GM Crops vs Organic Farming: Output Per Acre Comparison

[aquitaine]

How do GM crops (both current and potential in the near future) compare with organic in terms of output per acre? How does it compete with such methods as Fukuoka Natural Farming, and other forms of permaculture?

 

[aquitaine]

So no one knows?

 

[Monique]

You are asking for numbers, apparently no one has a good source for that.

 

[aquitaine]

If no one has numbers then a general assessment would be ok. Even an opinion would be welcome also.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If no one has numbers then a general assessment would be ok. Even an opinion would be welcome also.

Fine, here are ballpark figures. Don't take them as any more than that.
Genetically modified crops have yields 50% to 100% higher than traditional crops farmed in the modern style. Organic farms have yields of about 50% to 70% that of modern farms. Thus organically-grown, non-genetically modified crops have 25% to 50% that of genetically-modified crops grown in modern fashion.

 

[russ_watters]

Just in case it wasn't clear (it is covered in the numbers in CRGreathouse's post), there are actually two separate issues here:
GM vs non-GM crops
modern farming (with pesticides and fertilizers) vs. farming without 'unnatural' chemical aids.

 

[aquitaine]

Yeah, although I was aiming more towards organic farming instead of conventional, since the advantages over conventional are pretty clear.Thanks for the info.

 

[Sensible]

Came across this FYI
http://www.chinadialogue.net/articl...-GM-crops-are-not-the-answer-to-world-hunger-

With specific regard to the question of yields, all major GM crop varieties in cultivation have produced yields that are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, those of non-GM varieties.

Studies from 1999 to 2007 consistently show Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR) GM soya to have 4% to 12% lower yields than conventional varieties. Yields of GM soybeans are especially low under drought conditions. Due to pleiotropic effects, when stems split under high temperatures and water stress, GM soybeans suffer 25% higher losses than conventional soybeans. The “yield drag” – or yield suppression – of RR soya is reflected in flat overall soybean yields from 1995 to 2003, the very years in which GM soya adoption went from 0% to 81% of US soybean acreage. By one estimate, stagnating soybean yields in the US cost soybean farmers US$1.28 billion in lost revenues from1995 to 2003.

Only maize shows a persistent trend of yield increase into the biotech era, but even here the rate of increase is no greater after than before biotech varieties were introduced. For example, a rigorous, independent study conducted in the US under controlled conditions demonstrated that Bt maize (see “Is GM the answer to the food crisis”, Taige Li) yields anywhere from 12% less to the same as very similar conventional varieties.

 

[baywax]

Genetically modified livestock...

Several animal species have already been genetically modified, and at least eleven have been cloned, though some scientists doubt the health of those clones that survived to birth.

Some of these efforts are commercial, either for agribusiness or for sale directly to consumers as pets. Others are scientific experiments, usually defended as advancing, directly or indirectly, the cause of medicine for humans.

edit

The Roslin Institute, where the first mammal was cloned, maintains records of all published mammalian cloning experiments up to July 2002 - 50 papers detailing 68 experiments, with 386 surviving clones. They conclude that the "overall efficiency of cloning is typically between 0 and 3% (number of live offspring as a percentage of the number of nuclear transfer embryos), irrespective of the species, the donor cell type or technique." There is no evidence that efficiency has significantly improved since.

edit

"Pharming"

Cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, rabbits and pigs have been genetically modified with the aim of producing human proteins that are useful, generally as medicines. The gene transfer process is typically very inefficient, and cloning is seen as another way of propagating the GM animal.

A 1999 USDA report cited estimates that there was a $24 billion market for human proteins, and theoretically 600 transgenic cows could supply the worldwide demands for some drugs. In practice, however, several companies that have pursued this line have gone bust, and the profit potential seems less than it once did.

Genetic modification of animals in order to improve the prospects of organ transplants is also being investigated.

http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=386

 

[mgb_phys]

Remember as well that most commercial crops are already pretty heavily genetically modified as a result of centuries of careful breeding. I would expect GMO versions of wheat,maize etc to show the smallest advantage just because of the law of diminishing returns - there isn't much left to optimize.

 

[baywax]

Remember as well that most commercial crops are already pretty heavily genetically modified as a result of centuries of careful breeding. I would expect GMO versions of wheat,maize etc to show the smallest advantage just because of the law of diminishing returns - there isn't much left to optimize.

I think there's a difference between methodical agricultural breeding, hybrid grafting etc... over much time and transfecting a species with genes from a spider or anteater or with mutant genes resistant to "round-up" or with genes from "who knows where" that cause self-production of an insecticide.

 

[mgb_phys]

Yes there is a difference - I just meant that the biggest changes wouldn't be in intensively farmed crops because they have already been changed so much.

There is also a difference between the promised benefits of GMO (drought resistance, natural pest resistance) and what has been delivered (crops that can withstand, and need, 10x as much weedkiller or require a specific company manufactured fertilizer to grow)

 

[baywax]

Yes there is a difference - I just meant that the biggest changes wouldn't be in intensively farmed crops because they have already been changed so much.

Yes there's been so many millennia of agriculture to change the wheat and the barley. Did you know the average Sumerian, 7000 years ago, drank 1 gallon of beer a day?

There is also a difference between the promised benefits of GMO (drought resistance, natural pest resistance) and what has been delivered (crops that can withstand, and need, 10x as much weedkiller or require a specific company manufactured fertilizer to grow)

This is disheartening unless you have stock in herb/pesticides. Even then the implications show the potential for a scary monopoly and degradation of overall health.

 

[mgb_phys]

Yes there's been so many millennia of agriculture to change the wheat and the barley. Did you know the average Sumerian, 7000 years ago, drank 1 gallon of beer a day?

Now there's a solution to the middle east - everybody so pissed/hungover they can't fight.

 

[baywax]

Now there's a solution to the middle east - everybody so pissed/hungover they can't fight.

:rofl: I wish!