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