After Years in the Red, Farms Return to Non-GMO Crops to Regain Profits

[GreatGazoo]

When Justin Dammann enters his southwestern Iowa cornfield this month, the 35-year-old farmer will sow something these 2,400 acres have not seen in more than a decade — plants grown without genetically modified seeds.

The corn, which will head to a processor 20 miles down the road this fall, will likely make its way into tortilla shells, corn chips and other consumable products made by companies taking advantage of growing consumer demand for food without biotech ingredients.

For Dammann and other Midwest farmers, the burgeoning interest in non-GMO foods has increased how much they get paid to grow crops in fields once populated exclusively with genetically modified corns and soybeans. The revenue hike is a welcome benefit at a time when lower commodity prices are pushing farm income down to what's expected to be the lowest level in six years.

"We never really thought we would go back to (non-GMO). But the consumer, in my opinion, has sent a clear message that a certain percentage of our customers are willing to pay more for the non-GMO lines," Dammann said. "This non-GMO thing has seemed to take hold and gain a lot of traction."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2015/04/18/non-gmo-farming/25951693/

Lots more detail at the link. Basically farmers are finding lower costs and higher revenues in non-GMO crops. Seed and inputs are cheaper and the crop sells for a premium over GMO. There is a glut of corn and soy which has kept prices so low that the Federal government will kick in $8 billion for 2014 to subsidize those who grew GMO crops and lost money doing so. Meanwhile farmers who switch back to non-GMO corn and soy are returning their farms to profitability and getting off the government dole.

The value of GMO corn has fallen 46% since 2012. Other data shows consumer demand for non-GMO foods is nearly doubling year over year with farmers and supply chain managers scrambling to keep up with rising demand:

Sales of verified non-GMO foods in the US:

2011 — $1.2 billion

2012 — $2.7 billion

2013 — $5 billion

2014 — $8.5 billion

Labeling of GMO foods begins in less than a year, July 1, 2016, and corporations like General Mills are pushing their suppliers to be ready to meet much-increased demand as a result.

[dballance]

1. That is SOOO! Great!

As a boy on the farm I used to raise soybeans. Non-GMO. In fact, GMO wasn't even a thing yet.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, GreatGazoo.

[KamaAina]

3. In Vermont. Not a whole lot of purchasing power up there.

Labeling of GMO foods begins in less than a year, July 1, 2016

We really should have passed Prop 37 in California when we had the chance. That would have gotten their attention.

[GreatGazoo]

4. It will trigger already passed laws in 2 other states (CT + Maine) and more are looking to join

New York:

http://www.consumerproductmatters.com/2015/03/and-the-beat-goes-on-ny-state-assembly-to-vote-on-gmo-labeling-law/

[KamaAina]

5. Maine? Is that one of the bills LePew forgot how to veto?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10551579

[GreatGazoo]

6. He signed it but the present version requires NH and MA to act first

so maybe he is banking on NH being a stumbling block.

The (new) measure would effectively speed up implementation of a labeling requirement passed in 2014 and signed by Gov. Paul LePage. The 2014 law says labeling genetically modified foods would be required only after five contiguous New England states, including Maine, agreed to do the same. Vermont and Connecticut have passed similar laws, but neither New Hampshire nor Massachusetts has acted.

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/04/30/gmo-labeling-battle-back-before-the-maine-legislature/

[magical thyme]

8. it's the one time I can understand what he did and why

Iirc, his rationale was that if/when Monsanto sued, it would be better to have a block of states share litigation costs.

[meow2u3]

15. DUzy!

Governor LePew!

[NickB79]

7. The problem is, that premium paid for GM crops becomes smaller the more that farmers grow them

Of course, that point is still probably far off in the future, and is pushed further into the future the more manufacturers require non-GM crops, but it's still something to bear in mind.

God, I wish I'd gone to college for a degree in modern agriculture and taken over my dad's farm some days.

[GreatGazoo]

9. If the inputs (seed and chems) are lower then cost of production could be lower than GMO

Someone said corn is at $3.50 a bushel and costs $3.94-ish to produce so losing 44-cents on every 70 pounds. Getting the production cost down is one way to move toward profitability (even w/o the premium).

Another trend to lower costs right now is no-till. The USDA is pushing it. Also helps with soil conservation, runoff and other water issues.

[NickB79]

14. Some inputs are lower, but yields are also usually lower with organic seed

Per the article:

He not only must pay more for herbicides to combat corn borer and root worm insects, but the yields can sometimes be unpredictable if the weather is not ideal. Dammann said in some years, his yields were in line with biotech crops and in other years they fell short.

In 2012, when the Midwest was in its worst drought in decades, output was 30 percent less than his genetically modified corn, he said.

Like you pointed out, in years where there's a glut of corn and soy on the market, loss of yield isn't a big deal if you're losing money on every bushel. But if we have a bad crop year and corn and soy prices shoot back up again, that may drive many farmers back to GM crops if the profit margin is large enough.

And according to the article, farmers are spending MORE on chemicals, not less, growing non-GM crops, because they're not going full-on organic (which would prohibit most herbicides and pesticides) but just non-GM.

Given all the variables from year to year, you have to be damn near prescient to be a successful farmer these days.

[Archae]

19. "herbicides to combat corn borer and root worm insects?"

What kind of idiot do they have working at this newspaper?

Herbicides kill plants!

NOT bugs!

Pesticides kill bugs!

The rest of this article has a real anti-science bias to it.

[Thespian2]

10. Just askin'

Does GMO stand for Gut Mangled Often?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

11. This is what happens when you hand science over to big business.

The potential benefits are ignored in favour of making a quick buck, your public image is irrevocably stained, and before you know what's happening you've ceded the moral high ground to the Luddites. GMOs done right could have been awesome, but instead everybody and their dog avoids them for fear of catching Satan cancer. Better luck next time, science.

