Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Now......GMO sweet corn

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Road's End Farm <organic87 AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: thamnophis AT gmail.com, Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Now......GMO sweet corn
  • Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:49:28 -0400

The highest production per acre is actually from extremely diversified multicropping systems in which a number of crops are grown mixed together in one field. (If anybody wants, I can provide cites for that, but need to go get some other work done today, so won't hunt them up right now to put them in this message.)

These systems do not lend themselves to being worked with machines; they require lots of hand work. They also don't work well with conventional pesticides, due to the mixture of crops in the field. They are not what GMO's are being designed for. They are, however, highly suitable to places with high populations and little farm land or money available. They can also be very saving of water, as there's very little surface area at any time not growing a crop, so very little unneccessary loss.

I have yet to see any cites, outside of ads from companies selling them, that GMO's actually boost production, in general, over traditionally bred varieties suited for the area. I have seen articles claiming the contrary, but don't have handy any good studies.

It's my understanding that the nutrients in Golden Rice are normally expressed in the rice plant, even without GMO's; they're just expressed in the bran. The problem is using white rice instead of whole grain rice; which is partly cultural preference, but is based on storage ability. Providing better storage, or coming up with uses for the bran that will get it into the diet, would likely also be effective. In addition, in traditional diets nutrients are also often obtained from other plants growing in the same fields as the salable crop. Modern agriculture re-defines these plants as "weeds" and prevents their growth; thereby removing the nutrients from the diet. Trying to solve this problem by engineering all the currently known nutrients into one plant, so people can survive (presuming we actually know now what all the nutrients are) eating only that one thing, does not strike me as the best way to go.

It's possible that at some point in the future GMO technology, and human decisions about how to use it, will result in GMO varieties that are genuinely more useful than varieties produced with modern knowledge and traditional breeding techniques. But I think relying on the companies advertising the current crop of GMO's to save a healthy population (of humans and of crop varieties), as opposed to benefiting their own short term bottom line, is unrealistic.


-- Rivka; Finger Lakes NY, Zone 5 mostly
Fresh-market organic produce, small scale



On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Thamnophis wrote:

As in most cases, there is not a single, broad answer that is correct in all cases. There are areas, crops and circumstances that would best benefit from organic and/or non-GMO approaches, but as the gene manipulation improves there will be many areas and circumstances where GMO solutions will save thousands of lives.

One of our biggest looming problems both nationally and globally is water availability. Drought resistant GMO crops can help alleviate that potentially destabilizing problem. Other GMO crops are being developed to address large scale vitamin deficiencies - see Golden Rice, for example.

When it comes to meeting the growing demand for food, we have only 2 choices - grow more on existing crop land or convert wildlands to ag lands. As GMOs can boost production, their use will save millions of acres of forests, etc. 

I'm not thrilled with GMOs, but from where I sit, they have the potential for much good. I think their upside sometimes gets drowned out by critics. 

Joe
Boone County, IA




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page