Ben:
I believe the story begins with Henry Wallace, corn hybrid revolutionizer,
former USDA Secretary, US Vice President, and populist candidate for President
in 1948. It is a slight paradox that the man who brought more refined
technology to seed selection is also revered as a prophet of sustainable
agriculture, and for whom a major institute is named, in Washington, DC. His
preface to the 1938 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture begins with : " The Earth is
the mother of us all."
I wonder what Secretary Wallace would say now.
The company that Wallace founded is Pioneer, which, with DeKalb and now
Monsanto, is the biggest force in the corn seed business. Working down, or
across, in the flow chart, one encounters the USDA Agricultural Research
Service. The Ames, Iowa field station is where corn research is conducted in
the public sector, and the germ plasm is protected, reproduced, and
experimented with. Both Pioneer and DeKalb are located in Iowa, and work quite
closely with the USDA in Ames, under the supervision of Iowa State University.
Yield potential has been linked with synthetic fertilizers over the past 50
years. The use of chemical fertilizer has affected the biological balance of
the soil, which has lead to hybridization for both pest and disease
resistance. Coupled with the drive to move yields higher and higher, seed
science has become very complex. The functionality of corn hybrids grown with
herbicides is also part of that research focus.
I have been looking at old books quite a bit. In the old agricultural books
there are photographs of corn fields in the US, 1905, 1916, 1925. In none of
these photos do I see any weeds. Undoubtedly there were weeds that were killed
by cultivation, but that technology is still with us, and is used almost
exclusively on organic fields. I should also note that organic farmers with
long-term experience have adopted crop rotation strategies that prevent weed
populations. I surmise that this same sort of production system was used in
1905.
Compare this circumstance to the evolution of herbicides which have
historically created weeds that are resistant to successive chemicals, and
newer chemicals are developed. Add to that the broad concern, and action,
taken to protect natural resources from herbicide contamination ( atrazine is
the most frequently cited material), and the agricultural sector is faced with
a severe paradox. Monsanto's Round-Up herbicide is meant to be an answer to
part of this problem. It is not considered as deleterious as atrazine or other
materials, but it kills everything. Therefore research has lead to Round-Up
resistant corn and soybean crops. Why weed resistance will not be a
consequence of such wide use of the product is hardly ever discussed. But we
do have anecdotal information now at large about weed resistance to Round-Up.
Therefore, the seeds now introduced are designed for cropping systems where an
array of chemicals are used to combat diseases, weeds, and pesticides, and it
takes a pretty tough ( and complicated) plant to grow in the chemical
environment.
I will try to find some farmers who can address your questions about
agribusiness. One aspect is "garbage in-garbage out", or very limited
education. There is little objectivity in regulation nor in the science of
environmental protection ( because it is politicized), and the private sector
provides research funding at what are known as Land Grant Colleges- USDA
agricultural schools and facilities like Iowa State University. In order to
fund the technology needed at those schools, the chemical sector alliance is
often required and frequently promoted. The USDA has guaranteed the synthetic
technology for decades since it was the trend, or "conventional wisdom" as
J.K. Galbraith says. The "cost-per-acre" mentality set in, and that is how
nearly everyone measures productivity now. But the cost of the chemicals
continues to go up. Much crop was raised this year below market value.
However, Monsanto has created a very successful campaign to reduce the cost of
Round-up, linking it to the seed they will sell that is immune to the
herbicide, a vertical marketing program that garners market share. Market
share is the key factor in macro-economics. When just a few are left standing
after all the price reductions, they then own the market, and all the smaller
seed companies can be bought up more readily.
I should note that the cost per acre for production never takes into account
the cost of maintaining an army of environmental pollution data retrievers and
all the technology utlized to measure ground water degradation, air pollution,
and the means to control it everywhere except at the source. Super Fund
hazardous materials site clean-up is a theoretical ag-sector cost borne by the
public because of this system. The health costs are impossible to quantify.
One proponent of agribusiness is a popular business journalist named Dennis
Avery. Like Archer Daniels Midland, The American Farm Bureau and the USDA, Mr.
Avery's call to action in the globalization of these new genetic and chemical
technologies hinges on the argument that world population will outstrip our
ability to produce food and famines and civil unrest will result. At present,
this argument is fairly shaky, since corn and soybean prices are exceptionally
low, and this has lead to yet another farm crisis. The same macro-result will
be found in the production sector, just as it is in the agri-chemical sector:
fewer farmers, larger farms, more vertical farm management companies. Many
farmers in Iowa rent immense ground now, sometimes three or four times what
they own, on the order of 1500 to 3000 acres. I think the model we should
expect to see in the US is now in Brazil, where corporate farms manage many
thousands of hectares with vertical management teams.
Field Crops are linked to livestock. Here a crisis is underway in pork
production, with the mega-20,000 hog facilities overproducing,and the 300-hog
producers are bailing out. Market share is the name of the game. A few days
ago the price of fluid milk dropped 30% in one day, and that will ripple out
to the small dairies, and further complicate the rural economy. Larger dairies
have been the trend for many years.
Truly, the small farm operator is entrapped in a global market and a chemical
production system. Unless one has the credit and production capability to
warrant the new machinery ( $200K combines, $125K tractors), he can not
compete. When Asia's economy falters, the demand for meat decreases, and so
does the demand for the feed for the livestock. When Brazil's soybean crop
estimates roll in, the Chicago Board of Trade responds in a split second. The
soybeans in the grain elevators all over Iowa immediately lose millions in
value.
Some call it a cartel. I think it is an accident of capitalism. Monsanto-
DuPont-ADM-Cargill-Armour-Iowa Beef Packers-Tyson-Tenneco. I think that to
mention all those corporations in one breath says it all. The USDA and the EPA
are chronically schizophrenic when it comes to public policy, and though these
institutions are designed to assure public well being, many observers feel
that they could be grouped quite easily with the private sector.
I will post a query to our internet community and see if we shake out a few
documentable examples of conventional farmers who can corroborate what I have
mentioned. I can vouch for one thing: while the percentage of growth in
organic farming is not the same in the UK, here in the US Midwest conventional
farmers are converting a lot acreage to organic production systems because of
many of the circumstances included here.
I will be in touch, and I am so glad that BBC is interested in producing a
show on this subject.
Steve Sprinkel
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail