An Agronomic and Economic Assessment of Transgenic Canola

3. Case Studies

Case studies were selected from each of the Canola Council of Canada Production Centre areas. Producers growing both transgenic and conventional canola were contacted. A pre-screening determined if they grew at least 80 acres of transgenic and conventional varieties, had records for a minimum of three years (hopefully four), and would be willing to provide us detailed information.

A total of 13 case studies were completed. Participants were interviewed in-person and questioned about their farm management, their agronomic practices, and environmental and social implications and concerns. Financial records were also provided by the case study participants.

3.1 Description Of Case Study Operations

Management decision experience by case study participants ranged from 5 to 36 years, with an average of 22.4 years. The average age of the principal manager was 45 years with a range from 29 to 61 years. Seven of the thirteen case studies were structured as family corporations, four as partner-ships, and two as sole proprietorships. All of these were primarily cropping operations, with seven producing cereals and oilseeds, and an additional six including forage production, with all but one producing pulses.

The average land base consisted of 1,674 owned acres and 833 leased. Approximately 95.7% was cultivated for crops, 1.6% for hay and forage, and 2.6% was non-cultivated. On average, the participants reported 19.2 years of experience growing canola and 4.4 years of experience growing transgenic canola.

The primary source for information relative to varieties and weed and pest management was identified as input suppliers. Organizations and trade management associations were identified as good sources of information relative to varieties, marketing, production, and for weed and pest management. Basic and applied research provided information on production. Government agencies were identified as primary sources of information on crop rotations and water and soil conservation. Table 3.1 identifies the major sources of canola information by specific area.

The decision to grow transgenic canola was primarily due to weed control, as identified by all participants. Other reasons included yield (7 out of 13), fit into the tillage/seeding system (6 out of 13) and economics (5 out of 13). The major advantages of growing transgenic canola were attributed to weed control (all participants), diversification of canola (8 out of 13), crop rotation (7 out of 13), risk reduction (7 out of 13), and yield (5 out of 13). Producers commented that the cost of herbicides was lower, for transgenics, better weed control was possible, no-till helped moisture conservation, and transgenics allowed a wider window for chemical application.

The most prevalent disadvantage of growing transgenic canola was reported to be the TUA. Several participants did experience higher costs per acre and several also felt that the greatest disadvantage of growing transgenic canola was the negative public opinions. Responses identifying disadvantages were as follows:

Disadvantages Growing Transgenic Varieties

All of the respondents reported no technological problems when they started growing transgenics and that it was fairly easy to adopt. Six out of 13 participants indicated they had problems with weed resistance prior to growing transgenic canola. Only two of the six experienced weed resistance since growing transgenic canola. In one instance, Roundup Ready canola was found to be another weed on the farm. In another instance, weed resistance was believed to be a lesser problem. The other four participants reported successful control of millet and wild oats, with a more diverse selection of chemicals available to help avoid resistance problems. Of the seven participants who reported no weed resistance problems before growing transgenic canola, only one commented that they have some concern with volunteer canola.

Six out of thirteen participants indicated that volunteer canola management has been more difficult since they started to grow transgenic canola. Two participants had difficulty with canola in pea crops and others relied on products like 2, 4-D for spring burn-off.

Eleven participants indicated they were seeding earlier in the spring, at least partly due to planting a transgenic variety. The earlier seeding provided better opportunity for weed control. Benefits of seeding earlier were also attributed to higher yields, better weed control, earlier harvesting for risk management, an ability to spread the work load over the growing season, conservation of soil moisture, and avoiding summer heat and petal blast. Four participants indicated that transgenics fit well into fall seeding.

In a comparison of conventional and transgenic canola systems, most participants indicated transgenic was a better fit with their whole system. There was optimism relative to its yield potential. Transgenics simplified weed control and allowed more flexible rotations. Two participants did indicate however, that once you include the TUA, there was little cost advantage to transgenics.

