» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


GM does not make cotton more profitable (13/1/2008)

EXTRACT: Collectively these results indicate that profitability was most closely associated with yields and not the transgenic technologies.

NOTE: GM cotton has been hyped as the big GM success story, leading to big increases in yields and profits for farmers, reductions in the use of agrochemicals, and benefits for biodiversity. But a whole series of recent studies - out of China, South Africa and the USA - have helped demolish these claims. For more on the other studies
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=86&page=1

---

http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/1/42

Published online 11 January 2008
Published in Agron J 100:42-51 (2008)
DOI: 10.2134/agrojnl2006.0259
2008 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

COTTON

Economic Comparison of Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton Production Systems in Georgia P. Josta, D. Shurleyb, S. Culpepperb, P. Robertsb,*, R. Nicholsc, J. Reevesc and S. Anthonyd a 106 Corvina Dr., Clayton, NC 27520 b Univ. of Georgia, College of Agric. and Environ. Sci., P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794 c Cotton Inc., 6399 Weston Pkwy., Cary, NC 27513 d USDA-ARS Cotton Ginning Res. Unit, P.O. Box 256, Stoneville, MS 38776

* Corresponding author (proberts@uga.edu).

Transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars produce lint and seed and their propriety traits provide part of the crop's insect management and/or enable use of broad-spectrum herbicides for weed management. The standard procedures for conducting official cultivar trials utilize common pest management across all cultivars; whereas the pest management options and their associated potential for cost reductions are principal features of current transgenic cultivars. Field experiments were conducted to compare production systems utilizing cotton cultivars possessing different transgenic technologies managed in accordance with their respective genetic capabilities. In 2001 and 2002, selection of the Roundup Ready (RR) technology system resulted in reduced returns to the producer, while higher returns were attained from nontransgenic, Bollgard (B), and Bollgard/Roundup Ready (BR) technologies. In 2003, selection of the RR technology system or the Bollgard II/Roundup Ready (B2R) system reduced returns, while similar, higher returns were attained from nontransgenic, B, and BR technologies. In 2004, a nontransgenic system was superior to the BR, B2R, and Liberty Link (LL) systems in Tifton, but similar returns were achieved from nontransgenic, BR, and B2R technologies in Midville. Cultivar selection was important among the technology systems. Collectively these results indicate that profitability was most closely associated with yields and not the transgenic technologies.

Abbreviations: B, Bollgard BG, Bollgard BGRR, Bollgard/Roundup Ready (also known as stacked gene) BG/RR, Bollgard/Roundup Ready (also known as stacked gene) BGII/RR, Bollgard II/Roundup Ready BR, Bollgard/Roundup Ready (also known as stacked gene) BXN, bromoxynil resistant B2LL, Bollgard II/Liberty Link B2R, Bollgard II/Roundup Ready B2RF, Bollgard II/Roundup Ready Flex DAP, days after planting HVI, high volume instrument testing LDP, loan deficiency payment PPI, preplant incorporated PRE, pre-emergence LL, Liberty Link NT, nontransgenic OCTs, official cultivar trials R, Roundup Ready RF, Roundup Ready Flex RR, Roundup Ready W, Widestrike WR, Widestrike/Roundup Ready WRF, Widestrike/Roundup Ready Flex

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive