Executive Summary continued -
return to previous page
Possible impact of GM technology on sugar beet grown in the UK
Profitability (as
measured by gross margins) in 2002 was within a range of £707/ha and
£988/ha. Sugar beet has generally been the most consistently profitable
arable crop in the UK, although the area planted is controlled by the EU
sugar regime production quotas. It accounted for about 4% of the total UK
arable crop area in 2002.
Total variable costs
(including haulage, harvesting and contracting) in 2002 were within a
range of £792/ha and £853/ha, of which herbicides accounted for between 8%
and 9% of costs. Average yields fall within a range of 50 tonnes/ha and
63 tonnes/ha.
GM
traits of relevance to the UK
The main GM sugar beet
trait likely to be commercialised in the next few years is GM herbicide
tolerance (to glyphosate). The potential applicability, adoption and
impact on UK farming profitability of this product is summarised in Table
d. For further details the reader should read section 5.3 and appendix
5.
Table d:
Summary of possible farm level economic impact of GM herbicide tolerant
(to glyphosate) sugar beet
|
Possible date for commercialisation in
the UK |
2006-2008 |
|
Impact on costs of production |
May reduce average level of expenditure
on herbicides – amount subject to debate/dispute. May (2003)
estimates that the likely herbicide costs for a farmer using herbicide
tolerant sugar beet would be between £26/ha to £40/ha. This compares
with the current average herbicide costs (including application) for
conventional sugar beet of £129/ha-£149/ha using May’s data,
£84-£104/ha using FARM data, £102/ha using ADAS data and £167/ha using
Velcourt data. Assuming a technology fee/seed premium of £20-£30/ha
(May 2003), this would result in an approximate net saving on
herbicide costs of £80/ha based on May’s data, £36/ha using FARM data,
£44/ha using ADAS data and £109/ha using Velcourt data;
|
|
Impact on yield |
Based on trials data and existing
analysis such as May 2003, Dewar et al 2000 & 2003 and Gianessi et al
2002, an increase in yield is likely. This could be within a range of
5% to 10%. At 5% (relative to an average yield of 50 tonnes/ha) this
is equal to an additional £75/ha in gross margin and at 10% it is
equal to an additional £150/ha |
|
Other possible cost savings |
Possible cost savings from reduced use
of crop consultants, greater management flexibility, adoption of
minimum tillage practices, improved rotational weed control and
reduced stubble control. These possible savings will vary by farm and
could be within the range of zero to £32/ha (these boundaries are
based on the respective views of FARM and May) |
|
Facilitation of low/non tillage
practices |
May re-inforce this husbandry trend
which offers scope for lower energy use, less ploughing and higher
profitability |
|
Increased management flexibility |
Efficient weed management is critical
to sugar beet because of its vulnerability at early stages of growth
to weed competition (can affect yield) and crops are typically sprayed
4 to 5 times to a strict timetable in line with weed stage
development. A move to a glyphosate based system (2 sprays) would
offer increased flexibility on timing |
Notes:
1. For
consideration of generic issues such as herbicide tolerant weed
resistance, volunteers, whether there is a market for GM sugar beet, non
GM price differentials and co-existence issues see sub-section above
2. The
assumed technology fee (May 2003) does not reflect actual fees – these are
not known and the values used are purely illustrative
Continue to page 8
