Mereja

Author: GMO Pundit

  • Needed: a key for the locked-up innovation the underprivileged have previously been unable to get at, because the poor are starving or hungry or powerless or excluded

    Report Finds Radical Change Needed for Global Agriculture
    ScienceDaily (Mar. 24, 2010) — A report to be released at a pivotal global meeting on agriculture finds that transforming the agriculture agenda to meet the challenges of a warmer, environmentally-degraded world of 9 billion people will require changes “as radical as those that occurred during industrial and agricultural revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.”

    The comprehensive assessment, Transforming Agricultural Research for Development, suggests the need for massive reform of the architecture of what it terms a currently “fragmented global system of research and development,” in order to better reach small-scale farmers on the ground, while making food production more sustainable and the systems in which they are produced more resilient to future climatic and energy shocks.

    The report, funded by a range of international organizations and development agencies, including the World Bank, European Commission, and the UK Department for International Development, provides a stage-setter at the first Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD), which has been tasked by the G8 to turn priorities on future needs in agriculture into constructive actions to reshape its future. Nearly one thousand participants, including World Food Prize Laureates, heads of international organizations, agriculture ministers, farmers, civil society groups, community development organizations, leading scientists, and private sector innovators are expected to participate in the meeting, taking place 28-31 March in Montpellier, France. The report, prepared by a team of experts led by Uma Lele and including Eugene Terry, Eduardo Trigo and Jules Pretty, builds on extensive consultations across all continents in 2009 and their considerable experience in global food and agriculture, and is undergoing review by stakeholders around the world. It will be formally presented at GCARD on March 29.

    According to World Bank estimates, some 1.4 billion people were already living in poverty in 2005, well before the 2007 food price increases and the 2008 financial crisis. Since the financial crisis, an additional 100 million people are now believed to have joined the ranks of the poor and hungry, according to both FAO and World Bank estimates. “It is clear that the Millennium Development Goal of substantially reducing the world’s hungry by 2015 will not be met. A major cause has been a steady decline in policy attention to agriculture and rural development,” said Uma Lele, the lead author of the report and Former Senior Adviser at the World Bank. “Little has been done by developed and developing countries alike to deal with the daunting challenge of hunger with long term- development assistance to agriculture and rural development. Rather as a flip side of development, short term emergency food and other emergency aid have increased.”

    Over the 1981 to 2007 period, the share of net aid flows to developing countries has become negative for Latin America and for East Asia, and it has declined substantially for South Asia. Even for sub-Saharan Africa, net aid has declined and less of it has been going to agriculture. “Barring the three big countries of China, India, and Brazil, capacity of most developing countries in agricultural R&D has been winding down,” said Lele. “We must make a quantum leap in building back up their capacity and translate government and donor pledges into concrete actions.”

    “There has been remarkable progress in food production over the past half-century, with historically unprecedented improvements when agricultural research and development were given primacy,” said Jules Pretty, a global author and Professor of Environment & Society, Department of Biological Sciences, at the University of Essex, UK. “But some of those benefits were spread unevenly, and there are big problems around the corner: climate change, the energy crunch, economic uncertainty, population growth, environmental degradation, and a shift in consumption patterns in emerging economies that are following the same unsustainable models found in the West. Substantial changes are needed in the levels and types of aid and the way it is given.”

    According to the report, the global population will likely reach 9.0 billion by about 2050, mostly from developing countries. Urban populations will increase from today’s 3.4 billion to well over 6billion. With higher incomes and different tastes, diets in developing countries will shift from low- to high- value cereals, poultry, meats, fruits and vegetables. While this will constitute an improvement for many, this major shift in consumer preference for nutritional security is also likely to be accompanied by hunger and poverty in the countries with the poorest populations, while obesity rates as high as those now seen in wealthy countries would occur in others. Increased demand for fossil fuels for fertilizers and transport to meet growing food demands will likely change the prospects for biofuels.

    “The business-as-usual model of how things have been organized over the previous 50 to 70 years is no longer an option. We have to go back to the drawing board,” said Eduardo Trigo, a global author, Director of Grupo CEO, and Scientific Advisor to the International Relations Directorate of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of Argentina.

    The authors contend that there should be enough knowledge and resources available — or that can be mobilized — to tackle the problems of poverty and hunger, if the system for doing so could be massively overhauled. The report sets an approach for transforming the current global system of cooperation in agricultural research for development into “a coherent whole so as to achieve more rapid, scaled-up and sustainable impacts on food security, poverty, and the environment.” The report and overall conference process are seeking to ensure that agricultural research for development will be more inclusive of both women and the needs of small farmers.