Five participants felt that transgenic canola increased their herbicide use, while three felt the herbicide use had not changed. They felt the actual active ingredients were the same however, the chemicals were not nearly as harsh with transgenic canola. Four participants indicated that herbicide use had decreased. They were relying on a number of herbicides for conventional canola. Ten participants did indicate that transgenic canola allowed more flexibility in chemical choice. Transgenic canola was identified as being closer to the integrated pest management system. Five participants felt that canola acreage, at least in part, increased due to planting of transgenic varieties. This was attributed to the flexibility in rotations (down to 3 years).

Seven participants indicated their average yield per acre was higher with transgenics than conventional. Better genetics, weed control, more moisture, and the ability to grow B. napus varieties (Argentine) contributed to this yield increase. Four participants felt there was no notable difference between the yield of transgenic and conventional canola. One participant experienced 5 to 7% less yield with transgenics.

Given a choice between transgenic and conventional canola systems, twelve of the thirteen participants indicated they preferred transgenic varieties. The convenience factor, fit with current system, weed control aspects, and future yield potential, all contributed to their decision. Only one participant favoured the conventional system because of the TUA, concern with weed resistance, the additional cost of broadleaf herbicides, and volunteer canola.

3.2 Agronomics Practices

3.2.1 Variety Selection and Acreage of Production

Over the four year period from 1997 to 2000, case study producers selected numerous canola varieties from three categories: conventional, transgenic and SMART trait. As a percent of the varieties grown, conventional canola has trended downward from 48% to 21%, while the transgenic varieties have trended from 30% in 1997 to 55% in 2000. SMART trait varieties grown, along with transgenic and/or conventional varieties, represented 21 to 24% of the varieties chosen during the four years. Figure 3.1 presents these trends. Producers growing SMART trait varieties were not included in the survey where it was the dominant crop grown.

Figure 3.1
Percent of Varieties Grown

Case study producers seeded 6,241 acres of canola in 1997, 7,872 acres in 1998, 7,869 acres in 1999, and 8,177 acres in 2000. During these production years, transgenic canola acres went from 44.5% of total canola acres in 1997, to 68.9% in 2000. Conventional canola acres decreased from 32.5% of total acres in 1997 to 12.8% in 2000. Figures for SMART trait canola were 23.0% in 1997 to 18.3% in 2000. The yearly percentage of total acres for each category are depicted in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2
Percent of Acres Grown

3.2.2 Tillage and Planting Practices

Most of the case study producers were practicing minimum tillage with many using direct seeding equipment. Eight producers indicated they have not changed their tillage and planting practices over the past four years. Four producers indicated they have changed to direct seeding, while one producer indicated in 2000 he increased tillage to avoid spring frost damage to his canola crop. Two producers changed to direct seeding in 1998, while one changed in 1997. One producer reported ongoing changes related to a variety of field conditions on rented land.

Tillage practices differed between conventional and transgenic varieties by at least one tillage pass, which was attributed to the incorporation of pre-emergent herbicides such as Edge for conventional canolas.

Other differences in tillage practices depended on fertilizer application. The number of tillage passes depended on whether fertilizer was placed with the seed or separately, such as fall banding or an anhydrous application. In minimum or no-till operations, fertilizer is usually knifed in to minimize soil disturbance in the fall.

Heavy harrows/packers were used by ten of the producers as part of their tillage regime.

Tillage costs varied from case study to case study. Harrowing costs were estimated to be $2.50 to $3.00, depending if it was light or heavy harrowing. Deep tillage was estimated to cost $4.00 to $6.00 which also represented the cost of banding fertilizer. Seeding costs varied from $5.00 to $10.00 per acre.

One producer reported that fewer operations were required with transgenics, leading to lower investment in equipment and an overall lower cost of production.

Changes in tillage practices were mainly related to the merits of conservation tillage, although the growing of transgenic canola fit well with minimum tillage and direct seeding.

3.2.3 Fertilization Practices

The application of fertilizer over the past four years has not changed significantly according to case study producers in this time frame. Only one of the case study producers indicated that he changed to fall banding of fertilizer in 1999 as an effort to conserve spring moisture. Another producer changed in 1997 to fall application of fertilizer because with his change to transgenic varieties, he no longer needed to incorporate herbicide before seeding in the spring.

