AGBIOS :: HOME ::

There are at least two things to say for certain about the National Agricultural Statistics Service survey showing acreage for biotech crops planted in the United States:

1. It’s growing.

2. Wheat acreage is notably absent.

As part of the latest NASS acreage survey, farmers’ use of biotechnology-derived crops was detailed. The numbers aren’t growing by leaps and bounds lately, but they are growing.

In 2005, it’s estimated that 52 percent of all the corn acreage in the United States is planted to varieties that have been engineered for insect or herbicide resistance, or both. The number is 79 percent for upland cotton and 87 percent for soybean acreage.

The percentages ticked up only slightly in each category over the past year, but since 2000, when NASS began reporting on biotech varieties, the growth has been much steeper. That year, biotech corn accounted for 25 percent of the nation’s acreage, cotton 61 percent and soybeans 54 percent.

In the Capital Press readership area, California is the only state with any major acreage of an engineered crop. Fifty-three percent of the state’s cotton acreage, according to the survey, is grown with the aid of a herbicide, insect or stacked gene variety.

When it comes to corn farmers giving the technology their vote of approval, South Dakota is in the lead with 83 percent of the corn acreage planted using biotech seed. Next is Nebraska, with 69 percent of its corn acreage, Minnesota with 66 percent and Kansas with 63 percent. Acreage of engineered varieties in Iowa, the nation’s top corn producer, stands at 60 percent.

But it’s in soybeans that the science is really taking off. Only 13 percent of the nation’s oil seed crop acreage is planted to non-GMO varieties. In this category, Mississippi is in the lead, with 96 percent of the state’s soybeans acreage planted to biotech varieties. South Dakota is next, followed by Arkansas.

Except for California’s cotton, there is an absence of widespread biotech crop use in the West. NASS used a production cut off in selecting states for enumeration in the biotech survey.

Wheat growers are finding their absence from the biotech list problematic. Wheat acreage in some states has been affected by the spread of biotech corn or soybeans.

Since Monsanto decided not to go ahead with its biotech wheat in 2003, the National Association of Wheat Growers has moved from being agnostic about the science to a true believer. The group’s leadership fears wheat being left an orphan crop if they miss out on the biotech revolution. With the trend among other crops obvious, NAWG has embarked on a mission to help pave the way for biotechnology in wheat.

Daren Coppock, chief executive officer for NAWG, said a withering industry is not in anybody’s interest.

“We have to find a way to board this train before it leaves us abandoned at the station and the tracks are pulled up,” he said, arguing that technology adoption has always been a key component of competitive advantage for U.S. wheat producers.

He compared GMOs with such milestone developments as inorganic fertilizers, crop protection products, semi-dwarf varieties and new reduced-tillage practices and equipment.

“Wheat is now losing acres to those crops which have embraced biotechnology, and in so doing have improved their competitive position against wheat for those acres. That trend will steepen when drought tolerance is introduced in other crops,” he said.

The industry, however, is not unanimous and the export arm of the American grower, U.S. Wheat Associates, fears buyer rejection of biotech wheat overseas.

Some buyers have indicated in surveys they would not purchase any wheat from the United States if even a portion was grown using GMO varieties.

But buyer issues are only one part of what’s holding up biotechnology in the grain. The other is a company willing to risk the gauntlet environmental organizations are sure to throw down against releasing an engineered crop.

Until those issues are resolved, biotech wheat will not be a category in any upcoming NASS survey.