    The report provides a holistic view of the myriad actors that currently form this fragmented global agricultural research system — the landscape of actors and funders in the agricultural system as it stands today; regional research organizations and their development needs; and a roadmap of guidelines for translating the products of agricultural research into larger and quicker development successes. It includes references to some 300 pieces of research; a review of dozens of documents, international assessments and summits on the state of agriculture undertaken over at least two decades; and consultations with national governments, members of civil society, scientists, and other key players from all regions of the world. The consultations undertaken have involved direct inputs from over two thousand people.

    Investments Needed

    “We are in a paradoxical state where we are living in the age of knowledge, but the level of investments going to agricultural research is less than half of what it should be,” said Trigo. “And there is ample evidence that these investments are tremendously profitable.”

    This pattern of concentration parallels what is happening in overall science spending throughout the world, according to the report. In developed countries, agricultural R&D has also become increasingly concentrated in a handful of countries, with just four countries (the United States, Japan, France, and Germany) accounting for 66% of all global public R&D conducted in 2000. Similarly, just five developing countries (China, India, Brazil, Thailand and South Africa) undertook just over 53% of the developing countries’ public agricultural R&D in 2000 — up from 40% in 1981. Meanwhile, in 2000, a total of 80 countries with a combined population of approximately 625 million people conducted only 6.3% of total agricultural R&D.

    To meet the backlog of underinvestment alone, the report calls increasing agricultural research investments in developing countries to 1.5 percent of agricultural GDP, more than double or triple the current investments in scientific capacity and institutions and delivery mechanisms at both the national and international levels.

    Some analysts say that to meet FAO estimates of food demand in 2050, annual investments in developing countries of about US $210 billion gross or US $83 billion net in 2009 dollars would be needed annually after allowing for depreciation of the existing stock of capital. This is an increase of almost 50% over current levels. These needs would decline over time with increased efficiency in agriculture and decelerating demand for food, say the global authors.

    Currently, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which was set up by the World Bank and wealthy country donors in the 1970s to develop new crop varieties, farm management techniques and innovations to farmers in the developing world, constitutes about 4-5% of the total global public sector expenditures on agricultural research, according to the report. The CGIAR’s Strategic Results Framework has estimated that public agricultural research and development for developing countries would need to increase from the current $5.1 billion to $16.4 billion by 2025 of which the $1.6 billion would need to be the CGIAR element. The report contends that this is the minimum amount needed since developing-country needs for research extend beyond the CGIAR’s mandates.

    “GCARD is intended to leverage the remaining 94-95%, which includes both public research systems of developed and developing countries which are often not responsive to the needs of smallholder farmers,” said Lele. “With the 4-5% from the CGIAR, the objective is to get a much bigger bang for the buck on effectiveness and impact.”

    “Donors need to increase aid levels for capacity building and especially to the regions of the world with the greatest concentration of poverty; these include Asia with two thirds of the world’s poverty and Sub-Saharan Africa with slightly less than a third. The $20 billion the G8 committed for food and agriculture over three years is too small. It also remains to be seen whether it will materialize,” said Lele.

    “In addition, CGIAR, which already has a track record in research would need to help make a case for additional investments in developing countries” said Eugene Terry, a global author and former Director General of one of the 15 CGIAR centers (Africa Rice/WARDA), Founding Director of the African Agriculture Technology Foundation, and Ex-Chair of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF).

    The CGIAR is undergoing a reform process to ensure it has a greater collective impact, simplified governance, and clarified accountabilities with clear and distinct roles for both investors and implementers.

    “It is clear that the issues of food insecurity and poverty, rather than the funding cycles of governments and donors, need to drive the strategic frameworks both of national agricultural research systems and of the CGIAR,” write the authors.

    Gaining Production Increases “Outside the Box”

    “Without viable livelihoods, the resource-poor smallholder farmers will move to the cities in the future,” said Trigo. “Addressing food security issues in urban areas is completely different than doing so in rural areas. The focus will have to shift to producing food by the poor for the poor. During the food crisis, we had food riots not in the rural areas, but in the cities.”

    Options deployed over the previous five decades for ensuring big productivity gains to meet the enormous and diverse food needs of the future are no longer on the table or the most sustainable options, say the authors. These include “extensification,” or moving agriculture onto lands currently not being used. “We need to produce food for a growing population on the same piece of land,” said Terry. “Sustainable intensification now has to be given high priority to reduce negative environmental impact.”

