What is sustainability? Is it important? Why? Give some examples of sustainable practices that could (some may already be) be implemented to improve the sustainability of agriculture? And, what are some ways that the consumer can contribute to the sustainability of agriculture?
Wow! Again - go look at some of my previous posts! Just kidding. I'll summarize my favorite ideas:
Reduce your carbon footprint - plant a garden! Never mind the fuel you save, using natural compost and green manure cover crops actually acts as a way to sequester carbon. Even a small patio container garden saves on overall emission contributions.
Buy locally. You can argue that it doesn't save money to buy from a local farmer. However it's proven that locally spent dollars generate more money, income, jobs, etc, within the community. Besides, I'd rather have a fresh juicy tomato or peach picked that morning than one stuck in a refrigerated box car for transportation. Also, farmers tend to have more interesting and flavorful heirloom varieties, which preserves our genetic seed diversity.
Did you know that THE big incentive for transporting food long distances is the ability of corporations to deduct the transportation costs on their taxes? So basically, our tax payer dollars are subsidizing the transportation of foods long distances, so that we get second rate foods at a "bargain" price...
Let your representatives know you support sustainable ag. The pending Farm Bill has the potential to turn our nation's ag production around, but not without your voice and support. Several recent university studies have proven that organically produced crops are equal or nearly equivalent in productivity and cost as their conventional counterparts. However, most large-scale farmers continue with their existing practices because of the financial incentives provided by the government to do it that way.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Food & the Environment
How do you predict that global warming will impact global food production in the future?
In California, we have a diverse climate that has traditionally allowed for the production of a wide range of foods. In fact, California is responsible for producing 95% of most of the nations's fresh produce. Production of warm season items such as tomatoes can continue most of the winter in the Imperial Valley near the Mexican border, while cool-weather strawberries are produced year-round on the foggy central coastline.
Much of the agriculture in our state relies on our predominately Mediterranean climate of cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Reservoirs store winter rain and snow, allowing for irrigation during the 6-7 dry months of the year. Climate predictions suggest a change in both the amount and type of precipitation - decreased amounts of precipitation, with less snow accumulation as a result of warmer average winter temperatures.
Other impacts of warmer temperatures are huge for agriculture. All fruits, including olives, need a certain amount of chill exposure in winter to initiate fruit production the next season. Fruit varieties tend to be selected by the number of chill hours appropriate for a region. Warmer winter temperatures of even a few degrees could result in too few chill hours, resulting in huge economic losses for entire regions as they are forced to replant with varieties which require fewer chill hours.
Warmer temperatures have many other impacts as well. Most insects respond to warmth accumulation, or degree days to initiate their life cycles for the season, while plants respond to either day length cues or warmth, or a combination of the two, and most birds respond strictly to day length cues. As temperatures climb, trees come into flower early, insects are productive longer, and their avian predators are out of sync, leaving harmful insect pests unchecked. Insect pollinators are also increasingly out of sync, leaving flowers unpollinated.
Some of the apparent boons of a warming climate in California mean a longer growing season, increased weed stimulation, increased insect pests and elevated CO2 levels. However, this all translates into increased water usage, at a time when we have less water to use.
In California, we have a diverse climate that has traditionally allowed for the production of a wide range of foods. In fact, California is responsible for producing 95% of most of the nations's fresh produce. Production of warm season items such as tomatoes can continue most of the winter in the Imperial Valley near the Mexican border, while cool-weather strawberries are produced year-round on the foggy central coastline.
Much of the agriculture in our state relies on our predominately Mediterranean climate of cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Reservoirs store winter rain and snow, allowing for irrigation during the 6-7 dry months of the year. Climate predictions suggest a change in both the amount and type of precipitation - decreased amounts of precipitation, with less snow accumulation as a result of warmer average winter temperatures.
Other impacts of warmer temperatures are huge for agriculture. All fruits, including olives, need a certain amount of chill exposure in winter to initiate fruit production the next season. Fruit varieties tend to be selected by the number of chill hours appropriate for a region. Warmer winter temperatures of even a few degrees could result in too few chill hours, resulting in huge economic losses for entire regions as they are forced to replant with varieties which require fewer chill hours.
