Agronomic and Economic Assessment of Transgenic Canola

2. Transgenic/Conventional Producer Survey

2.1 Survey Methodology

A survey of 650 western Canadian canola growers was undertaken in October/November 2000. Due to the inconsistency in responses, 13 cases were ultimately dropped from the analysis because of incomplete or conflicting answers.

All growers were pre-screened to:

• have been responsible for variety selection, weed and pest management decisions, fertilizer and pesticide application decisions, etc.;
  
• have grown at least 80 acres of canola in 2000 This restriction effectively dropped about 15% of the growers and just over 2% of the canola acres in western Canada from the survey population.; and,
  
• have not grown a SMART trait variety exclusively.

The study was designed to compare transgenic canolas to conventional canolas. SMART trait varieties are neither transgenic nor conventional, so were excluded from the survey where they were the only canola grown. Producers who grew a SMART trait canola, along with transgenic or conventional canola, were included, but the survey focussed on the practices and costs associated with their transgenic or conventional canola fields only.

The survey sample was managed to reflect a 50% split between conventional and transgenic system growers so that comparisons in economic performance and agronomic practices could be made between the two groups. Some respondents grew both types. In this case, the grower was asked to respond to the survey questions based on the type of which he/she grew the most acres. Further, if the respondent grew more than one variety of the system for which they were answering, he/she was requested to answer for only one variety; again the one of which he/she grew the most acres. Respondents could provide answers for the inputs and outputs for more than one field, only if those fields were treated identically in terms of seed variety, practices, and treatments, and if the yields were the same.

Quotas were set so the survey sample would reflect the distribution of Polish (B. rapa) and Argentine (B. napus hybrid) and Argentine (B. napus open-pollinated) for the conventional sample, and the distribution of Roundup Ready and Liberty Link for the transgenic sample, as estimated from the Leger Marketing and the 1999 Integrated Pest Management Practices in Canola (IPM) study by Koch Paul Associates.

Further, the geographic distribution of the sample was controlled to ensure that the sample represented the distribution of canola farms by province and ecozone as determined by Statistics Canada.

The survey sample for transgenic and conventional varieties was split 50:50 for each province and ecozone in the above table. The 1999 IPM survey (n=881) revealed almost an equal percentage of adoption of transgenics in each of the two ecozones, with 52% of the growers in the prairie ecozone, and 54% in the boreal ecozone answering for transgenics. These results are based on one representative field per grower. SMART trait varieties enjoyed a higher adoption rate in the boreal ecozone (18%) as compared to the prairie ecozone (10%), as did Polish varieties: 11% for boreal (which is logical since this ecozone includes the Peace River area for which Polish varieties are well suited) and just 4% for the prairie ecozone. Comparatively, conventional Argentine varieties were lower for the boreal (17%) than for prairie ecozone (34%).

Lists were obtained on a confidential one-time use only basis from Monsanto's and Aventis' customer databases.

The survey considered:

• variety grown, seeding rates, pedigreed vs. common seed, and seed costs;
• yield, dockage, and grade, as well as self-reported net returns per acre;
• summer fallow practices, including herbicide use, on the canola field in 1999;
• fertilizer use;
• mechanical and cultural weed control; and,
• the history of transgenic use, and the impact on practice change since adopting a transgenic variety, and benefits or disadvantages to growing transgenics.

The survey was fielded from the central telephone survey facility of Vantage Research in Calgary, Alberta, following an extensive pre-test. Up to six call-back attempts were made to each valid number. The refusal to complete ratio was 0.87:1, which is considered very good for a telephone survey of this type, particularly given that no incentive to respond was provided. The disqualified ratio to completes was 2:1, largely because the quota for transgenics filled very quickly and it was difficult to find conventional growers in the population because the incidence rate is relatively low. About 10% of those disqualified planted SMART trait varieties only, while just under one-third were disqualified because they did not grow canola in 2000 or they grew less than 80 acres of this crop.

The Canola Council of Canada and the provincial grower associations were identified as the sponsors of the survey.

The economic and agronomic data collected in the survey were supplemented by an analysis of practices by conventional and transgenic growers, that were obtained from a survey of western Canadian canola growers undertaken in March/April 2000 in the 1999 crop year. (Please see the report on 1999 Integrated Pest Management Practices in Canola, Koch Paul Associates, October 2000, conducted on behalf of the canola industry.)