    To get the production increases needed, the authors call for a broader approach to agricultural research for development that departs from the traditional approach that keeps scientists who develop a technology separate from the process that delivers that new technology to farmers. The report calls for greater participation amongst a broad range of stakeholders in the seed-to-table chain of events — from the rural farmer to the scientist, in addition to the players in between, including extension officers, the private sector, national and regional agricultural programs, and civil society. It also calls for recognizing and drawing on the tremendous innovation of farmers themselves. According to the authors, agriculture is highly context-specific and needs to move away from the expectation that research advances can be applied as one recipe — or single models as silver bullets — developed globally and applied locally.

    “Development problems cannot be solved by research alone, as research by itself can be a blunt instrument,” said Terry. “Research has to be translated into real development outcomes. There are many pathways to achieve this, including through partnerships, but none of them involve linear solutions.”

    “Real partnerships with developing countries in leadership roles are needed to enable developing countries to address their problems in ways only they can,” said Lele.

    Closing the yield gap between the best yields and those realized by a large majority of farmers calls for increased investments in adaptive research, extension, and a variety of other delivery services which constrain growth, write the authors.

    “If you can get the conditions right in agriculture, you’ve got millions of farmers, men and women, with ideas on how to improve things,” said Pretty. “If they could just have access to credit or fertilizer, they could go a long way. It is this locked-up innovation we have previously been unable to get at, because the poor are starving or hungry or powerless or excluded. We just have to find a key. The trouble is there are billions of keys. That’s why you need the new architecture for agricultural research to keep finding the keys and unlocking the potential.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324211146.htm

    __._,_.___

  • More milk per cow matters for sustainability

    “It is worth noting that a recent analysis from the Organic Center (Benbrook, 2009), intended to demonstrate the advantages of moving from conventional to organic dairy production, is based on a flawed premise, namely that productivity (milk yield per cow) does not differ between conventional and organic systems. Productivity
    is demonstrably lower under organic management with a reduction in milk yield per cow ranging from 15-27% (Nauta et al., 2006; Sato et al., 2005; USDA, 2007; Zwald et al., 2004). When differences in productivity are accounted for, organic dairy production requires considerably more resources (feed, land, water etc) per unit of milk produced and has a greater environmental impact (Capper et al., 2008).”

    DEMYSTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION
    J. L. Capper, R. A. Cady and D. E. Bauman
    1 Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
    2 Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN
    3 Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
    Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference 2009

  • New Site Pushes Peer-Reviewed Science Over Misinformation | Academics Review

    New Site Pushes Peer-Reviewed Science Over Misinformation | Academics Review


    AcademicsReview.org exposes falsehoods in Smith’s book ‘Genetic Roulette’ while inviting others to join the cause for good science
    Contacts:
    Prof. Bruce Chassy
    University of Illinois
    [email protected]
    217-766-2750
    Dr. David Tribe
    University of Melbourne (Australia)
    [email protected]
    CHAMPAIGN, Illinois, and MELBOURNE, Australia – Two food science and biology academics are launching a new Web site, Academics Review, to examine claims against GM foods by Jeffrey Smith.
    Founders Bruce Chassy, Ph.D, professor of food microbiology and nutritional sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Dr. David Tribe, Ph. D., senior lecturer in food science, food safety, biotechnology and microbiology at the University of Melbourne, Australia, authored a point-by-point scientific analysis of Smith’s claims, which is posted on the site.
    “Reliable information is extremely important to enable people to make healthy choices,” said Tribe. “We hope Academics Review will be a resource for anyone who respects the open-minded search for truth that is the basis for scientific thinking.”
    Chassy and Tribe point out anyone searching the Internet for information to help them decide on the safety of GM foods would likely find a lot by Jeffrey Smith, who, like many people pushing advice online, isn’t an expert on the issue.
    “Much of the ‘evidence’ Smith cites for his theories about GM foods has never been peer-reviewed or examined by the international community of scientists for verification,” said Chassy.
    Chassy and Tribe applied the same scientific method they teach their students to Smith’s claims, posting the blistering results of their review of Genetic Roulette in clear, understandable language. The site can be accessed for free by anyone seeking to base their decisions on the best information available.
    “When Wendell Phillips in 1852 said ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,’ he may as well have been referring to Jeffrey Smith,” said Chassy. “We all have to be vigilant about what to believe, especially when it comes to our health.”
    Researchers, teachers, and other credentialed professionals in a range of scientific fields are welcome to apply to join Academics Review as participating members, and are invited to visit the Web site for more information. “Over time, additional content will be added to the site to help people access sound science about a variety of issues that affect their lives,” Chassy and Tribe said
    About Academics Review
    Academics Review is an association of academic professors, researchers, teachers and credentialed authors who are committed to the unsurpassed value of the peer review in establishing sound science. They stand against falsehoods, half-baked assertions and theories or claims not subjected to this kind of rigorous review. Researchers, teachers, and other credentialed professionals in a range of scientific fields are welcome to apply to join Academics Review as participating members. More information available at:
    No related posts.

  • Work at Harvest Plus may help nutrition in Africa

    Rare Variation in Maize Gene Means More Vitamin A from Maize
    http://www.harvestplus.org/content/more-vitamin-maize

    Washington, D.C., March 20, 2010: A team of scientists has discovered rare variations of a maize gene (crtRB1) that can lead to an 18-fold increase in beta-carotene content of maize in an academic research setting. Plant breeders are starting to use these naturally occurring genetic variations to breed maize that can provide more beta-carotene to malnourished people. The body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A.


    Millions of people in developing countries are too poor to buy foods rich in beta-carotene, such as fruits and vegetables. This results in vitamin A deficiency, which blinds up to 500,000 children annually. The poor eat cheaper staple foods, such as maize, daily. Increasing the amount of naturally produced beta-carotene in maize can upgrade its status to a ‘superfood’ that provides a valuable nutrient in addition to calories.

    Most of the beta-carotene produced in maize is converted into other carotenoids, which make less or no vitamin A. The favorable variations of the crtRB1 gene slow down this conversion process resulting in more beta-carotene, and hence, more vitamin A. The team also identified a molecular marker, essentially a genetic signpost, which makes the most favorable form of the gene easier to find.

    “We can now, not only search for this form of the gene in maize using cheap molecular markers, but also breed it into any maize variety in the world,” says Dr. Torbert Rocheford, a member of the team. “This could translate into improving the health of children through better nutrition, especially in Africa where maize is a popular staple food.”

    “We are on track to release conventionally-bred vitamin A maize in Zambia by 2012-beyond that, this research could accelerate breeding of maize with even more vitamin A,” says Dr. Howarth Bouis, Director of HarvestPlus, which along with USAID and other organizations funded this research. Under the best scenario, the crtRB1 gene variations can increase concentration of beta-carotene from a little above zero, to about 57% of the micronutrient target (15 micrograms/gram beta-carotene) that HarvestPlus has determined would improve poor people’s nutrition and health.

    —–
    Article Reference: Rare genetic variation at Zea mays crtRB1 increases beta-carotene content in maize grain. Nature Genetics, March 21, 2010, DOI:10.1038/ng.551

  • WWF realise anti-AgBiotech movement has been asleep at the wheel

    Freeze Your Footprint, Agribiz Told

    – Philip Brasher Des Moines Register (Blog), March 17,2010
        
    The world has got to stop increasing the environmental impact of producing food, and that will mean reducing consumption in rich countries as well as using more biotech crops. That was the message that Jason Clay, the senior vice president for market transformation at the World Wildlife Fund, gave to a meeting of the Global Harvest Initiative, a forum set up by Monsanto, Pioneer and other agribusiness giants. “We think we need to freeze the footprint of agriculture,” he said.

    His is a message that’s guaranteed not to make anyone entirely happy. Anti-biotech advocates don’t like the message that gene-altered crops are needed to increase production. And the idea that a billion people on the plan[e]t consume too much is not one often heard from farm organizations. “We’re asleep at the wheel. We’ve got to wake up,” Clay said.

    The world’s population is expected to rise from 6.7 million now to 9 billion people by 2050 and that increase coupled with rising incomes and changes in climate is expected to put more pressure on food supplies, especially in developing countires.

    In addition to better crop genetics, Clay said improvements in farming practices need to be spread around the world faster and farmers also need to make better use of water, fertilizer and degraded lands. Less food should go to waste, too. An estimated 35 percent of the calories that farmers produce today doesn’t make it to the farmer, said Clay. Clay has a doctorate in anthropology and international agriculture from Cornell University.

  • Genetically modified wheat: No influence on insect larvae and aphids

    Genetically modified wheat: No influence on insect larvae and aphids

    Genetically modified wheat: No influence on insect larvae and aphids
    Two projects of the Swiss National Research Program “Benefits and Risks of the deliberate release of Genetically Modified Plants” (NFP 59) have investigated the possible effects of fungus-resistant genetically modified wheat on fly larvae and aphids. The results have now been published in two scientific journals: The GM wheat had no influence on the development of the animals, or on mortality or reproduction.
    Images
    Test field with different wheat varieties. The trials were carried out at two locations (Reckenholz/Zürich, Puilly).
    Analysis. In the GM wheat lines various genes were tested for resistance against mildew, a fungal disease that is widespread in Switzerland and Middle Europe, which can lead to considerable problems.
    Ruined. In June 2008 some of the trial plants were cut down by opponents of gene technology.
    The researchers were interested in the effect of GM-wheat on fly larvae that decompose plant residues in the soil and so are involved in maintaining the soil fertility. Aphids were also chosen for study as they feed almost exclusively on plant sap and so are sensitive indicators for the food quality of the fodder plant.
    Fly larvae: Important for soil fertility
    Studies on fly larvae have been carried out by scientists at the Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the University of Bern. They fed larvae of two species of flies occurring in Switzerland with leaves from six different genetically modified wheat varieties. For comparison, larvae were also fed exclusively on six conventional strains of wheat. The researchers observed the development and the reproduction of the flies emerging from these larvae over four generations to see if there were any long-term effects. The different food sources had no effect on the fitness of any of the animals in any case.
    Aphids: Sensitive indicators
    A similar approach was chosen by the researchers at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Sciences at the University of Zurich in collaboration with the Research Station ART (Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon) for their project on aphids. In environmental chambers, 30 different aphid colonies were fed with eight different wheat species, four of which were genetically modified lines. The mortality, weight and fertility of the animals were recorded. All the measured parameters for all the differently fed aphids were comparable. No effects due to the genetic modifications were seen.
    Gene technology moratorium in Switzerland: Extended for 3 years
    A moratorium for the commercial cultivation of genetically modified plants has been in force in Switzerland since 2005. In a referendum, the majority of the Swiss voted to ban the utilisation of genetically modified animals and plants initially to 2010. Until this time, research in the framework of the national research programme NFP 59 was meant to compile more knowledge on the use and risks of genetically modified plants. The moratorium was extended in February 2010 for another 3 years, to wait for the final results of the national research programme, which are expected to be available in mid-2012.
    The Scientific Commission of the Swiss National Assembly was of the opinion that an extension would not lead to “any serious scientific disadvantage”. The research remains restricted, but “sowing under strict conditions” was still permitted for research purposes.
    Documentation
    Peter, M., Lindfeld, A. and Nentwig, W. (2010), Does GM wheat affect saprophagous Diptera species (Drosophilidae, Phoridae)?, Pedobiologia
    (PDF avialiable by SNF; E-Mail: [email protected]) von Burg, S., Müller, C. B. and Romeis, J. (2010): Transgenic disease-resistant wheat does not affect the clonal performance of the aphid Metolophium dirhodum Walker. Basic and Applied Ecology, (PDF available by SNF; E-Mail: [email protected])
    Pundit’s thoughts

    No mention here of the risks of allowing mold to grow on wheat.

  • Friends of the EU

    Friends of the EU
    The Costs of a Taxpayer-Funded Green Lobby
    By Caroline Boin and Andrea Marchesetti
    International Policy Network
    March 2010

    Executive Summary
    Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have enormous influence in the European Union. However, some of the most vocal green groups are actually funded directly by the EU to lobby it.
    The EU funds many NGOs operating in Brussels whose main purpose is to influence EU policy-making and implementation. This report analyses one programme of funding, in which DG Environment (the division of the European Commission responsible for environmental affairs) distributed over €66 million to environmental NGOs between 1998-2009.
    Specifically, we examine funds allocated to the Green 10 – a coalition of ten NGOs pushing for an “environmental” agenda in EU policy-making.

    • Nine out of the Green 10 receive funds from the Commission.
    • Eight members receive one-third or more of their income from the Commission, and five of those rely on the Commission for more than half their funding.
    • Under EU rules, an NGO can receive up to 70% of its income from the EU, and thus is obliged to find only 30% of its income from alternative sources.

    From 1998 to 2009, there was a substantial increase in funds given by the Commission to environmental groups: from €2,337,924 (1998) to €8,749,940 (2009) – an average increase of 13% every year.
    The EU’s funding of Green 10 members has also increased during this time period.

    • Birdlife Europe funding increased by 900%
    • Friends of the Earth Europe funding increased by 325%
    • WWF European Policy Office funding increased by 270%.

    The majority of Green 10 members now receive considerably more money from the Commission than in previous years. As a result, many have struggled to reduce their dependency on EU funds – in fact, three members depend more on EU funds today than in 2005.

  • Natural GMOs Part 62. Chromosomes move around the molds.

