I also appreciate the thoughtful discussions regarding atrazine.
I have some ideas to share, but would like to first set the stage with
a few earlier comments:
Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS wrote:
" We've talked in the past in this group about the relationship
between science and revenues as regards biotechnology."
Robert Kluson <kluson@chuma.cas.usf.edu wrote:
" Now the question is what should our response be to their
response? "
Bart Hall-Beyer wrote:
" Let's face it, farm chemicals, atrazine included, are very
effective at buffering wild swings in the populations of 'problem
organisms.' A naturally healthy farm organism is also good at
buffering these wild swings, but a healthy farm organism cannot
develop without abandoning most (if not all) chemical
applications. "
Ann Clark writes:
" Yield has doubled in the last 40 years - due no doubt to the
use of biocides like atrazine - and, sure enough, CV for yield
has also doubled in all four major growing regions. This means
that the absolute variability has much more than doubled, with
concomitant implications for financial risk, food security, and
the transferral of risk to society in the form of such programs
as the base acreage, crop insurance, and various
incentive/disincentive programs. "
And then again from Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS:
" What farmers told us is that they don't necessarily trust
chemical-manufacturer-driven practices, but that a whole range of
things make it hard to reduce chemical use. They well know that
there are alternatives to atrazine, and while they may not know
which are the most effective or economically safe in their
particular case or over the long haul, nobody asked us for
"respect" or "sensitivity." What they asked us for was research
that leads to long-term, proactive approaches to weed management
based on an understanding of weed ecology, evolutionary biology,
field natural history, and so forth, as well as applying existing
knowledge and refining current systems/practices. "
=================================================
OK, this is what Bob Wilson thinks:
The genetic lines of high-yield corn, soybeans, wheat, and other
agronomic crops currently in commercial production would be hard
pressed to survive, let alone maintain their productivity, without
the use of effective herbicides. At present, these are genetically-
artifical plants growing in an artifical environment, requiring a
tremendous amount of intervention to maintain. You and I both know
that one of the greatest threats to global agriculture in future is
the on-going genetic depaupery of the plants we are putting in the
ground and those animals we consider livestock. The house of modern
agriculture is built on a thinned deck of cards...
To my mind, the greatest service the sustainable agriculture community
could do for farmers everywhere, at every level of scale, is to
research, identify, and distribute plants and animals that can remain
productive in more "natural" environments. This would be an excellent
use of biotechnology. Yes, continue the work in weed management,
cover crops, crop rotation, IPM, and others. But reconsider
asking that farmer to lose the herbicides without first offering the
agronomic phenotypes that can grow and produce without the herbicides.
The greatest disservice we can do to ourselves and those we wish to
serve is to get into a grenade-throwing contest with the agrochemical
industry over their marketing practices. Their "data experts" against
our "data experts" - the myopic, divisive, wasteful arguments of
"we're right and you're wrong". This makes for a good media circus
but it doesn't accomplish much - and it wastes a lot of time.
Ciby-Gigy is doing what it thinks is right to protect it's interests.
Our response should be no less.
_________________________________________________________________
Bob Wilson
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
bobw@ncatfyv.uark.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless otherwise indicated, opinions express above belong solely
to the author.