Additional herbicide expenditure data were provided by Leger Marketing (formerly Criterion Research) from their July 2000 Canadian Farmers' Herbicide Use Study. A sample of 1,600 western Canadian growers participated in this survey (1,395 with more than 80 acres in canola and not exclusively SMART trait). Herbicide expenditures for fall 1999 applications, spring 2000 pre-seed applications, spring/summer post emergent applications, and pre-harvest intentions were provided.

The analysis approach used was to report expenditures on a per acre basis. The data were weighted to reflect the number of acres to which the applicable variable applied. Standardized seed, fertilizer, and herbicide costs were collected from various farm input supply representatives.

2.2 Survey Results

2.2.1 Varieties and Seed Costs

Tables 2.3 and 2.4 detail the varieties used by the survey sample for each system, and the certified seed prices used to calculate seed costs.

Note: Bin run seed was priced at $1.00/lb. All Argentine varieties not included as a hybrid are open-pollinated.

Seeding rates were somewhat higher for conventional over transgenic growers.

Transgenic growers were more likely to plant certified seed although the incidence was high in both groups.

Table 2.7 illustrates the computed seed cost by system variety group/type. Transgenic seed costs are 60% higher than conventional costs on a per acre basis.

Grower reported seed costs were about 15% less for the transgenics and 7% less for the conventionals than the calculated values in the following table.

The grower reported costs per acre for seed (excluding the Technology Use Agreement (TUA) or custom seeding costs) for transgenics (n=321) was $16.21 and for conventional (n=316) the reported costs were $11.69.

On average, the transgenic growers reported paying $16.41 for certified seed and $12.49 for common. The conventional growers reported paying $13.47 for certified seed and $7.28 for common. Again, bin run seed was assigned a value of $1.00 per pound.

Fourteen percent of the conventional growers said their seed was bin-run or used their own seed. Just 2% of the transgenic growers used their own seed.

2.3 Fertilizer Inputs

Comparative fertilizer costs are outlined in the tables following for the two systems. Costs for transgenic are higher ($28.15 ) than conventional ($26.43 ) by just under $2.00 per acre. Extremely high values that were not reflective of current practices were removed from the calculations, as were those cases that did not report complete fertilizer information for all elements. Results were extrapolated to all fertilizer users before averaging the total number of acres in the survey population. Grower reported fertilizer costs were not obtained.

An analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between fertilizer inputs and summer fallow. The incidence of summer fallow was approximately double for the conventional sample, relative to the transgenics. As would be expected, fertilizer inputs for those acres that were not in summer fallow in 1999 were significantly higher for both systems, as compared to those acres that were previously in summer fallow and subsequently planted to canola.

Transgenic growers without summer fallow (n=262) in 1999 spent on average, $29.81 per acre on fertilizer in 2000 or about 50% more than those with summer fallow (n=59, $20.33). Similarly, conventional growers without summer fallow (n=206) in 1999 spent on average, $31.17 per acre on fertilizer in 2000 or approximately double those with summer fallow (n=110, $15.84). Therefore, the lower fertilizer inputs for conventional growers overall, can be attributed to their summer fallow practices.

2.4 Herbicide Inputs

Herbicide input analysis for the two systems revealed that transgenic inputs were about 40% lower than for conventional systems. Per acre differences are noted for all application timings in favour of transgenics.

Eighteen percent of the transgenic sample had summer fallow acres in 1999 which were seeded to canola in 2000. In total, 80% of the summer fallow acres had herbicides applied in 1999. Total acres in the transgenic population in summer fallow in 1999, subsequently planted to canola in 2000, were 934,587 (or 15% of the total 2000 transgenic acres).

Thirty-six percent of the conventional sample had summer fallow acres in 1999, which were seeded to canola in 2000. In total, 65% of the summer fallow acres had herbicides applied. Total acres in the conventional population summer fallowed in 1999, and subsequently planting to canola in 2000, were 893,329 (or 28% of the total 2000 conventional acres).

While the transgenic survey was not designed to collect specific herbicide use information by brand (and this information was not purchased from Leger Marketing), an attempt was made to estimate the mix of herbicide types used, their associated costs and the number of units applied. This information was requested for the economic model so that the volume of these input variables could be compared by system. The mix of application (granular incorporated versus spray herbicides) is also relevant to the economic model because the costs of these operations are different, and the incidence of use of these two types of products varies by system.

The analysis following considered:

• the herbicide costs by type obtained from the Leger Marketing study for fall 1999 and spring/summer 2000 applications;
  
• the total number of applications made and the specific brand, rate and acres applied for 1999 summer fallow is information from the transgenic survey;
  
• the “logic” that most of the Liberty Link sample and the entire Roundup Ready sample in the transgenic group would have applied the applicable products; and,
  
• the distribution of types of products used (grouped into the five categories that appear in the tables below) as obtained from the 1999 Integrated Pest Management Study for Canola.

