Transforming agriculture in Argentina: the role of genetically modified (GM) crops

Trigo, Eduardo; Eugenio, Jemimah Mae A.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139208475.010

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Improved weed control with the use of glyphosate in GR crops was also a major factor enabling the adoption of no‐tillage crop production to increase from 45 to 111 million ha between 1999 and 2009. 23, 30 There is often a very close correlation between the use of GR crops and no‐tillage crop production 31. Of course, GR crops do not prohibit tillage; tillage is still an option if needed for an agronomic purpose.…”

Section: Benefits Of Herbicide‐resistant Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits of herbicide‐resistant crops

Green

2012

Pest Management Science

156

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1996, genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops, primarily glyphosate-resistant soybean, corn, cotton and canola, have helped to revolutionize weed management and have become an important tool in crop production practices. Glyphosate-resistant crops have enabled the implementation of weed management practices that have improved yield and profitability while better protecting the environment. Growers have recognized their benefits and have made glyphosate-resistant crops the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. Weed management systems with glyphosate-resistant crops have often relied on glyphosate alone, have been easy to use and have been effective, economical and more environmentally friendly than the systems they have replaced. Glyphosate has worked extremely well in controlling weeds in glyphosate-resistant crops for more than a decade, but some key weeds have evolved resistance, and using glyphosate alone has proved unsustainable. Now, growers need to renew their weed management practices and use glyphosate with other cultural, mechanical and herbicide options in integrated systems. New multiple-herbicide-resistant crops with resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides will expand the utility of existing herbicide technologies and will be an important component of future weed management systems that help to sustain the current benefits of high-efficiency and high-production agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Benefits Of Herbicide‐resistant Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits of herbicide‐resistant crops

Green

2012

Pest Management Science

156

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…( 2002 ) Kirsten and Gouse ( 2002 ) James ( 2003 ) Honduras 23.8 N/a N/a Falck Zepeda et al. ( 2009 , 2012 ) Mexico N/a N/a 11.0 Traxler andGodoy-Avila ( 2004 ) Monsanto Mexico annual cotton monitoring reports Argentina 6.1 N/a 30.0 Trigo ( 2002 ) Trigo and CAP ( 2006 ) Qaim and De Janvry ( 2002 , 2005 ) Elena ( 2006 ) Philippines 18.0 N/a N/a Gonsales ( 2005 ) Gonsales ( 2009 ) Yorobe ( 2004 ) Ramon ( 2005 ) Spain 11.1 N/a N/a Brookes ( 2003 , 2008 ) Gomez-Barbero et al. ( 2008 ) Riesgo et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 2010 ) +7% examining impact over the period 1996–2010. Canada - no studies identified – as US - impacts qualitatively confirmed by industry sources (annual personal communications) Argentina +9% all years to 2004, +5.5% 2005 onwards Average of reported impacts in first 7 years, later revised downwards for more recent years to reflect professional opinion James ( 2003 ) cites 2 unpublished industry survey reports; one for 1996–1999 showing an average yield gain of +10% and one for 2000–2003 showing a yield gain of +8%, Trigo ( 2002 ) Trigo and CAP ( 2006 ) +10%, personal communication estimates average yield impact since 2005 to be lower at between +5% and +6% Cost of technology drawn from Trigo ( 2002 ) and Trigo and CAP ( 2006 ), ie, costed/priced at same level as US From 2007 based on Trigo and industry personal communications None as maize crops not traditionally treated with insecticides for corn boring pest damage Philippines +24.6% to 2006, 2007 onward +18% Average of 3 studies used all years to 2006. Thereafter based on Gonsales ( 2009 ) Gonsales ( 2005 ) found average yield impact of +23% dry season crops and +20% wet season crops; Based on Gonsales ( 2005 ) & Gonsales ( 2009 ) – the only sources to break down these costs.…”

