tagged w/ soil health
-
Monsanto Co. corn that's genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms in four states, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said.
Rootworms in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska are suspected of developing tolerance to the plants’ insecticide, based on documented cases of severe crop damage and reports from entomologists, the EPA said in a memo dated Nov. 22 and posted Nov. 30 on a government website. Monsanto's program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is "inadequate," the EPA said.
"Resistance is suspected in at least some portions of four states in which 'unexpected damage' reports originated," the EPA said in the memo, which reviewed damage reports.
The insects, which begin life as root-chewing grubs before developing into adult beetles, are among the most destructive corn pests, costing U.S. farmers about $1 billion a year in damages and chemical pesticides, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, introduced its rootworm-killing corn technology 2003. The modified corn was planted on more than 37 million acres this year, Lee Quarles, a spokesman for St. Louis-based Monsanto, said yesterday. Corn is Monsanto's largest business, accounting for 41 percent of its $11.8 billion of sales during the fiscal year ended Aug. 31.
University Study
An Iowa State University study said in July that some rootworms have evolved resistance to an insect-killing protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a natural insecticide engineered into Monsanto corn. Entomologists in Illinois and other Midwestern states are studying possible resistance where the insects devour roots of Monsanto's Bt corn.
Monsanto continues to believe there's no scientific confirmation of resistance to its Bt corn, Quarles said by telephone. Still, Monsanto takes the EPA report "seriously" and is increasing efforts to teach farmers how to respond to unexpected damage in their fields, he said.
Less than 0.2 percent of the acres planted with Monsanto's Bt corn were affected by unexpected rootworm damage this year, Quarles said. Farmers with root damage in their fields should consider changing practices to "stay ahead of this insect," Monsanto said in a statement. That could include rotating corn with soybeans or using a product such as Monsanto's SmartStax corn, which kills rootworms with two types of Bt, the company said.
SmartStax Corn
The agency said in the memo that using SmartStax in fields where the bugs have developed resistance to Bt corn could hasten resistance to SmartStax because SmartStax's effectiveness is predicated on both types of Bt working as designed. SmartStax corn produces the second type of Bt with a gene licensed from Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
The EPA tries to deter resistance to Bt corn by requiring farmers to plant corn that doesn't produce the pesticide alongside the modified crop. This creates a so-called refuge of unexposed bugs that can mate with insects developing resistance, creating a second generation of bugs that's susceptible to the toxin.
The EPA's requirement of a refuge equal to at least 5 percent of a SmartStax crop, compared with 20 percent for Bt corn, "will be substantially less durable and could ultimately compromise the second unrelated toxin used to control the pest" if insects are already resistant to Monsanto’s Bt, the agency said in the memo.
Monsanto Tests
Monsanto should enact a remedial action plan in fields where resistance to the Bt insecticide is suspected, the EPA said. That includes having growers use conventional pesticide to kill adult rootworm beetles late in the season and alternate pest control methods in the following season.
Monsanto tested rootworms for resistance in Nebraska, Illinois and Iowa and should expand the monitoring to Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota and western Wisconsin because questions about the performance of Bt corn extends to all seven states, the EPA said in the memo.
http://www.agricorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/monsanto-corn-300x225.jpgMonsanto Co. corn that's genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its... more
-
-
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A public hearing is being held in Corvallis, Oregon this Thursday, November 17th to determine if Genetically Modified sugar beets will be deregulated in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the public comment period maybe just a local distraction giving way to full federal deregulation without any representation of organic and conventional crop farmers.
Let us not forget that the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture held a formal hearing on Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa on Jan 20, 2011.
The hearing corresponded with an open 30-day comment period, designed to provide relevant testimony with regard to deregulation of Genetically Modified Alfalfa.
The democratic process neglected to include a single organic or conventional farming representative. Throughout the two hour hearing various legislators publicly humiliated the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak for even suggesting any compromise through talks with the organic and conventional communities. They all but ordered him to stand down his conversations with anyone but pro-GM enthusiasts (1:43:16).
Representatives left no seed unturned in honor of their allegiance to biotech crops and complete penetration into all foreign and domestic markets. In fact, Minnesota's Representative Collin Peterson referred to organic producers and consumers as "our opponents"[1](12:29).
Vilsak, even with his ties to Monsanto, was attempting negotiation with "so called Option 3" containing a minimal stop gap as an alternative to absolute contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa. In essence, planting barriers would have been implemented to maintain protective measures for the integrity of all seed varieties. Legislators blatantly mocked him and even pulled rank, saying that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to do anything but fully deregulate the crop without further ado. (35:38, 1:25:50, 1:29:15, 2:18:47)
It can be noted that Vilsak testified no less than three times that we were in the midst of the 30 day comment period, and in his opinion, the talks among all sides were providing necessary elements worthy of analysis for all agricultural markets concerned. (29:00, 1:44:00, 1:51:54)
The theme of the hearing centered around the economic burden of GM farmers if full deregulation didn’t go forth immediately (1:44:00). It was insisted by every representative that their loyalties were to the biotech community and that full deregulation was unquestionable without consideration for any form of barrier to protect other crops from cross contamination.
In regard to preservation of non GM crops, Texas Representative Michael Conaway begs the question, "how much of this is a definitional issue"? He questions organic standards and even insists that he "suspects that Genetically Engineered seeds will become the new organic". He blatantly suggests that legislative steps be considered to modify the language and thus re-define organic standards so that Genetically Modified crops can freely contaminate without restriction. He insists that it is merely a marketing issue and not an issue of health and safety. Conaway asks if we are just "hung up on the phrase organic, meaning something we grew ourselves in the backyard with whatever?"(2:33:00).
Concern was expressed by a number of speakers that GM crops are being promoted throughout the world as being no different than conventional crops, and if word got out that we established restrictive planting barriers, then it might be assumed that the GM crops were somehow different. That could put a damper on GM producers and their marketing potential. (30:45, 1:58:17, 2:18:47)
It was apparent, by the end of one sided discussion, that full deregulation and contamination remains unquestionable from the perspective of our democratic leaders. In other words, it is most notably a flagrant case of Contamination without Representation.
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops. Public comments are being heard on Thursday from 4 PM – 9 PM at LaSells Stewart Center Construction and Engineering Hall 875 Southwest 26th St., Corvallis, Oregon.
Please see the full length video of the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture forum on GM Alfalfa, Jan 20 2011.
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1269If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against... more
-
-
Hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers in southern Africa are adopting fast-growing trees and shrubs to fertilise their fields naturally, for improved yields and incomes, according to a study.
Scientists at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), a non-profit research organisation in Kenya, analysed two decades-worth of efforts to bring 'fertiliser trees' to African farms and announced their findings — which were published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability — last month (14 October).
Fertiliser trees, such as the acacia tree, capture nitrogen from the air and transfer it to the soil in a process known as nitrogen-fixing. This restores nutrients and increases crop productivity, with the potential to double or even triple harvests. They also improve water efficiency on farms and help prevent soil erosion.
"Four hundred thousand farmers in southern Africa [Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe] are growing the trees to boost their farm yields, and there are still millions of resource-poor smallholders who could benefit from them," said Oluyede Ajayi, lead author of the study and a senior scientist at ICRAF.
The study found that maize yields and farmers' incomes are significantly higher in areas where the trees are used. In Zambia, for example, incomes for farmers using fertiliser trees averaged US$230–330 per hectare, while those who did not use the trees earned just US$130. This increase in income provided food for up to 114 extra days.
Ajayi told SciDev.Net that soil fertility plays a critical role in ensuring food security for smallholder farmers in many African countries. Efforts must be made to take advantage of all available options — including fertiliser trees — rather than engage in less useful academic debates on organic versus inorganic fertilisers, he argued.
"Given the wide range of fertiliser trees that have been developed, [support for farmers] is required to ensure the fertiliser trees [are used] in the right locations," said Ajayi.
He called for policy and institutional frameworks that would support their use and for more information dissemination on the need for fertiliser trees.
More at the linkHundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers in southern Africa are adopting... more
-
-
A group of leading scientists, economists and farmers is calling for a broad shift in federal policies to speed the development of farm practices that are more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable.
Writing in the journal Science, they say current policies focus on the production of a few crops and a minority of farmers while failing to address farming’s contribution to global warming, biodiversity loss, natural resource degradation, and public health problems.
“We have the technology and the science right now to grow food in sustainable ways, but we lack the policies and markets to make it happen,” says John Reganold, a Washington State University soil scientist and the Science paper’s lead author.
Starting in the late 1980s, Reganold pioneered several widely cited side-by-side comparisons showing organic farming systems were more earth-friendly than conventional systems while producing more nutritious and sometimes tastier food. His Science co-authors include more than a dozen other leading soil, plant, and animal scientists, economists, sociologists, agroecologists and farmers.
The Science paper grows out of several national efforts to address concerns about farming’s impact on the environment, including the landmark 1989 National Research Council report, Alternative Agriculture, which recommended greater research and education efforts into sustainable farming. All the authors of the Science paper wrote the council’s 2010 update, Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century.
The paper is particularly critical of the Farm Bill, which is slated for renewal next year. While only one-third of farmers receive payments under the bill, it has an outsized influence on production. It does little to promote sustainability, write the authors, while “distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health.” Environmental impacts, says Reganold, include overdrawn aquifers, eroded soil and polluted water.
Meanwhile, he says, agricultural research and the field of “agroecology,” which adapts the principles of nature to farming systems, are finding new ways to grow abundant and affordable food while protecting the environment, helping farm finances, and contributing to the well-being of farmers, farm workers and rural communities.
cont.A group of leading scientists, economists and farmers is calling for a broad shift in... more
-
-
Problems are already emerging with Monsanto's new generation of Roundup Ready soybeans, RR2 Yield. It seems they are turning yellow in the field. The study below found that the reason for this is that glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide interferes with photosynthesis (the process by which plants use energy from sunlight to produce sugars).
That's on top of all the other problems glyphosate causes to plant and soil health--see breakdown of studies at
http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gmsoy_sust_respons_full_eng_v12.pdf
Other studies have found that RR2 yields are disappointing and not living up to Monsanto's claims:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2515475920100625
---
---
Glyphosate affects photosynthesis in first and second generation of glyphosate-resistant soybeans
Zobiole, L.H.S., Kremer, R.J., de Oliveira, R.S., Constantin, J.
2010
Plant Soil 336, 251–265
http://www.springerlink.com/content/57115358w146h1r1/
Abstract
The crop area planted to conventional soybeans has decreased annually while that planted to glyphosate-resistant (RR) soybean has drastically increased mainly due to the wide adoption of glyphosate in current weed management systems. With the extensive use of glyphosate, many farmers have noted visual plant injury in RR soybean varieties after glyphosate application. A new generation designated as "second generation RR2" has been recently developed and these RR2 cultivars already are commercially available for farmers and promoted as higher yielding relative to the previous RR cultivars. However, little information is currently available about the performance of RR2 soybean beyond commercial and farmer testimonial data. Thus, an evaluation of different glyphosate rates applied in different growth stages of the first and second generation of RR soybeans, revealed a significant decrease in photosynthesis. In general, increased glyphosate rate and late applications (V6) pronounced decrease photosynthetic parameters and consequently decreased in leaf area and shoot biomass production. In contrast, low rate and early applications were less damage for the RR soybean plants, suggesting that with early applications (V2), plants probably have more time to recover from glyphosate or its metabolites effects regarding late applications.
Conclusion
Glyphosate caused undesirable effects on photosynthesis and biomass production in both first and second generation RR soybean. Results suggest that management strategies are needed to minimize these effects in the field, which could include using lower glyphosate rates as possible and early applications, with consideration of weed populations and the critical period of weed control, to assure optimum crop growth.Problems are already emerging with Monsanto's new generation of Roundup Ready... more
-
-
Last month, Michael Mack, the chief executive of Syngenta, said organic farming takes up 30 percent more land than non-organic farming for the same yield. Syngenta is a Swiss agribusiness company that makes pesticides and seeds. “If the whole planet were to suddenly switch to organic farming tomorrow, it would be an ecological disaster,” he said.
