News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Biotech crops improving sustainability: US study 

Biotech crops improving sustainability: US study

08 Dec, 2009 01:48 PM
IN light of ongoing debates on global food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change, it is important to recognise the benefits biotechnology brings to world agricultural production.

According to several research summaries released by PG Economics, those impacts are significant.

Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices.

In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year.

The greenhouse gas emission reductions are derived from two principle sources: reduced fuel use from less-frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and reduced energy usage in soil cultivation from the use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems.

From 1996 to 2007, pesticide spraying was reduced by 359 million kilograms, which is equivalent to 125 per cent of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union.

The fuel savings associated with making fewer spray runs (relative to conventional crops) and the switch to conservation, reduced-till and no-till farming systems have resulted in permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions.

In 2007, this amounted to about 1.144 billion kilograms (attributable to reduced fuel use of 416 million litres).

From 1996 to 2007, the cumulative permanent reduction from fuel use was estimated at 7.09 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide (arising from reduced fuel use of 2.578 billion litres).

The use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems has increased significantly with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops because the technology has improved growers' ability to control competing weeds, which reduces reliance on soil cultivation and seed-bed preparation as a means for getting good levels of weed control.

As a result, tractor fuel use for tillage has dropped, soil quality has been enhanced and levels of soil erosion have been cut. In turn, more carbon remains in the soil, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on savings arising from the rapid adoption of no-till and reduced-till farming systems in North and South America, an estimated extra 3.57 billion kilograms of soil carbon were sequestered in 2007 (equivalent to 13.103 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide that have not been released into the atmosphere).

Cumulatively, the amount of carbon sequestered is probably higher due to year-over-year benefits to soil quality.

However, due to the lack of data on the crop area in continuous no-till systems, PG Economics said it is not possible to confidently estimate cumulative soil sequestration gains.

Herbicide-tolerant biotech soybeans have also facilitated the adoption of no-till production systems, which shorten the production cycle.

This advantage enables many farmers in South America to plant a crop of soybeans immediately after a wheat crop in the same growing season.

This second crop, additional to traditional soybean production, added 67.5 million metric tonnes to soybean production in Argentina and Paraguay between 1996 and 2007.

Impact of biotech crops on carbon emissions, 2007

  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) savings from reduced fuel use (billion kg CO2): 1.14
  • Additional soil carbon sequestration savings (billion kg CO2): 13.10
  • Total CO2 savings (billion kg CO2): 14.24
  • Car equivalents removed from road (million): 6.3

Source: PG Economics.

* For more information about the PG Economics research summaries, visit www.pgeconomics.co .uk

Here's the point

FARMERS rely on a sustainable environment to continue farming. Biotechnology is an important tool that has helped agriculture make great strides in improving its environmental footprint.

Pesticide use on four crops in the countries where biotech crops have been planted has fallen 359 million kilograms (down 8.8 per cent), resulting in a larger 17.2pc reduction in the associated environmental impact, according to PG Economics.

Biotech crops also facilitated greenhouse gas emission reductions of 14.2 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide in 2007 - the equivalent of removing 6.3 million cars from the road for a year.

Those emission reductions are derived from reduced fuel use due to less-frequent herbicide and insecticide applications and a reduction in the energy used in soil cultivation.

In addition, no-till and reduced-till production systems facilitated by herbicide-tolerant biotechnology result in less need for plowing and increased carbon storage in the soil.

This additional carbon storage reduces carbon dioxide emissions to the environment.

Farmers recognise that improving the environment also helps their bottom line.

A new tool, Field to Market's Fieldprint Calculator, lets farmers input information about their production practices so they can then view their environmental footprint and even see how changes in farming methods can improve sustainability.

* More information about the ways today's farmers improve their sustainability is available at www.feedstuffsfood link.com

