Comments on: Indian Farmer Suicide – The Bottom Line http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/ Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:55:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ewan Ross http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1436 Ewan Ross Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:27:37 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1436 Jack - I don't believe that Bt cotton makes the survival conditions worse for indian cotton farmers. If you look at the costs you cite in any of the various reports quoted in the above blog discussion (or possibly in other blog discussions - this issue is a pretty big sticking point for opponents of GMOs) you will note that pesticide costs are actually lower for farmers who utilize Bt cotton, and that fertilizer costs remain the same between Bt and non-Bt users - it is however true that the seeds themselves do cost more - however it is arguable that the increased cost of the seed is not actually that significant when compared to all other running costs of the farm operation Looking at the cost analysis in http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2006-09-04_vgandhi.pdf seed pricing appears to be about the only significantly higher cost, with pesticide useage being the only significantly lower cost - by region it could be argued that there is a higher fertilizer cost in Maharashtra aswell as irrigation, and that in Tamil Nadu the fertilizer cost appears to be significantly lower for Bt cotton as compared to non-Bt. In all regions other than Maharashtra the increase in cost of operations is roughly equivalent to the price difference of the seeds. And in all regions the average profitability of Bt as compared to non-Bt is in excess of 50% (57% being the lowest, 300+% being the highest) I'm going to assume that owing 30000 Ru due to a failed crop is not that much different to owing 33000 Ru due to a failed crop (and nobody has made any claims that Bt crops are immune to crop failure) whereas getting 32000 Ru as compared to 18000 Ru at the end of the season is probably quite a significant improvement in life - as such I dont see, that from these numbers, one can conclude that it is the cost, or added cost, of Bt which is a major factor in suicides - unless you are ascribing the added stress of signing a contract as a major factor? On pricing - that is an issue that faces every farmer - however if your yield is 50-100% higher due to the use of transgenics you will still make 50-100% more money than you would have otherwise regardless of how your crop is priced (meaning that prices would really have to hit rock bottom for the 10% cost increase of transgenics to be the decisive factor in whether or not you made a profit) Jack – I don’t believe that Bt cotton makes the survival conditions worse for indian cotton farmers. If you look at the costs you cite in any of the various reports quoted in the above blog discussion (or possibly in other blog discussions – this issue is a pretty big sticking point for opponents of GMOs) you will note that pesticide costs are actually lower for farmers who utilize Bt cotton, and that fertilizer costs remain the same between Bt and non-Bt users – it is however true that the seeds themselves do cost more – however it is arguable that the increased cost of the seed is not actually that significant when compared to all other running costs of the farm operation

Looking at the cost analysis in

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2006-09-04_vgandhi.pdf

seed pricing appears to be about the only significantly higher cost, with pesticide useage being the only significantly lower cost – by region it could be argued that there is a higher fertilizer cost in Maharashtra aswell as irrigation, and that in Tamil Nadu the fertilizer cost appears to be significantly lower for Bt cotton as compared to non-Bt.

In all regions other than Maharashtra the increase in cost of operations is roughly equivalent to the price difference of the seeds. And in all regions the average profitability of Bt as compared to non-Bt is in excess of 50% (57% being the lowest, 300+% being the highest)

I’m going to assume that owing 30000 Ru due to a failed crop is not that much different to owing 33000 Ru due to a failed crop (and nobody has made any claims that Bt crops are immune to crop failure) whereas getting 32000 Ru as compared to 18000 Ru at the end of the season is probably quite a significant improvement in life – as such I dont see, that from these numbers, one can conclude that it is the cost, or added cost, of Bt which is a major factor in suicides – unless you are ascribing the added stress of signing a contract as a major factor?

