Market Farming

[STEVE GILMAN <stevegilman AT verizon.net>]

Hi Again,
	Another delay because my post (including previous posts in the  
thread) was too long:  "Message body is too big: 30839 bytes with a  
limit of 20 KB"

So now please see this post without the previous citations>>>>


On Mar 2, 2008, at 10:28 AM, STEVE GILMAN wrote:

> Hi Brigette,
> Thanks for your response -- I'm finally finding a time slot to get  
> back to you. I hope I can clarify a few things you raised in your  
> post:
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:13:31 -0500
> > From: Brigette Leach <avalonfarmshomegrown AT earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Bt Corn
> >
> > Steve,
> > Just curious, but how do you figure Starlink as being "recent"?  
> > That was
> > years ago, and there is a lot of water under the bridge since then.
>
> Starlink is not all that recent, but  my point was that LIKE the  
> Starlink case in 2000, the biotech contamination problems -- and  
> knowledge of their impacts -- are accelerating. For instance,  on  
> January 25 this year a transgenic trial Mycogen strain, Event 32,  
> unapproved for human consumption was finally reported by Dow, the  
> manufacturer, after being grown on at least 53,000 acres in 2006  
> and 2007.
>
> There have also been major recent problems with the widespread  
> transgenic contamination of the U.S. rice supply. In an Oct 2007  
> report, USDA concluded -- after 14 months of investigation,  
> consuming some 8,500 staff hours, with site visits to over 45  
> locations in the US and Puerto Rico-- that due to lost or destroyed  
> documents it could find no clear evidence of how Bayer Crop  
> Sciences' gene-altered products got into the food supply,  
> controversially exonerating the corporation of any liability. For  
> US rice farmers, however this ongoing case has caused trade losses  
> of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
>
> Gene flow is part and parcel of field-released ag biotechnology,  
> but the manufacturers take no responsibility, eaters have no  
> labeled choice in the marketplace and farmers are often left  
> holding the bag. And unlike chemical fertilizer or pesticide  
> contamination, the transgenes can take on a life of their own,  
> breeding willy-nilly in the wild, hence the danger of the  
> pecological persistence of super weeds and super microbes.  For a  
> study on the persistence of transgenes in nature you might want to  
> look at: www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X. 
> 2007.03567.x
>
> Although, because of farmer concerns, the release of GM wheat was  
> stopped and GM alfalfa sidelined for the moment at least, GM  
> sugarbeets have taken on new life and headed for wide-scale  
> release, while pharmaceutical crops are still lurking in the  
> background...
>
> And is all this just water under the bridge? There's also  
> considerable concern about transgenic runoff in that water -- see a  
> recent Oct 2007 study  "Genetically Engineered Corn Could Harm  
> Aquatic Ecosystems"
> www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171030.htm
>
>
>
> > Kristen's point as to funding for research, especially at land grant
> > universities is valid, as is her view of USDA. If you haven't already
> > done so, perhaps you could spend some time visiting with the Dean  
> > of an
> > agricultural college to find out what they are up against as far as
> > funding, and also to discuss the wide variety of research projects  
> > being
> > undertaken at any given university. You could also discuss the
> > university's policy on intellectual property. As for me, I just don't
> > see the blueberry growers who funded research projects at Michigan  
> > State
> > as being bad guys, despite their being very interested in the  
> > results.
> > Sorry. Ten years ago, I didn't have any interest in research projects
> > pertaining to high tunnels, but today I do. Who knows what I will  
> > need
> > to have in the future? I just hope that someone, somewhere is  
> > interested
> > enough to do the research that will benefit me.
>
> I am Very sympathetic to the funding constraints on land grant  
> researchers, believe me. I had the wonderful opportunity of working  
> as Managing Director of the North East Organic Network (NEON)  
> www.neon.cornell.edu/   project a few years ago -- a collaborative  
> USDA organic systems project administered through Cornell, covering  
> on-farm research from Maryland to Maine (they wanted a farmer/ 
> writer as managing director.)  Despite the many talented  
> researchers around the country and the world with expertise and  
> interest in sustainable and organic farming initiatives, the  
> problem is the bulk of the public research monies are being sucked  
> into biotech, due to the clout of the agribusiness corporations.  
> According to recent research by the Organic Farming Research  
> Foundation, for example, 2007 USDA-REE direct spending on organic  
> research, education and economics totaled around $25 Million,  
> representing just barely over 1% of total REE spending of  
> approximately $2.4 Billion.
>
> > I also must ask when your most recent face to face interaction with
> > anyone from USDA occurred, and how that experience generated such a
> > negative attitude. Which department within USDA was it with?
>
> I've got lots of problems with the agribiz-agency revolving door at  
> USDA which constantly puts special corporate interests way above  
> those of farmers and eaters. Another example is NEON was only  
> partially funded by USDA with the invitation to come back to  
> complete the study -- but by then the program was not funded --  
> this lack of research continuity and follow-up happens all the  
> time. And, as policy coordinator for the seven state Northeast  
> Organic Farming Association (NOFA) organizations dealing with  
> USDA's National Organic Program is an ongoing nightmare.
>
> > We grow a few hundred acres of corn on our farm here in Michigan, and
> > for more than a decade grew seed corn for Pioneer, (we've also raised
> > certified seed wheat and seed soybeans), and I rather resent the
> > insinuation that corn growers are planting fence row to fence row for
> > the ethanol market at the detriment of the environment. Many, many  
> > of us
> > use crop rotation as part of our IPM practices, and not all corn  
> > growers
> > use Bt corn. Wheat, especially at current prices, competes with both
> > corn and soybeans for us.
>
>  I'm glad you're using responsible sustainable ag practices -- but  
> in the bigtime world of corn growers it looks like you're part of  
> the exception, not the rule. My point came from a Monsanto report  
> showing a large decline in the requisite refugia plantings:
> http://iatp.typepad.com/thinkforward/2008/02/more-corn-more.html
>
> Further, regarding corn ethanol, there's considerable evidence that  
> huge government energy and ag subsidies are making us vulnerable to  
> major food shortages. See this article from today's LA Times about  
> how we're replacing Mideast energy supply vulnerability with US  
> weather vulnerability....
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-corn2mar02,0,2470929,full.story
> > Perhaps it is more obvious to those of us who farm for a living in
> > Michigan due to the wide diversity of crops produced here, the  
> > variety
> > of soil types and unique micro-climates, but blanket statements  
> > like you
> > made are unfair. I think we've learned to be appreciative of each  
> > other
> > and that different types of farms and crops have different needs.  
> > A wide
> > variety of information, perspectives and resources are vital for a
> > thriving agriculture.
>
> I agree. Diversity is Hugely important. But as just  the few  
> materials I've cited above suggest, it is Not a blanket statement  
> to say that Biotech is usurping agriculture -- and the widespread  
> environmental release and ecological impacts of their proprietary  
> genetics is actually Reducing diversity, making our food supply  
> more vulnerable. You might also want to look into the corporate  
> consolidation of the seed industry and who Owns all those wonderful  
> varieties we'd like to plant...
> > Agriculture is an important and wide ranging segment of our economy,
> > requiring wide ranging and effective, productive research.  
> > Agriculture
> > is a system after all, a system that involves not only science, but
> > economics, and social science as well. Guess I'm just a big  
> > picture type.
>
> I certainly agree with your statement, Brigette, but have to add,  
> in the Big Picture -- Corporate Ag Biotech is is the 800 pound  
> gorilla who's now in the driver's seat......
>
> best,
> Steve
> Ruckytucks Farm
>
> > Brigette Leach
> > Avalon Farms
> > SW Michigan