In terms of yields, he continued, organic food is the “productive equivalent of driving an S.U.V.” Mack mentioned what he believes is the “mistaken belief that natural is always better.” Pesticides, he added, “have been proven safe and effective and absolutely not harmful to the environment or to humans” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Mack “dismissed the notion that Syngenta…felt threatened by the organic movement,” according to the New York Times. Syngenta sold almost $12 billion in seeds, including genetically modified seeds, and what the company terms ‘crop protection,’ in other words, herbicide, fungicide and insecticides. Mack claimed his only motive in criticizing organic farming is to make people aware of the “limitation of organic food.” He said, “It underplays the significance of agricultural productivity.”
Studies say organic farming yields same as conventional methods
A 22 year farming trial study, the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial compared organic farms with conventional farms, and found that the yield of corn and soybeans were the same. However, organic farming uses 30 percent less energy, less water, and no pesticides, thus it has environmental benefits. Corn yields were about one-third less during the first four years of the study, but eventually organic farming produced higher yields. During the drought years of 1988 to 1998 corn yields were 22 percent higher on organic farms, namely because the soil in organic farms continued to improve.
Organic farming has another environmental benefit, according to the study: it absorbs and retains carbon in the soil. The carbon in the soil of organic farms increased by 15 to 28 percent, equal to removing 3,500 pounds of carbon per hectare from the atmosphere.
Lead author, David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, said, “Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans.”
“Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does,” Pimentel said.
A University of Michigan study found that organic farming can yield up to three times as much food per farm in developing countries as conventional farming. Ivette Perfecto, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment, said, “My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture.”
“We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce,” Perfecto said. “Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies—all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food,” she added.Last month, Michael Mack, the chief executive of Syngenta, said organic farming takes... more
-
-
EXTRACT: Cotton crisis and successive crop failures due to declining soil health goes hand in hand with the imported GM (genetic modification) technology, which is energy and input intensive.
"Bt cotton is a high-cost, energy-intensive technology," said farmers' leader Vijay Jawandhia. In an arid and rain-dependent agriculture region like Vidarbha, he said, this technology comes with huge risks. "Costlier the technology, higher the risk."
---
---
Soil in Wardha district deficient in 18 micronutrients: Study
Jaideep Hardikar
DNA, December 6 2009
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_soil-in-wardha-district-deficient-in-18-micronutrients-study_1320504
Mumbai: From a corner of his farm in Jhamkola, Daulat Mahure, 45, could see what Laxman Chelpelwar, 55, must have seen on his own field, some miles away in Mukutban village: stunted and wilting cotton plants, leaves red as dried blood, and hardly any cotton bolls. The two farmers were from South Yavatmal villages in the Painganga river basin along the Andhra border.
On November 16, Chelpelwar went out, apparently to inspect what must have looked to him a forlorn six-acre crop-less farm. According to his wife Pochubai, he returned home four hours later, and lay down on his bed without uttering a word. Minutes later he began to convulse violently.
"I was alone, I was frightened, and cried for help," she remembers. By the time her sons and some neighbours arrived, it was over. The post-mortem report revealed that Chelpelwar had consumed Endosulfan, a pesticide.
Five quintals. That was Chelpelwar's cotton yield in the first picking. His income from it: Rs15,000. His expenses: Rs50,000.Back in Jhamkola village, about 45 km from the cotton trading town of Pandharkawda, Mahure's cotton yield stood at one quintal: worth about Rs3,000. "I'm not lying," says his mother Jiblabai, who at 70 must work as a farm labourer, picking cotton, so that the family can eat.
Jiblabai says she came home from work on November 23 to find her son hanging from the ceiling of their two-room hut. He had killed himself when nobody was at home. "Daulat was devastated by the failed crops," says his father Kashinath.
Mahure's death left a trail of unanswered questions. The answers, like in Chelpelwar's case, lie buried in his seven-acre field where the cotton plants are drooping, and many are yet to find roots. The soil, says his farmer friend Datta Upre, has nothing in it to feed the plant.
Lalya, the destroyer
"Lalya wrecked us with the drought," said Upre. Lalya, a local term for the reddening of the cotton plants, has become a regular feature ever since the Bt cotton replaced hybrids, according to a number of farmers The Mag spoke to. The Maharashtra government has been compensating farmers in the region for 'lalya' almost every year since the Bt seeds came in.