On pricing – that is an issue that faces every farmer – however if your yield is 50-100% higher due to the use of transgenics you will still make 50-100% more money than you would have otherwise regardless of how your crop is priced (meaning that prices would really have to hit rock bottom for the 10% cost increase of transgenics to be the decisive factor in whether or not you made a profit)

]]> By: Jack Fu http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1426 Jack Fu Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:13:14 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1426 It is true that many other factors can cause the suicide of Indian farmers, such as weather condition, religious beliefs, living conditions, alcohol addiction, etc. However, BT cotton makes their survival condition worse. In order to plant the BT cotton, local farmers need to sign the contract with some giant biotech companies, buy their seeds at a high price and also those farmers have to buy their pesticide and fertilizer to make sure that the BT cotton can grow healthily. Sometimes, when weather condition is not so suitable for the growing of BT cotton, the farmers loss every thing except burdening heavy debts. Even if they gain good harvest, whether they can sell the BT cotton at a good price is another problem. That is why some farmers plant the BT cotton with high expectation every year and finally they find that they just get higher debts. It is true that many other factors can cause the suicide of Indian farmers, such as weather condition, religious beliefs, living conditions, alcohol addiction, etc. However, BT cotton makes their survival condition worse. In order to plant the BT cotton, local farmers need to sign the contract with some giant biotech companies, buy their seeds at a high price and also those farmers have to buy their pesticide and fertilizer to make sure that the BT cotton can grow healthily. Sometimes, when weather condition is not so suitable for the growing of BT cotton, the farmers loss every thing except burdening heavy debts. Even if they gain good harvest, whether they can sell the BT cotton at a good price is another problem. That is why some farmers plant the BT cotton with high expectation every year and finally they find that they just get higher debts.

]]> By: John Q http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1146 John Q Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:27:15 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1146 Julie, I can't speak for everyone supporting Monsanto on here, but as far as I know only the OP (original poster), Garrett, in this case, gets "paid to debate GM like Monsanto's public relations team". I know I do not get paid for those activities. I use my break and lunch time to support what I think is a worthy effort. And that is likely why Garrett can't hang around on this topic forever. It isn't a "critical" comment, "they" just wanted you to know that Garrett has likely moved on, doing what he is being paid to do, and cannot spend an indefinite amount of time on this one topic. So if oyu are waiting for a response specifically from him, you should move on. EXTRA costs don't mean anything to a good businessman. Steak costs more than green beans, but if I open a restaurant that serves green beans instead of steak, it will be a failed business. What a GOOD businessman looks at is how much those increased costs will increase gross revenue. If a $1 increase in cost results in a $2 increase in gross revenue, you can bet I'm going for the $1 increase in NET revenue. I don't know what happens in New South Wales, but here in the US (as far as I know) every planting of GM crops has an associated "refuge" required, sometimes as high as 50%, to reduce the likelihood of resistant organisms developing. And thus US farmers get a side-by-side comparison of the relative worth of their GM crops. So if there was no value added, It would be very few seasons before farmers stopped buying GM seeds altogether. I have no idea what the refuge policy of Australia is, and don't want to spend my lunch time researching it, but if it ISN'T required, perhaps that would be an additional point for you to lobby for. Then all of the WA and NSW farmers will have direct evidence to make their decision, and I can stop asking for data which you seem reluctant to provide. Julie, I can’t speak for everyone supporting Monsanto on here, but as far as I know only the OP (original poster), Garrett, in this case, gets “paid to debate GM like Monsanto’s public relations team”. I know I do not get paid for those activities. I use my break and lunch time to support what I think is a worthy effort. And that is likely why Garrett can’t hang around on this topic forever.

It isn’t a “critical” comment, “they” just wanted you to know that Garrett has likely moved on, doing what he is being paid to do, and cannot spend an indefinite amount of time on this one topic. So if oyu are waiting for a response specifically from him, you should move on.

EXTRA costs don’t mean anything to a good businessman. Steak costs more than green beans, but if I open a restaurant that serves green beans instead of steak, it will be a failed business. What a GOOD businessman looks at is how much those increased costs will increase gross revenue. If a $1 increase in cost results in a $2 increase in gross revenue, you can bet I’m going for the $1 increase in NET revenue.

I don’t know what happens in New South Wales, but here in the US (as far as I know) every planting of GM crops has an associated “refuge” required, sometimes as high as 50%, to reduce the likelihood of resistant organisms developing. And thus US farmers get a side-by-side comparison of the relative worth of their GM crops. So if there was no value added, It would be very few seasons before farmers stopped buying GM seeds altogether.

