Our farm is in the western part of the state of Iowa in the mid-west of the United States of America. It was first farmed in 1880 when my husband’s great grandfather bought the land and started farming it.

1. Digital Re-print -
May | June 2014
GM soybeans – The on-farm facts
www.gfmt.co.uk
Grain & Feed MillingTechnology is published six times a year by Perendale Publishers Ltd of the United Kingdom.
All data is published in good faith, based on information received, and while every care is taken to prevent inaccuracies,
the publishers accept no liability for any errors or omissions or for the consequences of action taken on the basis of
information published.
©Copyright 2014 Perendale Publishers Ltd.All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form
or by any means without prior permission of the copyright owner. Printed by Perendale Publishers Ltd. ISSN: 1466-3872

2. O
ur farm is in the western part
of the state of Iowa in the
mid-west of the United States of
America. It was first farmed in 1880 when
my husband’s great grandfather bought
the land and started farming it.
Today, my husband Bill and I are the only
workers on the farm and are responsible
for all of the farm’s operations. We grow
soybeans, maize and asparagus on nearly
400 hectares.
For more than 40 years our farm has
been managed using conservation practices
such as buffer strips, managed grassland and
contours. We look after our land. It is our
livelihood. So we use the best practices and
the best tools available. And biotechnology is
one of those tools.
Agricultural biotechnology is probably
one of the most controversial technologies
introduced to modern farming. Since 1996,
when the first genetically modified crops
were grown, there has been a constant bar-
rage of opposition to the use of the technol-
ogy. This opposition at times based on myths
and misunderstanding, often ignores what is
happening at farm level where the benefits
of biotech crops – agronomic, economic
and environmental - are enjoyed by farmers
across the world.
When it comes to biotech, farmers look
on it as yet another tool. And their approach
to adoption is similar to any other tool. If it
works they will use it. If it doesn’t work they
won’t use it.
The results on adoption of the technol-
ogy on the farm speak volumes. Earlier this
year, the annual report from the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications (ISAAA) reported that last year
18 million farmers across 27 countries grew
biotech crops on more than 175 million hec-
tares. Many of these farmers raise their crops
on small farms, such as the seven million
farmers in India who grew biotech cotton.
The ISAAA report showed that from
1996 to 2012, biotech crops contributed to
food security and sustainability by: “increas-
ing crop production - valued at US$116.9
billion; providing a better environment, by
saving 497 million kg of pesticides; reducing
CO2
emissions by 26.7 billion kg in 2012
alone – the equivalent to taking 11.8 million
cars off the road for one year and conserving
biodiversity by saving 123 million hectares
of land”.
Most adopted biotech crop
Biotech soybeans are one of the most
adopted crops with nearly 50 percent off
all biotech crops grown in 2013. In the US,
soybeans are grown across 29 states with
more than half of total production being
exported. In 2013, some 93 percent of total
soy production of 82 million tonnes was
biotech compared with just two percent
in 1996 when biotech soybeans were first
available.
We first grew herbicide tolerant soy-
beans on our farm in 1996 on a very small
scale to see if the technology worked. It did.
And we have been using it successfully ever
since.
In fact, since 1996 the technology has
boosted US farm incomes by US$16.7 bil-
lion with an average cost saving per hectare
of US$45. Additionally, there has been a
decrease in herbicide active ingredients of
27.6 million kgs resulting in a decrease in
environmental impact of 22.2 percent..
However, it’s not just US farmers who
enjoy these benefits. I have been able
to visit farms in Argentina and Brazil and
farmers there have the same experience as
us - which helps to explain why adoption of
biotech soy is at 99 percent and 90 percent
respectively in both countries.
Like other crop farmers the world over,
weeds are a fact of life on our farm. Having
a technology that helps control weeds with-
out harming the crop or the soil is one of
the main reasons behind the high adoption
rate of herbicide tolerant soybeans. These
soybeans are genetically modified to be
resistant to the complementary weed killer,
for example glyphosate or glufosinate.