The first table in each sequence deals with the 1999/2000 canola crop cycle, while the second table addresses summer fallow applications for those canola acres subsequently planted to canola.

These values should be considered as estimates only and not indications of the market share for these products. The minimum recommended rate was generally assumed for the average rate applied per acre unless otherwise noted, and the prices used were Manufactured Suggested Retail (MSR) prices (Appendix 2).

Note: For fall 1999 and spring/summer/pre-harvest applications on the canola field, none of the Roundup Ready transgenic growers were assumed to have used Liberty in addition to Roundup (100% use Roundup). Seven (7%) percent of the Liberty Link growers were assumed to have also used Roundup. Also, 85% of Liberty growers would have used Liberty and 15% would have planted a Liberty Tolerant variety but did not use a corresponding product.

Grower reported herbicide costs, including 1999 summer fallow applications, if applicable, but not including custom application were as follows:

• Transgenic (n=321) $16.22 per acre
• Conventional (n=316) $21.72 per acre

While the grower reported value for conventionals was within the margin of error range with the calculated value from the tables above ($22.53), the grower reported values for transgenics was somewhat higher than the calculated costs ($13.68). This may be partly explained by the pre-harvest product use. The Leger marketing study provided pre-harvest intention data only (data collected July 2000), while the grower reported costs would have included actual pre-harvest costs.

Had the transgenic growers only planted a conventional variety, they anticipated their herbicide costs per acre would have averaged about 8% more. A total of 37% of the growers felt the herbicide costs would have been comparable, 18% thought they would have been higher, and 44% thought they would have been lower. Those respondents saying that they thought their costs would be higher indicated a factor of 52% more (n=44), while those stating that it would be lower averaged only a few cents per acre.

2.5 Operations (Labour And Equipment)

2.5.1 Seeding Operations

Fifty percent of the transgenic growers and 35% of the conventional growers said they direct seeded the particular canola field they were being surveyed about in 2000. The cost of the seeding operation, as provided by the participants, independent of any other operations performed in combination with seeding, was 7% higher for the transgenic growers, over the conventional growers. This result is due to the differing proportions of acres direct seeded between the two samples.

2.5.2 Herbicide Applications

The average number of applications of herbicides made by the transgenic sample (n=321) was just over two. About 90% of these applications were made in the fall of 1999 or spring/summer 2000, with 10% being made on the 1999 summer fallow acres subsequently seeded to canola in 2000.

Virtually all transgenic growers applied a herbicide and almost none applied a granular incorporated herbicide, therefore, they did not combine a herbicide application with their seeding operation.

Assuming all herbicide applications for transgenics were sprays, none were made in combination with seeding, and the average cost per acre to apply herbicide sprays was $4.00, then the total cost per acre to apply herbicides for the transgenic sample was $8.28 per acre.

The average number of applications to apply herbicides by the conventional sample (n=315) was 1.78. Four percent of the conventional growers said they applied no herbicides. Approximately 1.5 of these applications were made during the fall of 1999 and spring/summer of 2000, with the remaining (0.28 applications) made on the acres in summer fallow in 1999.

Just over one-quarter of the applications made by conventional growers were with granular incorporated herbicides (summer fallow and 1999 fall and 2000 spring/summer applications combined). Assuming one-half of the granular herbicide applications were made in the spring, with seeding, and the remainder in fall 1999 or on the summer fallow acres, then the number of incremental passes to apply herbicides (not in combination with seeding) was 1.55 passes.

Further, assuming a cost of $6.50 per acre to apply granular incorporated herbicides, and $4.00 per acre to apply sprays, the blended cost would be $4.65 per application. Application costs for the 1.55 passes can be calculated at $7.20 per acre. Assuming an incremental cost of $1.00 per acre to apply the remaining 0.23 passes (i.e., the incorporated herbicide applications with the seeding operation), then the total application cost for herbicides for the conventional sample would be $7.43 per acre.

The above analysis does not include herbicide applications that may have occurred in combination with a tillage operation.

2.5.3 Fertilizer Applications

Ninety-five percent of the transgenic growers made at least one fertilizer application and the same percentage of acres in this population was applied with fertilizers at least once. About 60% made one application, and 40% two applications, for an overall average (for all acres, including those to which no fertilizer was applied) of 1.30 applications.