Warmer temperatures have many other impacts as well. Most insects respond to warmth accumulation, or degree days to initiate their life cycles for the season, while plants respond to either day length cues or warmth, or a combination of the two, and most birds respond strictly to day length cues. As temperatures climb, trees come into flower early, insects are productive longer, and their avian predators are out of sync, leaving harmful insect pests unchecked. Insect pollinators are also increasingly out of sync, leaving flowers unpollinated.
Some of the apparent boons of a warming climate in California mean a longer growing season, increased weed stimulation, increased insect pests and elevated CO2 levels. However, this all translates into increased water usage, at a time when we have less water to use.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Globalization
The information posted this week points out some of the negative impacts of the globalization of agriculture. What are some positive aspects of globalization? How does globalization impact your life? In your blog feel free to reflect on the negatives as well, many of which were pointed out in the readings for the week.
This touches on many of the issues I hold near and dear, namely, how can something which was manufactured or produced thousands of miles away really be good for me, the environment, or the global economy? Sure, it's nice to get raspberries for New Year's Eve champagne, or mangoes year round. And chocolate? I still give in to the impulse buy for a Hershy with almonds at checkout, even though it is not fair trade and probably produced using child labor and DDT. None of these things would be possible without the globalization of our economy.
I think the most important and overlooked commodity related to agriculture is not the seeds and fertilizers, but the knowledge needed to produce crops. Growing food is a knowledge-intensive endeavor, as anyone who has attempted a first time garden will understand. Annuals, perennials, dry or irrigated farming are just the tip of the iceberg. Most growers I talk to always confirm this idea that farming and gardening provide a constant schoolroom for learning. Cheaper and faster (almost instantaneous) communication has meant the translation of growing systems to far-flung regions, and the sharing of ideas and traditional systems has lead to new research focusing on not just the Green and Gene Revolutions, but especially the development of sustainable ag techniques.
This touches on many of the issues I hold near and dear, namely, how can something which was manufactured or produced thousands of miles away really be good for me, the environment, or the global economy? Sure, it's nice to get raspberries for New Year's Eve champagne, or mangoes year round. And chocolate? I still give in to the impulse buy for a Hershy with almonds at checkout, even though it is not fair trade and probably produced using child labor and DDT. None of these things would be possible without the globalization of our economy.
I think the most important and overlooked commodity related to agriculture is not the seeds and fertilizers, but the knowledge needed to produce crops. Growing food is a knowledge-intensive endeavor, as anyone who has attempted a first time garden will understand. Annuals, perennials, dry or irrigated farming are just the tip of the iceberg. Most growers I talk to always confirm this idea that farming and gardening provide a constant schoolroom for learning. Cheaper and faster (almost instantaneous) communication has meant the translation of growing systems to far-flung regions, and the sharing of ideas and traditional systems has lead to new research focusing on not just the Green and Gene Revolutions, but especially the development of sustainable ag techniques.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Food Safety
Reflect and react to the following question: Whose responsibility is food safety? Give reasons for your answer.
This is sort of a toough question. You want to automatically reply, "It's the governments job; it's part of why we pay taxes like good, diligent citizens. Right?" However, since our government has a history of doing the bare minimum and leaving a lot up to "voluntary" reporting on the part of the producers, including recalls of known bad foods. However, the government at the same time has initiated procedures that make it very difficult for the small-scale producer or home grower to produce foods that meet USDA requirements.
Most of these requirements have very little to do with foods that are produced and consumed at a local or personal level. For example, take a look at what most dairy producers must do to sell their products: separate bathroom and washing facilities from the home, daily processing of milk, a separate, paved entrance to the dairy from the main road, and certain voltage lighting located a specified distance from the storage tanks. Not to mention that you can't sell raw milk in most states - it must be at least pasteurized. If traveling long distances then it is usually ultra-pasteurized to stabilize the product, destroying much of the nutritional value.
Another example of our government letting us down is the 1% testing for mad cow disease. When Great Britain had outbreaks of the disease, they took extensive measures to ensure the safety of beef. Most cattle were tested, and regulations were put in place to quarantine infected soils and destroy infected animals. After two years, they were able to continue their beef production. Most countries test a very high rate of animals, and destroy animals who potentially exhibit early signs of the disease. In our country, we barely test and testing and reporting is voluntary on the part of the producers. Who is protecting who? Sounds like the producers are getting it easy, while consumers are getting a questionable, but cheap product...
