Biotechnology’s benefits for U.S. farmers
Apr 15, 2010 11:36 AM
Western Farm Press
American farmers are realizing higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm according to a recently released report from the National Research Council (NRC).
Specifically, the report notes, "(m)any U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits — such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields — compared with conventional crops." The report was commissioned and internally funded by NRC in order to evaluate the impact of GE crops on all U.S. farmers.
Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, BIO executive vice president for food and agriculture, said, "The NRC's report acknowledges what we have known all along: That genetically engineered (GE) crops provide significant environmental, economic, and social benefits, and they are an integral tool in achieving sustainable agricultural production.
"Decades of documented evidence demonstrate that agricultural biotechnology is a safe and beneficial technology that contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability.
Farmers choose biotech crops because they produce more yields on less land with less production costs. That means farmers get a greater financial return while using environmentally friendly farming practices. Read More
Human beings have been improving the crops and livestock where we source our food from for the past 10,000 years. Nothing we eat today looks like it did back then. Genetic engineering has been taking place that entire time in order to improve the food supply. Luckily for us, we can now do it with more accuracy and in a shorter period of time. Because of that, we produce more food, more efficiently, with less inputs and less impact than ever before. That’s reason to celebrate.
Showing posts with label crops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crops. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Something Dies For A Vegan Meal Too
Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: December 21, 2009
I stopped eating pork about eight years ago, after a scientist happened to mention that the animal whose teeth most closely resemble our own is the pig. Unable to shake the image of a perky little pig flashing me a brilliant George Clooney smile, I decided it was easier to forgo the Christmas ham. A couple of years later, I gave up on all mammalian meat, period. I still eat fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer. Food choices are often like that: difficult to articulate yet strongly held. And lately, debates over food choices have flared with particular vehemence.
In his new book, “Eating Animals,” the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times that people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said, Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “eternal Treblinka.”
But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.
“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said. Read More
When vegetarians or vegans try telling you that nothing had to die for their meal, you might mention that everything they will ever eat was once alive and then died. It drives them nuts when you do it, but that’s usually the case when logic is applied against an emotional argument. More than likely, they will use the tired argument that plants don’t have a central nervous system. It might not be like ours, but they can and do respond to stimuli. I have been accused of speciesism because I choose to eat meat, but a vegan diet isn’t any different. ~Troy
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: December 21, 2009
I stopped eating pork about eight years ago, after a scientist happened to mention that the animal whose teeth most closely resemble our own is the pig. Unable to shake the image of a perky little pig flashing me a brilliant George Clooney smile, I decided it was easier to forgo the Christmas ham. A couple of years later, I gave up on all mammalian meat, period. I still eat fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer. Food choices are often like that: difficult to articulate yet strongly held. And lately, debates over food choices have flared with particular vehemence.
In his new book, “Eating Animals,” the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times that people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said, Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “eternal Treblinka.”
But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.
“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said. Read More
When vegetarians or vegans try telling you that nothing had to die for their meal, you might mention that everything they will ever eat was once alive and then died. It drives them nuts when you do it, but that’s usually the case when logic is applied against an emotional argument. More than likely, they will use the tired argument that plants don’t have a central nervous system. It might not be like ours, but they can and do respond to stimuli. I have been accused of speciesism because I choose to eat meat, but a vegan diet isn’t any different. ~Troy
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Biotech's Contributions
Biotech crops making important contributions to food production & sustainable farming
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:44
PG Economics
www.pgeconomics.co.uk
In the light of ongoing world food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change debates, PG Economics has released three summary documents of the yield, income and environmental effects of biotech crops . These summaries are supplemented by more detailed examinations of these impacts in the latest report on the global socio-economic and environmental impacts of the technology 1996-2007 .
The three summaries document the real contribution of biotech crops to; improving global crop yields, increasing production (and estimated contributions to food security), improving farm income and reducing the environment ‘footprint’ of agriculture.
Key impacts are:
• Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year;
• A reduction in pesticide spraying (1996-2007) of 359 million kg (equivalent to 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union);
• There have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $10.1 billion in 2007 and $44.1 billion for the twelve year period. The farm income gains in 2007 is equivalent to adding 4.4% to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton;
• Of the total farm income benefit, 46.5% ($20.5 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production;
• Farmers in developing countries obtained the largest share of the farm income gains in 2007 (58%) and over the twelve year period obtained 50% of the total ($44.1 billion) gains. Developing country farmers have also seen the largest increases in farm income on a per hectare basis from using the technology;
• Since 1996, biotech traits have added 67.8 million tonnes and 62.4 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 6.85 million tonnes of cotton lint and 4.44 million tonnes of canola;
• The average yield gains across the global area planted to biotech insect resistant corn and cotton (1996-2007) were over 6% and 13% respectively. The highest yield gains have been experienced by developing country farmers;
• The additional production arising from biotech crops (1996-2007) has contributed enough energy (in kcal terms) to feed about 402 million people for a year (additional production in 2007 contributed enough energy to feed 88 million, similar to the annual requirement of the population of the Philippines);
• If GM technology had not been available to the (12 million) farmers using the technology in 2007, maintaining global production levels at the 2007 levels would have required additional plantings of 5.9 million ha of soybeans, 3 million ha of corn, 2.5 million ha of cotton and 0.3 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to about 6% of the arable land in the US, or 23% of the arable land in Brazil. Link
Here are some very interesting numbers that show how much modern agricultural techniques have improved our ability to produce food and fiber. With a limited amount of natural resources, specifically land, available on this planet, we must continue to improve our efficiency and productivity.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:44
PG Economics
www.pgeconomics.co.uk
In the light of ongoing world food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change debates, PG Economics has released three summary documents of the yield, income and environmental effects of biotech crops . These summaries are supplemented by more detailed examinations of these impacts in the latest report on the global socio-economic and environmental impacts of the technology 1996-2007 .