Eighty-nine percent of the conventional growers made at least one fertilizer application and 90% of the growers in this group made at least one application. Two-thirds of the growers made only one application, while one-third made two, for an average of 1.19 applications (for all acres, including those to which no fertilizer was applied).

An averaged price for fertilizer application was determined by assuming a cost of $6.50 per acre for dry and liquid applications and $8.00 per acre for anhydrous applications. Assuming 36% of the N is put down as anhydrous, a blended application rate was set at $7.00 per acre per application.

Therefore, the cost per acre for fertilizer applications for the transgenic sample, again assuming no combinations with other operations, was $9.10 and for the conventional sample, $8.33.

2.5.4 Tillage and Harrowing Operations

Seventy-six percent of the transgenic growers tilled their canola field at least once (including operations on the previous year's summer fallow, if applicable). Similarly, 75% of the canola acres were tilled at least once. The average number of tillage operations for the total transgenic sample (including those who did not till) was 1.79 operations. Assuming a cost of $6.00 per operation for tillage, the total cost would be $10.74.

Sixty-nine percent of the transgenic growers harrowed at least once and 66% of the canola acres in the sample were harrowed at least once. The average number of harrowing operations (including those that did not harrow) was just under one per acre (.94), resulting in a cost per acre of $3.29.

Eighty-six percent of the conventional growers tilled their canola field at least once (including operations on the previous year's summer fallow, if applicable). Similarly, 89% of the canola acres were tilled at least once. The average number of tillage operations for the total conventional sample (including those who did not till) was 2.63 operations. Assuming a cost of $6.00 per operation for tillage, the total cost would be $15.78.

Sixty-five percent of the conventional growers harrowed at least once and 60% of the canola acres in the sample were harrowed at least once. The average number of harrowing operations (including those that did not harrow) was .84, resulting in a cost per acre of $3.29.

These per acre cost results for tillage and harrowing represent these operations as if they were performed independent of any other operation. Some of these operations may have occurred in combination with another type of operation (seeding, herbicide or fertilizer application), which would lessen the average cost per acre.

Again, operations on 1999 summer fallow, subsequently planted to canola in 2000, are included in the Table 2.17. For the transgenic sample, 28% of the growers used chemical fallow only, 24% tilled, and 47% did both. Predictably, the conventional growers put more emphasis on tillage (36%), and just 18% reported chemical fallow alone, with 45% doing both.

2.5.5 Combined Operations

Because several of the above operations may be performed in combination with others, an analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of the combined operations. There was a total of 401 (n=637) different combinations of transgenic/ conventional, summer fallow in 1999 (or not), direct or regular seeding, number of herbicide applications, number of fertilizer applications and number of tillage and harrowing operations.

The assumed prices for the operations calculations were as follows:

• direct seeding - $12.00;
• not direct seeding - $8.00;
• foliar herbicide app - $4.00 (applied to transgenic operations only;
• foliar + incorporated herbicide app - $4.65 (applied to conventional operations only);
• tillage - $6.00;
• harrowing - $3.50;
• fertilizer alone - $7.00; and,
• incremental fertilizer or herbicide cost - $1.00.

Table 2.19 below illustrates that the number of operations and associated costs was higher for summer fallow systems, higher for tillage regimes, and higher if direct seeding is not practiced for both the transgenic and conventional growers. Costs per acre were less for transgenics for continuous cropping, for tillage/harrowing and for both types of seeding, while costs for the conventional growers were comparatively lower if that grower had acres in summer fallow in 1999 (subsequently planted to the canola, about which we inquired) and for zero till/ harrow.

The sum of the individual results for each operation from the analysis in the preceding sections of this report can be compared as follows:

Therefore, looking at the operations analysis, the differences between conventional and transgenic appear to be quite minor in terms of cost on a blended per operation basis, but because the conventional group is performing more operations, their costs are approximately 9% higher.

2.6 Miscellaneous Inputs

2.6.1 Scouting

An insignificant difference in time spent surveying the fields and scouting for weeds and other pests was reported.

Approximately 14% of the sample could not provide an estimate of the hours spent.

2.6.2 Irrigation

Only seven growers in the total sample irrigated; one conventional and six transgenic growers. An average price per acre for annual irrigation management was estimated to be $53.50. The sample sizes are too small to compare irrigation between transgenic and conventional growers.

2.6.3 Other Operating Costs

Growers were asked if they had any other costs associated with variety selection, weed or pest control on these acres. They were also given examples of the services offered by crop consultants or agronomists and diagnostic or predictive services regarding weeds.

