. There's 6 corporations producing GMO for the US (and other) markets. Monsanto isn't "king of corn" anymore in the US because they haven't brought a top-line GMO corn seed to market for years...Syngenta, Dow, and DuPont/Pioneer have that crown currently compared to Monsanto. This could all change at any point Monsanto, BASF, or Bayer produces a more attractive product.

It seems you're fishing for something you want to be true rather than looking at how farmers are actually choosing to use a system that exists vs it's alternatives. Reality is out there if you choose to acknowledge it exists. Farming is a business...it's not 10s of thousands of elderly, weather-worn, naive, salt-of-the-earth, stereotypes simply buying a seed and putting it into the ground while praying to God they make it to harvest.

Just the way science brings everyone to an agreeance on a particular subject........

What nc is saying is: Farmers are not going to use GMO unless it really works. There is no secrets, its just good business.

Lets not forget some words from the man that saved close to a billion people from hunger- Norman Borlaug

"Norman Borlaug Blasts GMO Doomsayers"

"He dismissed the critics of GMOs as people who had not produced even a kg of food and yet were yelping about bio-safety and the dangers involved in the technology.

he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production. "

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html

Pretty much. I'm not saying it's healthier (or not). I'm not saying it's the only way to do it. I'm not saying anything but we have a disproportionately huge amount of farmers choosing a GMO cropping system for corn, soy, sugar beets, cotton, etc...and the reason is purely profit driven from the farmer's point of view.

GMO has been out in the "wild" as an option for almost 2 decades and if it was a profit-killer we wouldn't see such high shifts toward GMO. If the numbers were 50/50 or similar then there might be "something to it", but it's closer to 75-25 or 90/10. When GMO sugar beets were introduced...almost 15 years after the existence of other GMO crops...there was a nearly overnight shift to GMO sugar beets in the 90-95% range. These are hugely disproportionate numbers on the table, here.

It may not help the romantic Dodge Ram truck selling image of the farmer, but it's what's happening. Money is being chosen...profit per acre is being chosen...

That is exactly what it is about. Being the seed is quite ridiculously expensive the profit is reduced no matter what the yield is. But GMO proponents claim the yield will be higher and really it isn't. So if the seed costs more but doesn't yield more than why use it? People are asking.
It has been proven that 'pesticide' use is not reduced either so that does not change the profit on the crop at all.

So, you're still insisting that the 70-90%+ of farmers using a GMO system are dumb and intentionally losing money?

Profit realized per acre means everything. 70-90%+ of corn/soy/sugar beets/cotton farmers are using a GMO system. Planting a crop over 100-1000+ acres involves machinery, fuel, herbicide choices (and how they need to be applied, a lot have to be tilled in...RU doesn't), pesticide choices, water, etc...

I don't know how much more clear this can get unless you insist farmers are some of the stupidest people on the face of this planet.

No offense, but you're again calling farmers ignorant and/or stupid.

The very idea that these business owners are somehow sub-human compared to you is insulting.

In the US they know very well what they're putting into the ground, the controversy surrounding it, and what the numbers are on it.

We already ran circles around this fake "but it's the only thing available" seed supply crunch myth earlier. There's plenty of non-GMO seed out there, but the farmers aren't favoring it. See the rant above where I not only covered this, but gave a source for non-GMO corn (for instance).

Why must you insist that a corn/soy/sugar beet/cotton/etc farmer...part of nearly 100 billion dollars of US industry...is some pushed around idiot?

Face it...there's a lot...a whole lot...of farmers that want the most cash out of their acreage. No amount of wishful thinking will make something that's more profitable less profitable. Money drives these choices.

A parallel to his logic about:
" Farmers are not going to use GMO unless it really works. There is no secrets, its just good business."

would be "Farmers are not going to use arsenic as a pesticide unless it really works. There is no secrets, its just good business."

-------------------------------------
The problem with both of these statements is how do you define "works".

