Display:
I'm not about to defend GM crops, but does this only compare yield to surface area? There is also the issue of whether yield to energy is better, with less pesticide and fuel used, or even yield to water.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.
by Ephemera on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a study from the heart of US productivist farming, published in Better Crops, which is no DFH rag. The important thing is that it clearly documents (and Monsanto accepts) that GM varieties are not super-performers that will produce extra tonnage to "feed the world".

There are plenty of other parameters to study, for sure. But none speaks to The Masses™ like "you may rather not have GM, but we have no choice if we want to feed the world".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 at 11:09:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes the article said:
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Personally I always like to read from what the sources say directly.
Conservation Tillage and Pesticide Reduction seem to be two benefits that are not directly related to yields on specific fields. But as oil prices are higher this crop could still be a substantial benefit for certain fields or situations.
GM Crops Impact Environmenal Sustainability of Brazilian Farm Adoption of No Till Farming Helps Baggio Protect Soil Resources

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Mon Apr 21st, 2008 at 02:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series