This is sort of a toough question. You want to automatically reply, "It's the governments job; it's part of why we pay taxes like good, diligent citizens. Right?" However, since our government has a history of doing the bare minimum and leaving a lot up to "voluntary" reporting on the part of the producers, including recalls of known bad foods. However, the government at the same time has initiated procedures that make it very difficult for the small-scale producer or home grower to produce foods that meet USDA requirements.
Most of these requirements have very little to do with foods that are produced and consumed at a local or personal level. For example, take a look at what most dairy producers must do to sell their products: separate bathroom and washing facilities from the home, daily processing of milk, a separate, paved entrance to the dairy from the main road, and certain voltage lighting located a specified distance from the storage tanks. Not to mention that you can't sell raw milk in most states - it must be at least pasteurized. If traveling long distances then it is usually ultra-pasteurized to stabilize the product, destroying much of the nutritional value.
Another example of our government letting us down is the 1% testing for mad cow disease. When Great Britain had outbreaks of the disease, they took extensive measures to ensure the safety of beef. Most cattle were tested, and regulations were put in place to quarantine infected soils and destroy infected animals. After two years, they were able to continue their beef production. Most countries test a very high rate of animals, and destroy animals who potentially exhibit early signs of the disease. In our country, we barely test and testing and reporting is voluntary on the part of the producers. Who is protecting who? Sounds like the producers are getting it easy, while consumers are getting a questionable, but cheap product...
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Organic Food Production
This week Blog about what the term "organic" means in the U.S. Is it good or bad for the food industry and the consumer that the term was legally defined by the federal government? Are organic foods better for people and the environment than traditionally produced food? What are the drawbacks to organic food production? How do you feel about the "big business" of organic i.e. retailers like Whole Foods??? Make sure you are supporting your claims with valid evidence....Include anything else that interests you...
Holy crap - like I could put everything I think about "organic" food production into one blog topic. I read entire books on this subject, have spent the last three years of my life selling organic farm and garden supplies and am preparing my grad school application to get a PhD in sustainable ag!
Seriously though, I recently posted about a series of independent short films about sustainable/organic food production and its impacts. I really liked one of the points made in Ripe for Change, that for not just organic production, but for sustainable production, you look at other factors than just using non-synthetic inputs, especially socio-economic and ecological factors. For example, most of our world concerns about hunger really are issues of poverty and distribution rather than food production.
Some of the biggest drawbacks to defining organic is the abuses that can then take place when the letter, but not the underlying intent, of the law is followed. For example, many big-ag corporations and farms are simply substituting non-synthetic pesticides and fertilizers for their synthetic forms and are otherwise carrying on as normal. Loop holes for increasing organic herd size were abused by several large scale dairies seeking to produce organic milk. Lack of action by the USDA-NOP in response to complaints about label-violations for large scale organic dairy producers such as Horizon and Aurora (producers of "organic" milk for Safeway, Costco and large markets) has resulted in a class-action lawsuit for misrepresentation and other violations.
It really boils down to the fact that a lot of truly organic production relies on integrity, which is hard to legislate.
Many large scale organic productions still rely heavily on petroleum for fuel and transportation. Is it really organic when it traveled several thousand miles? Can we trust the so-called organic practices of Mexico or China? Is it better to buy locally produced, uncertified produce from a farmers market or certified organic in the supermarket imported out of season from a foreign country? Is the food still as nutritious when not all of the practices are followed? Are the farm laborers being paid a living wage?
Unfortunately, the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side depending on one's practices. Many of the natural and organic inputs used in organic and/or local farming such as rock powders and natural pesticides and fungicides, such as sulfur and copper, are strip mined and shipped to distributors before ending up in the soil or on plants. Also, natural sulfur and copper are dangerous compounds which must be used with as much care as their synthetic counterparts - breathing masks, gloves, goggles and long-sleeved clothing are recommended to as protective gear for the home user, and required for the commercial grower. People have a mistaken notion that natural equals safe to which I reply, "Arsenic is completely natural and will kill you just as dead."
