WILL Australia's farmers fall for the charms of drought-resistant wheat, even if it's genetically modified? Faced with climate change and a growing food crisis, enthusiasts certainly hope such traits will help overcome aversion to GM technology.
Of 24 strains of GM wheat tested in field trials, two lines exceeded the yield of the non-GM variety by 20 per cent under drought conditions, according to German Spangenberg of the Victoria Department of Primary Industries in Melbourne, Australia. The results were presented last week at the Bio2008 convention in San Diego, California.
Environmental groups remain unconvinced. "The main driver of genetic engineering is to make it possible to patent crop strains. That won't help farmers in developing countries who need to keep back seeds for their next year's crop," says Louise Sales of Greenpeace Australia in Sydney.
Australian farmers may yet be persuaded. The forecast for this year's wheat crop has just been trimmed by 9 per cent because of dry conditions, although it may still be up by 10 million tonnes compared to last year's drought-devastated crop.
GM Organisms - Is GM the future? Learn more in our continually updated special report.
- From issue 2662 of New Scientist magazine, page 6. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
- Browse past issues of New Scientist magazine
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sat Jun 28 11:45:05 BST 2008 by Tom
GM crops have to be paid for every year - you cant grow your own seed corn.
The price will rise/fall every year to ensure maximum profit for the seed supplier, minimum for the grower.
This wont go anywhere to solving a 'world food crisis' - it will mean lower production in the long run as massive monoculture farms make higher profits and produce far less than can be achieved using mixed crops.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sat Jun 28 12:55:58 BST 2008 by Zolo
I agree that in an ideal world that a mixture of crops is better than an industrial monoculture. Diversity is a principle straight from the resilience of a natural ecosystem.
But if we are going to feed the majority of the world with industrial monocultures - per our current reality - better drought hardy varieties rather than crops that wont survive.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sat Jun 28 14:06:19 BST 2008 by Ronnie
Then don't buy the damn seed & stop your whining. What are you afraid of? Competition I think! Why can't we just have individuals decide if the expense is worth it? Unless you think its like cane toads? get out & kill the native wheat/lol. Ronnie
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sun Jun 29 06:42:14 BST 2008 by Bren
The concern is not that it will kill other wheat crops, it's that it will <i>contaminate</i> other wheat crops, as has happened in Canada with GM canola:
(long URL - click here)
Effectively, once GM is introduced, the choice of whether to grow it or not is taken out of the hands of the farmers, and the crops are put in the hands of the GM patent holders:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20071306-15987.html
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sat Jun 28 19:55:38 BST 2008 by Karl
<i>"GM crops have to be paid for every year - you cant grow your own seed corn"</i>
Yes, and the same applies to the alternative (hybrid corn). So nothing will change. Farmers don't build their own tractors either.
Monoculture vs mixed crops has nothing to do with GM, it's a separate issue entirely. I agree with you that monoculture has a lot of drawbacks, but I don't think productivity is one of them. If monoculture farms produce far less than mixed crops why wouldn't every farmer grow mixed crops? Do you think they're all that stupid? And how could the "far less productive" method make "higher profits"?
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sun Jun 29 01:16:09 BST 2008 by Zolo
"If monoculture farms produce far less than mixed crops why wouldn't every farmer grow mixed crops?"
Answer: Mechanical efficiency in industrial monocultures - especially in soil preperation, sowing and harvesting.
Mixed cropping is often more productive because it can fill each eco-niche more effectively than a monocultire (i.e beans and corn), but there has been no effective way developed to mechanically harvest polycultures - hence we have mainly monculture dominance. If we could develop an effective system for mechanically harvesting polycultures we would probably increase productivity of existing arable land substantially. Actually, a worthy goal.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sun Jun 29 06:17:27 BST 2008 by Karl
"Actually, a worthy goal."</i>
Agreed
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sun Jun 29 20:00:26 BST 2008 by Jeremy
You people are armchair pontificators who have probably never had a backyard garden let alone grown any crops. And you like italics to force your point across.
Most farms ARE "polycrop" farms (my god you do like to create new buzzwords). Ever heard of crop rotation? Just have a look at a typical farm in Michigan, they don't grow just one thing.
The anti-GM morons, while their concerns had a grain of legitimacy at one time, must face the evidence that GM crops have been found to be harmless and their efforts are hurting starving people in the third world. Like the ones in Zimbabwe (which used to be called Rhodesia before the anti-white revolution promulgated by these same anti-GM people).
Curious, isn't it, that being anti-GM can so accurately predict the other beliefs of its fanatical adherents.
Conventional breeding is also genetic "engineering" and has been practiced for millennia. So get over it and contribute to humanity for once.
Good comment about farmers not making their own tractors either.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sun Jun 29 23:18:38 BST 2008 by Zolo
This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Thu Aug 21 22:42:30 BST 2008 by Dennis Kamah
This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sat Jun 28 20:01:03 BST 2008 by Karl
"GM crops have to be paid for every year - you cant grow your own seed corn"
Exactly the same applies to the hybrid corn farmers have been growing for decades.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Sun Jun 29 05:14:35 BST 2008 by Daniel
I agree that GM crop won't help things because growers won't be able to keep their seed. But that is a business problem, not a scientific one. We shouldn't dismiss GM crop just because of their are people trying to profit from it. That just means that it needs to be regulated. There should be patent laws just like any other product that gives them exclusive right to inventor for a certain time to regain the cost of development, but eventually cheaper version will be introduced and make for a competitive, self regulating market. We can't throw science out the window that could save lives just because of some greedy CEOs.
Farmers Will Pay Again And Again
Fri Jul 04 06:06:24 BST 2008 by Farmersim
Please People! 20% of what, 1 kg or 8 tonnes?!?
Ok Then. . .
Sat Jun 28 11:52:09 BST 2008 by Tony Byron
FTA: "The main driver of genetic engineering is to make it possible to patent crop strains. That won't help farmers in developing countries who need to keep back seeds for their next year's crop," says Louise Sales of Greenpeace Australia in Sydney."
Louise Sales, or anyone else for that matter, is free to develop their own drought-resistant crops and give them and the patents away for free.
These crops are available because private companies saw a need for them and spent a great deal of time and money to develop them. Is it wrong for them to expect to make their investment back and some profit?
These Varieties Were Not Bio-engineered By Big Corporations. . . .
Sat Jun 28 12:37:44 BST 2008 by Zolo
Before everyone gets carried away with assumptions that these new bioengineered drought hardy wheat varieties are the sole domain of private corporations - take a look at the reality.....the development of these bio-engineered varieties were bred via public research facilities - not private.
The Bioscience Research Centre is a joint facility backed by the Victorian government and the La Trobe University.
(long URL - click here)
Sure, DuPont and Monsanto have their own drought tolerant variety programmes on the move, but this work in Victoria shows that this need not be confined to the private sector only.
New varieties of wheat have been developed by public funds for decades in Australia, and it seems that is continuing whether that is via standard or bio-engineered breeding methods.
But yes, we are going to need be careful that the new staple varieties, adapted to warmer and drier conditions, are not in the control of just a few corporations - whether they be standard or bioengineered varieties.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
