Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States

AbstractDue to depressed corn and soybean prices over the last few years in the United States, growers in Nebraska are showing interest in no-tillage (hereafter referred to as no-till) conventional (non–genetically engineered [non-GE]) soybean production. Due to the increasing number of herbicide-resistant weeds in the United States, weed control in no-till non-GE soybean using POST herbicides is a challenge. The objectives of this study were to compare PRE-only, PRE followed by (fb) POST, and PRE fb POST with residual (POST-WR) herbicide programs for Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf control and soybean injury and yield, as well as to estimate the gross profit margins and benefit–cost ratio of herbicide programs. A field experiment was conducted in 2016 and 2017 at Clay Center, NE. The PRE herbicides tested in this study resulted in ≥95% Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf control at 28 d after PRE (DAPRE). Averaged across the programs, the PRE-only program controlled Palmer amaranth 66%, whereas 86% and 97% control was obtained with the PRE fb POST and PRE fb POST-WR programs, respectively, at 28 d after POST (DAPOST). At 28 DAPOST, the PRE fb POST herbicide programs controlled velvetleaf 94%, whereas the PRE-only program resulted in 85% control. Mixing soil-residual herbicides with foliar-active POST programs did not improve velvetleaf control. Averaged across herbicide programs, PRE fb POST programs increased soybean yield by 10% and 41% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, over the PRE-only programs. Moreover, PRE fb POST-WR programs produced 7% and 40% higher soybean yield in 2016 and 2017, respectively, compared with the PRE fb POST programs. The gross profit margin (US$1,184.3 ha−1) was highest under flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone (PRE) fb fluthiacet-methyl plusS-metolachlor/fomesafen (POST-WR) treatment; however, the benefit–cost ratio was highest (6.1) with the PRE-only program of flumioxazin/chlorimuron-ethyl.

Download Full-text

Descriptions of Chestnut Cultivars for Nut Production in the Eastern and Midwestern United States

HortScience ◽

10.21273/hortsci16090-21 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Ronald S. Revord ◽

J. Michael Nave ◽

Ronald S. Revord ◽

J. Michael Nave ◽

Gregory Miller ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

20Th Century ◽

The United States ◽

Castanea Dentata ◽

Eastern United States ◽

University Of Missouri ◽

Chinese Chestnut ◽

Nut Production ◽

The University ◽

On Farm

The Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume) and other Castanea species (Castanea spp. Mill.) have been imported and circulated among growers and scientists in the United States for more than a century. Initially, importations of C. mollissima after 1914 were motivated by efforts to restore the American chestnut [Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.], with interests in timber-type characters and chestnut blight resistance. Chestnut for orchard nut production spun off from these early works. Starting in the early 20th century, open-pollinated seeds from seedlings of Chinese chestnut and other Castanea species were distributed widely to interested growers throughout much of the eastern United States to plant and evaluate. Germplasm curation and sharing increased quite robustly through grower networks over the 20th century and continues today. More than 100 cultivars have been named in the United States, although a smaller subset remains relevant for commercial production and breeding. The University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry curates and maintains a repository of more than 60 cultivars, and open-pollinated seed from this collection has been provided to growers since 2008. Currently, more than 1000 farms cultivate seedlings or grafted trees of the cultivars in this collection, and interest in participatory on-farm research is high. Here, we report descriptions of 57 of the collection’s cultivars as a comprehensive, readily accessible resource to support continued participatory research.

Download Full-text

An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food

Annual Review of Nutrition ◽

10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 38 (1) ◽

pp. 459-479 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

Sydney E. Scott ◽

Yoel Inbar ◽

Christopher D. Wirz ◽

Dominique Brossard ◽

Paul Rozin

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Genetically Engineered ◽

Natural Food ◽

Human Intervention ◽

Positive View ◽

Minimal Contact ◽

Foreign Dna ◽

Genetically Engineered Food

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.

Download Full-text