Also, what "works" in the short term does not necessarly work for the long term. He can find data about adoption rates, that is easy. But I expect in a scientific discussion that he also find scientific documentation for his "assumption" that adoption rates indicates that: " Money is being chosen...profit per acre is being chosen...".

Here is one publication on this subject:

"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."
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/leopold-letter/1999/fall/does-plan ting-gmo-seed-boost-farmers-profits
--------------------------------------------

Scroll up for a discussion about what happened to profits once RU lost it's patent control in 2000.

While you're at it...scroll around for a discussion about the effect of China dumping massive amounts of cheap generic glyphosate on the market years ago.

At this point you might want to understand the industry rather than looking for straws to "prove" a point. I keep running around in circles on some of these subjects.

THIS IS ABOUT MONEY...THIS IS ABOUT PROFIT PER ACRE. THIS IS WHY SO MANY FARMERS ARE CHOOSING A GMO CROPPING SYSTEM. EMPHASIS ON "CHOICE"...AS IN...HUMAN BEINGS RUNNING A BUSINESS SAT DOWN WITH THEIR BOOKS AND MADE A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT CROPPING SYSTEM TO EMPLOY BASED UPON MOST LIKELY RETURNS. FARMERS ARE NOT SIMPLETON DUMBASSES, NOR ARE THE BANKS THAT LEND THEM MONEY.

...i wish I could make that entire statement blink in neon colors.

That said, there's no amount of pretending that a 70-90%+ US market share of a 100 billion dollar agriculture sector (corn/soy/cotton/sugar beets) is comprised of 70-90% dumbasses who don't know perfectly well what their financials are across different cropping systems.

I dare say this kind of blind scrutiny wouldn't be applied to many other industries unless there was a PERSONAL moral outrage behind suspending belief.

It's been nearly 20 years...if they haven't "figured it out" by now then they're really interesting, umm, people.

It's just a business decision. It may not be the best one for anything but profit potential, but that is what's driving it.

Go out and ask 3-5-10 GMO farmers why they do it the way they do it. I've been on the ground and in the fields of over 100 farmers (I'm not a salesman or marketing, I'm research/development) and it's all about the money everywhere I turn.

H.Kuska comment: I presented a research paper on this point. A comment was made that it did not reflect todays conditions. No research papers were presented to back up that "opinion".

This paper is a very recent one:

"More research and analysis of these data are needed to clarify the differences in these findings, but at this point our results suggest that farmer attitudes, concerns and values are also important determinates of adoption of practices for managing weed resistance. As such, it maybe useful to examine sociological and psychological theories and empirical findings, as well as more traditional economic work, to develop more efficient policies and programs to address the growing problem of herbicide resistant weeds."

Dont you mean- "No research papers were presented to back up that "FACT". "

;)

That is why I like science. Even if you have no idea about a particular subject, if you understand science, you can easily see who the RATIONAL one is.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/opinion?q=opinion
---------------------------------

H.Kuska comment, No reference was given for the data.

The following is one 2013 reference that I found:
"In the global market, 75% of the soybeans, 82% cotton, 32% maize and 22% canola are transgenic."

From: "THE SCIENCE OF BREEDING CROPS: GENETIC ENGINEERING VS TRADITIONAL BREEDING
Stacy A. Bonos, Ph.D.
Professor of Plant Breeding, Rutgers"

http://njveg.rutgers.edu/assets/pdfs/2013-AC-Proceedings.pdf#page=61
-------------------------------------------------------------
The yearly survey by James is often used. the 2012 survey is just out.

The data are:
81 % soybean
81 % cotton
35 % maize
30 % canola

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/pptslides/defaul t.asp

You dig up papers that have no relevance to today and think that's worth something. At least understand the industry on a fundamentally basic basis before you dig through research pertaining to it. A carpenter that doesn't know how to use a hammer is useless. Heck, you just dug up a comment I made about the US market and decided to apply it globally as a "hail mary" point to prove even though I've made points about the US market vs global markets...and that stat in particular being in the US market.