The lack of good research into organic productivity is finally changing. A recent 13-year study at the University Wisconsin published in the March-April 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal found that organic cropping systems can be as productive, or nearly productive, as conventional systems.
Conventional food producers would have you believe that food is equally tasty and nutritious. However, over 40 studies, summarized by The Organic Center, keep proving that organic produce is more nutritious than it's conventionally produced counterparts.
However, the spirit of the eco-farm movement continues. Permaculture, biodynamic and local and sustainable ag are current hot topics for research. These farming regimes are the answer for improving farming practices in marginal areas around the world where the Green Revolution failed to improve local agriculture, and in some cases increased the rates of soil erosion, desertification and removed local farmers from the land.
Even the United Nations has changed it tune about importance of organic production in their most recent FAO report, Organic Agriculture and Food Security. Here are some highlights from the report:
Want to learn more? In addition to the eco-farm links above, check out the following links for more info:
www.sare.org
www.attra.org
www.organicconsumers.org
Want to eat local/organic food but don't know where to find it or what to do with it?
www.sustainabletable.org
www.localharvest.org
www.slowfoodusa.org
www.cafarmersmarkets.com
Holy crap - like I could put everything I think about "organic" food production into one blog topic. I read entire books on this subject, have spent the last three years of my life selling organic farm and garden supplies and am preparing my grad school application to get a PhD in sustainable ag!
Seriously though, I recently posted about a series of independent short films about sustainable/organic food production and its impacts. I really liked one of the points made in Ripe for Change, that for not just organic production, but for sustainable production, you look at other factors than just using non-synthetic inputs, especially socio-economic and ecological factors. For example, most of our world concerns about hunger really are issues of poverty and distribution rather than food production.
Some of the biggest drawbacks to defining organic is the abuses that can then take place when the letter, but not the underlying intent, of the law is followed. For example, many big-ag corporations and farms are simply substituting non-synthetic pesticides and fertilizers for their synthetic forms and are otherwise carrying on as normal. Loop holes for increasing organic herd size were abused by several large scale dairies seeking to produce organic milk. Lack of action by the USDA-NOP in response to complaints about label-violations for large scale organic dairy producers such as Horizon and Aurora (producers of "organic" milk for Safeway, Costco and large markets) has resulted in a class-action lawsuit for misrepresentation and other violations.
It really boils down to the fact that a lot of truly organic production relies on integrity, which is hard to legislate.
Many large scale organic productions still rely heavily on petroleum for fuel and transportation. Is it really organic when it traveled several thousand miles? Can we trust the so-called organic practices of Mexico or China? Is it better to buy locally produced, uncertified produce from a farmers market or certified organic in the supermarket imported out of season from a foreign country? Is the food still as nutritious when not all of the practices are followed? Are the farm laborers being paid a living wage?
Unfortunately, the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side depending on one's practices. Many of the natural and organic inputs used in organic and/or local farming such as rock powders and natural pesticides and fungicides, such as sulfur and copper, are strip mined and shipped to distributors before ending up in the soil or on plants. Also, natural sulfur and copper are dangerous compounds which must be used with as much care as their synthetic counterparts - breathing masks, gloves, goggles and long-sleeved clothing are recommended to as protective gear for the home user, and required for the commercial grower. People have a mistaken notion that natural equals safe to which I reply, "Arsenic is completely natural and will kill you just as dead."
The lack of good research into organic productivity is finally changing. A recent 13-year study at the University Wisconsin published in the March-April 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal found that organic cropping systems can be as productive, or nearly productive, as conventional systems.
Conventional food producers would have you believe that food is equally tasty and nutritious. However, over 40 studies, summarized by The Organic Center, keep proving that organic produce is more nutritious than it's conventionally produced counterparts.
However, the spirit of the eco-farm movement continues. Permaculture, biodynamic and local and sustainable ag are current hot topics for research. These farming regimes are the answer for improving farming practices in marginal areas around the world where the Green Revolution failed to improve local agriculture, and in some cases increased the rates of soil erosion, desertification and removed local farmers from the land.