Ten percent of the transgenic growers reported these costs for an average of $2.87 per acre, if used (n=32). Just 7% of the conventional growers reported such costs, for an average expenditure of $10.27 (n=22) per acre if these services were used. The maximum value reported was $20.00 per acre for transgenics and $24.00 per acre for conventionals.

The per acre cost averaged over the entire population was 30 cents for the transgenic growers and 82 cents for the conventional growers.

Extrapolating to the total acres in the population, the purchase of these services is $1.8 million for transgenics and $2.6 million for conventionals.

2.6.4 Equipment Investment and Divestiture

Just under 3% of the growers of transgenic varieties had invested in equipment they otherwise would not have had they stayed with conventional varieties. Sprayers and seeders were the most common purchases. The average investment per transgenic grower surveyed was $1,521.00, or $35 million when extrapolated to the entire transgenic population.

Similarly, 3% had sold some equipment, which they otherwise would have kept, had they not grown transgenics. Examples were cultivators, seeders and chemical application equipment. The average sale price realized by all transgenic growers from the sale of equipment was $367.00. Again, when extrapolated to the total transgenic population, the total cost would be $8.5 million.

The net investment averaged $1,154.00 per transgenic grower for a total of $26.5 million, a fairly small investment when considering the number of acres, the amortization period, and depreciation.

2.7 Yield, Grade And Revenue

2.7.1 Yield

Yields were reported to be 10% higher for the transgenic system over the conventional. The average yield before dockage for the transgenics was 29.25 bu/acre, and for the conventionals, 26.54 bu/acre. Yields reached a maximum of 55 bu/acre for transgenics and 72 bu/acre for conventional canolas.

Had the transgenic growers only planted a conventional variety, their anticipated yield on these acres would have averaged 7% fewer bushels per acre. Thirty-nine percent of the growers felt the yield would have been comparable, 17% thought the yield would have been higher, and 44% thought it would have been lower.

The yield response to varying levels of fertilizer input was charted to determine if the yield advantage for transgenics was at least partly due to higher fertilizer inputs. The results confirmed that at identical levels of fertilizer input, transgenic systems consistently out-yielded conventional systems. The yield advantage was about 2.5 bu/acre for transgenics at lower fertilizer input levels, increasing to about 3 bu/acre at the highest levels of input. Therefore, it can be concluded that the majority, if not all of the yield benefit for transgenic systems is not fertilizer dependent. Again, the higher average fertilizer inputs for transgenic systems were found to be due to the lower number of acres in summer fallow in 1999, as compared to the conventional growers.

2.7.2 Dockage

Dockage reported was less for the transgenic growers (3.87%), than for the conventionals (5.14%).

2.7.3 Grade

The average grade for the two systems (on a per bushel basis) was comparable, however 6% fewer conventional growers reported grade 1.

The average grade for the transgenic crop (weighted by acres corresponding to each grade reported) was 1.09 and for the conventionals, somewhat lower at 1.15 , where 1=grade 1, 2=grade 2, 3 = grade 3A, 4=grade 3B and 5=sample.

Had the transgenic growers only planted a conventional variety, 97% felt the grade would have been comparable, 2% thought the grade would have been higher, and <1% thought it would have been lower, resulting in a negligible improvement to the grade average.

2.7.4 Revenue

The revenue per acre was computed by multiplying the yield per acre, less the dockage, times the appropriate price for the grade reported from the schedule in Table 2.24 and 2.25. Adjustments were made for the contract variety growers' premium, where applicable. The revenue advantage for transgenic systems was calculated at $15.40/acre over conventional systems.

Only one of the transgenic growers said he was under contract as a specialty grower in 2000, whereas 35 of the conventional growers reported planting contract varieties on the field for which they answered the survey. While some of the growers may have been seed growers, none answered the survey for a field producing seed canola.

2.7.5 Grower Reported Return per Acre

The grower reported return per acre (after all input costs, labour, etc.) [1] for transgenic (n=241) was $19.92 and for conventional (n=192) $14.12.

The range in net return per acre reported by the growers was -$80.00 to +$240.00 for the transgenics and -$120.00 to +$180.00 for the conventionals. A difference of $5.80 per acre in favour of transgenics was calculated, based on these reported results. These values would have included the premium for contract varieties, the TUA (if applicable) and any other expenses the growers had recorded for these canola acres, such as custom application costs, insect and disease control, etc.

