Seed

An Agronomic and Economic Assessment of GMO Canola

<< Back to Table of Contents


Analysis of Weighted Results from the Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Study Conducted by Koch Paul Associates, Spring 2000

Distribution of Systems by Ecozone* Prairie
n=463
Boreal
n=411
Polish (non- herbicide Tolerant) 4% 11%
Argentine (non-herbicide tolerant) 34% 17%
Total Conventional (non HT) 38% 28%
SMART Trait 10% 18%
Transgenic 52% 54%
Total Herbicide Tolerant 62% 72%

*Results based on one representative field per grower. 72% of the canola acres are grown in the Prairie Ecozone, 28% in the Boreal Ecozone. (Source: 1996 Statistics Canada Census of Agriculture).

Question Transgenic Sample
n=459
Conventional Sample
n=295
Farm Profile
Average acres of canola planted in 1999 365 acres 307 acres
Average total seeded acres 1275 acres 1113 acres
Average # of fields of canola 3.27 fields 2.91 fields
Percentage seed growers 5% 7%
Respondent Profile
Age <35 years 8% 7%
35-54 years 64% 59%
>54 years 28% 34%
Attended college/university in agriculture 24% 19%
Rotation
Average number between years between planting canola planted on same field 3.63 years 3.84 years
Flexibility of rotation Fixed/Planned 43% 37%
Variable 51% 57%
Type of rotation Crop-fallow 2% 9%
Crop-crop fallow 6% 17%
Extended cropping/occasional fallow 18% 33%
Continuous cropping/no fallow 74% 40%
Crops planted in 1998 on field Beneficial1 76% 50%
Summer fallow 16% 45%
Non-beneficial2 7% 3%
Canola 2% 3%
Percentage with adjacent fields in summer fallow in 1999 11% 25%
1 Wheat, durum, barley, rye, oats, hay, and forages.
2 Peas, lentils, flax, alfalfa, and sunflowers.
Cultivation Practices/ Mechanical Weed Control
Number of cultivations/ harrowing operations zero 12% 6%
1 9% 6%
2 19% 17%
3 26% 24%
4 or more 34% 46%
Method of weed control on adjacent summer fallow fields (if applicable) Herbicides 30% 22%
Tillage 32% 49%
Both 35% 25%
Percentage seeded into stubble 78% 47%
* Percentage practicing shallow tillage just before or during planting 60% 74%
Seeding Practices
Percentage seeding... Early 55% 40%
Usual time for area 31% 42%
Late 14% 17%
Row spacing <6 inches 5% 5%
6-<10 inches 78% 84%
10 plus inches 12% 8%
Seed type Foundation 4% 4%
Certified 90% 78%
Common 4% 16%
Treated Seed 98% 93%
Average seeding rate 5.93 lbs/acre 6.26 lbs/acre
Seeding rate relative to recommendation Lower 10% 7%
Recommended 77% 73%
Higher 11% 17%
Fertility
Percentage soil testing 61% 46%
Average frequency of soil testing field (if tested) 2.36 years 2.50 years
Percentage soil testing in 1999 37% 28%
Fertilizer Applications Fall 1998 18% 11%
Spring 1999 66% 69%
Both 13% 10%
Neither 3% 10%
Rate applied relative to recommendation
(if applying fertilizer)
Lower 13% 22%
Recommended 58% 52%
Higher 25% 21%
Percentage applying manure 9% 10%
Top Weed Problems
* Percentage of respondents with problem... Wild Oats 69% 63%
Canada Thistle 50% 46%
Wild Buckwheat 29% 40%
Quack grass 29% 21%
Wild Mustard 21% 24%
Cleavers 24% 11%
Foxtail 18% 24%
Volunteer Cereals 18% 11%
Sow Thistle 13% 13%
Pesticide Applications
Percentage applying... Herbicides 100% 85%
Insecticides 10% 10%
Fungicides 16% 14%
Average number of passes to apply pesticides (including cultivation application) 1.85 passes 1.59 passes
*Percentage applying as a spot or field edge treatment (if any herbicides applied) 12% 30%
Application All self 68% 68%
All custom 22% 21%
Both 11% 8%
Use of shields (if spraying) Always 33% 18%
Sometimes 2% 4%
Never 64% 77%
Use of buffer zones to protect sensitive areas (if adjacent to canola field) 46% 37%
Decision Process For Weed Control
Average % emphasis on chemical versus cultural/mechanical pest control Chemical 77% 70%
Cultural/Mechanical 23% 30%
Awareness of methods other than herbicides to control weeds
(mean score: 1=not aware, 3=very aware)
2.05 1.90
*Percentage deciding when to apply herbicides based on...
(if any applied)
Weed growth stage 54% 38%
Crop growth stage 21% 17%
Economic thresholds 12% 14%
First sign of weeds 7% 6%
Calendar dates 1% 9%
*Reasons for NOT using more non-herbicide methods of weed control Chemicals more effective 28% 21%
Economics 23% 17%
Not aware of methods 18% 24%
Practices To Prevent Pest Spread
Percentage sometimes/always clean equipment after seeding 72% 79%
Percentage sometimes/always flushing tank after spraying (if sprayed) 94% 85%
Percentage sometimes/always cleaning equipment after tilling (if tilled) 29% 33%
Percentage sometimes/always clean equipment after harvesting 49% 56%
Percentage practicing sanitation methods along fence lines, roadsides, sloughs, etc 28% 27%
*Looked at weed certificate when selecting pedigreed seed and based decision on weed type and seed count 24% 12%
Record Keeping, Monitoring, Scouting And Diagnostic Services
*Percentage keeping written or computer records or notes on field maps re: weed problems and weed management in canola. 46% 47%
.*Percentage mapping out weed problems 21% 30%
*Percentage stating that a review of the weed history/control practices played a major part in decision to seed canola on field 49% 57%
*Average number of times field scouted for weeds 3.98 times 3.95 times
*Average number of items scouted for 1.55 items 1.41 items
Percentage occasionally/frequently consulting regional forecasting services 52% 49%
Percentage occasionally/frequently using diagnostic tools 14% 7%
Percentage occasionally/frequently monitoring weather/environment 77% 70%
Percentage occasionally/frequently using predicative models 19% 21%
Percentage occasionally/frequently monitoring resistant pest populations 49% 42%
Percentage occasionally/frequently monitoring natural enemy populations 47% 44%
Self-rated ability to identify key weeds
(mean score: 1=poor, 4=excellent)
2.94 2.82
Economics
Average $ inputs** Seed $24.10 $15.80
Fertilizer $30.20 $25.20
Pesticides $19.40 $19.80
Total $73.70 $60.80
Average Gross Return per acre $181.90 $152.10
Difference between gross return and seed, fertilizer and pesticide input costs $108.20 $91.30

