Performance of Conventional and Transgenic Soybean Cultivars in the South and Alto Paranaiba Regions of Minas Gerais, Brazil
- 1 Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, Brazil
- 2 Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, Brazil
- 3 Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, Brazil
- 4 Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, Brazil
- 5 Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, Brazil
- 6 Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, Brazil
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare transgenic and conventional soybean cultivars in regard to yield performance and agronomic traits. Six soybean cultivars were tested: three conventional cultivars and their three isogenic transgenic derivatives, in two locations, Lavras and Patos de Minas in Minas Gerais, Brazil, in the 2012/13 crop season. Data on yield (kg · ha <sup>-1</sup> ), plant height (cm), and tolerance to lodging were collected. The cultivars had different responses. The cultivar BRS/MG46 Conquista had lower yields than its isogenic derivative BRS Valiosa RR, but this was not seen with the conventional cultivar M-SOY 6101, which produced more than its isogenic derivative M-SOY 7211 RR. Between the isogenic cultivars BRS/MG68 Vencedora and BRS Favorita RR, there were no significant differences. Nevertheless, the contrast between the mean values of the transgenic and conventional cultivars shows that the conventional cultivars had mean values greater than the transgenic cultivars.
- Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (2014) Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de grãos, v. 1—Safra 2013/14, n. 7—Sétimo Levantamento.
- Duffy, M. (2001) Who Benefits from Biotechnology? Paper Presented at American Seed Trade Association Meeting, Chicago, 5-7 December 2001.
- Elmore, R.W., Roeth, F.W., Klein, R.N., Knezevic, S.Z., Martin, A., Nelson, L.A., et al. (2001) Glyphosate-Resistance Soybean Cultivar Response to Glyphosate. Agronomy Journal, 93, 404-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.932404x
- Pelaez, V., Albergoni, L. and Gerra, M.P. (2004) Soja transgênica versus soja convencional: uma análise comparativa de custos e benefícios. Cadernos de Ciência & Tecnologia, 21, 279-309.
- Menegatti, A.L.A. and Barros, A.L.M. (2007) Análise comparativa dos custos de produção entre soja transgênica e convencional: Um estudo de caso para o Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 45, 163-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20032007000100008
- Lima, W.F., Pípolo, A.E., Moreira, J.U.V., Carvalho, C.G.P., Prete, C.E.C., Arias, C.A.A., et al. (2008) Interação genótipoambiente de soja convencional e transgênica resistente a glifosato, no Estado do Paraná. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 43, 729-736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2008000600009
- Rocher, J. (2010) Brasil Transgênico. Jornal Gazeta do Povo.—Curitiba: Gazeta do Povo. http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/caminhosdocampo/conteudo.phtml?tl=1&id=1077231&tit=Brasil-transgenico
- Galli, A.J.B. and Montezuma, M.C. (2005) Alguns aspectos da utilização do herbicida glyphosate na agricultura. http://www.monsanto.com.br/roundup/glyphosate/capitulo3/capitulo3_2.asp
- Ribeiro, A.C., Guimarães, P.T.G. and Alvarez, V.H. (1999) Comissão de Fertilidade do Solo do Estado de Minas Gerais—CFSEMG. Recomendação para o uso de corretivos e fertilizantes em Minas Gerais: 5a Aproximação. Viçosa, MG, Embrapa/UFV/SBCS, Cap. 5, 25-32.
- Carvalho, E.R., Rezende P.M.D., Ogoshi F.G.A., Botrel é.P., Alcantara H.P. and Santos J.P. (2010) Desempenho de cultivares de soja [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] em cultivo de verão no Sul de Minas Gerais. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 34, 892-899. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542010000400014
- Bernard, R.L., Chamberlain, D.W. and Lawrece, R.D. (1965) Results of the Cooperative Uniform Soybean Tests. USDA, Washington DC.