GM Crops: The First Ten Years - International Service for the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GM Crops: The First Ten Years Figure 15.Reduction in herbicide use and the environmental load from using GM HT soybeans in all adopting countries 1996-2005 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% -30.0% • In 2005, a 5.9% decrease in the total volume of herbicide ai applied (10 million kg) and a 26.9% reduction in the environmental impact (measured in terms of the field EIQ/ha load); • Since 1996, 4.1% less herbicide ai has been used (51 million kg) and the environmental impact applied to the soybean crop has fallen by 18.4%. This suggests that over the period 1996-2005, there has been a significant net environmental gain directly associated with the application of the GM HT technology. This level of net environmental benefit has been increasing as the area planted to GM HT soybeans has expanded. 4.1.2 Herbicide tolerant maize 2005 Cumulative Ai EIQ a) The USA Drawing on the two main statistical sources of pesticide usage data (USDA and Doane Marketing Research Inc), Table 34 and Table 35 summarise the key features: • Both average herbicide ai use and the average field EIQ/ha rating on the US maize crop have fallen by between 15% and 20% since 1996; • The average herbicide ai/ha used on a GM HT maize crop has (over the last five years) been about 0.6 to 0.7 kg/ha lower than the corresponding conventional crop treatment; • The average field EIQ/ha used on a GM HT crop has been about 20/ha units lower than the non GM equivalent. The analysis above comparing the GM HT crop with the conventional alternative may however, understate the herbicide usage for an average conventional maize grower. This is because the first users of the technology tend to be those with greatest levels of weed problems and more intensive 49
GM Crops: The First Ten Years Table 34. Herbicide usage on maize in the US 1996-2005 Year Average ai use Average ai use (kg/ha): NASS data (kg/ha): Doane data 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2.64 2.30 2.47 2.19 2.15 2.30 2.06 2.29 N/a 2.1 N/a N/a 2.95 2.60 2.59 2.56 2.43 2.45 2.36 2.38 Average field EIQ/ha: NASS data 54.4 48.2 51.3 45.6 46.2 48.8 43.4 47.5 N/a 51.1 Average field EIQ/ha: Doane data Sources and notes: derived from NASS pesticide usage data 1996-2003 (no data collected in 2002), Doane Marketing Research Inc data from 1998-2005. N/a = not available Table 35. Average US maize herbicide usage and environmental load 1997-2005: conventional and GM HT Year Average ai/ha kg: Average ai/ha (kg): conventional GMHT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2.76 2.99 2.63 2.67 2.63 2.55 2.61 2.55 2.63 1.85 1.87 1.86 1.83 1.98 1.86 1.87 1.89 2.04 Average field EIQ: Conventional 69 69 75 62 62 60 61 60 61 N/a N/a 63 61 60 59 56 56 54 53 Average field EIQ: GMHT Sources and notes: derived from Doane Marketing Research Inc 1998-2005. 1997 based on the average of the years 1997-1999 producers, with average to above average levels of herbicide use. Also, as the uptake of the technology increases, the residual conventional maize growers tend to be those with lower than average weed infestation levels and/or with a tradition of growing maize on an extensive basis (and hence have historically used below average levels of inputs such as herbicides). The extent to which average herbicide use for conventional maize growers may be understated is nevertheless, likely to have been less important than in soybeans (or cotton) in the US, because of the relatively lower levels of GM HT adoption in the US maize crop to date (about 50% of the total crop in 2005). Analysis by the NCFAP (2005) compared a typical herbicide treatment regime for a GM HT and an average conventional maize grower that would deliver a similar level of weed control to that level delivered in the GM HT system. This suggested that the values for conventional maize grower average were 3.74 kg herbicide ai/ha and a field EIQ rating of 76.6/ha (mix of herbicides such as 50 40 42 40 38 42 38 37 38 41
Page 1 and 2:
I S A A A INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR
Page 3 and 4:
Published by: Copyright: Citation:
Page 5 and 6:
Contents 3.6.2 China ..............
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables Table 37. Change in
Page 10 and 11:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS E
Page 12 and 13:
Table 2. GM crop farm income benefi
Page 14 and 15:
Executive Summary and Conclusions
Page 16 and 17:
Executive Summary and Conclusions T
Page 18 and 19: Table 8. Context of carbon sequestr
Page 20 and 21: 1 INTRODUCTION GM Crops: The First
Page 22 and 23: GM Crops: The First Ten Years Figur
Page 24 and 25: Figure 4. Global GM crop plantings
Page 26 and 27: 3 THE FARM LEVEL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
Page 28 and 29: • The annual total national farm
Page 30 and 31: 3.1.3 Brazil GM HT soybeans were pr
Page 32 and 33: Table 14. Farm level income impact
Page 34 and 35: GM Crops: The First Ten Years Table
Page 36 and 37: 3.2.2 Canada GM Crops: The First Te
Page 38 and 39: 3.3.2 Other countries GM Crops: The
Page 54 and 55: 3.7.4 Insect resistant potatoes GM
Page 56 and 57: size. The analysis found that mean
Page 58 and 59: GM Crops: The First Ten Years soybe
Page 60 and 61: GM Crops: The First Ten Years c) Bu
Page 62 and 63: Table 28. Herbicide usage on soybea
Page 64 and 65: GM Crops: The First Ten Years a sma
Page 66 and 67: GM Crops: The First Ten Years Makin
Page 70 and 71: GM Crops: The First Ten Years aceto
Page 72 and 73: Table 38. Herbicide usage on cotton
Page 74 and 75: GM Crops: The First Ten Years At th
Page 76 and 77: GM Crops: The First Ten Years Figur
Page 80 and 81: GM Crops: The First Ten Years been
Page 84 and 85: Table 47. Comparison of insecticide
Page 86 and 87: GM Crops: The First Ten Years g) Su
Page 88 and 89: In terms of GHG each litre of tract
Page 90 and 91: GM Crops: The First Ten Years As we
Page 92 and 93: GM Crops: The First Ten Years using
Page 94 and 95: GM Crops: The First Ten Years b) So
Page 96 and 97: GM Crops: The First Ten Years a) Fu
Page 98 and 99: GM Crops: The First Ten Years b) So
Page 100 and 101: 4.2.7 Insect resistant cotton The c
Page 102 and 103: Table 63. Summary of carbon sequest
Page 104 and 105: Appendix Appendix 2: The Environmen
Page 106 and 107: Appendix environmental factor is eq
Page 108 and 109: Appendix 3: Additional information
Page 110 and 111: Typical herbicide regimes for GM HT
Page 112 and 113: Typical insecticide regimes for cot
Page 114 and 115: References Fernandez-Cornejo J & Mc
Page 116: ISBN 1-892456-41-9
show all

GM Crops: The First Ten Years - International Service for the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?