The most common (six producers) application was anhydrous ammonia in the fall with a granular blend application in the spring either broadcasted or placed with the seed. Five of the case study producers applied all nutrients, usually in granular form, in the fall. One producer applied granular fertilizer in the fall on stubble fields and in the spring on summer fallow fields. Two producers broadcast nitrogen in the fall and placed the balance of nutrients with the seed.

One producer increased the fertilizer application rate by 25% on his Liberty Link crop.

Only two producers indicated they had tried micronutrients. One tried boron on a 100 acre field and another tried a phosphate boost in a blend.

Application costs varied from $3.00 per acre for anhydrous and broadcast application to $6.00 per acre for fall banding using a cultivator with sweeps.

In some cases the adoption of transgenic varieties has resulted in a change to fall placement of fertilizer. With transgenics there is no need to incorporate herbicide, thus eliminating a tillage pass. In order to conserve moisture, the tillage pass in the spring is usually eliminated, shifting the accompanying fertilizer application to the previous fall. Other than this change, most producers reported that the same fertilizer application was carried out for transgenic and conventional canolas.

3.2.4 Weed Management Practices

A common herbicide program for conventional varieties was an application of pre-emergent Group 3 chemicals such as Edge or Treflan, usually incorporated in the fall. A further application of a Group 1 and 2 herbicide such as Muster Gold, or Poast, a Group 1 herbicide, was applied in crop to control the weed population. With the change to transgenic varieties, producers reduced their use of pre-emergent chemicals and applied the appropriate chemicals such as Roundup and Liberty in-crop. Pre-seed burn-off and fall control with Roundup was a very common practice, particularly with producers minimizing tillage. Volunteer transgenic canola was usually controlled with 2, 4-D products. Noxious weeds, such as thistles, were controlled using spot applications.

Impacts of changes in weed management practices included better weed control, better yields, and less dockage. Direct seeding and in-crop weed control allow for earlier seeding (no need to wait for weed growth before seeding), increasing the probability that the crop will not flower during the hottest days of the summer.

3.2.5 Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Producers in the more southern parts of the prairies are minimizing tillage and changing to direct tillage in order to conserve moisture. With transgenic varieties, producers are eliminating the incorporation of pre-emergent chemicals and controlling weeds with in-crop applications. This change prompted one producer to change the banding of fertilizer to the fall to conserve spring moisture. Producers seeding transgenic varieties reported they achieved higher yields because of more available moisture resulting from better weed control and earlier seeding. Four producers who moved to direct seeding did so to conserve moisture. One producer commented that with transgenics, less tillage is required, resulting in the soil being firm and moist at seeding rather than dry, loose and prone to erosion. He seeds about a week earlier using transgenic canola. Another producer indicated that it is easier to get the crop established with transgenic varieties, and there is less risk of erosion and no reseeding. With less tillage, another producer indicated there would be more organic matter in the soil.

Two producers indicated they were increasing fall tillage in order to raise soil temperature in the spring.

3.2.6 Harvest Methods and Timing

There has been little change in harvesting methods or timing according to most of the case study producers. Some producers indicated that the earlier seeding had resulted in an earlier harvest due to not having to wait for spring weed growth and direct seeding. This earlier seeding has allowed for the growing of Argentine varieties which usually require swathing.

3.3 Financial Performance

Many agricultural technologies are promoted based on their biological and environmental benefits, assuming they are also financially and economically feasible. The case study participants were asked to provide financial details relative to their canola cropping operations to help ensure that the appropriate indicators are selected for the economic analysis in the modeling component of this study. These cases studies also served to further identify extenuating circumstances and the potential range of variation that may be anticipated in the financial analysis.

Financial results for each case study participant for four years (1997 through 2000) for revenue and variable and other expenses was gathered. Caution is prescribed in interpretation of these results:

·Comparison between operations – Given the expansive area (western prairies) represented by the thirteen participants, it is reasonable to assume that the diverse ecosystems, soil types and climatic conditions will introduce variability into yield and input requirements.

·Comparison within the operation – Few case studies produced both conventional and transgenic varieties for each of the four years under examination. Even when data relative to the production of both types of canola are available, variation is experienced due to differing conditions between the fields.