You don't understand what you're doing...you understand what you want to be true and you're on a never-ending quest to drag up information to back it up...whether it's a paper from the irrelevant past, an obscure paper written in Romania, or a pseudo-science business sponsored paper paid to be dumped on a submit-for-publish "online only" journal.

Also, there's no "opinion" in..."Go out and ask 3-5-10 GMO farmers why they do it the way they do it. I've been on the ground and in the fields of over 100 farmers (I'm not a salesman or marketing, I'm research/development) and it's all about the money everywhere I turn."....It's a directive followed by an observed and experienced fact. If you'd actually talk to a few GMO farmers rather than pretending you know their business you might learn something about this thing you seem to care so deeply about.

I feel that in order to get a complete picture of the GMO field, one should include the research of foreign scientists and data for the world. If you feel that research/data should only be included for the U.S. , that is your choice; but you still should document your data so that others can examine the origins of the data presented.

You suggest that I go out and ask. I presented a 2013 paper by scientists who did "ask":
"Telephone interviews of U.S. growers who planted 250 or more acres of soybeans in a ten state region (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, NorthDakota, Ohio, and South Dakota) were conducted in November and December of 2007. Thetelephone survey was designed to be a representative random sample of soybean growers from this region, with the final data containing responses from 402 soybean growers (Frisvold et al.2009)."

It is my "opinion" from reading the manuscript that they have the tools/training to interpret the data.

I'd hate to see you visit a hospital or a mechanic. You might not ever get healthcare or you car fixed.

I do this for a living. I have worked with over 100 farmers doing this in NC, SC, GA, VA, TN, MS, NY, IL, IA, KY, HI, FL, OH, WI, CA, AZ, DE, CO, ID, WA, and OR...I might be missing one or 2, there.

You're more interested in throwing the scientific method out the window in order to only search for things to back up your views and hypothesis, anyway.

"Economic... This has been rehashed in this thread a dozen times already. The economics are very clear or we wouldn't have 70-90%+ of corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, etc GMO in the US."

A quote from me...

"The following was stated: "That said, there's no amount of pretending that a 70-90%+ US market share of a 100 billion dollar agriculture sector..."

A quote of YOU quoting another quote from me...

I think you know what you're doing there.

"No offense, but you're again calling farmers ignorant and/or stupid.

The very idea that these business owners are somehow sub-human compared to you is insulting. "

I cannot comprehend how what I said could be interpreted this way! What a joke. I have repeatedly said I don't think farmers are idiots but that I do think they are not being given a clear view of all sides. Your whole argument is that it must be more profitable or farmers wouldn't do it. Statistics are what will show how profitable it is and how much so in the long term not just immediate. Your argument is very weak and goes against much evidence in human history.

I gave recent reports that said that profit is not greater from GMOs and that many farmers choose GMO seed due to supposed ease of use in needing less cultivating.
Reported previously in this thread:
" This review for the European Commission of the economic impact of the main GM crops worldwide found that herbicide-tolerant soybeans had a negative effect on US farmers’ income. But the same crop brought income gains to Argentine farmers, due to lower prices for GM seed in that country.124
Why do US farmers adopt GM soy if it brings no financial gain? The authors suggested that the reason may be simpler weed control,124 though the data cited to back up this claim pre-date the explosion of herbicide-resistant superweeds that has caused the cost of GM soy production to rise (see 5.2).
Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.”
��" J. Fernandez-Cornejo, W. D. McBride, The adoption of bioengineered crops, US Department of Agriculture