Even the United Nations has changed it tune about importance of organic production in their most recent FAO report, Organic Agriculture and Food Security. Here are some highlights from the report:
In contrast, organic agriculture offers an alternative food system that improves agricultural performance to better provide access to food, nutritional adequacy, environmental quality, economic efficiency, and social equity. This is crucial if agricultural production in developing countries is to rise by 56 percent by 2030 to meet nutritional needs, as stated in the Report.
- Global food supply is sufficient, but 850 million are undernourished and go hungry
- Use of chemical agricultural inputs is increasing; yet grain productivity is dwindling to seriously low levels
- Costs of agricultural inputs are rising, but commodity costs have been in steady decline over the past five decades.Knowledge is increasingly provided through fast information technologies, but nutritionally related diseases are rising
- Industrialised food systems cause deaths through pesticide poisonings and high numbers of farmer have committed suicides, while millions of jobs have been lost in rural areas.
www.sare.org
www.attra.org
www.organicconsumers.org
Want to eat local/organic food but don't know where to find it or what to do with it?
www.sustainabletable.org
www.localharvest.org
www.slowfoodusa.org
www.cafarmersmarkets.com
Criticisms of conventional ag
What I believe about the future of ag is probably best summed by this statement from ATTRA about organic production practices:
No agriculture can continue to feed a growing population if it depletes or fouls its resource base. The path undertaken by conventional agriculture is ultimately a dead end in this regard, though there is an almost mystical faith that genetic engineering and other complex technologies will always triumph. Agriculture needs to be sustainable. Therefore, those who promote organic agriculture as a true alternative are well advised to do their part in ensuring that certification and regulation does not create a “compliance agriculture” in which sustainability becomes little more than an afterthought.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Bioprospecting or Biopiracy?
While studying our two weeks of biotechnology, in which we have discussed the positive possibilities of genetic modifications, I have been participating showing independent food films at the Briar Patch, which gives another view than that espoused in our text.
In 1930 the United States passed the Plant Patent Act, which provided a 20-year patent restricting asexual production on protected varieties. It differs from a regular patent in that it does not involve manufacturing or "making" the plant. This gave limited patent rights to varietal developers and plant breeders, but didn't give them ownership of the lifeforms they developed.
That changed in 1980 when the Supreme Court awarded an appeal to patent an oil-eating microbe in the case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which allowed the patenting of a life form. This in turned was the basis for a 1987 decision by the PTO to extend patenting to all altered or engineered animals. Now "bioprospecting" or as some call it, "biopiracy" is rampant.
Our recent reading has lead us to believe that using biotech as a form of natural selection does not seem to play out when reviewing new varietals and proposed patents. Universities, pharmaceutical and big-ag companies are trying to capitalize on all sorts of life forms, not all of it microbial in nature. Monsanto is one of the worst offenders, and they're doing it hand-in-hand with our government. Most of Monsanto's board of members are current holders of key government positions.
Want to learn more? Here's some movies I've watched lately: Future of Food, Ripe for Change, King Corn, and Fridays at the Farm. Most of these movies have excellent websites with related links and suggested readings for more information.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Biotechnology II
OK, so last week you chose a agricultural crop that is produced using biotechnology. Take some time to read about the crops others wrote about. Get a general feeling for the types and volumes of crops where biotech is used. What are your thoughts around the use of biotechnology for food production? What are the positives (society, production & environment) as well as the downside? Make sure you do the reading for this week before blogging! :)
A discussion this morning with a local organic veggie producer wound around to the topic of biotech and genetically modified (GM) crops. GM crops are not allowed in organic production, and are generally against the grain of most ecologically minded growers. Most of these growers would probably style themselves as agroecologists, if they know the term, and are against most of the methodology of the Green Revolution.
Agroecology is the science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the design, development, and management of sustainable agricultural systems. With this definition, cropland is viewed as an ecosystem first, rather than an economic or industrial model. Crop rotation, selecting appropriate crops/varieties, composting, using little or no pesticides and creating refuges for beneficial insects are all tools for good ecosystem management when producing crops.
