TABLE 3.
GM HT cotton summary of average gross farm income impacts 1996–2016 ($/hectare).
| Country | Cost of technology | Average gross farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology) | Aggregate income benefit (million $) | Type of benefit | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | 13–82 | 20 | 1,135.5 | Cost savings | Carpenter and Gianessi19 |
| Sankala and Blumenthal7,8 | |||||
| Johnson and Strom20 | |||||
| Also updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage | |||||
| South Africa | 13–32 | 33 | 4.8 | Cost savings | Personal communication from Monsanto South Africa and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage |
| Australia | 32–82 | 28 | 113.2 | Cost savings | Doyle et al28 |
| Monsanto Australia (personal communications) and updated to reflect changes in herbicide usage and prices | |||||
| Argentina | 10–30 | 43 | 183.9 | Cost savings and yield gain of +9% | Personal communication from Monsanto Argentina, Grupo CEO and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage |
| Brazil | 26–54 | 62 | 180.3 | Cost savings plus yield gains of +1.6% to +4% | Galveo15–17 |
| Mexico | 29–79 | 267 | 274.4 | Cost savings plus yield gains of +3% to +20% | Monsanto Mexico annual monitoring reports submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and personal communications |
| Colombia | 96–187 | 95 | 24.8 | Cost savings plus yield gains of +4% | Monsanto Colombia annual personal communications |
1. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, exchange rates, average seed rates, the nature and effectiveness of the technology (eg, second generation ‘Flex’ cotton offered more flexible and cost-effective weed control than the earlier first generation of HT technology) and values identified in different studies
2. For additional details of how impacts have been estimated, see examples in Appendix 1
3. References to Monsanto Argentina, Australia, South Africa and Colombia as sources of data – this is unpublished data provided to the authors by these companies on a yearly basis covering seed premium and typical herbicide treatments used on GM HT and conventional crops
4. Reference to Monsanto Mexico annual monitoring reports. These are unpublished, annual monitoring of crop reports that the company is required to submit to the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture, as part of post market monitoring requirements. This provides data on seed premia, cost of weed control and production and yields for GM HT cotton versus conventional to a regional level
5. Reference to changes in herbicide prices and usage – author estimates drawing on AMIS Global/Kleffmann data and other similar database sources eg, Kynetec (for the US) and extension services (eg, New South Wales Department of Agriculture in Australia)