Farmers for genetic-modified crops, but waiting to see results on ground

Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, but would like to wait for conclusions on their efficacy based on realities on ground.

Washington, Feb.25 : Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, but would like to wait for conclusions on their efficacy based on realities on ground.

According to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), they regard these crops as an innovation, and their real interest is in seeing how these crops work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms.

The research suggests that these farmers do not think that GM raises any issues of principle, or that it is a matter of right or wrong.

A group at the Open University, led by Professor Andy Lane, took the first systematic look at what large-scale, commodity farmers - not those mainly involved in organic growing - think about genetically modified crops.

Lane and his colleagues found that both farmers who have been involved in GM crop trials and those who have not, regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, such as those which have produced today's established crop types.

"New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at once," Professor Lane said.

A particular advantage of GM is its potential to allow farmers to grow crops with high yields while using less herbicide.

This involves new management practices.

Lane and his colleagues found that farmers who have been involved in the Farm-Scale Evaluations to assess GM in action have found GM crops feasible to grow.

The researchers also looked at how farmers learn about new developments such as GM.

They found that most of the learning farmers do is informal, for example by experimentation or from their networks, which are made up from a wide range of people not necessarily just farmers. These networks can extend over long geographical distances.

Many farmers disapproved of past cuts in public funding for agricultural advisory services. It is now complicated and expensive for farmers to get good advice.

They also feel that there is poor communication between farmers and people involved in agricultural policy, and between farmers and relevant scientific research.

ANI