Had the transgenic growers only planted a conventional variety, they anticipated their net return per acre on these acres would have averaged $15.54 or 22% less than actually recorded. Forty-six (46%) of the growers felt the net return would have been comparable, 18% thought the net return would have been higher, and 37% thought it would have been lower.

2.8 Agronomic Practice Change

2.8.1 Canola Acreage and Rotations

Of those growers that planted transgenic varieties in 2000, (n=448), 20% indicated they had increased their canola acres.

Growers who had increased canola (n=89) were queried on what their 2000 canola acres would have been if they had not grown transgenics. Average acres for these growers would be about 55% of the 2000 acres under this scenario (i.e., average acreage in canola would decline from 568 to 311 acres per grower).

When asked specifically if the growing of transgenics had allowed these growers more flexibility in their rotations:

• 45% said there had been no change to their rotations;
• 53% agreed that it allowed them to be more flexible; and,
• 3% felt their rotations were less flexible under transgenic systems.

2.8.2 Seeding Practices

Growers (n=448) who planted transgenic varieties in 2000 were queried as to how their seeding practices have changed since adopting transgenics:

• 44% said they are seeding earlier in the spring due to transgenics;
• 3% are fall seeding due to transgenics;
• 24% are seeding earlier in the spring, but not due to transgenics;
• 1% are fall seeding but not due to transgenics; and,
• 27% are not seeding earlier or fall seeding (no change).

2.8.3 Conservation Tillage

Growers who planted transgenics in 2000 (n=448) were asked how their cultivation practices changed since growing transgenics.

• 26% said their use of conservation or no-till practices has increased due to planting transgenics;
• 19% said it had increased, but not due to planting transgenics; and,
• 55% said they have not increased conservation or no-till since adopting transgenics.

Of those who have increased their use of conservation and no-till practices because of transgenics (n=115), the average increase by these growers was reported to be 69% (i.e., average acres under conservation till increased from 681 prior to adoption to 1,153 per grower since adoption). Assuming there were 21,641 transgenic growers in the population and if 26% of these growers increased conservation practices on these acres due to transgenics, then about 2.6 million acres in western Canada (5,600 growers) have been positively impacted. This does not mean that these acres would have gone from conventional tillage to no-till, but rather that the number of tillage operations may have been reduced by one operation or more.

2.8.4 Weed and Volunteer Canola Management

Of those planting transgenics in 2000 (n=448):

• 15% said weed control effectiveness has been about the same as what they would have expected with conventionals;
• 81% said the effectiveness was better; and,
• 4% said it was worse than what they had experienced with conventionals.

Similarly, regarding herbicide management to avoid weed resistance:

• 34% said it was about the same as with conventionals;
• 59% said it was easier; and,
• 7% indicated that it was more difficult.

And finally, in terms of volunteer canola management:

• 61% said it was about the same as for conventional systems;
• 16% said it was easier; and,
• 23% stated that it was more difficult.

2.8.5 Crop segregation

Seventy-two percent of those respondents who grew both transgenic and conventional varieties (n=165) said they bin their transgenic canola separately.

2.8.6 Services and Rentals

Growers who planted transgenics in 2000 (n=448) were asked if they had increased their use of any services since adopting transgenics.

• 19% increased custom application of herbicides;
• 6% increased equipment rental;
• 5% increased custom application of fertilizers;
• 5% increased their use of custom seeding; and,
• 3% increased custom harvesting.

Other factors mentioned were increased swathing and higher trucking costs.

2.9 History Of Transgenic Use

Eighty-two percent of the canola growers surveyed (recall, the sample did not include SMART trait growers, or those with fewer than 80 acres in canola in 2000) had planted transgenics at least once in the past six years. The number of growers in the sample (n=637) planting transgenics by year was as follows:

• 1995 – 7% of growers;
• 1996 – 13% of growers;
• 1997 – 31% of growers;
• 1998 – 56% of growers;
• 1999 – 70% of growers; and,
• 2000 – 80% of growers.

Fourteen percent of those who had ever tried transgenics (n=523) have not continued to plant them.

Thirty-six percent of the conventional sample have never planted transgenics.

Thirteen percent of the transgenic sample also planted conventionals and 22% also planted SMART trait.

Forty-eight percent of the sample who answered for conventional varieties also planted transgenics, and 21% also planted SMART trait.

