Host farmer is impressed by OSRpotential
Host farmer is impressed by OSRpotential
Backers of genetically
modified crops need more
growers to host
environmental trials in 2001
Charles Abel visited a north
Lincs grower who was a host
this year to find out
what is involved
GROWERS must back environmental studies of genetically modified crops if the industry is to understand the new technology and avoid being left behind as it is exploited by competitors all around the world.
That is the view of North Lincs grower Roger Douglas who farms 400ha (1000 acres) of combinable crops near Market Rasen, plus an organic unit in Warks.
This year he grew a 20ha winter rape trial and a similar sized spring rape study. Each field was split, with half in a GM herbicide tolerant variety and the other half a conventional type.
He is impressed by the scope for pesticide savings, simpler crop husbandry and environmental benefits where less herbicide is used and weed cover is managed with wildlife in mind.
He encourages more growers to get involved. "It would be very sad for the whole industry if people were not prepared to stand up and have trials on their farm."
Anti-GM pressure can be expected, he acknowledges "We have had letters and telephone calls running into double figures. I reply to every one, because Im interested and want to explain the technology. The more you talk the more they understand, even if they do not agree."
Direct action is a concern, but is not limited to GM crops, he says. "It could be to do with all sorts of things, from using agrochemicals to shooting, or driving large machinery through villages. We recently had 250 hunt protesters in the area. GM crops are not the only controversial issue in farming."
Local farmers have been impressed by the potential for using less herbicide and making fewer passes through the crops. "They can see the benefits and that it is not a disaster in the current year or following crops," says Mr Douglas.
Hosting a trial is not onerous, he adds. "The process is very structured. You could provide a site and never get involved with the detail. The contract explains the farmers obligations, access for the researchers and the return of harvested seed. It is very similar to a wheat seed contract."
Environmental results will not be known until a report goes to the governments scientific steering committee in autumn 2002. But the rigour of the study impressed Mr Douglas. "If the research is in favour there will be no doubt that the science is correct. The scientists are more pro the environment than the technology."
The longer term implications of bringing GM trials onto the farm are not a concern. "We grow for a range of markets and I am confident we will have no problems," says Mr Douglas.
He has already established a further 20ha winter rape trial and plans a similar sized spring rape trial for 2001. He urges other growers to get involved, to keep up with the technology and for the greater good of the industry.
Trials progress
Physically there was no difference between GM and conventional crops, says Mr Douglas. But weed control was simpler, cheaper and more effective in the GM areas.
The winter rape site after peas required just one 2 litre/ha dose of total herbicide Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) in November to control blackgrass, annual meadowgrass, cleavers and other broad-leaved weeds in the GM area. By contrast the conventional area needed a three-spray programme, he explains.
"The GM area was simple to manage and used less chemical, and simplicity is just what we need in our industry at the moment."
The spring rape site on black peat soil after wheat had a big weed burden including volunteer potatoes. Late drilling in wet conditions meant a poor crop, only justifying Laser (cycloxydim) in the conventional area. Weed control was poor. "We should have sprayed again, but the crop was not worth spending a lot on."
By contrast a single dose of 4 litres/ha of Liberty coped with the severe weed pressure in the GM area. "It killed all the potatoes, which was a big bonus, and left the crop immaculate."
All crops were desiccated with Roundup (glyphosate) pre-harvest, the GM herbicide tolerance gene providing no protection against the alternative total herbicide.
Shed rapeseed was encouraged to chit after harvest. The site was then cultivated two weeks later and disced and drilled with barley two weeks after that. Any remaining volunteers were sprayed off in the barley with an ipu/cmpp mix in early December. "It was no problem," says Mr Douglas.
GM trials offer farmers a good deal
Hard pressed growers are being urged to consider genetically modified crops as an alternative for spring sowing. With free seed, free herbicide and up to £1500/ha compensation, providing a trials site could be far more profitable than conventional cropping.