Therefore the questions beg to be asked: what happens when you genetically alter the traditional organisms within the ecosystem? What happens when you destroy portions of the system with soil degradation, loss of soil biology, salinization, and further pollute and kill other organisms through the use of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides?
However, with gene mapping, it doesn't seem unreasonable to speed up natural plant breeding techniques to use existing modifications across closely related species. You could theoretically create those crosses through breeding trials (and error), looking for the ideal mutation or cross. My friend even thought that using biotech methods to produce these GM crops is one of the best uses of biotechnology. However, she was very clear that she drew the line at introducing radically different species genes into our food. For example, fish DNA into tomatoes, or Bt into cotton or corn.
In the past weeks we have been discussing the merits and deficits of the Green Revolution (GR), and how does GM fit into the future of food production. In a policy brief published by Food First, they list ten reasons why trying to introduce the GR again in Africa will not produce any better results the second time. Most of the reasons have to do with the issues around the the components that made the GR successful where it was successful. Industrial-style agriculture, expensive technology packages, increased use of fertilizers and pesticides increased and/or exacerbated existing health, environmental and economic consequences in more marginal areas, and did not increase the ability of poor people to grow or buy more food.
At the same time, promoters of organic and sustainable farming practices are producing studies showing that agroecology practices can produce similar amounts of food as conventional, industrial style ag using GM crops. The key difference is the management of the underlying land use. The practices previously mentioned may take more time, but leave the soil in at least a similar, or possibly improved, condition from season to season and can be practiced in most rural and marginal regions. It has marginal production costs, can be accessed by the poor, and has environmental benefits. An evaluation using these principles for rice production is summarized in a Cornell University paper.
Well, I'm slightly off-topic or not, depending on your point of view... To summarize, yes labeling and accountability is important. So is choosing what and how to tinker with the genetic material of other organisms. Is relying on biotech and a Gene Revolution in addition to a Green Revolution the whole answer? No!
A discussion this morning with a local organic veggie producer wound around to the topic of biotech and genetically modified (GM) crops. GM crops are not allowed in organic production, and are generally against the grain of most ecologically minded growers. Most of these growers would probably style themselves as agroecologists, if they know the term, and are against most of the methodology of the Green Revolution.
Agroecology is the science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the design, development, and management of sustainable agricultural systems. With this definition, cropland is viewed as an ecosystem first, rather than an economic or industrial model. Crop rotation, selecting appropriate crops/varieties, composting, using little or no pesticides and creating refuges for beneficial insects are all tools for good ecosystem management when producing crops.
Therefore the questions beg to be asked: what happens when you genetically alter the traditional organisms within the ecosystem? What happens when you destroy portions of the system with soil degradation, loss of soil biology, salinization, and further pollute and kill other organisms through the use of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides?
However, with gene mapping, it doesn't seem unreasonable to speed up natural plant breeding techniques to use existing modifications across closely related species. You could theoretically create those crosses through breeding trials (and error), looking for the ideal mutation or cross. My friend even thought that using biotech methods to produce these GM crops is one of the best uses of biotechnology. However, she was very clear that she drew the line at introducing radically different species genes into our food. For example, fish DNA into tomatoes, or Bt into cotton or corn.
In the past weeks we have been discussing the merits and deficits of the Green Revolution (GR), and how does GM fit into the future of food production. In a policy brief published by Food First, they list ten reasons why trying to introduce the GR again in Africa will not produce any better results the second time. Most of the reasons have to do with the issues around the the components that made the GR successful where it was successful. Industrial-style agriculture, expensive technology packages, increased use of fertilizers and pesticides increased and/or exacerbated existing health, environmental and economic consequences in more marginal areas, and did not increase the ability of poor people to grow or buy more food.
At the same time, promoters of organic and sustainable farming practices are producing studies showing that agroecology practices can produce similar amounts of food as conventional, industrial style ag using GM crops. The key difference is the management of the underlying land use. The practices previously mentioned may take more time, but leave the soil in at least a similar, or possibly improved, condition from season to season and can be practiced in most rural and marginal regions. It has marginal production costs, can be accessed by the poor, and has environmental benefits. An evaluation using these principles for rice production is summarized in a Cornell University paper.