    Comparative genomics reveals mobile pathogenicity chromosomes in Fusarium 

    Li-Jun Ma, H. Charlotte van der Does, Katherine A. Borkovich, and many others
    Nature Vol 464| 18 March 2010| doi:10.1038/nature08850

    Fusarium species are among the most important phytopathogenic and toxigenic fungi.
     To understand the molecular underpinnings of pathogenicity in the genus Fusarium, we compared the genomes of three phenotypically diverse species:
    Fusarium graminearum, Fusarium verticillioides and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici.

    Our analysis revealed lineage-specific (LS) genomic regions in F. oxysporum that include four entire chromosomes and account for more than one-quarter of the genome. LS regions are rich in transposons and genes with distinct evolutionary profiles but related to pathogenicity, indicative of horizontal acquisition. Experimentally, we demonstrate the transfer of two LS chromosomes between strains of F. oxysporum, converting a non-pathogenic strain into a pathogen. Transfer of LS chromosomes between otherwise genetically isolated strains explains the polyphyletic origin of host specificity and the emergence of new pathogenic lineages in F. oxysporum. These findings put the evolution of fungal pathogenicity into a new perspective.

  • Back story on Uganda cotton, but just as important — a fantastic African Ag-blog

    African Agriculture: Switch to organic cotton in Uganda encounters set backs

    MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
    Switch to organic cotton in Uganda encounters set backs
    A marketing row and the switch to organic farming among cotton companies operating in the Uganda are threatening to reduce output by to a half.
    The firms are Dunanvant, Twin Brothers, South Base, Bo-Weevil, Copcot and Olam.
    An investigation in the affected growing districts found out that farmers were forced into organic cotton growing after the buying companies threatened not to buy conventional cotton, promising a premium for organic crop.
    However, farm field visits showed that organic cotton plants were stunted, with few cotton balls, thus affecting yields per acre. In several villages, farmers ferried yellow-turned cotton to local stores for sale instead of the white cotton. The farmers attributed the change in colour to lack of spraying and poor management of the crop. The prices depend on the number of buyers operating in an area.
    In Kitgum, which has a monopoly buyer, organic cotton went for sh650 (US 38 cents) a kilo, the same as conventional cotton. In competitive areas, organic cotton went for between sh750 and sh1,000. Dunavant agents in Kitgum claimed that prices were low because “we had given robust extension services and organic farm inputs freely to the farmers to improve production.” The agents also claimed they were also giving subsidised tractor services to the community.
    A number of stores have closed because the ginneries rejected the poor quality organic cotton. This has left farmers stuck with the cotton. Dozens of cotton fields visited were not weeded, while the crops looked stunted.
    In various villages, a spray pump is used to serve more than 100 farmers. Some farmers have therefore not accessed the pump for the entire season, leaving the pests to destroy the crops.
    Farmers lack agronomic skills and inputs to manage their crops. They have also never used tractors.
    Charles Ongom, a farmer, said: “We have not been given any tractors. We hire oxen for ploughing. We got few pesticides but very late, when the cotton had already been damaged by the pests. We planted 10 acres but we harvested only 200 kilogrammes.”
    Anthony Nyeko, another farmer, explained: “During the conventional period, I used to get 800 kilogammes from six acres compared to 380 kilogrammes which I got under organic farming.” He lamented that there were no demonstration plots for the farmers to learn the basics of organic farming.
    But Dunavant agents insisted they gave out 18 tractors to over 5,000 farmers to plough about 10,000 acres. They asserted that they had so far bought 872,837 kilos of cotton from 37,000 acres. This means that yield production per acre is 24 kilos.
    They also claimed that about 300 spraying pumps were given to over 17,500 to farmers. This implies that one pump is shared amongst 60 farmers.
    However, Komakech Ogwok, a Kitgum area official, dismissed Dunavant’s claims. He said that farmers who wanted to hire Dunavant tractors were denied a chance. He said the tractors were only hired to a selected group of people who were not cotton growers. Ogwok also complained of sh650 per kilo of organic cotton.
    He did not understand why Dunavant bought the same cotton at sh650 per kilo in Kitgum but sh750 in neighbouring Pader. Ogwok said a lot needed to be done to improve output, which would translate into better incomes.