Based on the individual case study data, a summary table of production, revenue, and costs was generated showing the averages and range (minimum and maximum) for key financial variables. This is included in Appendix 3.

The range demonstrates the degree of variability experienced by the participants. This is especially evident in yield estimates. With the exception of 2000, conventional varieties exhibited greater variability in yield than transgenic canola.

The number of case studies providing information varied each of the four years from 1997 to 2000 inclusive (see Appendix 3). The following tables provide averages for yields, gross revenues, variable expenses, total expenses, a gross margin, and a profit for the transgenic and conventional canola systems for the four year period. For the financial summary, SMART trait varieties were not included so as to be consistent with the balance of the study. The information throughout the case studies has not been aggregated to a total population. This is because it is too small a sample and not representative of the total population.

The transgenic varieties out-yielded conventional varieties over this four year period for the case studies.

The data suggest these case study participants experienced higher gross revenue from production of transgenic canola, but greater variable costs. The advantage in revenue compensated cost increases for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. Revenue gain in 2000 did not compensate for the increase in expenses.

It is obvious the variability of gross revenue and gross margin is significant from year to year and between conventional and transgenic canola varieties. Refer to the detailed and summary financial information in Appendix 3.

3.4 Environmental And Social Aspects

Four of the thirteen participants expressed concern over production of a transgenic crop. In one case, the concern was expressed by an organic producer. Another concern came from neighbours who did not want transgenics in their fields. Concern was also expressed by urban dwellers and animal rights people. All of the participants believed that the public did not understand the use and production of transgenic crops. It was suggested that communications in the school system would create greater awareness of the safety of canola and canola oil.

It was believed by six participants that transgenic canola had a positive effect on the business community in the region. It resulted in more employment (consultants, seed representatives). Ten participants expressed concern over the control companies have over seed and chemicals. Many did not agree with the TUA and perceived the companies as reducing competition.

None of the participants felt that transgenic canola had impacted their ability to market canola. Some did however, indicate some reservation about the future market.

Three participants indicated they felt the public should be aware of the different methods of weed control for transgenic canola versus conventional canola. It was felt that all the chemical used for transgenic varieties had gone through proper testing and their use contributed to food safety, less tillage and soil erosion, thus better long term health of the environment. Only two participants felt that all transgenic canola products should be labelled. Others felt there were too many unknowns and labelling would give the consumers the impression there was something wrong with the product. Costs relative to labelling were also a concern.

Two participants felt that transgenic canola increased the amount and complexity of decisions relative to their operation. Timeliness was most important. Two participants felt that the amount of decisions had remained about the same. The remainder felt that the complexity had been reduced, providing greater freedom of choice for chemicals and crops.

Nine participants felt that canola had altered their soil conservation. They were able to seed into stubble, thereby ensuring a definite commitment to minimum till. Glyphosate use also allowed less tillage. The remainder of the participants indicated that soil conservation was a long term endeavour and transgenic canola was only a small contributing factor. Others had committed to a system of soil conservation and transgenics just fit into the system.

Seven participants indicated that production of transgenic canola reduced the amount of fuel used. Less working and cultivations required less fuel. The remainder felt that the fuel use was about the same.

Although most participants felt transgenic canola production had no effect on the buffer zone to water courses on their farms, one participant felt that using less tillage meant less soil was being washed into water courses and the banks were more stable. Another respondent indicated the use of burn-off meant that more fibre was still there and drainage and ridge patterns were less altered by production with transgenic canolas.

Four respondents indicated they envisioned expansion of canola acres due to transgenic varieties. Transgenics were viewed as providing less risk, better weed management, and more rotation options. The remainder of the participants were under the impression that the change had already occurred. Rotation was perceived to have been pushed to its maximum. Pricing would prohibit expansion and the market for non-genetically modified canola was perceived to be developing at a greater pace.

In general, the move toward integrated pest management often results in reducing the use of chemicals. Eight of the thirteen participants felt they now use less chemicals on their farm operation. Fields are cleaner the following year as well. Five participants did feel they had increased chemical use attributed to the practice of less tillage, however, the chemical used was perceived to be safer.