US farmers have grown increasingly concerned about the high price and poor performance of GM seed. A 2011 media report said that the seed companies had responded by withdrawing a high-performing non-GM variety of maize, which gave higher yields than GM varieties. The report added that the companies are hiking the prices of herbicides used by non-GM farmers to artificially increase the cost of non-GM production.128
Farmers have little choice but to tolerate such price hikes because of consolidation within the seed industry. In other words, the GM industry dictates which seed varieties are available.
Through these statistical analyses, Kalaitzandonakes found yield differences between conventional and round-up ready soybeans were roughly the same, and the cost to implant roundup ready soybeans and the continual upkeep of traditional methods were roughly the same. So, why are some farmers making the switch?
When asked on surveys, farmers throughout the United States who had partial farms ��" half genetically modified and half conventional ��" said switching to GMO farms provided convenience, management and peace of mind.
This was said by a pro-GMO speaker. Even he admits it doesn't increase profit.
The Institute for Responsible Technology cites and quotes three reports on that score.
An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development study, signed on to by 58 governments and 400 scientists, states that GMO crop production is “highly variable,” and in some cases it has “declined.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, “Failure to Yield,” emphatically stated: “Commercial GE [genetically engineered] crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yields of any crop.”
A US Dept. of Agriculture report: “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential. In fact, yield may even decrease…”

So go ahead and say, 'but they wouldn't use it if it wasn't profitable. Farmers are smart and greedy and will only do what will bring them the most money.' That is weak since the data shows it doesn't bring in more money. Plus it is biased and giving the same traits to a huge group of people. I will agree, again, that many modern farmers prefer to farm the modern way and think little of the future or what is good for the land in favor of profit. And I will also say that I do not think they are making any more profit than ever before. They aren't rolling in the dough but trying to do what they think is best for themselves for the time being as most of us do.

This is NOT a recent report, nor is it relevant for the reasons given above. Your conclusion about your "data" is no longer valid in this era.

You also brought up Dr. K's report again. Holy crap, I broke that down for you, too. Not only is that not a recent report I broke down his actual presentation and his own slides.

...and once again, you want to ignore that yield doesn't matter...profit realized on production matters. If it costs more to get a higher yield...unless that yield covers costs, it's not wise to do.

We're working with a few simple concepts (yield vs profit) and market driven realities (post-patent era glyphosate + China dumping cheap glyphosate on the market). Not only has this been explained, but I've used your own "data" to point to trends and give specific timelines/reasons for why it happened. Neat!

If you want to believe 70-90+% of farmers are being tricked into planting GMO crops that evidently (according to your wishes) loses them money when it isn't even a problem for them to go non-GMO...go ahead.

Here's 5 minutes in Google...

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=1280 4

http://law.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf

http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/icabr-conference/Public/12/File/ppt/Hu ffman.pdf

Oh look...there's 3 items blowing away the no-profit myth. Wow. Neat.

Now where are we? We're no where because you're probably going to keep hanging onto that old study that's already been explained why it's no longer valid. You're definitely not going to believe some guy who working in the industry with over 100 farmers...aka, me.

Here, have a global study.

http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n4/v13n4a05-vitale.pdf

Neat. More stuff to ignore.

See what 5 minutes in Google can do?

We can run around in circles all day.

At the end of the day 70-90%+ of US farmers are still using GMO cropping systems for crops they can...at any time...switch to a conventional system. Evidently, they can't do math or they're lazy...or something.

This is mindblowing.

...very long story short...

As GMO creeps on...and seeing as nearly 20 years of it being around isn't enough time for farmers to "wise up" about their finances...maybe by year 30 or 40 they'll figure things out that's blindingly obvious to a group of people who have never managed 100+ acres in their lives.

...or maybe they'll continue to plant GMO and realize profits while others insist their money isn't real or they must have forgotten to carry a 1 or something.

Brace yourself for a very infuriating lifetime.

H.Kuska comment: I now do because he has said that they are for the U.S., but he has still not provided the documentation so we have no way of knowing the details of the data base (for example what size farms were polled, what year, how many states, how many farms were polled, etc.. His original statement" "We're talking about farmers who make up 90-95% of the market for corn/soy." was made on Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 21:21. Notice this was just for corn and soy.

