If it's Moday it must be Monsanto time

Last April The Independent in the UK published an article on yield declines in Roundup Ready resistant soya bean crops.

The main premise appeared to be supported by entries such as this at Potash Corp in 2007:

Manganese Response of Conventional and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Project Leader: Dr. Nathan Nelson, Kansas State University, Agonomy, 2708 Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501.
Telephone: (785) 532-5115. Fax: (785) 532-6094.

Weed control benefits of glyphosate resistant (GR) soybeans have resulted in nearly complete adoption of GR soybean varieties by U.S. producers, despite an apparent yield decrease that accompanies this decision. Although the reasons for the yield decrease are not known, there is some evidence that GR soybeans have reduced manganese (Mn) uptake compared to conventional soybeans. Therefore, Mn additions may help overcome the apparent yield disadvantage of GR soybeans. The objectives of this study are to: i) evaluate nutrient uptake, distribution, and biomass accumulation in a GR soybean cultivar compared to a non-GR sister line, and ii) determine the response of a GR and non-GR soybean cultivar to soil and foliar Mn applications. Field plots were established at five locations (Scandia, Manhattan, Ashland Bottoms, Rossville, and Ottawa) in North Central and Eastern Kansas in 2006 and 2007 to compare conventional and GR soybean response to three rates of soil applied and two rates of foliar Mn. Response variables include yield, biomass, plant height, Mn uptake, and leaf, and grain Mn concentrations.

Application of Mn increased GR soybean yields between 6 and 14 bu/A at the Scandia site, but results were inconsistent at the other sites. Conventional soybeans were not responsive to Mn at any of the locations in 2006, but were responsive at the Scandia site in 2007. Over all, soybean yields were greater at the Scandia location compared to the other locations for both years, suggesting that the yield increase from Mn application to GR soybeans may only occur in high yielding environments (>60 bu/A). Trends indicated a yield response to both soil-applied and foliar-applied Mn, but the results were inconsistent across locations. Preliminary plant analyses show that there was no significant difference in Mn uptake between the GR and non-GR varieties. There were some differences in nutrient partitioning, where the non-GR soybeans had more K remaining in the leaves at R6 growth stage. Further analysis of 2007 data will be conducted to confirm these observations.

The premise appeared to also be supported by one of the other studies cited in The Independent article which concluded:

This research provides evidence that the GR soybean variety used in this study did not accumulate Mn in the same manner as the conventional variety, and did respond to application of Mn in this high-yield environment.

However, its author Dr. W.B. Barney Gordon objected to The Independent's summary of his findings and backed away from any statement that GMO soya bean may lead to lower crop yields (scroll through to Page 3).

According to Elmore et al in the Agronomy Journal:

Yields were suppressed with GR soybean cultivars. Our other work showed that there was no effect of glyphosate on GR cultivars (Elmore et al., 2001). The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential. Producers should consider the potential for 5 to 10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean. Cultivar choices are best based on (i) previous weed pressure and success of control measures in specific fields, (ii) the availability and cost of herbicides, (iii) availability and cost of herbicide-resistant cultivars, and (iv) yield, and not solely on whether cultivars are herbicide resistant. Based on our results from this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself.

What is becoming obvious in all this, is the fact that Australian farmers who plant GMO soya bean may initially save on pesticide application rates, but will inevitably face extra targeted fertiliser costs and the possibility exists that the genetic modification process itself may be responsible for some percentage of lower yield results anyway.

Not exactly the win-win situation that Monsanto and friends are presenting as the 'truth' and something NSW North Coast cane farmers should be aware of as they frequently alternate cane with soya bean.

Extra reading if you are interested in global agriculture here.

U.K. Soil Association 2008 press release here.

* This post is part of the North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Kevin 747 packs his travel bag - again!

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stepped into another jet plane on the weekend and flew out of the country.
I'm beginning to lose count of how many overseas trips Our Kev has made since the federal election of November 2007.
Is this the 14th, 15th or 16th taxpayer-funded jaunt?

Here on the NSW North Coast we are struggling with high fuels costs without a real choice to use public transport, rent increases in a housing pool which is not growing to keep up with demand, spiralling grocery prices in areas with some of the lowest wages and highest unemployment in Australia, a crumbling health system with a truly laughable public dental service, inadequate pensions of all sorts which see recipients going without life's essentials and many self-funded retirees taking a big hit from the global financial crisis.

Kev old cobber, I'm not impressed - you're putting on pork and we're getting skinnier.

Somehow that just doesn't seem right in the lucky country.......

Uh oh...

I put Kev on the plane 24 hours ahead of his departure time. Sorry for the confusion.

