RE: Biological research, - another twist
Wilson, Dale (WILSONDO@phibred.com)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:40:01 -0600
>Ann,
>
>I would suggest that the converse -
>focusing on specific single issues rather than the system as a whole -
>has been the single most defining characteristic of both the
>agribusiness products provided to farmers and certainly the research
>funded by agribusiness at academic institutions.
>
>I think you are correct, up to a point. I joke with my colleagues about the
>idiosyncrasy of always focusing on whatever problem is fashionable at the
>moment. But, I would venture that this is a foible of human nature rather
>than an evil plot by the captains of industry. There is a certain mindset
>that seems common to managers (God, I hope my superiors here don't read
>this!). It is part of the 'cover-your-butt' instinct. If you are burned in
>a particular year by some problem that snuck up on you, it seems like this
>problem is the biggest problem in the world. Farmers are like this too.
>
> There can be no
>better example of this than offering GE corn hybrids resistant to
>corn rootworm - a problem than exists only if one insists on growing
>corn in series, rather than in rotation with other crops.
>
>I really don't know where you got this, because I don't think anyone has a
>genetic construct that is very effective against rootworm, in spite of
>feverish work. If Pioneer or Novartis is going to market something like that
>any time soon, it is news to me! Farmers now dump millions of pounds of
>persistent, highly toxic insecticides into their soil to control rootworm. I
>don't see why you would claim that substituting a GMO for that would do
>anything but good for the environment. And another thing, rotation doesn't
>completely solve the problem.
>
>Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying all genetic solutions are
>bad. But certainly, the way that genetics is being employed today by
>the few giants left in the industry is not condusive to lasting
>benfit to farmers - or to consumers - just to the purveyors of the
>genetics.
>
>I assume you mean recombinant genetics. All these technologies are being
>licensed to regional seed companies, so they share in the profits. And
>farmers don't have to buy the Bt version of the hybrid or the RR soybeans.
>But they buy these products because they work well.
>
>Transgenics are really not as important as hybrids in serving to concentrate
>genetic power in the hands of a few companies. Yet the marketing of hybrids
>has some good effects, such as shaking lots of money loose for research and
>development, since investors have some protection on their investment.
>
>I'd encourage you to have a look at a book called Variability in
>Grain Yields (1989) edited by Anderson, J.R. and P.B. R. Hazell.
>Contrary to conventional wisdom, what these folks report is that as
>yield increases, variability in yield also increases
>
>I will look at the book, but I was talking about the more limited domain of
>seed vigor, my area of work. I maintain that improved vigor is clearly a
>stabilizing influence.
>
>This is true - although not statistically significantly so -
>in all crops grown in the US with, I think, the exception of rice.
>
>If it is not statistically significant, why should I believe it?
>
>This is
>specifically because regional "yields" are no longer buffered, as
>they once were, by wider range of genetics in the cultivars and
>hybrids grown, greater diversity in management decision by producers,
>etc.
>
>I agree, this is an important problem.
>
>bigger and more specialized farms, and especially,
>higher yield - have actually worsened yield stability, producer
>income security, and overall food security.
>
>I think you are overstating your case here. As far as I can tell, farmers
>are doing quite well.
>
>Friend Dale, let's not get diverted into red herrings here. The
>issue is not capitalism, per se, but the balance between purchased
>inputs and commodity value - and hence, net return. Canadian figures
>show that the aggregate input price index for agriculture has
>increased by 16.5% in the last 10 years, during which the aggregate
>commodity index (the value of what producers received) increased by
>only 0.2%!!
>
>I guess the farmers are becoming very efficient. But seriously, this is a
>market power problem, the classic ag econ problem. Perhaps the governments
>should be more aggressive in supporting commodity prices. The real winners
>are the commodity companies more than the seed companies.
>
>This is reminiscent of putting a band-aid on skin cancer.
>
>How so? these production problems aren't THAT bad!
>
> Rather
>than ask producers to choose between one environmentally damaging
>option and another environmentally damaging option, why not stand
>back and ask why should agriculture depend on chemicals at all?
>
>But you are skirting my point, that some solutions, even some high-tech
>solutions invented by big companies, are more desireable than others. The
>reason farmers don't want to "let nature run it's course" is that it
>represents risk. Many farmers would rather pay a little more, and gain
>predictability.
>
>There is certainly ample evidence of commercial scale agriculture
>that is economically competitive, and that doesn't rely on chemicals
>at all.
>
>This is true for some crops. For example, I wouldn't apply anything to my
>hay. But for row crops, the big problem is weeds. Often, tillage is more
>damaging to the environment than judicious use of chemical controls. For
>example, soybean production in the midwest. The farmer will apply little or
>no tillage after corn the previous year, then go in just before planting
>soybeans, with Roundup. They plant in narrow rows, or drill with no tillage,
>and then follow up, as needed with a post-emergence herbicide. I think this
>is very environmentally responsible. The older style, mechanical tillage
>solution was harder on the soil.
>
> Refer to Alternative Agriculture edited by John Pesek for a
>somewhat dated but still provocative source of case study information
>on this.
>
>Many of the case studies were picked and chosen carefully to illustrate his
>point.
>
>The sense of the article was that so many of the calf pulling
>devices, approaches to reviving weak, listless, frozen calves, hints
>for storing colostrum, and other solutions presented in this annual
>special issue were solving problems created by technology, which was
>in turn imposed to solve problems created by earlier technology.
>
>I know, I found out the hard way, when we had a few cattle on our tiny farm
>in Idaho (a distinctly low-tech operation). I naively thought that calving
>would sort of take care of itself. But isn't this mainly a traditional
>breeding issue? I don't know what you mean by "technology".
>
>if cattlemen would just time their calving to more
>closely match natural calving (when grass was ready, instead of in
>Feb), provide pasture resources to allow cows the seclusion they need
>to calve and bond with their calves, and so and so on.
>
>No, you often still have to pull the calves out.
>
>> This too, is myth. I've talked to the old timers, about the weeds
>
>Refer to the above, pls.
>
>I don't know what you mean.
>
>> People like novelties and curiosities by nature. When money is
>
>I can't really think of anything printable in response to this gem,
>so will just leave it stand on its own merit
>
>Why was this so offensive to you? I didn't mean to imply that you were
>squandering money, just that it is the rule, both in public and private
>sectors. One can always develop a rational argument for some line of
>research, and then selI it aggressively. I wasn't all that successful at
>grantsmanship, I guess because I'm just not very political. In industry too,
>salesmanship and group dynamics are supremely important. It is just human
>nature.
>
>Thanks for the interesting discussion.
>
>Dale
>
>
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".