2.10 Attitudes Toward Transgenics

2.10.1 Benefits and Reasons for Using Transgenics

Of those canola growers adopting transgenics, (n=523) the reasons stated for initially adopting them were varied (multiple responses were given) but were centered on weed control:

• 50% wanted easier and better weed control overall;
• 19% anticipated a better yield, a better return and more profit;
• 18% did so specifically for grassy weed control;
• 15% did so specifically for annual broadleaf control;
• 10% did so to reduce costs;
• 9% first planted transgenics on a trial basis to compare with conventionals;
• 7% did so to clean up their fields;
• 7% wanted to reduce the number of passes to control weeds;
• 5% did so specifically for perennial broadleaf control;
• 3% wanted to reduce tillage;
• 3% did so for the ease of application of Roundup;
• 3% did so for chemical rotation; and,
• 2% wanted to be able to seed earlier and therefore to save soil moisture.

Other reasons (1% or fewer) included the following: less dockage; neighbours had good luck with it; soil conservation (direct seeding/stubble seeding, to support continuous cropping and less fallow); to avoid incorporating herbicides; to save labour; and a perception that the chemicals used are safer and not toxic to humans. Also mentioned was the perception that Roundup does not leave a residue in the soil, the influence from the seed/chemical dealer to use transgenic canola, crop rotations (especially with barley and wheat and under seeding with forages), being able to delay cropping decisions until the spring, and the control of volunteer cereals. As well they mentioned they can do multiple passes and not affect the crop, they have better timing for herbicide applications, they feel transgenic canola systems are suited to lighter soil type, they are able to control other pests by planting disease resistant transgenic varieties or mixing insecticides with Roundup, they spread out the harvest, and they were under contract as a seed producer.

When probed further, other benefits (only one or two mentions each) were less tank mixing, less wear on the equipment, reduced concern over wild mustard contamination in seed, increased ability to plant more acres to canola, and time saved banding fertilizer.

2.10.2 Disadvantages and Reasons for Not Using Transgenics

Reasons for not trying transgenics follow (n=114):

• 19% specifically said the cost of the TUA;
• 18% said the overall costs were too high;
• 16% were concerned with market access;
• 12% saw no need to change;
• 11% were concerned with weed resistance;
• 9% were worried about health concerns with GMO's;
• 8% didn't want to be locked into using the system chemical;
• 6% said they were getting the same or better yields with their conventionals;
• 5% specifically said the seed was too costly;
• 4% prefer to summer fallow; and,
• 3% had clean enough fields to grow conventionals.

One or two respondents each commented on such reasons as the low price of canola and the overproduction due to transgenics, a concern that GMO's haven't been tested enough, the need for more information, and the environmental conditions in their area support Polish varieties. Liberty was considered to be hard to handle and weed control was not felt to be as effective.

Similarly, among those who have tried transgenics but have not continued to plant these varieties (n=75) the reasons related to the high cost or poor economics, and concern over market and health issues with GMO's. A few were opposed to Monsanto, and some had poor experience with the variety (i.e. too tall, lodging, combine blockage) and another resented having to bin separately.

Concerns with fields being contaminated when a neighbour grows transgenics (or when transgenics are grown on the same farm with conventionals) were cited by six respondents. A few other disadvantages were stated (all single mentions), such as difficulty managing the chemical rotation prior to, or after, planting transgenics, having to swath, poor germination, more bookwork because of the chemical rebates, problems with chickweed and broadleaf perennial weeds, problems with aster yellows, inability to grow specialty varieties with transgenics, need to have bins inspected, more green seed than with conventionals, and inability to use Liberty Link because of kochia weed problems.

When prompted, of those growers who did not plant transgenics in 2000 (n=189), 51% agreed that negative public opinion toward transgenic or genetically modified varieties had been a factor in not planting them. Similarly, 47% agreed that access to markets was a factor in not planting transgenics.

2.10.3 Impact if Transgenics Were No Longer Available

The concluding question asked transgenic growers (n=448) was what they thought the impact would be on their operations if transgenic varieties were no longer available. About one-third of these respondents said there would be no impact, or they could not articulate any impact.

Of those providing an impact (n=303),

• over half were concerned about the effect on weed control and the associated costs;
• 24% would reduce their canola acres, and 10% would stop growing it;
• 10% would have to revisit their weed management techniques or go back to old practices;
• 9% would switch back to conventional varieties;
• 7% would see an impact on restricted crop rotations;
• 6% said they would get lower yields;
• 6% said their overall input costs would increase;
• 5% would increase tillage (at a higher cost);
• 5% said their management time/work to farm canola would increase overall;
• 3% thought their dockage would be higher;
• 3% would have to seed later or not seed in the fall; and,
• 3% would have to reduce continuous cropping and increase summer fallow.