I have no idea what the refuge policy of Australia is, and don’t want to spend my lunch time researching it, but if it ISN’T required, perhaps that would be an additional point for you to lobby for. Then all of the WA and NSW farmers will have direct evidence to make their decision, and I can stop asking for data which you seem reluctant to provide.

]]> By: Julie Newman http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1135 Julie Newman Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:01:07 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1135 If it did add true value, there would be more than a handful of farmers at the NSW accreditation meetings but there was not. Final figures can't be given because they are not available as Australia has only grown one year of GM canola. Its not rocket science to work out extra costs and can be done by just looking at EXTRA costs. Every programme is different, it is the additional costs or benefits that need to be factored in. Re the critical comment regarding delay in posting responses - Not all of us are paid to debate GM like Monsanto's public relations team. We are farmers and are currently in the middle of a busy 6,000ha seeding program. If it did add true value, there would be more than a handful of farmers at the NSW accreditation meetings but there was not.
Final figures can’t be given because they are not available as Australia has only grown one year of GM canola. Its not rocket science to work out extra costs and can be done by just looking at EXTRA costs. Every programme is different, it is the additional costs or benefits that need to be factored in.
Re the critical comment regarding delay in posting responses – Not all of us are paid to debate GM like Monsanto’s public relations team. We are farmers and are currently in the middle of a busy 6,000ha seeding program.

]]> By: Ewan Ross http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1055 Ewan Ross Wed, 13 May 2009 16:29:07 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1055 Julie - half of that comment at least can be attributed to a GM canola grower in Australia who grew the GM canola, and liked it. I'd say that he not only doesnt like "the detail" but fundamentally disagrees with it from actual experience growing the GM crop (their reality contradicts the claims they are talking about thus confirming that it is misinformation) From the link I gave I'd have to conclude that you are correct in assuming that there is no huge yield increase from the RR canola (some farmers saw a yield increase because of the hybrid used, but one would expect this regardless of whether it was traited or not) It equally isnt rocket science to take a quick look through the case studies discussed and see that contrary to your predictions farmers have used, and will continue to use, the RR varieties because despite not giving huge yield increases they do actually offer value to these farmers. Julie – half of that comment at least can be attributed to a GM canola grower in Australia who grew the GM canola, and liked it. I’d say that he not only doesnt like “the detail” but fundamentally disagrees with it from actual experience growing the GM crop (their reality contradicts the claims they are talking about thus confirming that it is misinformation)

From the link I gave I’d have to conclude that you are correct in assuming that there is no huge yield increase from the RR canola (some farmers saw a yield increase because of the hybrid used, but one would expect this regardless of whether it was traited or not)

It equally isnt rocket science to take a quick look through the case studies discussed and see that contrary to your predictions farmers have used, and will continue to use, the RR varieties because despite not giving huge yield increases they do actually offer value to these farmers.

]]> By: John Q http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1052 John Q Wed, 13 May 2009 14:42:46 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1052 Julie, your criticism of Evan could also be directed at yourself. As could mine of you. BUt let's let it go at that, shall we? Also, his comment is two weeks old, so don't be surprised if he doesn't even notice your rebuttal. Julie said: "There is little or no difference yet a massive increase in costs." So, is your contention that Monsanto maliciously misrepresents their products, which I would guess would be a legal offense, or that Monsanto controls the media so that farmers can't find the "truth", or that the farmers in WA are too lazy or stupid to figure out things for themselves? Or PERHAPS this ONE "first farmer to plant it in WA" is an anecdotal instance, and his experience is representative of NEITHER all WA farmers NOR the value of GM (in this specific case, Roundup Ready crops). The claims made for ANY crop are based on average results over a LARGE set of data. But as the old saying goes, "Your mileage may vary." I hear the average family in the US has 2.4 kids. But I doubt there is a SINGLE family that has EXACTLY 2.4 kids. So, some families are getting "yields" ABOVE the average, and some below. Sure, I can pay a premium to get a Porshe that a salesman claims goes 120 miles and hour. Is it the salesman's fault if I don't have a NEED (or even an oportunity) to GO 120 miles an hour? Julie, your criticism of Evan could also be directed at yourself. As could mine of you. BUt let’s let it go at that, shall we? Also, his comment is two weeks old, so don’t be surprised if he doesn’t even notice your rebuttal.

