analysis on the introduction of gm crops in piedmont...
TRANSCRIPT
Analysis on the introductionof GM crops in Piedmont:
effects of coexistence on food and feed chaines
Bruxelles: 29 April 2009
Università degli Studi di TorinoDep. Agroselviter, DiVaPrA,
Dep. of Economy CdMIRES Piemonte, CSI Piemonte
Coordinators: A. Reyneri, L. Ricci
Structure of the Analysis
Prospective of GMO L.Barchi, S.Lanteri
Coexistence: Agricultural aspects A. Reyneri, E. Maero,
Coexistence: food and feed chains A. Reyneri, A.Peila, S. Aimone
Coexistence: economics aspects S.Corsi, A.Quatraro
Simulation of the coexistence at local scale A. Reyneri,S. Corsi, S.Gallo
Perspectives at regional scale: A. Reyneri, S. Corsi, S. Aimone
Coexistence: food and feed chaines
Field aspect Outsourcing Elevator
Feed producerMill
Source of contamination
(%) (%) (%)Seeds 0.3 0.1 0.3Seeding 0 0 0Cultivation 0 0 0Pollination from GM 0.2 0 0.2Wild relatives 0 0.01 0.2Harvest 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total from field 0.52 0.13 0.71
Transports 0.01 0.01 0.05Storage 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total post-harvest 0.06 0.06 0.10
Final contamination 0.58 0.19 0.81
(EC-SCP, 2001; Reyneri, 2006 mod.)
Maize Soybean CanolaSource of contamination
Contaminationis cumulative
Food contractagreement Max GMO < 0.5%
Coexistence involve all the actors of the food and feed chains
EC-SCP, 2001; Reyneri 2007
Post Harvest process 0.1 – 0.2 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 0.2
Synthesis of the main results
Maize and soybean in Piedmont Region
All cereals Maize and soybean
Area (ha) 417.000 186.000
Farm (n.) 50.000 30.000 (6.2 ha)
Field (n.) 700.000 550.000 (0.4 ha)
Maize utilization> 20% food
< 80% feed, energy
Soybean utilization> 98% feed< 2% other
Coexistence: field aspects
Field measures from National guidelines for Coexistence
Maize SoybeanIsolation distance (< 0.01%) 1000 m 200 mIsolation distance (< 0.9 %) 150-300 m 100 mBuffer (non GM with) 7 m 5 mNo GM surface for Bt 20%
Simulation of the coexistence
Comparison among 3 areas and different scenarios
Coexistence: field aspects
Coexistence: field aspects
Simulation of the coexistence
Random selection of the farm (ex. GM farm 25, 50, 75%)
Coexistence: field aspects
Simulation of Different scenarioon maize GM area
Simulation of the coexistence
Comparison among 4 different scenarios
Scenario maize maize bio. soybean soybean bio buffer
return GMO-free
(y)
OGM free
Severe limits 150 1000 100 200 yes 1
Large limits 50 200 25 100 no 0
No limits 25 50 0 25 no 0
Isolation distance
Scenario
maize GM area (ha)
maize GM area (%)
OGM free 0Severe limits < 4.000 < 2Large limits < 60.000 < 34No limits > 100.000 > 56
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
25m 50m 100m 200mSu
perf
icie
GM
(%)
ad. 25% ad. 50% ad. 75% ad.100%
Coexistence: field aspects
Comparison among 3 areas and different scenarios
0
20
40
60
80
100
0m 25m 50m 100m 200m
Supe
rfic
ie G
M (%
)
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Superficie potenzialmente a GM
(corpi aziendali > 1 ha)
Superficie potenzialmente a GM
(corpi aziendali > 1 ha)
Scenario 1:
no collaboration among farm
Scenario 2
collaboration 25%, 50%, 75%
Isolation distance Isolation distance
Coexistence: Outsourcing
1200 dealers
40% of the surface seed
90% of the surface harvest
90% of the transport from field to elevators (storage)
Agricultural machinery
Dealer prescriptions for outsourcing from National guidelines for Coexistence
Maize SoybeanSeeder Separation Separation Harvester Separation SeparationTrailers Separation SeparationTemporary silos Separation Separation
Coexistence: Outsourcing
Survey on 30 dealers: main results
To devote harvester
for GMO crops
Min. surface 250 ha
Max. distance 20 km
40%
60%
macchina dedicata NO macchina dedicataDevote machinery
No devote machinery
Coexistence: elevators
183 Storage plants inter-farms
20% segregate maize waxy (contamination limits 2-4%)
Number of receiver units
31%
35%
7%3%
1%3%
20%
1 2 3 4 5 6 no
Survey: main results (40 plants)
Coexistence: elevators
To devote a unit for GM crops
min. 3-4000 t (3-400 ha)
CasesStructural
limitsProfessional
capacityMarket
constrainsMin. quantity for GM
products (t)
23% 3000
17% complete conversion
58% 4500
Coexistence: feed producers
Survey: main results (14 plants)
Plant yield (t/year)
Structural limits
Professional capacity
Market contrains
M1 300.000M2 140.000M3 5.000M4 50.000M5 18.000
67 Plants for feed production
Situation
GM feed GM free feed
GM free feed(t/year)
Strategy for GM segregation
M1, M2 80% 20% > 100.000 devoted plant
M4 80% 20% 20-100.000 devoted unit
M3, M5 60% 40% < 20.000 no strategy
Coexistence: feed producers
Survey: main results (14 plants)
Plant yield (t/year)
Structural limits
Professional capacity
Market constrains
M1 35.000M2 2-10.000M3 1.500
8 Mill plants for maize products
Coexistence: Mill
Survey: main results
3.947 Enterprise on cereal transformation
Coexistence: food industry
25 -30% utilize maize products
> 90% of maize is originated in Piedmont or Italy
Control on contaminants
- GMO
- Pesticide residues witch are the maximum level ?
- Mycotoxins
GM ingredients: Very severe market constrains
Perspecives of Coexistence:
Chain actortechnical
adv.economic
adv.market
adv.technical
adv.economic
adv. market adv.FarmerDealerElevatorFeed prod.MillFood industry
GM Maize GM soybean
clear advantage contrasting advantage clear adverse
Economic Aspects
Redditività di mais Bt in diversi scenari
Effetto del differenziale di prezzo: -10% mais Bt mai conveniente
- 5% convenienza se distanza < 50m
0% mais Bt conveniente
Effetto dei prezzi: alti prezzi maggiore interesse per mais Bt
RL: non computati costi di registro, controlli, patentino.
Effetto della dimensione del campo
Convenienza mais Bt se area GM > 88:57%
Centri stoccaggio
Dedicare una linea
Costruire una linea 800.000 €
5000 t/anno
Costi analitici complessivi (€/t)
Centri stoccaggio 0.6 : 1.1
Mangimifici 0.1 : 0.6
Molini 0.4 : 3.4
ThankyouThankyou for your attention for your attention
[email protected]@[email protected]@regionepiemonte.it