A selection of NSW Northern Rivers art

Untitled landscape by John Turton

Untitled seascape by Spuddy

Untitled bird study by Christine Willcocks

These Northern Rivers artists displayed at

Total Travel

Sidesplitting quote from the Nationals' chief nong

The Daily Examiner in true tabloid style ran a front page yesterday on the 'war' over bats going on at Maclean.

State Nationals MP for Clarence, Steve Cansdell, drew a bellow of laughter from me at breakfast when I read that he had said: "war will be declared on this Federal Government" and "A major confrontation will occur and I will be in the centre of it - I have to be".

Trust our resident political nong.
As yet there are no bats in any number in the immediate vicinity of Maclean High School.
With the extinction of the adjoining rainforest patch in which flying foxes previously roosted, they may not come back as a highly visible presence for generations.
Yet here he is - ready to get out the batmobile and confront Canberra at the head of his 'troops'.

All this huffing and puffing because the precautionary dispersal licence applied for is apparently going through the usual channels whenever such an application concerns a listed vulnerable species.

Bucket rating awarded to APN media for giving Stevo's hysteria column inches:

Batty politics

The Clarence Valley township of Maclean has a front row seat as the Labor MP for Page and the Nationals MP for Cowper play duelling banjos to the tune of bats awa' wi ye.

On September 8th The Daily Examiner told the world:

On Thursday, The Daily Examiner reported that an application by Clarence Valley Council and the New South Wales Department of Education for a licence to disperse bats from a rainforest reserve near Maclean High School and an area known as 'the gully' had hit a stumbling block.
The applicants were advised by the Federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts that it considered disturbing bats as a 'controlled action' which required a lengthy and time-consuming environmental impact statement (EIS)....
They are concerned about delays in approval for the licence that they've had in past years to disperse the bats so they won't settle in the school area," Ms Saffin said.
"This is a matter for the state and federal environment departments and I don't see why the previous licensing arrangements can't continue.
"I have agreed to raise the issue with Environment Minister Peter Garrett on behalf of the school community and I'm aware that timing is an issue on this matter."

On September 19th ABC North Coast broadcast this:

The federal Member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, has taken the issue of the bats at Maclean to the federal stage.
In a speech to the Parliament this week, Mr Hartsuyker criticised the federal Environment Department for not approving the granting of a licence to remove the bats from bush near the Maclean High School.
Mr Hartsuyker says the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change referred the matter to the Commonwealth.
He says the federal Environment Department wants a report prepared before making a decision.
"There's no justification in stopping those bats from moving on, there is a precedent for this and the people of Maclean, the students and staff of the school are certainly demanding of a safe place to go to school and certainly a good educational environment," he said.

No-one seems to be going to bat for the vulnerable Grey-headed Flying Fox except the Federal Dept. of the Environment.
It will be interesting to see if Minister Peter Garrett listens to his department or the political banjos.

I'm almost tempted to say...

Truffles Turnbull and Co attempting to buy themselves out of trouble?

THE Supreme Court has cleared the way for a multi-million dollar settlement of a legal action involving failed insurer HIH, giving new Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull the chance to avoid a potentially legal embarrassment.

NSW Supreme Court Justice Patricia Bergin today granted an application by HIH to put preparations for the case on hold for 90 days while the parties negotiate a settlement over the $500 million claim.

A settlement would mean Mr Turnbull, the former chairman of investment bank Goldman Sachs Australia, would avoid the unwanted attention of a protracted court case involving himself and eight other defendants and 118 cross-claims.

However, if the matter cannot be settled, the court will most likely hear from witnesses such as disgraced former HIH chief executive Ray Williams and former FAI chief Rodney Adler, who is also a defendant, in what would be the lead-up to the next election.

Is Turnbull willing to risk having to personally pay out a considerable sum in an out-of-court settlement in the hope of becoming Australian prime minister in 2010?

Is he that driven? That desperate?

Did the Pope put his money where his mouth is?

ABC Radio's AM program reported that Pope Benedict who flies on the chartered Alitalia Flight commentators dubbed Shepherd One was praying for the airline which is on the brink of collapse. (Read the transcript here.)

Airline companies collapsing has become such a common occurrence that the British online betting agency Paddy Power offered punters odds on which airline company will be the next to hit terminal turbulence.

Thirty people made $30,000 when they successfully wagered on the collapse of XL, the third largest package holiday group. (Read about XL going down the gurgler here.)

Paddy Power rated Qantas a 66/1 prospect of being the next airline company to go belly up. Virgin was rated as the rank outsider at 100/1.
Alitalia was given the dubious honour of being the favourite.

Hence, the question arises. Did Benny put his money on another airline?

BTW, Paddy Power still rates Australia's George Pell a 66/1 chance of being the next Pope. Perhaps George is 'investing' the weekly plate collections on himself. (The odds of other wouldbes if they couldbes are listed here.)