[Igel]

13. It's democracy applied to science.

We vote for pi = 3.00, we get pi = 3.00.

We decide that GMOs are unsafe, then GMOs are unsafe. We have a socially constructed reality.

My socially constructed reality has flying cars that rely on anti-grav devices. I figure if I can get a few million other people to accept my reality, then we'll have flying cars by Xmas. For under $500, getting upwards of 250 mpg. Of hydrogen peroxide.

[GreatGazoo]

18. It is production realigning with cost and revenue.

Theories and analogies, by definition, are one step or more removed from reality. They can bring in emotion, strawmen and grandstanding and cloud a simple issue.

Reality is: in the marketplace right now, July of 2015, GMO corn with chems and seed costs more to produce than it sells for. The taxpayer has been subsidizing that difference -- $8 bil for 2014 alone. Like everyone else, farmers are hard working, honest people who prefer profit from their own businesses over needing checks from the government just to cover their losses and try again next year.

This isn't about "flying cars" or "luddites" but rather about farmers finding resilience through diversity; the diversity of being able to choose from a variety of crop systems to control costs in an on-going difficult commodities market.

Farmers know the science of their business extremely well. They combine published research with their own tests and observations. Every farmer I know is testing new varietal and new methods. They record data and analyze results so their work has a lot of overlap with active scientists. A major difference is that farmers are in business for themselves so their science has to be focused ultimately on making money.

IMHO that takes even more brain power than doing lab science because it adds the complexity and fluidity of the worldwide commodities markets. You have to produce your crop for less than these prices (good luck!):

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/nx_fv020.txt

[hunter]

16. I'm a scientific Luddite.

GMO may or may not be rotten, but the herbicide-resistant, the bee-and-butterfly-killing, the small-farmers-can't-trade-seeds, the does-not-play-well-with-others-and-is-represented-by-aggressive-lawyers, the designed-to-sell-more-patent-poisons... those GMO crops sure as hell are rotten.

Fucking Brawdo would be selling seeds that required Brawndo to thrive, but I'm guessing drinking Brawndo turned everyone into idiots before amoral Brawndo scientists and management could perfect their evil scheme. Nature bats last. 100,000 years from now our descendants may be one of the lesser apes. Fast food for wolves and eagles, silly apes who can't be trusted not to injure themselves with a pointy stick.

Plants do like toilet water, good soil, sunshine, poop, pee, and compost.

My wife and I rely on birds, spiders, predatory insects, and other beasties to control invertebrate pests in our garden and in our house.

If you use insecticides you'll end up with insecticide-resistant cockroaches, ants, fleas, and other nasty pests. The only pests we have occasional trouble with is ticks. Two of our dogs are not especially good at social grooming. They'll ignore dirt, stink, and grape sized ticks in places they can't reach. Lyme disease is not a big problem in our part of the world because tick nymphs spend time on lizards. Lizards have ancestral antibodies that kill Lyme disease.

Our Dingo is the only dog who thinks good grooming is important. However filthy Dingo gets she'll always be clean before bedtime. If she notices a tick in a place she can't reach she'll tell someone right away. Her pack mates would probably jump up onto the bed two minutes after chasing ducks across a sewage pond and rolling in bullshit to dry off, no complaints about fleas, ticks, or leaches. The worst dog we ever had would find a putrid dead animal to roll in, usually just before we went on a long car trip to visit our more rural parents. I think that was her way of preparing for the hunt.

We've had two pig hunting dogs but we didn't know that about them when we adopted them from the animal shelter.

Related in a similar way, Microsoft and Apple are what happens when you hand computer science over to big business, or banking over to the want-to-be-physicists and spread-sheet-obsessives.

[G_j]

17. +1000

[raouldukelives]

12. Nice! nt

[progressoid]

20. Which means spraying more chemicals to keep weeds down.

The seeds themselves cost less than their biotech counterparts, but a portion of that savings is lost because of the need to use more chemicals to protect crops. Some growers say they have little to lose by switching back to non-GMO crops because of growing resistance to weeds and pests that have developed to some herbicides, such as Monsanto's Roundup.

Dammann, who farms in Essex, said raising non-GMO corn does come with some added risk.

He not only must pay more for herbicides to combat corn borer and root worm insects, but the yields can sometimes be unpredictable if the weather is not ideal. Dammann said in some years, his yields were in line with biotech crops and in other years they fell short.

In 2012, when the Midwest was in its worst drought in decades, output was 30 percent less than his genetically modified corn, he said.

[GreatGazoo]

21. Good news -- No-Till plus non-GMO hybrids = much less pesticide use.

The sentence after the first one you bolded basically contradicts it: extra pesticide for either because thanks to GMO technology, weeds are now just a Round Up Ready as the GMO seeds.

That next bolded section is a mess because the author uses "herbicide" to mean "insecticide" (?) Bee killing neonic-coated corn seed is a whole other subject, another proprietary technology which, like Round-Up Ready GMO crops, has had unintended consequences and driven up costs for farmers.

Dammann stuck with non-GMO corn so hopefully he has worked out his issues with yield. Bt corn was designed to deter damage from corn borer but, just like with the amaranth and other weeds, Nature finds a way:

Insect resistance to Bt proteins is natural and expected.
In any insect population, a small number of insects already exist that are tolerant of – or resistant to – certain Bt proteins. Over time, and especially with particular farming practices, it is possible that too many insects in a field could develop a tolerance to a Bt protein and cause significant damage or destruction.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/insect-resistance-to-gmo-and-bt-crops.aspx

So non-GMO corn is now offering lower costs overall as GMO crop systems increasingly fail to deliver on their promises while putting the food system on a treadmill of new seed + poison pairings.