Agriculture scientists say 'lalya' points to a lack of micronutrients and moisture content in soils, which are fast degrading. This year's scanty rainfall exposed the soil's deteriorating health. Bad soil health, says a senior soil scientist from the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) at Nagpur, mires plant growth and leads to low yields.
A recent study by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) found, as a sample, the soils in Wardha district heavily deficient in 18 micronutrients that breathe life in plants and dictate the yields.
Farming in the rain-fed areas has become even more intensive after the onset of Bt technology. Intensive agriculture, while increasing productivity, has caused fresh problems in respect of nutrient imbalance, experts say. "No moisture and no nutrition in soil," said a CICR scientist, "is a certain recipe for crop failure." True in both, Mahure and Chelpelwar's cases.
A complex process, lalya unfolds with pest attacks, moisture stress and lack of micronutrients in soil. Temperature variation in the day and night accentuates its gravity.
Finally, the plant's chlorophyll content (which gives leaves its green colour) decreases with nitrogen deficiency, giving birth to another pigment called Anthocynin, which turns the foliage red.
If reddening starts before boll formation, it results in a 25 per cent drop in yield, said the CICR scientist, on condition of anonymity. "lalya," he declared, "is here to stay."
Lalya & Bt Technology
The disease, agriculture scientists say, has its roots in the American Bt technology that India imported on the pretext of improving productivity. Almost all the 500-plus Bt seed varieties sold in India this year are of the same parentage -- the American variety of Coker-3, a top CICR scientist said. "It means every seed has half American blood and half of Indian variety cross-pollinated with it."EXTRACT: Cotton crisis and successive crop failures due to declining soil health goes... more
-
-
After Miljenko "Mike" Grgich introduced organic farming to his Rutherford, Calif., winery in 2000, the vintner didn't get the results he had hoped for. So Grgich Hills Estate turned to biodynamics.
"When someone switches from conventional to organics, their mindset as a farmer — when they've been using chemicals for years — is, 'The (market) climate and the wineries want organic, I'll do organic,'" says Grgich vineyard manager David Bos. "Biodynamics says, 'How can I heal the soil, and how can I make these vines healthier?'"
The evolution of a vintner's product from conventional to organic to biodynamic makes sound environmental sense, but that doesn't mean the resulting bottle of wine is an easy sell. The biodynamic approach is still new to many wine drinkers and isn't necessarily viewed as an asset, though vintners expect they will taste the improvement.
"A lot of people who don't do biodynamics will say people just do it for the marketing aspect — I can't tell you what a nightmare it's been for our marketing department," Bos says. "What I think biodynamics does for us, and I've seen it in our wines, it makes it more unique. It comes into the winery as a healthier fruit, which then turns into healthier wine."
Organic and biodynamic wines share some traits — both must be made with organic grapes, have a limited amount of sulfur and follow stringent USDA guidelines for certification, which is noted on the label. But biodynamic vintners adhere not just to a regimen, but to a wine philosophy, which calls for a holistic relationship that treats the farm as a living organism.
snip
Preparations include sprays and composts (made from organic material, including plant life and the internal organs of farm animals) that promote plant growth and prevent disease and fungus. One calls for cow manure packed in a cow's horn, buried through winter and removed as a black, super-saturated compost to be sprayed on the soil.
In 2007, Demeter Biodynamic Trade Organization, the official third-party certifier for biodynamics, certified Grgich Hills Estate. "We've seen quality in our five vineyards go way up from a winemaking and growing standard that makes us see no reason to ever walk away from this," Bos says.
snip
In 2002, a biodynamic consultant introduced the vintners to the philosophy. "I realized there's a leap of faith you need to make," he says. "You need to feel it with your heart and your soul. Farming organically forces us to do a lot of the things biodynamic farmers do. It's made us more aware how crucial soil health is, and that's something we didn't have much of an appreciation of when we were farming conventionally for so many years."
end of excerpt
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cookingupastory/756317545/After Miljenko "Mike" Grgich introduced organic farming to his Rutherford,... more
-