Well, I'm slightly off-topic or not, depending on your point of view... To summarize, yes labeling and accountability is important. So is choosing what and how to tinker with the genetic material of other organisms. Is relying on biotech and a Gene Revolution in addition to a Green Revolution the whole answer? No!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Biotechnology
The European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) is a pest of corn, particularly in large corn growing regions of the US Sout, Midwest, and Africa. In the past, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis ssp kurstaki) have been used as a targeted spray. Bt sprays traditionally only affect animals with alkaline guts, which are mainly the Lepidoptera order of insects. The adult moth lays clusters of eggs on corn leaves. Once hatched, the larva infest the developing ears of corn, where the encasing husks prevent adequate control by sprays, except for the brief time between hatching and entering the ear. Bt must be ingested by the larva in sufficient quantities to have an killing effect. Non-target pesticides are also often used, which has a greater impact on non-target species, including beneficial insects.
Bt corn was introduced in 1996. There are four genetic modifications, or transgenic events used for Bt corn production, developed by different biotech companies and having different results in the corn itself. Combinations of various promoter genes in combination with different portions of the Bt genome can result in the gene expressing at different times in the crop, and may or may not be expressed in the grain itself, only the foliage.
Advantages to using Bt corn include minimizing timing issues for pesticide application, no special application equipment, no need for personal protective gear during application, is compatible with biological control. As Bt is an order specific pesticide, it has minimal effects on non-target pests and may control other corn pests of the Lepidoptera order (earworm, fall armyworm, Indianmeal moth, black cutworm, and southwestern corn borer) and reduces the need for pest monitoring. Also, as most corn varieties become increasingly susceptible to secondary fungal infections after being weakened by the corn borer, Bt presence also mitigates fungal infections.
The disadvantages are primarily the seed cost and variable pest populations, development of Bt resistance by pests, impact on non-target organisms, variation in effectiveness, marketing of Bt grain, cross-pollination of Bt corn and non Bt corn. In 1999, Cornell University published the results from a poorly designed trial which suggested that Bt contaminated pollen represented a threat to monarch caterpillars. This was later refuted as pollen contamination rarely reaches lethal levels, there is limited overlap during pollen presence and caterpillar presence and that only a portion of caterpillars will feed on milkweeds adjacent to cornfields.
Recommendations have been made to plant non Bt corn in fields adjacent to Bt corn to reduce the development of Bt resistance in the corn borer. As resistance is believed to be a recessive allele, increasing the chances of a Bt resistant moth mating with a non-resistant moth, with a high chance of producing more non-resistant offspring. However, this planting strategy increases the amount of pollen contamination to non Bt corn nearby.
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) lists hybrids which have full food and feed approval for the 2008 planting season in the US. The information includes regulatory information, as well as the trade names, characteristics and genetic events for all of the current GM hybrids currently available.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Green Revolution
Is new technology necessary to increase food production? Why or why not?
The combination of bringing more land into production, along with the Green Revolution has allowed for the needed increases in food production to date. However, many of the lands which have been converted to farmland were marginal or sensitive ecosystems which cannot sustain repeated use. In many developed regions of the world, prime farmland is being lost due to urban encroachment and increasing land prices, while increases in population far outreach the increases in food production.
In light of the problems associated with the Green Revolution, we must continue to develop new or improved strategies for increased food production. Future limiting factors include soil degradation, over harvest of aquifers, soil salinization, climate change, available petroleum, and the social-economic issues around sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, continued reliance on Green Revolution techniques alone will not be enough to continue with the increases in food we have seen over the last four decades. It's reliance on petroleum, fertilizer and soil amendments and irrigation are not sustainable and changes must be made to continue at even a similar rate of production as oil is coming to peak oil prices and aquifers in China and the midwest are over harvested.
Norman Borlaug, the father of the Revolution, has proposed the need for varieties which will have greater tolerance for abiotic extremes, such as drought, heat, cold, as well as greater tolerance for soil alkalinity, free aluminum and iron toxicities. In his Nobel Peace Prize anniversary lecture, he suggested the need for a Blue Revolution to complement the existing Green Revolution. "In the new Blue Revolution, water-use productivity must be wedded to land-use productivity. New science and technology must lead the way."
Norman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)