Other negative impacts related to specific cost increases such as trucking, fuel, equipment in general, or difficulty managing specific aspects of their operations, seeding, fall desiccation, harvest, limited variety selection, insect management, and less flexible rotations. Some were concerned about the health risk of being exposed to more (different) chemicals, and others about the increase in soil erosion that would accompany practice change back to more fallow/tillage. Reduced crop quality was also mentioned.

A couple of respondents could see a benefit in that the market price of canola would go up (presumably due to fewer acres), and a limited few felt their costs would go down and their profits would be higher, largely due to not having to pay the TUA.

2.11 Summary

2.11.1 Summary Per Acre Costs and Revenue

In summary, the economics of the transgenic system are better than the conventional system (32% better or a $10.58 net return per acre), when the variables addressed in this survey are considered.

While conventional systems report lower seed and fertilizer costs, costs for herbicides, operations, scouting and other services are higher. The revenue per acre value also favours transgenics by a factor of 11%.

The $10.58 per acre differential between the two systems compares with the grower reported net return difference of $5.80 in favour of transgenics. One possible explanation for the discrepancy may be in the higher reported herbicide costs for transgenics (as compared to the computed costs). Another might be that the grower reported net return included other costs not addressed in the survey. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that for the 2000 crop year, transgenic systems resulted in an approximate minimum $6.00 per acre profit advantage over conventional systems.

2.11.2 Summary Contribution to Agri-Business

Comparatively, the transgenic growers collectively spent 1.9 times as much as the conventionals on seed, fertilizer, herbicides, and other inputs, and have 1.9 times as many acres. Therefore, the net contribution to the input supply industry for these purchases is virtually zero. In other words, had all growers only grown conventionals in 2000, and the total canola acres planted was unchanged, the impact on agri-business would have been negligible. Any benefit to agri-business is therefore related to a possible increase in canola acres associated with transgenic adoption, at the expense of another crop, and not due to a switching between systems. An analysis of the dollars spent on the inputs of the crop dropped for the incremental acre increase in canola, relative to the inputs spent on canola, would have to be conducted to determine this impact. Additionally however, growers reported they had made equipment purchases since adopting transgenics totalling $26.5 million (when extrapolated to the population), specifically due to switching at least some of their acres to this system.

2.11.3 Summary Agronomic Impacts

Surveyed growers reported more efficient weed control as one of the key benefits and motivators to adopt transgenics, in addition to the cost benefits illustrated by the economic analysis derived from this research. It is important to note that growers reported an improvement in weed control effectiveness and an ease in herbicide management to prevent weed resistance. They found their rotations to be more flexible, and were able to seed earlier in the spring or fall, thus benefiting from soil moisture conservation. Other benefits mentioned were harvest management and use of chemicals perceived to be less toxic or those, which leave less soil residue. Importantly, 2.6 million acres in canola rotations in western Canada have been positively impacted by increased conservation tillage practices since the introduction of the technology.

Although in the minority, non- adopters (including those who have trialed transgenics or about 20% of the population) stated several concerns. Disadvantages of transgenics were stated as the increased difficulty in managing volunteer canola, the concern with access to markets and the negative public opinion, which for some, may cast doubts on the future of this technology. Separate storing was a noted inconvenience for others. A few growers do not feel that “GMO's” and their impacts (particularly on human health) have been adequately researched. Others have not adopted, whether trialed or not, because the benefits over conventional systems are not evident, or because their particular climate, soil type or pest problems were not conducive to transgenics. These growers were satisfied with their current management system. A fairly significant number resisted the idea of paying the TUA because the costs did not justify the potential gains and a few did not want to be locked-in to a particular management system. Cross contamination of fields was also a concern.

The increase in canola acreage was perceived by a few non-adopters to be a driver of lower prices. Twenty percent of the transgenic canola growers surveyed reported that they had increased their canola acres as a result of growing transgenics. These growers reported that they would have grown 45% fewer acres in 2000, had they not adopted transgenics. Therefore, it can be concluded that about one-half million acres of current canola production (or about 5% of the total current production) is attributable to the availability of transgenics. Note that the survey population did not include growers who did not grow canola in 2000, but may have done so in previous years, thus the 5% may be overstated.

The survey results also suggest that transgenic systems result in a 10% yield advantage over conventionals, thus contributing to an overall increase in canola production. This 10% is significant both economically and agronomically in that it speaks to the overall production efficiency of transgenic over conventional systems.

---

Footnotes

[1] Outliers removed. Several respondents could not provide a response.