Later in other discussions he made undocumentated statements for other crops, for example:

"by nc-crn 7b (My Page) on Tue, Feb 19, 13 at 16:05
I'm giving reality here. There's 90-95% of the harvest supply by farmers who grow GMO corn (grain, not sweet)/soy/canola/cotton doing this."

Now he restricts corn to "grain not sweet" and includes soy canola and cotton. Notice no statement about U.S. only.
--------------------------------------
Posted by nc-crn 7b (My Page) on Thu, Feb 21, 13 at 15:20
"No amount of wishing it wasn't true makes the supply of grain corn/soy/canola/cotton comeing from a 90%+ GMO supply not a reality. Sugar beet farmers are switching to GMO at a neck-break pace since it's approval (90-95% of supply in it's very short existence). "

Again no documentation , no U.S. only.
-----------------------------------------------------
Finally yesterday he stated "in the U.S.": " This has been rehashed in this thread a dozen times already. The economics are very clear or we wouldn't have 70-90%+ of corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, etc GMO in the US. "

Still no documentation.
----------------------------------------------
I still request the documentation.

You obviously know how to use Google...at least as much as you know how to selectively ignore thing I've said.

As much work as you're putting into trying to back up your beliefs you can put just as much work into understanding an industry that seems be very important to you. Rather than demanding documentation when you improperly use and interpret incorrectly too much of the documentation you're digging up...most recently trying to use that Wisconsin weed management paper in an economic argument...you could actually go out and talk to a few GMO farmers and ask them "Why do you do this?"

Simply put yield minus cost equals profit. I am talking about profit not going up even if yield does go up because cost is so high.

I think in 20 years we will see a great difference. GMOs will be labeled on packages and people will not want to eat them anymore the same way they don't want to eat HFCS now. 10 years ago when I stopped eating it due to digestive reasons I could hardly find anything without it. As soon as the whispers about it got to a certain point then the general populace didn't want it anymore. When GMOs have to be labelled many people will stop buying them. Farmers will get used to growing those seeds again that give just as good yield but cannot be sprayed with herbicide.

...because it's banned for growth in most of Europe...it's not a farmer's choice.

"Simply put yield minus cost equals profit."

Seed type, type of herbicide+pesticide used (plus number of applications), number of times you put a vehicle through a field, labor, fuel, specialized application, loan overhead, and market price for crop all influence profit. If you have to pay a bunch of guys to walk 100s-1000s acres of crop land to spot-apply a herbicide in seedling stage because they can't be simply carpet bombed with a herbicide (RU)...if you have to till in your herbicide rather than carpet bomb your field...if you have to apply pesticides more frequently because they don't have BT traits...that's money spent.

Technically, that's "cost"...but try to understand those costs.

I can tell you want to believe that farmers don't make money on GMO cropping systems, but there's a whole lot of people doing it and you want to believe there's a variety of reasons for it...none of which involve them actually making money. This is very hard for you to accept/believe/whatever. You can say you don't think farmers are stupid all you want, but given how important financials are to farmers it's easy to read between the lines if you insist they can't figure out how to make money off their land...aka, their job.

The only explanation of why this link was presented appears to be: "Oh look...there's 3 items blowing away the no-profit myth."

What does the document actually say? There is a "many" but there is also a "However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers." The conclusion is: " Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability."
Notice the use of economic impacts - I do not consider this a "blowing away the no-profit myth." H. Kuska correction - the not was missing, I added it.

"In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops."
"The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides."

H.Kuska comment: please note that the farmers have other interests than only profit - notice the words "value greater flexibility" and "increased safety".
--------------------------------------------------
I do not understand the reasons for giving the second link given: a 1991 law professor paper.
----------------------------------------------------
The third paper appears to be the basis for a paper presented at a 2012 conference. A number of papers were presented at the conference. A convenient summary of "The Socio-Economic Impacts on Farmers" was presented:

"The herbicide tolerant (HT) soybean (covering 50% of the world’s GM area) has been very quickly adopted in those countries where it is available to farmers (100% of soy in Argentina is GM and 93% in the USA). In both countries, adoption had small and generally insignificant yield effects.
Incremental profits for farmers are small, but larger in South America than in North America, reflecting differences in Intellectual Property Rights schemes."

