Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:19:05 +0000
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, hreetz@ppi-far.org
From: "Laura K. Paine" <lkpaine@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: Conflicting views
In-Reply-To: <373BE879.643583ED@earthlink.net>
References: <002a01be9cfb$2f2aa1c0$cba7fea9@ibm770>
Hello Dr. Reetz and everyone,
I hope, Dr. Reetz, that you choose not to sign off the list. It wouldn't
be much of a discussion if we didn't represent differing points of view
with our comments.
Having said that, I'd like to take issue with your comments about Dennis
Avery's vision of agriculture. The problem that I see with Avery's model
is that it is likely to be environmentally harmful if its not done 'right'.
If it is applied in particular places, and in particular ways, perhaps
there will be no problems. Avery's position is that we should concentrate
production on the best, most fertile land so that we can preserve the
marginal land for wildlife and natural areas, but how does he propose to
enforce this? How can we ensure that it will only be applied in the right
places? Is he willing to restrict or even prohibit farmers right to farm
their land? How will we stop cattle ranchers in Brazil from converting
rain forest to pasture? His vision requires regulation of land use on a
massive scale and I'm surprised that someone like Avery would even suggest
it.
An alternative goal is to work toward reintegrating agriculture--and human
beings, for that matter--into ecosystems. This is the underlying principal
behind the Agricultural Ecosystems Research Project, for which I was
coordinator from 1992 until two months ago. The goals of the project are
to develop and test cropping systems that are in harmony with the
ecosystem, that can allow humans to crop the land and provide habitat for
wildlife in the same acre.
It is a very pragmatic approach to the problem of declining wild areas, and
admittedly cannot alone address all the issues involved in protecting the
environment.
One good example, which is what I worked on the most while I was there, is
rotational grazing or grass farming. Grass farms are capable of producing
as much milk per acre as conventional farms, while providing improved
habitat for grassland wildlife, such as meadowlarks and bobolinks (some of
the most rapidly declining species in North America). It is not a perfect
solution: habitat quality is better than the corn and alfalfa fields of
conventional dairies, but disturbance by grazing cattle reduces nesting
success. The overall result is positive. It's not a perfect approach by
any means, but it is one that is compatible with the environment and its
one that allows people to remain part of a functioning ecosystem.
I'm sure some will say that there's no way that such cropping systems can
produce as much as the high-input systems that Avery is promoting, but I
think we should give them a chance. If we had invested as much in
sustainable agriculture as Monsanto has in biotechnology, perhaps we'd be
farther along in this process. Perhaps the real answer is that we need
both.
Well, those are my thoughts for what they're worth!
Kindest regards,
Laura
>
>Harold Reetz wrote:
>
>> After 25+ years in Extension and Industry agronomist positions, I find it
>> difficult to sit back and read the attacks on the "system" that are
included
>> in this "list" without responding. It appears that this is really a
forum
>> for the anti-science, anti-industry people to post their ideas and their
>> attacks on science and industry. Comments such as the importance of
>> "values" in addition to science....implying that the progress we have
made
>> in agriculture has been at the expense of values. There also seems to be
a
>> general trend in this thread to looking for any negatives about GMOs and
>> other technology.....implying that GMO is a BAD thing.
>>
>> I had hoped this was a forum for a more balanced discussion and
assessment
>> of facts. I guess that is asking too much. But I am concerned about the
>> comments that the new technologies in agriculture are creating hazards
and
>> quality problems when there is no evidence to support such claims.
>> Agriculture has changed and will never be the same as we remember in the
>> "good old days", but the cause/effect relationship is not nearly so much
a
>> result of technology as it is our nations desire to have cheap, abundant
and
>> healthy food. We use technology to accomplish that better than any other
>> nation in the world. Our success makes it possible for 98% of our
>> population to NOT live on the farm and grow their own food. Were it not
for
>> the science and technology and the large-scale intensive production
systems
>> we have implemented over the past 50+ years, more people would be forced
>> into growing food and thus would have less time to attack those who do
grow
>> it.
>>
>> I am proud of the progress we have made in attacking pest and disease
>> problems with reduced reliance on pesticides. Doing it with GMOs, with
>> cultural practices, and overall systems management, we have a great
story to
>> tell. There is apparently a certain population who feel obliged to
attack
>> progress. They fought pesticides and when we replaced pesticide use with
>> GMOs, many of the same people jumped from the anti-pesticide bandwagon to
>> the anti-GMO bandwagon.
>>
>> Another comment in this thread points out that many of the world's food
>> problems are political, rather than production problems. That is true.
And
>> the kind of discussions this thread is fostering help to support those
>> political problems.
>>
>> There are also some anti-Avery comments that I am concerned about.
Dennis
>> has a pretty solid story that if it weren't for our use of technology,
much
>> more of the world's natural forest ecosystems would be turned into food
>> production. Our high yield management systems in the US can do much
more to
>> help save the rain forests and deserts and to protect fragile ecosystems
>> than any other option we have before us. Most of our food crops could
not
>> survive in nature. Most of our agriculture could not survive without
>> continuous infusion of technology. It is our success with technology
that
>> gives us the abundance and efficiency that allows more people to NOT be
>> involved in food production. I doubt that you will find a large
percentage
>> of the 98% non-producers who would trade their life styles with going
back
>> to producing their own food.
>>
>> Maybe instead of complaining about the direction of this list, I should
just
>> remove my name from it. For now, thanks for letting me vent my concerns.
>>
>> Harold Reetz
>>
>> Dr. Harold F. Reetz, Jr.
>> Midwest Director, Potash & Phosphate Institute
>> Vice President, Foundation for Agronomic Research
>> 111 East Washington Street
>> Monticello, Illinois 61856-1640
>>
>> Phone: 217-762-2074
>> FAX: 217-762-8655
>> e-mail: hreetz@ppi-far.org
>> PPI Home Page: http://www.ppi-far.org
>> InfoAg99: http://www.ppi-far.org/infoag99
>> Site-Specific Project: http://www.farmresearch.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
>> [mailto:owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:03 PM
>> To: sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
>> Subject: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1012
>>
>> sanet-mg-digest Wednesday, May 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number
1012
>>
>> In this issue:
>>
>> RE: information and extension's role
>> Research into Community Supported Agriculture in the UK
>> Spain's Largest Retailer Blocks Biotech Foods
>> Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy
>> health insurance
>> FW: For Real: A Store-Bought Tomato with Vine-Ripened Taste
>> Credit where credit is due department ...
>> Bt Resistance: HELP PLEASE
>> Re: health insurance
>> Re: Research into Community Supported Agriculture in the UK
>> New book on community-supported agriculture (CSA)
>> Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy
>>
>> See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Paine
Crops and Soils Agent
Columbia County Agriculture Center
120 West Conant Street
PO Box 567
Portage, WI 53901-0567
608/742-9680
FAX: 608/742-9862
laura.paine@ces.uwex.edu
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
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