production cost analysis and use of pesticides in the transgenic and conventional corn crop [zea...

©2011 Landes Bioscience.Do not distribute.

www.landesbioscience.com GM Crops 1

GM Crops 2:3, 1-6; July/August/September 2011; © 2011 Landes Bioscience

ReSeARCh pApeR ReSeARCh pApeR

*Correspondence to: Alejandro Chaparro Giraldo; Email: [email protected]: 08/08/11; Revised: 08/11/11; Accepted: 08/12/11dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.2.3.17591

Introduction

Transgenic crop is playing an important role in the agricultural technologies available, since it was used in 2009 in 25 countries over a 134 million hectares extension, which represents 7% increase in comparison to the previous year. However, the debate on the potential benefits and risks of transgenic crop on the agro-systems, the economy and the society at large, continues.1,7,11,12,16 Scientific studies offering a factual basis for transgenic technology need to be published with peer reviewed in order to generate a debate based on real data for the different contexts where such technology has been implemented and which might interest the scientific community, the farmer, the consumer and the general population likewise.10,14 Such research must be set in a “case-by-case” methodology as sug-gested by different authors such as Shapper and Parada,15 Dale et al.,7 Brookes and Barfoot,2,5 FAO,9 Nap et al.14 This methodology involves a series of data on certain transgenic crop such as: intro-duced gene, transformation vector, species and genotype recep-tor, related species, agro-systems features that release among other things, what allows us to contextualize the problem in regards to time, space and genotype, and to know the environmental and eco-nomic differences that arise when using the transgenic technology versus the conventional technology.

The EIQ Index Quotient developed by Kovach and collabo-rators13 in 1992, was born from the collaboration among North

A survey of 10 producers of conventional corn (hybrids pAC 105 and Maximus) and 10 producers of transgenic corn (pioneer hybrid 30T17) was carried out in the municipality of Valle de San Juan in the territorial division of Tolima (Colombia), in order to analyze the differences in production costs and environmental impacts of these two agricultural technologies. The environmental impacts were determined by calculating the field “environmental Index Quotient” (eIQ). In the production cost analysis, a difference of 15% was found in benefit of the transgenic technology. The structure of costs of the transgenic technology was benefited by the reduced use of pesticides (insecticides and herbicides). In regards to production, the transgenic technology showed a greater yield, 5.22 ton/ha in comparison to 4.25 ton/ha the conventional technology, thus a 22% difference in yield. Finally, the eIQ calculation showed quantitative differences of 196.12 for the conventional technology (eIQ insecticides 165.14 + eIQ herbicides 30.98), while the transgenic technology was of 4.24 (eIQ insecticides 0 + eIQ herbicides 4.24). These results show a minor environmental impact when using the transgenic technology in comparison to the conventional technology, in regards to the use of insecticides and herbicides in a temporal, spatial and genotypical context analysis.

Production cost analysis and use of pesticides in the transgenic and conventional corn crop

[Zea mays (L.)] in the valle of San Juan (Tolima)Kelly Ávila Méndez,1 Alejandro Chaparro Giraldo,1,* Giovanni Reyes Moreno1 and Carlos Silva Castro2

1plant Genetic engineering Group; Biology Department of the Genetic Institute; Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano; Bogotá, Colombia

Key words: EIQ, transgenic corn, production costs, environmental impacts, insecticide, herbicide

Thi

s m

anus

crip

t ha

s be

en p

ublis

hed

onlin

e, p

rior

to

prin

ting

. Onc

e th

e is

sue

is c

ompl

ete

and

page

num

bers

hav

e be

en a

ssig

ned,

the

cit

atio

n w

ill c

hang

e ac

cord

ingl

y.

American universities on a wide range of data bases on pesticides used commercially in agriculture worldwide.2,5,13 The purpose of this collaboration was to organize and simplify the data on the use of pesticides. This model reduces the environmental impact to one single value information (quantitative). In order to achieve this, we have developed an equation based on three main com-ponents of the agricultural production systems, i.e., the farmers, the consumption component and the ecological component.2,13

The consumption of insecticides and herbicides that resulted from the data collected from the surveys was quantified by using EIQ. EIQs are standardized for different commercially used insecti-cides and herbicides, in different environmental contexts. The field EIQ was calculated from this theoretical EIQ, which allows com-paring agricultural technologies by means of the following formula:

EIQc = EIQ x % active ingredient x Dose x Number of applications

The above formula has been widely used in the evaluation and comparison of agricultural technologies—conventional vs. trans-genic—since the data required to obtain the index are readily avail-able in the field and to compare quantitatively the environmental impact linked to the consumption of pesticides. For the particular case of GM crops, Brookes and Barfoot have used widely this index in different countries such as Argentina, South Africa, United States, Canada, Spain, demonstrating the ease of application of this index in different contexts. Importantly for this study will use


2 GM Crops Volume 2 Issue 3

approach provides information on the status of GM crops in a particular area of the country in a particular time (one semester) and for a specific crop. For this reason, it is suggested not to gen-eralize this study to a whole national status, but if taken it into account as a baseline for future studies to analyze these themes.

In this study we analyzed the data obtained from the case of transgenic and conventional corn crops in the municipal-ity of Valle de San Juan, in the territorial division of Tolima (Colombia), during the first half of 2009. Hybrid PAC105 and Hybrid Maximus were sown using the conventional technology while Pioneer Hybrid 30T17 containing Herculex I technology, was sown using the transgenic technology. This last hybrid con-tains double gene or combined event, i.e., it contains the bar gene that gives tolerance to the glufosinate ammonium herbicide and crylF gene that gives resistance to lepidopterous insects.

Results and Discussion

Production. In this study we found that the transgenic technol-ogy yields were 0.97 ton/ha higher than the conventional yield (t-test—Value of p 0.0003) (Table 1). We have also observed that the transgenic variety shows greater stability, as shown in the variation coefficient value which was half the value of the conventional variety (Table 1). In the research done on BT corn crops, the yield increased given the reduction of pest incidence in comparison to the yield for its conventional crops.2-5

These results are consistent with several other studies pub-lished in recent years. Euzaguirre and collaborators8 reported that in Spain, from 1998 to 2004, the Bt corn yield increases were between 8% and 14%. Brookes and Barfoot reported that in Argentina, the analysis of BT corn yield showed increases up to 3% with 5% cost savings, while in the USA, 2.28% increases were registered over a ten-year period and, in Africa, the increases were of 15.5% in a four-year period, i.e., 2000 to 2004.5

Production costs. The cost analysis was based on an analysis of the percentage of direct and indirect costs where the contribu-tions of different inputs using a comparison of both agricultural technologies. The focus was on two main aspects: the cost of seed and the cost of the insecticide and herbicide application as suggested by Barfoot and Brookes.2,5 There are two aspects that have an impact of the cost structure and profits. First, the higher cost of the transgenic seed compared to the conventional seed. Secondly, the reduced use of pesticides in the transgenic technol-ogy. Tables 2 and 3, show the structure of the average costs per hectare for each technology. Each table shows the value for each input with its respective share percentage and total production cost.

Conventional technology for corn production has an aver-age cost of $960 USD, the highest contribution comes from the

the index for a case study and is the first time it is used in Colombia for the comparison of two agricultural technologies.

This research is the first made it in Colombia in terms of eco-nomic analysis and environmental impact of GM crops. Taking into account that is suggest that studies of transgenic technolo-gies have being made with the methodology case by case, this first

Table 1. Yield differences (Ton/ha) between the transgenic and conventional technologies applied to corn crops (Colombia-2009)

VariableConventional technology Transgenic technology

Average S.D. V.C. Average S.D. V.C.

Yield (Ton/ha) 4.25 0.589 14.72 5.22 0.370 7.08

S.D., Standard deviation; V.C., Variation Coefficient.

Table 2. Cost structure for conventional technology

Production costs Value (USD) Share %

DIRECT COST

1. Land Suitability

preparation-Machinery 69 7.2

Crop Maintenance 93 9.7

Total Land Suitability 163 16.96

2. Crop

2.1 Inputs

Seed 122 12.67

2.2 Fertilizers

Corrections 187 19.45

2.3 Herbicides

Accent Gold (i.a Nicosulfuron) 69 7.20

Atrazine (i.a Atrazine) 7 0.75

Gramoxone (i.a paraquat) 10 1.01

Tordon (i.a 2-4-D) 16 1.70

Finale (i.a Glufosinate) 14 1.43

Total herbicides 116 12

2.4 Insecticides and Pest Control

Atabron 5e (i.a Chlorfluazuron) 34 3.50

Lorsban (i.a Chlorpyrifos) 13 1.40

Match (i.a Lufenuron) 46 4.77

Methavin (i.a Methomyl) 39 4.04

Methomyl (i.a Methomyl) 6 0.66

Total Insecticides 138 14

3. Packaging 29 2.98

Bags 14 1.45

Total packaging 42 4.42

Total direct costs 767 79.95

INDIRECT COSTS

Lease 154 16.05

Incidentals 38 4.00

Total Indirect costs 192 20.05

TOTAL COST 960 100

*Average price of dollar in First semester of 2009. Source: Banco de la República [Bank of the Republic]. i.a Active ingredient.



Comparing the total costs for the application of transgenic tech-nology ($828 USD) with those for the application of the conven-tional technology ($ 960 USD), represents a $ 132 USD difference, equivalent to 15% difference in favor of the transgenic technology.

Table 4 shows the sharp differences of each compared input for both technologies. There is a difference of more than 50%, as in the case of the seed. When not using insecticides with the transgenic technology, farmers can reduce their direct cost struc-ture by 14% compared to the conventional technology. In the case of herbicides, the situation is similar, there is a reduction of $137.79 USD, since the input applied for weed control in the transgenic technology contributes only 2% in comparison with the conventional technology which is 12%. Likewise, the reduced amount of herbicides applied to control weeds in the transgenic technology reach the same conclusion as Barfoot and Brookes (2006 and 2008), who state that in the specific case of herbicide tolerance, the input reduction is not total as it is with species resistant to insect attack. Herbicide tolerance allows carrying out applications of compounds less harmful to the environment such as Finale that has an IV toxicological classification according to the classifications established by the ICA (Colombian Agriculture and Livestock Institute).

Furthermore, the price of corn in the Tolima zone had a pecu-liar behavior during the period evaluated:

• The purchase price agreed upon went down of $56 USD (from 326 USD to 270 USD) per ton of corn (Fenalce—Federación Nacional de Cereales y Leguminosas, July 28 de 2009—www.fenalce.org/archivos/Boletin001.pdf

• The crop purchase was not guaranteed (Fenalce, July 28 de 2009).

It is important to include this range of price and crop purchase variation, since a modification oriented towards price reduction affects profits as well as the sector. Furthermore, this type of imbalance, caused by the variations aforementioned, can affect the farmer’s decision to change his agricultural tradition to other products for subsequent periods.

The following Table 5 shows the farmers’ profits with the final purchase price of $270 USD per ton of corn as reported by Fenalce (Real scenario) and also shows the profit panorama with the initial price agreed upon with the farmers (Expected scenario).

The transgenic technology shows a greater profit ($581 USD) compared to the profit obtained with the conventional technol-ogy ($188 USD), with a net difference of $393 USD in favor of the transgenic technology in the real scenario. This difference, higher than 100%, is a clear indication that the transgenic tech-nology used in the zone evaluated is more advantageous. It shows how the pesticide applications required in the crop cycle in the conventional technology affect the production costs thus reduc-ing profits.

The production costs, the changes in the product purchase price to which the farmers are subject, hotter summers that mini-mize yields, generate what Brookes4 (2009) calls positive impact on the cost structure. This can be observed in this paper. In spite of the fact that both technologies are exposed to the same risk factors, the transgenic technology generates greater profits, since it represents less risks economically speaking. Authors Barfoot

application of agro chemicals. Herbicides with 12.09%, insec-ticides 14.36%, for a total of 26% (Table 4). The conventional technology cost structure is affected by the pest control and fer-tilization inputs, which make it a fragile technology from the economic standpoint, since these two inputs show greater price variations on the market.

The production cost for transgenic technology was of $ 828 USD. The cost of seed, the main input, contributes to the struc-ture of direct costs (Table 3). In addition, we must stress the fact that the farmers are the owners of all the lots surveyed which reduces indirect costs. For the transgenic technology cost struc-ture, the seed was the first cost component with 22.24%, the land suitability and fertilizers came second with 19% and herbi-cides came last with 1.65%.

The differences in cost structure of both technologies would be supported by some preliminary conclusions. First, the trans-genic technology offers economic benefits. Secondly, a cost analysis may determine which technology is more efficient envi-ronmentally speaking.

The cost analysis for each of these two technologies allows us to observe that even though the transgenic seed is 51% higher in price than the conventional seed (See Table 5), the reduction in direct costs is due to the zero application of insecticides and the significant reduction of the application of herbicides, hence providing also environmental benefits.11

Table 3. Transgenic technology cost structure

Production costs Value (USD) Share %

DIRECT COSTS

1. Land Suitability

preparation 69 8.38

Crop Maintenance 93 11.27

Total Land Suitability 163 19.65

2. Crop

2.1 Inputs

Seed 184 22.24

2.2 Fertilizers

Compounds 163 19.73

2.3 Herbicides

Finale (i.a Glufosinate) 14 1.65

Total herbicides 14 1.65

3. Packaging 29 3.45

Bags 14 1.67

Total packaging 42 5.13

Total direct costs 566 68.40

INDIRECT COSTS

Lot Maintenance 233 28.18

Incidentals 28 3.42

Total Indirect Costs 262 31.60

TOTAL COSTS 828 100

*Average price of dollar in First semester of 2009. Source: Banco de la República (Bank of the Republic). i.a Active ingredient.



The present reports analyze only the LIR (resistant to lepi-dopterous insects) and HT (herbicide resistant) technologies independently, not jointly. A joint analysis of a hybrid or a vari-ety with the 30T17 features would be based on the organism’s biological condition, since it genome expresses both transgenic features of herbicide tolerance and lepidopterous insect attack.

Several countries report different EIQ obtained from con-ventional corn: Canada (61.65), USA (26.39) and South Africa (2.92).2 These results allow us to conclude that there are dif-ferences within the same technology, and they also confirm the importance of making assessments case-by-case, region per region. This is important in the interaction of each transgenic event for each cultivated region since conditions are different, then the variety of the environmental as well as economic impacts will also be different and they will generate quotient variations at the quantitative level.

Table 6 shows the reduction of the environmental impact found in the application of the transgenic technology in that particular zone of the country, since there were zero insecticide application. The calculated EIQ shows a difference of 191.88 points in favor of the transgenic technology which represents a reduction of more than 100% of the quotient numeric value for the joint evaluation (insecticides and herbicides).

The EIQ is a dimensionless value therefore, numerical differ-ences show what type of technology generates less impacts related to the application of pesticides carried out in a crop cycle.

Table 7 shows the distribution of each pesticide used for weed and pest control in the conventional technology. It indicates

and Brookes in different reports indicate that the profits earned by farmers that use the transgenic technology vary from 0.5% to 0.8%, this percentage is given in global terms and evaluates genetic features.4

Environmental impact quotient (EIQ). The information gained from the surveys of the consumption of insecticides and herbicides (dosage and number of applications) helped us calcu-late the field EIQ for each product in each agricultural technol-ogy. With these data, we calculated the dosage used in kg/ha and the number of applications made for each pesticide.

Table 5. profit obtained for each agricultural technology

VariableConventional

technology (USD)

Transgenic technology

(USD)

Total production Cost 960 828

Real scenario. Total purchase price (Obtained from the production

Average Coefficient x the purchase price per ton of corn) - (270 USD)

1,148 1,409

expected scenario: Total purchase price (Obtained from the production Average Coefficient x the purchase

price per ton of corn) - (336 USD)

1,386 1,754

Real profit Scenario.