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Could the author of this article please reference all the statistics as they are presented as fact and well may be, although it reads like a cut and paste out of a Monsanto/Bayer newsletter and not as a piece of news journalism. It seems that "The Land" and its associated publications are on the verge of needing to put "advertorial" above many of these articles as they insult their thinking readership by presenting these type articles in any other way. The veil is to thin.
Posted by Graingrower, 8/12/2009 7:12:39 PM
This is an extremely misleading and irresponsible article. Environmental contamination by transgenes has serious implications for environmental health, and human safety, according to Canadian scientists who recently tested various soil-dwelling animals for the transgene resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. Scientists collected and tested macroarthropods and nematodes from a field of RR corn. The transgene was present in all types of animals on all collection dates, with the exception of nematodes collected in August. About 81% of nematodes tested positive for the transgene. More than one-third of microarthropods tested positive. And slightly more than 10% of macroarthropods and earthworms tested positive. The growing of GM crops will inevitably result in horizontal gene transfer of transgenic DNA into completely unrelated organisms whose ecosystem services, including the maintenance of fertile topsoil, which are vital for the environment, farmers, consumers, and the food security of future generations. Unleashing this uncontainable form of biological pollution that will self-propagate and damage the health and stability of our planetary biosphere in perpetuity.
Posted by ggwagga, 9/12/2009 7:01:58 AM
The study being referred to by ggwagga did not conclude that horizontal gene transfer had been occurring - it found the gene in their bodies, somewhere, almost certainly in their stomachs! (in other words they had eaten the plant) It says this in the abstract of the paper - you don't have to be an expert to work it out. Why do anti-GM people think its ok to lie (and lie and lie) to get their way?
Posted by David, 9/12/2009 8:23:20 AM
One of the major components in GM technology is Roundup. Monsanto convinced everyone that Roundup was very safe and it broke down as soon as it hit the soil. Fact: It has a half life of between 24 months and 127 years depending on the biological state of the soil. Monsanto has just had to pay a massive pay out in France on this very issue. Glysophate mimics phosphate, that is how it kills plants. So even years after, any plant that you grow on that soil will take up that glysophate in mistake of phosphate. It is used in just about all our food production, so we and our kids are getting a small dose every meal unless it is organic. And what is that doing to us? I don't think that is very sustainable.
Posted by Mike, 9/12/2009 11:03:42 AM
The report: ‘Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First 13 Years’ refutes the GM-industry-backed PG Economics’ claims. See: http://www.organic-center.org/ The report explores the impacts of commercial GM corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the USA, analysing mainly US Department of Agriculture data. Their main finding is that GM crops were responsible for the huge increase in herbicide spraying in the USA - 383 million extra pounds from 1996-2008. This dwarfs the small decrease in insecticide used on insect resistant GM corn and cotton. The primary cause of increased herbicide use is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds that result from GM herbicide-tolerant crops being grown. US farmers and weed scientists now struggle to find affordable, effective management strategies to control herbicide-resistant weeds. See: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/pig-weed-threatens-agriculture-industry-overtaking-fields-crops/Story?id=8766404&page=1 The GM industry still advertises that GM crops reduce pesticide use. Though such claims had some merit in the first few years of commercial GM crop use, they are clearly false now.
Posted by Bob Phelps, 9/12/2009 11:30:12 AM
To David, The accusation of 'lying' is very strong, and you need to account for it. Read carefully the text by ggwagga, "The growing of GM crops will inevitably result in horizontal gene transfer". ggwagga did not misquote the study at all. Where, exactly, was the lie???
Posted by Madeleine Love, 9/12/2009 12:47:59 PM
PG Economics are funded by the GE crop industry. I can't believe that this journalist has just copied their material verbatim. For more info on the organisations independence see: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/PG_Economics
Posted by Lou, 9/12/2009 1:49:30 PM
OK Madeleine, if you want to play word games, you'll note that I never accused ggwagga of lying - I accused anti-GM activists of lying and lying and lying and I stand by that claim. I am not going to repeat all the lies because I don't want to give them publicity. Let's just say the sky hasn't fallen in, in fact what we are witnessing globally is the most rapid uptake of any agricultural technology in history. So either all farmers are idiots or there is something very useful about these crops. I believe the second option. And I believe anti-GM activists have had over a decade to come up with a single argument they can back with fact and failed. Let's move on.
Posted by David, 9/12/2009 4:00:04 PM
Huh. Roundup ready canola is designed to increase use of herbicides. A month or so ago we had an article showing the exact opposite of this one. No wonder no-one believes anything put out in the name of science any more. Science has become just another religious sect.
Posted by denis, 9/12/2009 4:30:38 PM
David, you cannot dispute the facts; time will prove who is telling the truth. From where I sit it has been the proponents of GMOs who borrow, bend, distort the truth, or withhold damning information. I am more than happy to allow the passage of time to adjudicate on who is conveying the truth. There are some similarities between the recent Canadian research (I mentioned earlier) and the GM soil bacterium Klebsiella planticola. The USDA approved this GM bacterium for release into the environment to break down industrial organic waste for conversion to fuel alcohol. Fortunately Dr Elaine Ingham discovered these bacteria had the potential to totally wipe out ALL terrestrial plants including all crops and forests, converting them all to alcohol. This GM bacterium was within days of release, thanks to Dr Ingham's meticulous work the USDA had to quickly withdraw approval. It is ludicrous to even suggest that GMOs are anything but a serious threat to the environment. They are unsafe, unsustainable and unnecessary and are now obsolete.
Posted by ggwagga, 9/12/2009 4:52:19 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
07 December, 2009
POLL
Q: Which do you think is the best method for reducing Australia's carbon emissions?

Emissions Trading Scheme
(8.7%)

Carbon Tax
(11.7%)

Laws regulating behaviour
(7.7%)

Direct Govt investment in renewable energy
(42.9%)

Direct Govt payments for emissions reductions
(5.2%)

None of the above
(23.8%)

Total Votes: 762
Poll Date: 06 December, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...