The three summaries document the real contribution of biotech crops to; improving global crop yields, increasing production (and estimated contributions to food security), improving farm income and reducing the environment ‘footprint’ of agriculture.
Key impacts are:
• Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year;
• A reduction in pesticide spraying (1996-2007) of 359 million kg (equivalent to 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union);
• There have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $10.1 billion in 2007 and $44.1 billion for the twelve year period. The farm income gains in 2007 is equivalent to adding 4.4% to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton;
• Of the total farm income benefit, 46.5% ($20.5 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production;
• Farmers in developing countries obtained the largest share of the farm income gains in 2007 (58%) and over the twelve year period obtained 50% of the total ($44.1 billion) gains. Developing country farmers have also seen the largest increases in farm income on a per hectare basis from using the technology;
• Since 1996, biotech traits have added 67.8 million tonnes and 62.4 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 6.85 million tonnes of cotton lint and 4.44 million tonnes of canola;
• The average yield gains across the global area planted to biotech insect resistant corn and cotton (1996-2007) were over 6% and 13% respectively. The highest yield gains have been experienced by developing country farmers;
• The additional production arising from biotech crops (1996-2007) has contributed enough energy (in kcal terms) to feed about 402 million people for a year (additional production in 2007 contributed enough energy to feed 88 million, similar to the annual requirement of the population of the Philippines);
• If GM technology had not been available to the (12 million) farmers using the technology in 2007, maintaining global production levels at the 2007 levels would have required additional plantings of 5.9 million ha of soybeans, 3 million ha of corn, 2.5 million ha of cotton and 0.3 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to about 6% of the arable land in the US, or 23% of the arable land in Brazil. Link
Here are some very interesting numbers that show how much modern agricultural techniques have improved our ability to produce food and fiber. With a limited amount of natural resources, specifically land, available on this planet, we must continue to improve our efficiency and productivity.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Challenging Times For Farming and Ranching Families
October 11, 2009
Decline in grocery food prices stretches to farmers' profits
by PHILIP BRASHER & DAN PILLER
Des Moines Register
Prices in the grocery store are down by 10 percent from last year, the Iowa Farm Bureau reports.
So are farmers' profits.The Farm Bureau's survey of food prices shows the fourth consecutive quarterly decline from 2008, when corn and soybean prices hit record levels and food processing companies and supermarket chains were warning of spikes in food prices.
Instead, commodity prices have come down. Prices for corn, soybeans and livestock are slightly more than half of what they were 12 months ago.
Not surprisingly, it's the farmers who now feel the squeeze."While the decline in global demand has helped bring prices down for shoppers, a combination of decreased demand and other factors has made things more difficult for farmers, particularly those who raise livestock," said Dave Miller, director of research and commodity services for the Iowa Farm Bureau.
"Despite the tremendous efficiency of the American farmer, the profit margins in farming are narrow, and there is a relentless cost-price squeeze. Narrow margins and high efficiency are reflected in the farmer's small share of the food dollar, 19 cents.
"American farmers are doing their part in keeping food affordable for consumers. But those tight margins also mean that farmers and their families are more susceptible to downturns in demand, like we've seen as a result of the weak economy."
Hog and cattle raisers have been losing money for as long as two years. Iowa State University warned that corn and soybean farmers may face losses at current crop prices. Link
It’s been a tough year for many people in agriculture. Whether you raise livestock or crops, the challenges of making ends meet has been particularly tough. With food shortages becoming a major challenge later in this century it’s hard to believe that prices can be so low right now. But one of the opportunities this brings to agriculture is that it gives us a chance and even more reason to educate consumers that family farm are still the ones growing their food in this country.
Decline in grocery food prices stretches to farmers' profits
by PHILIP BRASHER & DAN PILLER
Des Moines Register
Prices in the grocery store are down by 10 percent from last year, the Iowa Farm Bureau reports.
So are farmers' profits.The Farm Bureau's survey of food prices shows the fourth consecutive quarterly decline from 2008, when corn and soybean prices hit record levels and food processing companies and supermarket chains were warning of spikes in food prices.
Instead, commodity prices have come down. Prices for corn, soybeans and livestock are slightly more than half of what they were 12 months ago.
Not surprisingly, it's the farmers who now feel the squeeze."While the decline in global demand has helped bring prices down for shoppers, a combination of decreased demand and other factors has made things more difficult for farmers, particularly those who raise livestock," said Dave Miller, director of research and commodity services for the Iowa Farm Bureau.
"Despite the tremendous efficiency of the American farmer, the profit margins in farming are narrow, and there is a relentless cost-price squeeze. Narrow margins and high efficiency are reflected in the farmer's small share of the food dollar, 19 cents.
"American farmers are doing their part in keeping food affordable for consumers. But those tight margins also mean that farmers and their families are more susceptible to downturns in demand, like we've seen as a result of the weak economy."
Hog and cattle raisers have been losing money for as long as two years. Iowa State University warned that corn and soybean farmers may face losses at current crop prices. Link
It’s been a tough year for many people in agriculture. Whether you raise livestock or crops, the challenges of making ends meet has been particularly tough. With food shortages becoming a major challenge later in this century it’s hard to believe that prices can be so low right now. But one of the opportunities this brings to agriculture is that it gives us a chance and even more reason to educate consumers that family farm are still the ones growing their food in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)