Transgenic includes Roundup Ready, Liberty Link and Bx tolerant systems. Conventional includes non HT Argentine and Polish varieties.

* sample size for these questions was smaller (Transgenic = 254, Conventional = 149), based on those who answered the weed section of the survey.
* inclusion or exclusion of the TUA in these costs was not specified.


Notes:

The most notable differences between the conventional and transgenic sub-samples are in the areas of conservation tillage practices and economics. Transgenic growers were much more likely to be practicing reduced or no tillage, with implied benefits for soil conservation. Transgenic growers on average, reported higher seed and fertilizer costs than conventional (pesticide costs were within a similar range of the conventional producers) but also higher margins. There were significant differences in pesticide inputs between Liberty ($26.00) and Roundup ($16.80) system users. Gross returns per acre and contribution after seed, fertilizer and pesticides, were, however, within a $3 range of each other for these two systems.

Responses to all attitude statements (used to define clusters for the IPM survey) were very similar between the conventional and transgenic subsamples, with mean scores on a seven point agree/disagree scale falling within a range of under .3 of a point. Therefore, it can be concluded that transgenic versus conventional growers do not perceive that they are more or less inclined to: change their cultural practices to reduce pest impacts on canola, make it a practice to rotate herbicides because of concerns with weed resistance, know where to obtain information or attend events promoting pest management, use thresholds, use precision application of pesticides, or to be more or less concerned with personal health, the environment or the effect on beneficial organisms when selecting a pesticide. Both groups are equally as confident in their pest management decisions. Consistent with this finding is the result that conventional growers, as transgenic growers, are divided equally amongst the three cluster groups identified through the IPM survey.


<< Back to Table of Contents

« back