"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
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/Farm...aniafinalrepor
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 to actual yeilds.

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.


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.
If we had the whole data set it would expect find some farmers than made
more profit using conventional herbicides than some farmer using RR beans
and round up. This was a study of results of what farmers had done it was
not a controlled study with paired plots and treatments.

A farmer that keeps his beans clean with a steel hoe and cultivation using
family labor will pocket more money per ha. than either group. unfortunately
he can't raise very many hectares of beans that way.

Farming is not a chemical experiment or computer program where you give two
farmers that seem to be very close to the same the same experiment and get
exactly the same results. There are a large number of decisions a farmer
makes that can have considerable changes in the out come of his crop.

Gordon