  • GM beets move haltingly forward in the US

    Judge Allows Genetically Engineered Beet Harvest
    – Paul Elias, The Associated Press, March 16, 2010
    In this report from SAN FRANCISCO – it is revealed that federal judge on Tuesday said farmers can harvest their genetically engineered sugar beets this year, ruling the economic impact too great and that environmental groups waited too long to request that the crop be yanked from the ground and otherwise barred from the market. Nearly all sugar beets planted are genetically engineered and the crop accounts for half the nation’s sugar supply.
    It says that in denying their request, White noted that the Center for Food Safety and the other groups who sued had ample opportunity to make such a request and he chastised them for waiting until this year to act. The judge said it appears most of the genetically engineered seeds have already been planted and it would be too disruptive to order their removal from the fields. “This ruling provides clarity that farmers can plant Roundup Ready sugarbeets in 2010,” said Steve Welker, Monsanto’s sugarbeet business manager.
    According to the report the judge said disallowing the beets would cause an economic catastrophe – 95 percent of sugar beets are genetically engineered with a bacteria gene to withstand sprayings of weed killer Roundup. Half the US sugar supply is derived from beets and a Monsanto expert testified that 5,800 jobs and $283.6 million in growers’ profits would be lost if he shut down the market, which stretches across 1 million acres in 10 states.

  • What goes around, comes around

    Feeding the Propaganda of Anti-Tech Activists – WSJ.com

    Peter Berkowitz is right to condemn abuses in the peer-review process (“Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen,” op-ed, March 13 ), many of which reflect the biases of both articles’ referees and journal editors. It is not uncommon to find egregiously, obviously flawed articles in prominent international scientific publications. As in climategate, if the articles have policy implications, misinformation is quickly and widely propagated and feeds the propagandizing by opportunistic, antitechnology activists.

    Some of the worst of these flawed papers have conveyed false alarms about the safety of gene-spliced (or “genetically engineered”) plants, which subsequently have been extensively reported in the popular press….continues at link

  • Mold toxins — a largely and rather shamefully ignored global health issue.

    Wild CP Gong YY (2010) Mycotoxins and human disease: a largely ignored global health issue. Carcinogenesis
    vol.31 no.1 pp.71–82, 2010
    doi:10.1093/carcin/bgp264
    Summary
    Aflatoxins and fumonisins (FB) are mycotoxins contaminating a large fraction of the world’s food, including maize, cereals, groundnuts and tree nuts. The toxins frequently co-occur in maize. Where these commodities are dietary staples, for example, in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the contamination translates to high-level chronic exposure. This is particularly true in subsistence farming communities where regulations to control exposure are either non-existent or practically unenforceable.
    Aflatoxins are hepatocarcinogenic in humans, particularly in conjunction with chronic hepatitis B virus infection, and cause aflatoxicosis in episodic poisoning outbreaks. In animals, these toxins also impair growth and are immunosuppressive; the latter effects are of increasing interest in human populations. FB have been reported to induce liver and kidney tumours in rodents and are classified as Group 2B ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’, with ecological studies implying a possible link to increased oesophageal cancer. Recent studies also suggest that the FB may cause neural tube defects in some maize-consuming populations. There is a plausible mechanism for this effect via a disruption of ceramide synthase and sphingolipid biosynthesis.
    Notwithstanding the need for a better evidence-base on mycotoxins and human health, supported by better biomarkers of exposure and effect in epidemiological studies, the existing data are sufficient to prioritize exposure reduction in vulnerable populations. For both toxins, there are a number of practical primary and secondary prevention strategies which could be beneficial if the political will and financial investment can be applied to what remains a largely and rather shamefully ignored global health issue.

  • Blogs for Biotech Students –Go there and use the useful list

    50 Best Blogs for Biotech Students – Becoming A Radiologist Technician

    Science and technology have almost always worked in tandem to accomplish their common goals. Whether medical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, genetic, or any other number of different applications, the two disciplines can feed off of one another for the betterment of mankind. Biotechnology, no matter a student’s particular area of interest, exists at one of the many crossroads where technology and science synthesize in the interest of progress. The following blogs keep fledgling and seasoned biotechnologists alike well-informed about the nuances and movements within their rich, diverse community of seemingly limitless potential.
    At the link find the blogs that will help you get somewhere

  • You say emotionalizing I say scaremongering — lets call the whole thing off.

    BBC NEWS | Programmes | Hardtalk | Gerd Leipold

    The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
    Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
    Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
    “I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
    Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
    The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
    Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
    Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
    Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.
    “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”
    Quoting Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney
    Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:38
    At Not Evil Just Wrong

  • Conflicting Bt resistance opinion in India

    Limits to Biotechnology

    – Editorial, Business Standard (India), March 11, 2010

    The revelation by the developer of pest-protected Bt cotton Bollgard, Monsanto-Mahyco, that pink bollworm pest has developed resistance to the killer Bt gene, Cry1Ac, in parts of Gujarat, and the rebuttal of this by a government-funded cotton research institute have created a fresh, albeit avoidable, controversy around genetically modified (GM) crops. The Monsanto statement had claimed that during field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in Gujarat, the company’s scientists had detected unusual survival of pink bollworms on Bt cotton hybrid Bollgard in four districts – Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot. The firm also said that this has been conveyed to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex GM regulator, following the principle of transparency and accountability.