Please note: " adoption had small and generally insignificant yield effects. Incremental profits for farmers are small,"

http://aew.wzw.tum.de/uploads/media/Lusser_et_al__2012__International_ WS_on_Socio-Economic_Impacts_of_GMOs_01.pdf#page=57

Also please note the following: "In both regions the extremely fast adoption rate is generally associated with the significant ease of use, efficiency, and flexibility that HT soybeans confer for weed control."
This of course applies to the "opinion" of one poster in this thread: "it's all about the money everywhere I turn."
--------------------------------------------
"Insect Resistant (Bt) maize (31% of the global GM area) is cultivated in the highest number of countries
(16; six of which are in the EU). In the USA, the adoption of GM maize has reached 86% of the total
maize area (when considering Bt maize, HT maize and stacks together). In this country, cultivation of GM crops is associated with a small but significant increase in yield and with a reduction in the use of insecticides. In Midwestern US states, the output effects of the adoption of GM maize varieties are shown to be insignificant but the rate of use of all input groups (capital, labour, energy, chemicals and
other materials) tended to decline, leading to a benefit-cost ratio of roughly 5.2."
-----------------------------------------
"Bt cotton is the most studied GM crop in socio-economic terms. India is the first country in the world
in terms of area of Bt cotton, followed by China and by the USA. In India, it amounts to 90% of the
total cotton area, and growers are mainly smallholders. Bt cotton strongly reduces insecticide use and increases yields, as farmers were not entirely efficient at controlling pests before the adoption of GM cotton. The positive effects of Bt cotton cultivation have also been observed in many other countries worldwide, and related literature is abundant. The benefits in tropical countries are greater than in temperate countries because of the higher pest pressure."
---------------------------------------------
I will leave the rest of the reading to individual decision except to point out the following:

"Additionally, the decision to grow a GM crop may be endogenous, and explained by other factors which are unobservable or not integrated into the model (like the
pest pressure for instance). These methodological issues can be addressed by using advanced econometrical techniques."
--------------------------------------------
The last link presented, a 2010 paper has been discussed by a more recent paper (use your PDF find command with the search term Vitale et al 2010 in the more recent paper).
Title: Constructing Facts, Bt cotton Naratives in India.
Author: Glenn Davis Stone
He is at the department of anthropology, Washington University, St Louis, United States.)
Publication information: September 22, 2012 vol xlviI n 70 o 38 ,Economic & Political Weekly

In edit I added the link for the above, sorry for missing that it was not in the original post.

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone/Constructing_Facts. pdf

Paper 1 - "Many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops, says a new report from the National Research Council."

Paper 2 - ...which you don't "get" even though it was produced by a Penn State's Agricultural Law center... "In general, studies indicate that farmers' profits increase as they adopt GM seeds."

Paper 3 - You obviously have no idea what "shadow value" is and it shows in your rant (This was included for some of little_minnie's points, btw). Since you've shown absolutely no desire to learn something yet, I'm not going to go into an economics rant in the middle of this rant. (no references given, live with it). Aside from all that, you think a greater profit shouldn't count if it happens to be a small one (while discounting the economic value (lack of economic cost) of a less amount of physical work being done). We could get even more economic intensive by talking about equipment depreciation costs by dragging equipment through a field more times in 1 system vs another, but this isn't covered in that paper so you'd want even more references.

Paper 4 - "Since the higher seed costs from adopting BGII were offset by equivalent savings in insecticide costs, producers were able to capture virtually all of the yield increase in their bottom line. Bollgard II increased cotton income by $61.88 per ha compared to conventional cotton. Both yield and economic performance were hindered in the SOFITEX production zone by producers who did not perform the recommended two late-season sprayings targeting secondary pests. For producers who followed the recommended late season sprayings, cotton income increased by $138.83 per ha over conventional cotton."