Section: Gm Ir Corn (Targeting Corn Boring Pests) 2015mentioning

confidence: 94%

Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2015

Brookes

Barfoot

2017

GM Crops & Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an assessment of the value of using genetically modified (GM) crop technology in agriculture at the farm level. It follows and updates earlier annual studies which examined impacts on yields, key variable costs of production, direct farm (gross) income and impacts on the production base of the 4 main crops of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. The commercialisation of GM crops has occurred at a rapid rate since the mid 1990s, with important changes in both the overall level of adoption and impact occurring in 2015. This annual updated analysis shows that there continues to be very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $15.4 billion in 2015 and $167.8 billion for the 20 year period 1996–2015 (in nominal terms). These gains have been divided 49% to farmers in developed countries and 51% to farmers in developing countries. About 72% of the gains have derived from yield and production gains with the remaining 28% coming from cost savings. The technology has also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the 4 main crops, having, for example, added 180 million tonnes and 358 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid 1990s.

show abstract

“…(2009, 2012) Mexico N/a N/a 10.0 Traxler et al. (2001) Monsanto Mexico annual cotton monitoring reports Argentina 6.2 N/a 30.0 Trigo ( 2002 ) Trigo and Cap ( 2006 ) Qaim and De Janvry ( 2002 , 2005) Elena (2001) Philippines 18.3 N/a N/a Gonsales ( 2005 ) Gonsales (2008) Yorobe ( 2004 ) Ramon ( 2005 ) Spain 10.7 N/a N/a Brookes ( 2003 and 2008) Gomez-Barbero and Rodriguez-Corejo ( 2006 ) Riesgo et al. ( 2012 ) Uruguay 5.5 N/a N/a As Argentina (no country-specific studies available and industry sources estimate similar impacts as in Argentina) India N/a N/a 33.0 Bennett et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 2010 ) +7% examining impact over the period 1996–2010. Canada - no studies identified – as US - impacts qualitatively confirmed by industry sources (annual personal communications) As identified in studies to 2008 and onwards based on weighted seed premia according to sale of seed sold as single and stacked traited seed As identified in studies to 2005 and in subsequent year adjusted to reflect broad cost of ‘foregone’ insecticide use Argentina +9% all years to 2004, +5.5% 2005 onwards Average of reported impacts in first 7 years, later revised downwards for more recent years to reflect professional opinion James ( 2003 ) cites 2 unpublished industry survey reports; one for 1996–1999 showing an average yield gain of +10% and one for 2000–2003 showing a yield gain of +8%, Trigo ( 2002 ) Trigo & Cap ( 2006 ) +10%, Trigo (2007 and 2008) personal communication estimates average yield impact since 2005 to be lower at between +5% and +6% Cost of technology drawn from Trigo ( 2002 ) and Trigo & Cap ( 2006 ), ie, costed/priced at same level as US From 2007 based on Trigo and industry personal communications None as maize crops not traditionally treated with insecticides for corn boring pest damage Philippines +24.6% to 2006, 2007–11 +18% Average of 3 studies used all years to 2006. Thereafter based on Gonzales et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2013

Brookes

Barfoot

2015

GM Crops & Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an economic assessment of the value of using genetically modified (GM) crop technology in agriculture at the farm level. It follows and updates earlier annual studies which examined economic impacts on yields, key costs of production, direct farm income and effects, and impacts on the production base of the 4 main crops of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. The commercialisation of GM crops has continued to occur at a rapid rate since the mid 1990s, with important changes in both the overall level of adoption and impact occurring in 2013. This annual updated analysis shows that there continues to be very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $20.5 billion in 2013 and $133.4 billion for the 18 years period (in nominal terms). These economic gains have been divided roughly 50% each to farmers in developed and developing countries. About 70% of the gains have derived from yield and production gains with the remaining 30% coming from cost savings. The technology have also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the 4 main crops, having added 138 million tonnes and 273 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid 1990s.

show abstract

Transforming agriculture in Argentina: the role of genetically modified (GM) crops

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

The benefits of herbicide‐resistant crops

The benefits of herbicide‐resistant crops

Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2015

Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2013

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About