In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to farmers
than in the western world.

Romania has a very serious weed problem

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world.

Except that no-one in Europe will buy GM soya beans...

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3 times
conventional methods of cultivation.
http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalreport.pdf

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3
times
conventional methods of cultivation.

http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalreport
..pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans. But why would the author want to do that?
I mean, he is not funded by Monsanto or anything, is he?

Ooops. I see the author is actually bought by Monsanto, and
apparently 100 per cent, to produce this report. And suffering
no peer review, by golly. Well, then it perhaps all makes sense.

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:lpsukv0gihmu8ebbej1b08h3si4h4rrdb6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3
times
conventional methods of cultivation.

http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalreport
.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems. <snip

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:lpsukv0gihmu8ebbej1b08h3si4h4rrdb6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3
times
conventional methods of cultivation.


http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalrepor
t
.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems. <snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

Btw ;^) Did you notice there are indication in the report that the
author may have left out at least one datapoint with no documentation
at all why he did it?

I am referring to the footnote, in which the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.

http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalrepor
t.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems. <snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

As I read the study it is compares actual costs <snip

..> the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.


I will see if there is an more detailed information on this report.
Taking one figure in a study has little meaning in a study that covers many
farms. The ranges of savings, yield increases and margin increases were
rather wide.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:21:55 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalrepo
r
t.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie,
using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer
herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions
under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the
most
weed problems. <snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

As I read the study it is compares actual costs <snip

Oh,so. How come, then, that the author is apparently not in a position
to calculate true average actual costs, seeing he uses midpoints
in his cost ranges as stand-ins? (indeed without making a note of it)

..> the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.


I will see if there is an more detailed information on this report.
Taking one figure in a study has little meaning in a study that covers
many
farms. The ranges of savings, yield increases and margin increases were
rather wide.

It's such a sick excuse to say that ranges reported by the author
are rather wide, when the matter seems to be, that ranges would
have been reported even wider if he had not discarded data points.

Perhaps it's just me, but you do not seem to be particularly
concerned, if this author has discarded data that is in
disagreement with his findings. It's almost like you don't care. ;^)

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:5734lvsammfd2nig9467p4a5clc6o716lc@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:21:55 GMT, "Gordon Couger"

As I read the study it is compares actual costs <snip

Oh,so. How come, then, that the author is apparently not in a position
to calculate true average actual costs, seeing he uses midpoints
in his cost ranges as stand-ins? (indeed without making a note of it)

Where do I say he discarded data points.

I said if we as the whole set of data point that the average were
calculated from we would probably see wide variations in them.

I don't expect that anyone in Europe would pay for the study. Simply because
a researcher contract to do a study he does not sell his soul to the
company. This is business not ecology we are discussing.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, in sci.agriculture you wrote:

I don't expect that anyone in Europe would pay for the study. Simply
because
a researcher contract to do a study he does not sell his soul to the
company. This is business not ecology we are discussing.

In this case the author has very much sold his soul to the biotech
companies. Just do a Google search for the author and you'll see how
many reports he has produced praising GM crops, with no reports
critical of GM crops.

regards
Marcus

on the grounds that we have seen you post plenty of posts critical of GM but
none at all in favour, following your categorisation should we ask who you
have sold your soul to?

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:03:43 +0100, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

on the grounds that we have seen you post plenty of posts critical of GM
but
none at all in favour, following your categorisation should we ask who
you
have sold your soul to?

No - because I don't receive money for my work against GM crops.

who speak in favour of biotech invariably receive money for doing so.

regards
Marcus

No - because I don't receive money for my work against GM crops. Those
who speak in favour of biotech invariably receive money for doing so.