Aside from weed control, one of the
main advantages using herbicide tolerant
soybeans for farmers such as my husband
and me is being able to use no-till or con-
servation tillage. This means we do not have
to deep plow our land - a necessary part
of conventional tillage to control weeds by
basically turning the soil over and burying
the weeds. This system is labor-intensive
because after plowing, the soil needs further
mechanical tillage requiring more field trips
which also means more diesel fuel. Tillage
also leads to soil erosion as the soil is broken
down into particles which can be blown or
washed away. Further, with conventional
production the crop needs to be sprayed,
often multiple times, with a number of dif-
ferent chemicals, to control weeds.
With no-till or conservation tillage, no
deep plowing is necessary. Instead, we can
use a burn-down herbicide application
directly over the previous year’s crop residue
to kill off any weeds. Soybean seeds are then
sown directly into the ground through the
old crop residue without disturbing other
areas in the field. This crop residue will
eventually break down into organic matter
thus aiding soil health.
10 top facts
The top ten facts behind adoption of
biotech soy production:
1. Reduces time and labor: No-till and
conservation tillage means fewer hours
on a tractor and fewer labour hours to
pay. For example, on our 400 hectare
farm the time savings can be as much
as 500 hours a year
2. Saves fuel: On our farm we have cut
our diesel fuel use from 80 liters a
hectare to 32 liters
3. Reduces machinery requirements:
Fewer trips save an estimated US$12
a hectare on machinery wear and
maintenance costs. We also don’t
need heavy cultivation equipment
meaning capital cost savings. For
example, our ‘youngest’ tractor is 25
years old
4. Improves soil condition: A continuous
no-till on conservation till system
increases soil particle aggregation
(small soil clumps) making it easier for
plants to establish roots. Improved soil
tilth also can minimize compaction.
Compaction is also reduced by fewer
trips across the field
5. Increases organic matter: The
breakdown of the previous year’s
crop residue means increased organic
matter in the soil. As a result we are
continually building top soil. On our
farm the soil’s organic matter has
increased over the years we have
been using biotech. Plus the land’s
water holding capacity is improved
because the earthworm population
has not been disturbed through
tillage which means there are more
earthworms and earthworm tunnels.
These tunnels allow rain water to flow
into the soil instead of washing off the
land
6. Traps soil moisture to improve water
availability: Keeping crop residue on
the surface traps moisture in the soil
by providing shade which helps to
reduce water evaporation
7. Reduces soil erosion: Crop residues
on the soil surface reduce erosion
by water and wind. Depending on
the amount of residues present, soil
erosion can be reduced by up to 90
percent compared to an unprotected,
intensively tilled field
8. Improves water quality: Crop residue
GM soybeans – The on-farm facts
by Laura Foell, Farmer Director of the United Soybean Board, USA
18 | May - June 2014 GRAIN&FEED MILLING TECHNOLOGYF

3. to reduce herbicide runoff into surface
water by more than 50 percent
9. Increases wildlife: Crop residues provide
shelter and food for wildlife, such as
game birds and small animals
10. Improves air quality: Crop residue left
on the surface improves air quality
because it: reduces soil erosion, thus
reducing the amount of dust in the
air; reduces fossil fuel emissions from
tractors by making fewer trips across
the field; and reduces the release of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by
tying up more carbon in organic matter
Magic bullet
Despite these benefits, biotech is not the
‘magic bullet’ for sustainable agriculture.
The most important thing is that farmers
develop a farming regime that is perfectly
adapted to the conditions on their farm. Our
stewardship programs use sustainable tech-
niques such as crop rotation and precision
farming, and to use fertilizers and herbicides as
little and in as localized a manner as possible.
While the technology has brought tre-
mendous benefits to farmers across the
world, it is not a panacea and there are
several issues about which we as farmers
have concerns.
First, glyphosate-resistant weeds have
occurred in some regions in the US This is not
a result of biotech as such as weed resistance
will eventually occur with most chemicals, but
mainly because of the repeated use of glypho-
sate. This over-reliance can be combated by
the use of broadleaf herbicide tank mixes and
development of new biotech varieties resist-
ant to other herbicide chemistries.
Another concern is that the success of
biotech has resulted in a reduction in the
development of non-biotech varieties by seed
companies. Non-biotech seeds are still available
but future development of new non-biotech
varieties will be increasingly under pressure.