Julie said:

“There is little or no difference yet a massive increase in costs.”

So, is your contention that Monsanto maliciously misrepresents their products, which I would guess would be a legal offense, or that Monsanto controls the media so that farmers can’t find the “truth”, or that the farmers in WA are too lazy or stupid to figure out things for themselves?

Or PERHAPS this ONE “first farmer to plant it in WA” is an anecdotal instance, and his experience is representative of NEITHER all WA farmers NOR the value of GM (in this specific case, Roundup Ready crops).

The claims made for ANY crop are based on average results over a LARGE set of data. But as the old saying goes, “Your mileage may vary.” I hear the average family in the US has 2.4 kids. But I doubt there is a SINGLE family that has EXACTLY 2.4 kids. So, some families are getting “yields” ABOVE the average, and some below.

Sure, I can pay a premium to get a Porshe that a salesman claims goes 120 miles and hour. Is it the salesman’s fault if I don’t have a NEED (or even an oportunity) to GO 120 miles an hour?

]]> By: Julie Newman http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-1049 Julie Newman Wed, 13 May 2009 05:49:14 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-1049 Ewan, your comment "“There is a lot of misinformation, perpetuated through some media.” – it appears that you’re doing a pretty good job in that respect Julie." is typical of Monsanto and GM proponents. They don't like the detail so they attack the messenger. Lets look at some of the misinformation: The first farmer to plant it in WA last week claimed he planted it because of the 30% yield increase not because of the chemical use as he did not have a weed problem. What 30% yield increase? The GM bit is only resistance to glyphosate! Its not selective information as every farmers cropping programme will differ. I am comparing what needs managing different between GM and non-GM and the appropriate costs compared to what is the actual difference in the benefit between GM. There is little or no difference yet a massive increase in costs. Its not rocket science! Ewan, your comment ““There is a
lot of misinformation, perpetuated through some media.” – it appears that you’re doing a pretty good job in that respect Julie.”
is typical of Monsanto and GM proponents. They don’t like the detail so they attack the messenger.
Lets look at some of the misinformation:
The first farmer to plant it in WA last week claimed he planted it because of the 30% yield increase not because of the chemical use as he did not have a weed problem.
What 30% yield increase? The GM bit is only resistance to glyphosate!
Its not selective information as every farmers cropping programme will differ. I am comparing what needs managing different between GM and non-GM and the appropriate costs compared to what is the actual difference in the benefit between GM. There is little or no difference yet a massive increase in costs.
Its not rocket science!

]]> By: Kathleen http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-999 Kathleen Wed, 06 May 2009 18:40:05 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-999 Deborah, The policy is for the actual, original blog post. Not for each individual comment. Deborah,

The policy is for the actual, original blog post. Not for each individual comment.

]]> By: Deborah Rubin http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-998 Deborah Rubin Wed, 06 May 2009 18:32:33 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-998 It was only 5 days before my post that Brad had sent me these articles. But I will wait for the new post. It was only 5 days before my post that Brad had sent me these articles. But I will wait for the new post.

]]> By: Kathleen http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/#comment-979 Kathleen Tue, 05 May 2009 14:45:04 +0000 http://blog.monsantoblog.com/?p=467#comment-979 Deborah, I understand you want to continue conversation about this topic. Fortunately, Brad is working on a post on Indian Farmer Suicides so the conversation can pick up there. As you recall, 2 weeks ago I put up a post stating that 10 days after a post, responses would not be guaranteed. The comments on this particular post have gone very far down and people who wish to join the conversation will not be likely to follow. Which is what we all want, right? Please stay tuned for that post, and some more discussion. Deborah,

I understand you want to continue conversation about this topic. Fortunately, Brad is working on a post on Indian Farmer Suicides so the conversation can pick up there. As you recall, 2 weeks ago I put up a post stating that 10 days after a post, responses would not be guaranteed. The comments on this particular post have gone very far down and people who wish to join the conversation will not be likely to follow. Which is what we all want, right? Please stay tuned for that post, and some more discussion.

]]>