> Current GMOs do not increase yields so significantly as to be considered a necessity for competitive efficiency
I think that's mostly a fair assertion. The traits that are on the market are focused more on reducing operational costs (fewer trips over the field) and opening new opportunities for management practices (cover crops are all the rage these days). While those practices might help introduce a small yield bump, the biggest gains are on the reduction of costs. Again, about $2.50/bu when we're talking about soybeans.
Having said that, there is an element of competition at play. Yields of all types, GMO and not, are up significantly. It may be that GMOs did introduce the yield bumps first, forcing those producing non-GMO varieties to up their game. I don't follow that end of the business close enough to say for certain. Something is driving significant increases in yield though.
> Generally fewer GMO strains are available than non-GMO strains, lowering biodiversity on GMO fields, and some GMO plants (such as Roundup Ready) don't make sense to plant on mixed GMO/non-GMO fields, lowering biodiversity
You mean planting many different varieties all in the same field? We actually do that on our corn ground, where we still use GMO varieties. In soybeans, where we haven't used GMOs in years, that would be a big no-no. The market wants to buy soy on specific varieties. The wheat market, where there is no such thing as GMOs, is starting to go in this direction as well.
So, if I understand you correctly, the reality is actually reversed. At least on my farm and many of the farms near mine.
> GMOs cost extra money
Often true, but I don't see how this is much of a criticism? They cost extra money because they are worth more. A business charges what someone is willing to pay, and farmers are willing to pay it because they've done the math.
> Overall it is possible that the downsides may outweigh the benefits
We've touched on some of the upsides: Lower market price, ability to improve soil health through no-till and cover crop practices, reduced use of fossil fuels by reducing the number of trips over the field. I don't know what downsides you are referring to?
I think that's mostly a fair assertion. The traits that are on the market are focused more on reducing operational costs (fewer trips over the field) and opening new opportunities for management practices (cover crops are all the rage these days). While those practices might help introduce a small yield bump, the biggest gains are on the reduction of costs. Again, about $2.50/bu when we're talking about soybeans.
Having said that, there is an element of competition at play. Yields of all types, GMO and not, are up significantly. It may be that GMOs did introduce the yield bumps first, forcing those producing non-GMO varieties to up their game. I don't follow that end of the business close enough to say for certain. Something is driving significant increases in yield though.
> Generally fewer GMO strains are available than non-GMO strains, lowering biodiversity on GMO fields, and some GMO plants (such as Roundup Ready) don't make sense to plant on mixed GMO/non-GMO fields, lowering biodiversity
You mean planting many different varieties all in the same field? We actually do that on our corn ground, where we still use GMO varieties. In soybeans, where we haven't used GMOs in years, that would be a big no-no. The market wants to buy soy on specific varieties. The wheat market, where there is no such thing as GMOs, is starting to go in this direction as well.
So, if I understand you correctly, the reality is actually reversed. At least on my farm and many of the farms near mine.
> GMOs cost extra money
Often true, but I don't see how this is much of a criticism? They cost extra money because they are worth more. A business charges what someone is willing to pay, and farmers are willing to pay it because they've done the math.
> Overall it is possible that the downsides may outweigh the benefits
We've touched on some of the upsides: Lower market price, ability to improve soil health through no-till and cover crop practices, reduced use of fossil fuels by reducing the number of trips over the field. I don't know what downsides you are referring to?