Finally, the delay in approvals of biotech
events in regions such as the EU has caused
trade disruption.
As an ever increasing number of bio-
tech crops are developed there is increas-
ing pressure on regulatory authorities to
approve these traits for commercialization.
Anti-biotech sentiment in regions such as
the European Union has resulted in a politi-
cization of the approval process with factors
other than science becoming the de facto
arbiter of commercialization.
These delays in approvals mean that it
is taking the EU much longer than other
regions, such as the Americas, to approve
biotech crops. This in turn impacts trade as
any unapproved biotech crops cannot enter
the EU and on several occasions when this
has happened, it led to higher production
costs for EU livestock and poultry producers.
Further, the wide scale adoption of bio-
tech soy in the main exporting countries
means that non-biotech soy is both hard to
find and expensive with such crops often
costing double the commodity crop.
Until now, biotech soybeans have had agro-
nomic traits which benefited the farmer. For
consumers, who might wonder what biotech
crops will do for them, the second generation
of biotech soy varieties are now being produced
which have added value traits for specialty oils
with increase stability, or soybeans with higher
protein levels, or higher levels of omega-3 fatty
acids that can help protect people from heart
disease or provide better food processing quali-
ties such as a high oleic soybean oil.
Given the confusion and concern among
many consumers about biotechnology I take
part in a number of consumer education pro-
grams. Consumers need to know that respon-
sible food production and the cultivation of
biotech crops is no contradiction. Growing
biotech crops has actually made us more
aware of conservation and sustainable farming.
Bill and I are little different to farmers the
world over, large and small, in our approach
to farming.
Basically, we all look after our land and
the environment in which we live and work.
To do this we will use those farming prac-
tices, tools and technologies that are safe,
efficient and beneficial for our farms, our
families and the generations to come.
Biotech soy is one of those tools which
benefit not only us as farmers but also the wider
society which enjoys the considerable envi-
ronmental and socio-economic advantages of
sustainable production without additional cost.
ISAAA: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/
GM Crops 2013
Brookes G and Barfoot P (2014) Economic impact
of GM crops: the global income and production
effects 1996-2012
May - June 2014 | 19GRAIN&FEED MILLING TECHNOLOGY
www.oj-hojtryk.dk
Die and roll re-working machines
O&J Højtryk A/S
Ørnevej 1, DK-6705
Esbjerg Ø
CVR.: 73 66 86 11
Phone: +45 75 14 22 55
Fax: +45 82 28 91 41
mail: info@oj-hojtryk.dk
F

4. www.gfmt.co.uk
LINKS
• See the full issue
• Visit the GFMT website
• Contact the GFMT Team
• Subscribe to GFMT
A subscription magazine for the global flour & feed milling industries - first published in 1891
INCORPORATING PORTS, DISTRIBUTION AND FORMULATION
In this issue:
• Role of
extruders
in Halal food
production
• Fortification
Fortification in
rice and flour
• IAOM
118th Annual
Conference &
Expo
May-June2014
• GM soybeans
The on-farm facts
• Harvest
conditions:
wheat quality
and addressing
issues
• The Mills Archive
GFMT becomes a
patron
first published in 1891
This digital Re-print is part of the May | June 2014 edition of Grain & Feed
Milling Technology magazine.
Content from the magazine is available to view free-of-charge, both as a full
online magazine on our website, and as an archive of individual features on
the docstoc website.
Please click here to view our other publications on www.docstoc.com.
To purchase a paper copy of the magazine, or to subscribe to the paper edi-
tion please contact our Circulation and Subscriptions Manager on the link
adove.
INFORMATION FOR ADVERTISERS - CLICK HERE
Article reprints
All Grain & Feed Milling Tecchnology feature articles can be re-printed as a 4 or 8 page booklets (these
have been used as point of sale materials, promotional materials for shows and exhibitions etc).
If you are interested in getting this article re-printed please contact the GFMT team for more informa-
tion on - Tel: +44 1242 267707 - Email: jamest@gfmt.co.uk or visit www.gfmt.co.uk/reprints