NOTE: This should be compulsory reading for anyone who believes the hype about GM crops being some sort of panacea for farming problems. It is from a US farmers' newsletter put out each week by a crop consulting firm in Louisiana. This issue is of particular interest because it contains a detailed report (extracted below) about a meeting between Monsanto and about 40 farmers, consultants and others.
What's clear from the report is that the farmers are very far from happy with Monsanto and its GM cotton. Topics include fees relating to Roundup resistance issues and rebates for use of other herbicides to help combat the severe weed resistance problems that have developed as a result of the use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops.
There is also reference to Monsanto's Bollgard II (a type of Bt insect-resistant genetically modified cotton) failing to control bollworms effectively and so making pesticide use for bollworms necessary.
This report also makes clear that the farmers want a "tech rebate" from Monsanto because the tech aint working, ie the technology fee they're paying for Monsanto's GMO traits is not delivering the results farmers have been promised.
This meeting suggests that while US farmers may still be in love with the promises Monsanto's GM cotton held out of easy cost-effective weed and pest management ("canned" packages), the reality is hurting them. It also suggests that unless Monsanto can deliver significant price cuts/rebates by way of compensation, its GM cotton may not even continue to be grown in the United States.
---
---
East-Central Louisiana: Conversations With Monsanto About Fees, Resistance
AgFax.Com - Your Online Ag News Source
http://agfax.com/news/2010/02/ams-louisiana-0228.htm
AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
Tim White, Walter Myers, Wil Miller, Matt Myers, Lydia Ellett, Roger Carter and Chase Skipper
February 28 2010
THANKS To Monsanto for meeting in Lake Providence with a group of 40 or so farmers, consultants, and other interested parties. Consultants Hank Jones, Richard Costello, Jesse Young, and RC along with local farmers Terry Mize, Bertis Ray, and Chris Krahn were invited to attend.
Monsanto was prepared with tough hides since "they" are common fodder for many producers woes. Most farmers in attendance have been to one or more of these types of meetings before where Monsanto is searching for ways to help the end users of its technology manage risk. It was noted that Monsanto has helped somewhat in weed resistance management by rebating a small amount ($2.50/ac or so) for each of several herbicides if they are applied. However, it would require that a producer use all five herbicides on the list in order to get a total of $12.50/ac in return.
And there is no consideration for rates. Cotoran and diuron, for instance, must be used at the highest labeled rates for most of our soil types where cotton is grown in our area, yet the same amount of $ is allocated per acre regardless. The $2.50/ac rebate for Cotoran would be less than 20% of the cost of a efficacious rate of that herbicide for many of our acres. We appreciate the thought, but we need more bucks if Monsanto truly wants to help with resistance management in our area.
And there is no help for insect resistance management for bollworms that are "slipping" through Bollgard II cotton and must be treated with pyrethroids that are becoming less effective with each application. We were supposed to have enough control of bollworms with BGII to not have to treat for bollworms.
Jesse Young pointed out that the cap had been removed from the top end of what farmers would pay per acre for technology and that if farmers planted the recommended amount of seed (4 seed/row ft on 38" rows) tech and seed costs would be $133/acre. The reason the cap was removed is that few farmers were hitting the cap. The reason they didn't "cap out" was that the cap was too high and should have been lowered to a total of $75/acre for seed and technology. Laugh if you want, Big M, but this is reality.
Monsanto explained that in order to continue research such as the drought resistant cotton on which they are currently working, it took X number of research dollars and that they could not lower the fees and still conduct the necessary research. Most in the audience agreed that drought tolerant cotton would not help, but actually hurt, the Mid-South and Southeast since it would be of more benefit to drier areas and encourage production there. In other words, it would help our area farmers' competitors. Monsanto should not try to woo us with talk that "they" are only making these research investments for the American farmer...it is for Monsanto's shareholders and no one else.
The good thing: Monsanto took notes. And some of us were encouraged that perhaps they will begin to help us by sharing more of the risk, reducing some tech fees, and encouraging better stewardship of the technology by not selling "canned" packages of technology in areas where certain technology is not needed or wanted, such as areas where resistant pigweed have caused the value of Flex to become nil. Yet the Bt traits may still be wanted and affordable.
Although the meeting was two hours long there was no "name calling" - at least none that we could hear. And we wondered what the four lost souls that were "sacrificed" and sent to make this trek had done wrong to deserve such punishment. Dave Rhylander is a veteran of such gatherings and has become used to wearing body armor. Phil Miller exhibited traits of being a Southern gentleman and appears sincere in his remarks. Regardless, the crowd left them unscathed, but hopefully more educated about what can be done to help us keep cotton in the United States.
We believe that Monsanto is listening. We thank "them" or "it" for aiding us with a contributions towards weed resistance management. We hope that neither they nor us wasted our time. The fish was good, but it wasn't enough to feed our families for a year nor enough to offset tech fees. And we don't necessarily feel that a "tech rebate" check is in the mail yet, but we're getting there.