188 581(Total purchase price - Total production Cost)

expected profit Scenario 426 926

Table 6. Field eIQ calculated for insecticides and herbicides in comparing both agricultural technologies, conventional vs. transgenic

Conventional technology

INSECTICIDE EIQai

(%)Dosage (kg/ha)

Number applications

Total HERBICIDE EIQai

(%)Dosage (kg/ha)

Number applications

Total

Match 16.29 0.05 0.3 1.5 0.37 Atrazine 22.85 0.5 1.38 1 15.77

Atabron 30.31 0.05 0.5 2 1.52 Gramoxone 24.73 0.19 1.5 1 7.05

Lorsban 26.85 0.25 1 1.3 8.73 Thordon 18.00 0.11 1.6 1 3.17

Mathavin 22.00 0.9 0.18 1 3.56 Accent 19.52 0.75 0.05 1 0.73

Finale 20.2 0.15 0.5 1 1.52

TOTAL INSeCTICIDe eIQ 14.17 TOTAL heRBICIDe eIQ 28.23

TOTAL CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY EIQ 42

TRANSGENIC TECHNOLOGY

INSECTICIDE EIQai

(%)Dosage (kg/ha)

No applications

Total HERBICIDE EIQai

(%)Dosage (kg/ha)

No applications

Total

This technology does not require the application of insecticides 0 Finale 20.2 0.15 0.5 2 3.03

TOTAL INSeCTICIDe eIQ 0 TOTAL heRBICIDe eIQ 3.03

TOTAL TRANSGENIC TECHNOLOGY EIQ 3.03

Table 4. Differences in cost of seed and pesticides (insecticides and herbicides)

Cost of variables to evaluate Conventional (USD) Transgenic (USD) Difference value (USD) Difference %

Seed1 122 184 62 53

Use of insecticides 138 0 -138 *

Use of herbicides 116 14 -102 *1Average price surveyed in lots studied. *See analysis in text.



The format of the surveys was designed based on the information frameworks required by the analysis using the tech-nology of Barfoot and Brookes,2,5,6 and Kovach, et al.13 The survey was divided into the following six sections

(I) Data on land(II) Property level of the Farm(III) Crop General Data(IV) Crop Yield Data(V) Fertilization(VI) Pest and Disease Control

The consumption of insecticides and herbicides was quanti-fied by calculating the EIQ, methodology developed by Kovach and collaborators.13 Currently, EIQ are standardized for differ-ent commercially used insecticides and herbicides, which allowed us to compare the efficiency of the agricultural technologies by means of a quantitative assessment which was obtained by the addition of the field EIQ of insecticide and herbicide as shown hereunder:

Field EIQ = EIQ x % active ingredient x Dosage x Number of applications

Conclusions

The transgenic technology used in the zone evaluated, produced 0.97 ton/ha more that the conventional technology. This difference produced differences of more than 100% when evaluated in terms of profits. The production cost analysis of direct costs showed a 15% difference in favor of the transgenic technology, being hybrid 30T17 less expensive. There was a 100% reduction of insecticide applications, which brings environmental and economical benefits to the farmers that adopted this technology in the zone of study.

The economic analysis suggested by Barfoot and Brookes allowed us to analyze the cost structure of these technologies main inputs, i.e., seed and insecticides. Kovak and collaborators (1992) EIQ methodology allowed us to establish the first indica-tor of the environmental impacts (quantitatively) related to an agricultural technology in particular. In the case of transgenic corn crop, the calculated EIQ was 0 given the total reduction of insecticide application in comparison with the conventional technology which was of 196.12.

The results of this study are applicable only to the comparative analysis of the transgenic and conventional technologies for corn crop in the municipality of Valle de San Juan, in the territorial division of Tolima, during the first half of 2009. Therefore, these are preliminary results. In order to obtain more accurate and gen-eral conclusions, a follow-up of the crop in different locations for several periods is necessary.

References1. Amman K, Garden B. The impact of agriculture biotechnology on biodiversity. A

review. University of Bern 2004; 23:388-94.2. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Brief 36 GM Crops: The first ten years—Global socio-economic

and environmental impacts. ISAAA Briefs No. 36. Ithaca, NY 2006.3. Brookes G. The impact of the use of GM corn resistant to insects in Europe since 1998.

