News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Fields of genetically modified gold have farmers smiling 

Fields of genetically modified gold have farmers smiling

11 Sep, 2008 06:26 PM
The sea of yellow flowers sways lightly in the gentle breeze.

The bright yellow swathe across the paddock is a sharp contrast to the flat green landscape that surrounds it, stretching out to the distant Grampians.

These millions of yellow flowers in a Wimmera paddock seem tranquil and innocent.

In fact, they are one of the most controversial crops in Australian agriculture — genetically modified canola.

It is a crop that is quickly coming to life.

This year, for the first time, farmers in Victoria and NSW have been allowed to grow GM canola on a commercial scale.

More than 100 have sown GM canola on a total of about 10,000 hectares.

Andrew Weidemann is one of those embracing GM canola.

He is growing 10 different canola varieties on his farm at Rupanyup — five each of GM and non-GM.

So far the GM crop has exceeded his expectations.

Much of his 92 hectares of GM canola is now in flower and is on track for harvest in about 11 weeks.

Mr Weidemann has noticed distinct advantages to GM canola.

It germinates earlier, grows with more vigour than does the non-GM canola and, with its large, robust leaves, it out-competes weeds.

It requires one spraying of herbicide, compared with three for non-GM canola.

The herbicide it requires is claimed not to linger in the paddock or affect what is planted in the paddock next season, a problem that is sometimes associated with traditional non-GM varieties.

Mr Weidemann now hopes a third advantage, which he says has been noted in trials, comes to the fore.

GM canola has been found to produce a yield 20pc greater than that of non-GM canola.

"It's performed admirably.

"It's certainly showing what we'd known before, that it's got very good weed-control capabilities," he said.

"Given the amount of rainfall that we've had, it's really excelled to this point.

"And we hope that if we get good finishing rains, that we'll grow a fairly handy sort of a crop."

Mr Weidemann hopes that his GM crop will produce about 2.5 tonnes of seed per hectare.

That would be 20pc more productive than are the non-GM varieties.

To allow a detailed comparison of the 10 canola varieties on his farm, all were planted in the same paddock on the same day in early May, in distinct plots.

Yesterday about 20 farmers from South Australia visited Mr Weidemann's farm to inspect the GM canola.

South Australian law prohibits commercial production of GM canola.

Mr Weidemann said the GM canola puts Victoria on a competitive footing with other nations that have similar technology.

"It also means that we're able to reduce the impact of the amount of herbicide that we're using in our farming operation," he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Just watch the anti-GM lobby come out of the woodwork over this article. They will be shouting words like "Poison", "Cross-contamination" and others ad-nauseum. With the shrinking amount of arable land in the world, we need to utilise all of our food production technology. Rising world populations have every right to food security, just the same as the anti-GM lobbyists enjoy.
Posted by Trugger, 11/09/2008 10:28:25 PM
out of interest, what is the extra cost of growing the GM over say a hybrid? Do you have to pay a per hectare licence? and how much if so? or do they charge more per kg for the seed? Also out of interest what varieties are in the comparison?
Posted by Graingrower, 12/09/2008 8:55:54 AM
It intrigues me as to how they can claim a 20pc increase in yield already. This sounds very much like the articles coming from the GM Seed companies. If it doesn't rain the crop will be dismal just like all the non-GM crops except the fact that you have the issues of using harsher chemicals in the following year to clean your paddocks up as Glyphosate is out of the equation. The lesser use of chemicals this year is followed by more usuage next year and also I think "graingrower" would be shocked at the extra costs involved in growing GM if truth be known. I don't quite understand also the comment of being now on a competitive footing with other nations using the technology as it just means we have joined the masses so take what you get.
Posted by themule, 12/09/2008 11:15:31 AM
what happens when the seeds from the GM canola blow into the guy's paddock next door, specially if he's growing wheat... then the canola becomes a weed, how does the next door neighbour get rid of it?....also countires who have used this technology before(america) have been screaming at us for months not to use it, so why did we......
Posted by alex , 12/09/2008 5:59:38 PM
We have reached the crossroad where a hungry world is demanding ever more grain and to produce it we are poisoning our strams and lakes. What do we do - quit using fertilizers to save the coral reefs next to the outflow of poisoned rivers, or do we continue trying to feed an ever rising population no matter what the costs?

There is really just one solution to the problem namely chop the world's population back to 2 billion people. It would save the planet's oceans and fresh water lakes and streams as well as guaranteeing that no one will ever go hungry again. But we won't do it. A perpetual population of 2 billion is ideal for our survival. Go Lemmings GO!

Posted by jaimie, 13/09/2008 4:07:19 AM
The shrinking amount of arable land is because of land practice. Farmers are expecting high yield crops induced by artificial fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Works wonderfully short term - Long term it has and will continue to destroy land quality. There isn't a shortage of land - global warming (scientific theory) hasn't caused any to disappear under the sea yet. South America and our Asian partners are clearing land and significantly higher rates. What there is is a shortage of is maintenance of existing land because of monoculture instead of spelling, crop rotation, replenishing soil nutrients etc... GM crops will never fix those problem.
Posted by Gordons49, 13/09/2008 12:04:02 PM
I checked the blog hoping for some costings. I am neither for nor against GM. I just have questions about how the costs add up. My radar also went up at the early call of a 20% increase in yield. That’s why I asked the Q re varieties. If it is compared to TT varieties then it sounds like the normal spin that all seed companies use. Whether it is sorghum, canola or wheat each company produces data to show the most favourable comparison for the variety that they own. I would very much like to hear from Andrew re the costs. Regards Stuart
Posted by Graingrower, 14/09/2008 7:29:55 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Andrew Weidemann amid some of the genetically modified canola on his Rupanyup farm. It's really excelled to this point, he says of his controversial crop. Photo: Jason South
Andrew Weidemann amid some of the genetically modified canola on his Rupanyup farm. "It's really excelled to this point," he says of his controversial crop. Photo: Jason South
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: If a Federal election was held next weekend, for which party would you vote?

Labor
(12.2%)

Liberal
(38.2%)

Nationals
(27.5%)

Greens
(8.6%)

Family First
(1.7%)

Independent
(7.3%)

Undecided/Other
(4.5%)

Total Votes: 1040
Poll Date: 07 September, 2008

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...