Executive Summary continued -
return to previous page
Herbicide tolerant crops in
the rotation
It is likely that farmers
faced with any possible future option of, for example herbicide tolerant
wheat, oilseed rape and sugar beet would not choose to grow the varieties
containing the same trait in all crops (eg, glyphosate tolerance in all
three crops) but would use a mix of herbicide tolerant crops and
conventional crops (eg, glyphosate tolerant sugar beet, glufosinate
tolerant oilseed rape and conventional wheat). In this way this would
contribute to minimizing the onset of weed resistance and problems of
herbicide tolerant volunteers.
Convenience effects
One of the main benefits
cited by farmers who have used GM crops to date on a commercial basis has
been a ‘convenience’ benefit. Although often difficult to quantify, this
category of benefit includes additional management flexibility for choice
of crop and husbandry practices used, additional flexibility in timing of
operations (eg, when to spray crops), less time spent crop walking and
assessing pest or weed incidence, savings in use of machinery (eg, on
fuel) and improved production risk management (in other words less worry
about whether or not a pest attack may cause major losses to crop yield
and quality or less worry that failure to treat weeds with herbicides at a
critical and narrow time window will result in yield losses).
Case study
crop: oilseed rape
The parameters suggested
to the Strategy Unit for its quantitative (spreadsheet) analysis of
potential impact of GM technology on a case study crop of GM oilseed rape
containing hybrid vigour derived from GM technology and herbicide
tolerance (to glufosinate) are shown in Table f. Details of the rationale
for selecting this crop/traits and each parameter and boundary are
presented in section 5.
Table f:
Herbicide tolerant and GM hybrid winter oilseed rape: parameters for
quantitative analysis
|
Issue/variable |
Suggested boundaries for analysis |
|
Likely date of commercial availability
to UK farmers |
2005-2008 |
|
Oilseed rape farm level prices: general |
Forecast in five years time +8%
relative to 2002/03 levels. Boundaries: no change to + 12% |
|
GM versus non GM price differential |
No difference. Boundaries: 3% in
favour of GM (cleaner seed and higher oil content) to 3% in favour of
non GM (sold into human food uses) |
|
GM market potential |
Likely no problem in finding outlets –
major markets in non food use sectors (industrial oils, biofuels) |
|
Baseline farm gross margins before
assessing impact of technology: |
Adjust for price changes (see above)
and apply MTR changes to area payments (higher rate/tonne but
modulation applicable to year to be examined – eg, 19% for 2013)
|
|
Impact of GM technology on yield |
Assume +10%. Boundaries: +5% to +15% |
|
Impact on total variable costs of
production (excluding price of technology) |
Assume no change. Boundaries: a saving
of 5% to extra costs of 5% |
|
Longer term possible implications (5-10
years after adoption) of weed shifts/resistance and volunteers |
Amend impact on costs of production by
1% (ie, no change becomes +1%). Boundaries no change to total costs
of production to +2% |
|
Other impacts: convenience, impact on
rotation |
Difficult to quantify. Assume no
change (a conservative assumption). Boundaries: +1% to revenue to –1%
to revenue |
|
Co-existence implications and
compliance requirements (on GM producers) |
Assume additional costs involved for
compliance audit requirements (eg, adherence to SCIMAC type
guidelines) at +0.5% to variable costs. Boundaries zero to +1% on
total variable costs |
|
Co-existence implications for non GM
producers |
Assume zero provided that SCIMAC
separation distances are complied with. Upper boundary: none
suggested |
|
Cost of technology to farmer |
Assume +£15/ha on costs of production
(or +60% on seed cost). Boundaries: = +10/ha to +20/ha |