Int J Biotechnology 2008; 10:148-66.4. Brookes G. The existing and potential impact of using gm insect resistant (GM IR)

corner in the European Union. PG Economics UK 2009.

which component contributes the most to the quotient calculated for each input and which has the greatest environmental impact.

Table 7 shows that Lorsban insecticide and Atrazine herbi-cide respectively generate greater environmental impact in the conventional technology. Data show that 84% of the quotient calculated came from insecticides while the remaining 16% came from herbicides.

In regards to the transgenic technology, the total EIQ value comes from Finale herbicide, sole chemical component applied in the transgenic corn crop cycle.

The transgenic technology in comparison with the con-ventional technology is efficient environmentally speaking, in regards to insecticide and herbicide applications in the case of the corn crop sown in the municipality of Valle de San Juan (Tolima) in the first half of 2009.

Finally, this research recommends using the same methodol-ogy to evaluate other zones of the country (with different climate patterns and pest incidence) to see whether the transgenic tech-nology really generates the environmental benefits reported in the Valle de San Juan. A follow-up work for several crop periods must also be carried out.

Materials and Methods

The data in this paper correspond to a crop cycle of the first half of 2009 and were taken from direct surveys made to farmers, from which we gathered the basic information necessary to quan-tify the economic conditions of crop, insecticide and herbicide use in both agricultural technologies assessed.

20 farms were surveyed with the following distribution:• Conventional technology based on the number of conven-

tional corn farmers reported by the National Federation of Cereal and Leguminous Plants Growers (FENALCE, Spanish anachro-nism), the 10 surveyed lots represented 7.24%.

• Transgenic technology, the total hectares sown using this technology in the 10 lots surveyed, spread over a surface of 190.4 hectares, which represents 100% of the total hectares of the semes-ter evaluated. According to the data provided by the Colombian Institute of Agriculture and Livestock (ICA, Spanish anachro-nism), the state regulating agency, this technology used a surface of 177 ha. The difference between the data provided by the ICA and our data is that we include the shelter zone compulsory for all technologies based on Cry genes, in order for the case to cor-respond to 10% of the total area, that is, the shelter zone applied was 90/10.

Table 7. percentage of the share of each pesticide in the conventional technology

Insecticide Herbicide

Percentage % of shares

Match 0.36 Atrazine 51.00

Atabron 11.02 Gramoxone 28.52

Lorsban 85.61 Thordon 11.36

Methavin 3.01 Accent 2.29

Finale 6.84



5. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of Biotech crops: socio economic and environmental effects 1996–2006. AgBioForum 2008; 11:21-38.

6. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Focus on environmental impact. Biotech crops: evidence, outcomes and impacts 1996–2007. Brief AgBioForum 2009; 12:184-208.

7. Dale P, Clarke B, Fontes E. Potential for the envi-ronmental impact of transgenic crops. Nature 2002; 20:567-74.

8. Euzaguirre M, Albajes R, Lopez C, Eras J, Lumbierres B, Pons X. Six years after the commercial introduction of Bt corner in Spain: field evaluation, impact and future prospects. Transgenic Res 2006; 15:1-12.

9. Ghosh K, Jepson PC, eds. Genetically modified organ-isms in crops production and their effects on the envi-ronment: methodologies for monitoring and the way ahead. FAO 2006.

10. Herrera Estrella LR. Genetically modified crops and developing countries. Plant Physiology 2000; 124:923-5.

11. James C. Global situation of transgenic crops/commer-cialized GM. ISAAA. Brief No. 37. Ithaca, NY 2007.

12. James C. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. ISAAA. Brief No 41. Ithaca, NY 2009.

13. Kovach J, Petzoldt J, Degnil J, Tette J. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. 1992; 139.

14. Nap J, Metz P, Escaler M, Conner A. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Plant J 2003; 33:1-18.

15. Shapper M, Parada S. MGO: their socio-economic impact on the agriculture of the countries of the andine community, Mercosur and Chile. CEPAL 2001; 43:1-81.

16. Raney T. Economic impact of transgenic crops in devel-oping countries. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2006; 17:1-5.

production cost analysis and use of pesticides in the transgenic and conventional corn crop [zea...

Documents