Besides all of this...the point of all of that was how spending 5 minutes in Google could drag up a bunch of research one could pick/choose to "prove" whatever they wanted to prove. Now, what I find interesting is that you could only find research that you thought supported your point. Wow...how does that happen? That's before getting to the matter of how poorly you both interpreted and represented some of it.

Even with these papers linked (including the one you didn't get and the one you couldn't pick up the point of) you looked past the smoking gun statements...which you had no problem doing with your points. We can go around in a circle with this all day, but I'm more interested with what I know, and what I have heard/seen being engaged on the ground in the industry and talking to farmers about their real concerns/motivations rather than playing dueling Google searches.

Heck, look at Table 1 (Page 53) on your newest linked paper du-jour at ( http://aew.wzw.tum.de/uploads/media/Lusser_et_al__2012__International_ WS_on_Socio-Economic_Impacts_of_GMOs_01.pdf#page=57 ). It's a big ol' multi-country profit and effective yield table...and it's a lot of positive outcome. Since you're all about that study, this must ease many of your concerns...probably not.

This can go back/forth forever...

...and at this point...I'm going to have to bid you adieu...for I am a dog barking at a brick wall which will not be budged.

If you want to believe 70-90+% of the GMO farmers are out there losing money on purpose...that they don't care about profit per acre...that they have no idea what they're doing...that doing something "easier" is worth losing money even though they're working with a "not-easy" 100s-1000s of acres to begin with...that a 100+ billion dollar US industry is manned by farmers that are pawns of industry + weak of mind and will...that bankers are payrolling this process in the face of economic "issues" that a non-farmer/non-banker can dig up...well, carry on. Carry on. The rest of the real world will carry on, too...whether you acknowledge it's existence or not.

Also, I strongly suggest you actually talk to some GMO farmers and ask them "Why do you do this?" since this issue matters so much to you. I'm not sure you'd like the answers, but it might open up some opportunities to learn something about why they choose that particular cropping system.

It is clear to me that some will never understand. Dont waste your time anymore.

I'm just trying to give people an idea about why things are being done...especially since conspiracy theory and panic seem to be popular.

Reading through all this you'll notice I'm not telling anyone "Hey, everything is awesome, everything should be GMO, and let's put Round Up on our breakfast cereal!"

Most of this is about the economic attractiveness of GMO crops to farmers and market influences that effect the cost/profit bottom line. Sorry, most farmers aren't out there scratching their head, running their fingers through the soil, sun baked skin showing their age, and praying to God that their harvest comes in...they're out there crunching numbers, applying chemicals, running $100K equipment through their fields, and trying to get the most $ out of their 100s-1000s of acres. It's big business....and the seed suppliers aren't the only part of this big business.

I've addressed the folly of over-using RU...and what's next in the pipeline to deal with it. This is useful information to those that want to keep track of what's going on in the world of GMO...especially those that actually care about "superweeds" rather than those that care about "superweeds" only because they hope it will end all GMO practices. I've seen some people rooting for pigweed lately because they think it will take down GMO...not only is that short sighted, but if people think pigweed is awful to control in a GMO or conventional system, they should see what it does in an organic system (especially to costs of producing crops out of the field).

To those worrying about "super pests" I've explained Integrated Pest Management and refuge systems...and how they're guidelines, and not regulated. In the US we're doing a far better job getting farmers to adopt refuge systems to keep BT resistant pest populations from building to extreme levels. While some areas of the US could do a better job, a lot of areas in other parts of the world really need to do a better job. It's in the best interest of both the farmer and the GMO seed supplier to have this happen.

I'm not running a commercial, a white-washing information campaign, or anything like that...I'm just trying to open up a bit more knowledge of what's going on and why a huge amount of farmers are doing things.

There's even more to cover if people are interested in things other than "that's not happening" and "here's something I found on Google that says you're wrong even though you can find something on Google in a minute that says you're right."