Environmental studies being conducted for the government by a research consortium led by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology require at least 30 sites each for spring rape, sugar beet, maize and fodder beet in 2001.
Members of the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops are urging growers to sign up. "We are looking for over 50 sites to choose from for each crop," explains Judith Jordan of GM developer Aventis.
Depending on crop growers receive compensation of £700-1500/ha. That covers the loss of crop from the GM area and a 50m buffer from the adjacent conventional crop. The rest of the conventional crop can be marketed as normal.
"The premium we are offering is well ahead of a good seed premium and totally guaranteed once the crop is growing," explains Ms Jordan.
Seed and total herbicide are supplied free and provided land is eligible area aid can be claimed. A further incentive is that the harvested crop does not need to be stored, dried or cleaned – the trial co-ordinator removing it from the site for destruction at its cost.
Interested farmers should contact SCIMAC reps Judith Jordan of Aventis (01277 301301) for spring rape and maize or Colin Merritt of Monsanto (01223 849338) for sugar beet and fodder beet.
A better understanding of GMcrops is vital, says Lincs grower Roger Douglas, seen here with a recently sprayed volunteer in winter barley sown after last years trial. Biggest difference in the main picture is between rape sown after peas (background) and cereals (foreground) rather than GMcrop (right) and conventional crop (left).
Trials progress
Physically there was no difference between GM and conventional crops, says Mr Douglas. But weed control was simpler, cheaper and more effective in the GM areas.
The winter rape site after peas required just one 2 litre/ha dose of total herbicide Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) in November to control blackgrass, annual meadowgrass, cleavers and other broad-leaved weeds in the GM area. By contrast the conventional area needed a three-spray programme, he explains.
"The GM area was simple to manage and used less chemical, and simplicity is just what we need in our industry at the moment."
The spring rape site on black peat soil after wheat had a big weed burden including volunteer potatoes. Late drilling in wet conditions meant a poor crop, only justifying Laser (cycloxydim) in the conventional area. Weed control was poor. "We should have sprayed again, but the crop was not worth spending a lot on."
By contrast a single dose of 4 litres/ha of Liberty coped with the severe weed pressure in the GM area. "It killed all the potatoes, which was a big bonus, and left the crop immaculate."
All crops were desiccated with Roundup (glyphosate) pre-harvest, the GM herbicide tolerance gene providing no protection against the alternative total herbicide.
Shed rapeseed was encouraged to chit after harvest.
The site was then cultivated two weeks later and disced and drilled with barley two weeks after that. Any remaining volunteers were sprayed off in the barley with an ipu/cmpp mix in early December. "It was no problem," says Mr Douglas.
GM trials offer farmers good deal
Hard pressed growers are being urged to consider genetically modified crops as an alternative for spring sowing. With free seed, free herbicide and up to £1500/ha compensation, providing a trials site could be far more profitable than conventional cropping.
Environmental studies being conducted for the government by a research consortium led by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology require at least 30 sites each for spring rape, sugar beet, maize and fodder beet in 2001.
Members of the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops are urging growers to sign up. "We are looking for over 50 sites to choose from for each crop," explains Judith Jordan of GM developer Aventis.
Depending on crop growers receive compensation of £700-1500/ha. That covers the loss of crop from the GM area and a 50m buffer from the adjacent conventional crop. The rest of the conventional crop can be marketed as normal.
"The premium we are offering is well ahead of a good seed premium and totally guaranteed once the crop is growing," explains Ms Jordan.
Seed and total herbicide are supplied free and provided land is eligible area aid can be claimed. A further incentive is that the harvested crop does not need to be stored, dried or cleaned – the trial co-ordinator removing it from the site for destruction at its cost.
• Interested farmers should contact SCIMAC reps Judith Jordan of Aventis (01277 301301) for spring rape and maize or Colin Merritt of Monsanto (01223 849338) for sugar beet and fodder beet.