The draw for farmers is the promised reduced cost, and increased yield and thus extra profit over traditional systems. Says this Monsanto blurb "no-till soybeans grown in narrow rows add $16 per acre more to a grower's bottom line than conventional soybeans.... On a 1,000 acre farm, no-till can save as much as 450 hours of time and 3,500 gallons of diesel fuel each year. That's 11, 40-hour weeks in time savings and $4,000 less for diesel at $1.15 per gallon" [http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_monsanto_guarantee_roundup/]. However the weed control advantage of the no-till vs. conventional system has been disputed [http://web.archive.org/web/20041018161535/http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/weeds/weedfacts/fba03s00.html].
==What Increased Yield?==
"GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures" says Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director. According to the report by the Soil Association, "The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties" [http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument].
* An April 2006 report from "Genetic modification actually cuts the United States Department productivity of Agriculture (USDA) states crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that “currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. […] In fact, yield may even decrease if switch to the varieties used controversial technology is needed to carry solve the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars”. (Fernandez-Cornejo, Jgrowing world food crisis. and Caswell, 2006) * The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM crops can have reduced soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields (FAO.... The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, 2004). This is not surprising given which found that first-generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control)another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and are not intended to increase 11 per cent less than the intrinsic yield capacity of the plantbest non-GM soya available.... * A 2003 report published similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in Science stated that “in the United States and ArgentinaUS, average yield effects [of where the total US crop declined even as GM crops] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative”technology took over... (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the authors being strong supporters International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM cropswas not the answer to world hunger. * Yields Professor Bob Watson, the director of both GM the study and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly - depending on growing conditionschief scientist at the Department for Environment, such as degree of infestation with insects or weedsFood and Rural Affairs, weatherwhen asked if GM could solve world hunger, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000) said: 'The simple answer is no'" [http://www.soilassociationindependent.co.orguk/webenvironment/sagreen-living/sawebexposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocumenthtml?startindex=10].
==The rise of the superweeds==