If someone has a health issue on a forum and a doctor shows up, they're usually not met with "Oh hell, here comes a corporate shill with their "doctor talk"...I bet he's just here to sell us a 10 day hospital stay when you could just take a herb and walk it off. Here's a link that proves broccoli juice can cure cancer."

That is one of the reasons for the existence of forums. If one wants to present his/her views of an issue without the possibility of having others challenge them, one can open a web page.

I welcome any documented rebutals to my points. As one can see from this thread, I then examine the documented rebutal and comment on it if I feel that a comment(s) is/are called for.

Perhaps my comment regarding the law professor's paper was too brief.

For the law paper I had stated: " I do not understand the reasons for giving the second link given: a 1991 law professor paper. "

The following is a more detailed answer.

A conclusion section indicates what the author feels is the contribution of that paper.
This is the conclusion section of the paper.

"IV. Conclusions Perhaps the only conclusion to be drawn from a consideration of the benefits and concerns raised by GM seeds is that neither full-scale adoption nor full-scale rejection is a viable option. The technology may be more appropriate for farmers that have difficulty spraying pesticides and herbicides. GM seeds may work well for farm areas that are inaccessible to tractors or close to water bodies, or in places where winds are high.
Conversely, GM seeds may be least appropriate for farmers who are particularly reliant on a stable market. The uncertainty surrounding consumer acceptance of GM products, particularly in foreign markets, is a risk that may simply be unacceptable to some farmers."

I do not understand how this paper (which means its conclusion) is supporting: "blowing away the no-profit myth" and also it definitely does not appear (to me) to support the other point of whether farmers consider only cash profit.

Please notice the use of "no-profit myth", the profit subthread was not whether a farmer will show no-profit with GMO crops. That is a "shift" away from GMO often do not show a larger profit than non GMO. If the reader uses the find command with the word profit, he/she will find over 80 hits.

Normal statistical calculations of significance assume gausian (bell shaped distributions) i.e. random error. However, farming yields (or profits) are often of the form of good or bad. In this type of situation averages are of limited use.

In the paper below Table 1 gives the yields and standard deviations. Of particular interest is the very high standard deviations.
Background information regarding the large standard deviations: "In addition to the regular trial records, more comprehensive information was collected for 157 farms on agronomic aspects and farm and household characteristics. Observations from these 157 farms constitute the data basis for this analysis (12). They cover 25 districts in three major cotton-producing states: Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in Central India and Tamil Nadu in the South."

The above information suggests to me that it would of been useful to examine the results in each district and in each state to see if the good and poor yields were distributed randomally. If not then the "average" is suspect due to the possibility of selection error.

Of greater interest (to me) is Figure 1. Both the non Bt and the conventional data are best represented by at least 2 bell shaped type distributions. (The most probable yields for the second, smaller non Bt and the conventional second bell shaped curves are at least as high, if not higher, than the most probable yield point for the Bt data!). An interesting and important question (to me) is what did that subset of farmers do/experience that had the equal or higher yields with non Bt cotton? (There are automatic computer programs that will extract overlapping Gausians both for symetrical tails and for asymetrical tails.)

This is what the authors had to say about Fig 1.
"The density functions in Fig. 1 demonstrate that the whole yield distribution experienced a notable shift to the right. The similarity of the curves for non-Bt counterparts and popular checks indicates that a general germ-plasm effect is more or less negligible. The yield gains are largely due to the Bt gene itself."

If I had been a reviewer, I would have asked: but why did both non Bt data sets have subgroups with yields as good or better than Bt?

In another section they state: "Bollworms have also developed resistance to many of the insecticides available on the market, so that ever-increasing amounts have to be sprayed. Indian farmers would have to triple their current pesticide use in conventional cotton in order to achieve a level of damage control similar to that provided by Bt technology (Fig. 2)."

H.Kuska comment: This statement suggests that the reasons for the yield differences have to include the possibility that the poor yielding non Bt farmers used an ineffective pesticide and/or needed to simply use more.