Most farmers are quite happy with the genetically modified canolas they’ve been able to grow since the late 1990s.
But the new crops haven’t meant as much to farmers as many had expected, says Brandon farmer Don Bromley.
“There’s a bit of a burst bubble out there,” said Bromley, who chairs Keystone Agricultural Producers’ science and biotechnology committee.
“The last couple of scientific innovations that have come along haven’t really put the producer any further ahead.”
When transgenic canolas were introduced in 1996 and 1997, farmers were keen to incorporate the new technology, which promised easier weed control, bigger yields and easier management.
Read Also
One Beer Market Updates Day 3 – Lentils and beef
Day 3 of the One Beer Market Update at Ag in Motion 2025.
A lot of that has come true, but many farmers don’t feel as if they’re pocketing much more money from the improvement, Bromley said.
Economists and analysts have taken a look at the biotechnology revolution that created GM crops and are suggesting that producers aren’t likely to get a big boost from the new crops so long as farmers compete with each other and remain price-takers.
GM canolas have launched a powerful assault on Canada’s canola patch, taking more than 60 percent of the acreage away from conventional varieties.
GM corn, soybean and cotton have also been popular in the United States. GM soybeans have been embraced by Argentine farmers and even by Brazilian farmers, who can’t legally grow the crop.
GM canola has given the Canadian farmer an easy, cost effective way to control weeds, analysts say. GM soybeans, corn and cotton have given U.S. and South American producers powerful tools to control weeds and pests.
But with so many producers in major competing exporting nations embracing the biotech revolution, are farmers simply staying afloat rather than reaching the shore?
Are they clinging to the new technology to stop from sinking, leaving the financial benefits to people farther down the beach?
That’s the focus of a special report on pages 10 and 11.
For Bromley, the biotech revolution has been a disappointment.
“There’s been no real monetary advantage to the producer, but we have to use this stuff to stay on top.”
