4 ms·

Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with aban

by gmac 10y ago

Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with abandon.

mc32 10y ago
Sure. Here are results from meta-analysis of the question[1]. Key takes: "On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries." So pesticide use goes down, yields go up, resulting in fewer acres planted for the same yield resulting in even further pesticide use. [1]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
- ricksplat 10y ago
  I noting that more and more meta-analyses are kind of falling out of fashion. They're increasingly being viewed as having dubious scientific merit and should be viewed similarly to "lit reviews". As well as some obvious biases there are other subtle issues, such as incomplete data or poorly matched data-sets. There's a list of short-comings on the wikipedia page which should provide a good primer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems Basically, we need to be careful about accepting the results of meta-analyses as scientific fact. They are useful for illustrative purposes but really, at the end of the day if you're going to settle an argument you're going to need rigorous methodology, data-collection and reporting, as well as the all important reproducibility, falsifiability and verifiablity.
  - sampo 10y ago
    You are free to go to the list of references in that meta analysis article, and look at the results of the individual studies.
    - ricksplat 10y ago
      Just like with any lit review.
GeneralMayhem 10y ago
Yes, but it also means you can use the herbicides that actually work. Less total volume required for the same effect, because it's a more effective (on plants) poison.
DanBC 10y ago
The Monsanto claim is that the plant is resistant to the herbicide, and thus you can apply the product earlier in the growing cycle. That kills weeds and allows you to use less product. "Buy our GMO seeds and spend more on inputs" would be a fucking terrible sales pitch.
wcummings 10y ago
Farmers wouldn't use it if it didn't save them money.
marcosdumay 10y ago
On the case of Monsanto soy, you can use a more widely effective herbicide, and because it kills more diverse species of plants, you can apply less of it. Roundup is a very effective herbicide.

by gmac 10y ago

Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with abandon.

mc32 10y ago

Sure. Here are results from meta-analysis of the question[1]. Key takes: "On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries." So pesticide use goes down, yields go up, resulting in fewer acres planted for the same yield resulting in even further pesticide use. [1]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

ricksplat 10y ago
I noting that more and more meta-analyses are kind of falling out of fashion. They're increasingly being viewed as having dubious scientific merit and should be viewed similarly to "lit reviews". As well as some obvious biases there are other subtle issues, such as incomplete data or poorly matched data-sets. There's a list of short-comings on the wikipedia page which should provide a good primer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems Basically, we need to be careful about accepting the results of meta-analyses as scientific fact. They are useful for illustrative purposes but really, at the end of the day if you're going to settle an argument you're going to need rigorous methodology, data-collection and reporting, as well as the all important reproducibility, falsifiability and verifiablity.
- sampo 10y ago
  You are free to go to the list of references in that meta analysis article, and look at the results of the individual studies.
  - ricksplat 10y ago
    Just like with any lit review.

GeneralMayhem 10y ago

Yes, but it also means you can use the herbicides that actually work. Less total volume required for the same effect, because it's a more effective (on plants) poison.

DanBC 10y ago

The Monsanto claim is that the plant is resistant to the herbicide, and thus you can apply the product earlier in the growing cycle. That kills weeds and allows you to use less product. "Buy our GMO seeds and spend more on inputs" would be a fucking terrible sales pitch.

wcummings 10y ago

Farmers wouldn't use it if it didn't save them money.

marcosdumay 10y ago

On the case of Monsanto soy, you can use a more widely effective herbicide, and because it kills more diverse species of plants, you can apply less of it. Roundup is a very effective herbicide.