    However, the director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has asserted that this conclusion is not well-founded as it is based on faulty testing methodology and has not been peer-reviewed. What lends a degree of credibility to the latter view is the fact that this institute has been involved in resistance-monitoring of Bt cotton since 2003 and its director heads the immunity-monitoring panel of the GEAC.

    Moreover, scientists of the Bt cotton developer firm are also members of this panel, which has neither noticed such resistance among pink bollworm nor reported any such development to the GEAC. Monsanto’s claim, on the other hand, is not necessarily well-founded because it is based on just one season’s observations when other factors, including weather, could have played a role in facilitating relatively higher survival of a particular pest.

    One reason why the company’s view is suspect in the eyes of its critics is the feeling that it is seeking to create a market for a new, higher-priced seed. While Monsanto may have business reasons in mind, the fact also remains that its claims should be objectively verified and the farmers properly reassured of the factual position.

    After all, even GM crops are not immune to disease. Countless good crop varieties have in the past gone out of cultivation because of the loss of their inbuilt immunity against particular pests and diseases. Indeed, even in the case of human beings, pathogens and viruses inflicting them are known to often develop resistance against particular antibiotics, necessitating discovery of newer molecules to treat the diseases caused by them. The same is true in the case of vaccines and medicines used by humans to combat insect-borne diseases and other pandemics.

    Thus, there is no merit in denigrating new technologies per se. It would also be short sighted to altogether abandon modern biotechnology in the creation of new and better seeds and crop varieties. Be it Bt cotton or Bt brinjal, or any other GM crop, what is really required is that one be on guard all the time in the use of modern science and technology in the unending battle against pests and diseases.

    Scientists must continue to evolve new varieties of seeds with different kinds of resistance and periodically review them and replace older and outdated varieties or hybrids with superior ones.


    (Posted in full in the public interest)

  • Reduction in insecticides used in Indian cotton plus yield increases, and greater profitability

    India’s Bt Cotton Crop Area Rises to 8 Million Hectares; Yields Up 31 Per Cent: Minister

    – Domain B, March 10 2010 http://www.domain-b.com/industry/biotechnology/index.html

    The area under Bt cotton in the country has increased from 29,000 hectares in 2002-03 to an anticipated 8 million hectares in 2009-10. Bt cotton has also helped increase crop yields by 31 per cent, the government said today.

    The average yield of Bt cotton has increased from 300 kg per hectare in 2001-02 to 560 kg per hectare in 2007-08, K V Thomas, minister of state for agriculture, consumer affairs, food and public distribution, informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply today.

    Cultivation of Bt cotton has resulted in a 31 per cent increase in yields, 39 per cent reduction in pesticide usage and more than 80 per cent increase in profitability of farmers, the minister said, quoting figures from International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications 2009 (ISAAA 2009) report.


    The Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur has been conducting detailed studies at the state level in collaboration with the state agricultural universities of the nine major cotton growing states, he said in his reply.

    Information so far collected indicates that yields have increased in these cotton growing states with the introduction of Bt cotton, he said, adding that the bollworm menace has also significantly reduced all over the country. He also said there has been a reduction in market share of insecticides used in cotton.

  • What Bill Gates reads….Tomorrow’s Table

    Bill Gates – What I’m Learning – The New Science of Feeding the World – The Gates Notes

    Tomorrow’s Table is a real education on the many choices farmers today must make regarding seeds. It’s very good in explaining genetically engineered seed, how it’s used today (mostly to help plants fight off insects and tolerate herbicide) and how it will be used in the future (to increase disease resistance, drought tolerance, vitamin content and crop yields, for example).
    The book separates out clearly the issues of how to make sure new seeds are safe, how to price them and how to treat them as intellectual property.

    I gained an understanding of the history of organic farming and learned about some of the very clever ways organic farmers control pests. Compared with conventional agriculture, many organic techniques can be more cost effective for poor farmers. I agree with the authors that we will need the best ideas from “organic” thinkers and from scientists – including genetic engineers – to feed the world and help the poorest.


  • Technological innovation can cause poverty for cotton growers

    allAfrica.com: Uganda: Bleak Future for Organic Cotton

    Uganda: Bleak Future for Organic Cotton
    Ibrahim Kasita 23 February 2010, From AllAfrica.com
    Kampala — A BLEAK market for organic cotton is making it hard to pay farmers high prices as it was purported, confirming fears that the venture was not economically viable at least for now.
    Latest figures issued by the Global Organic Exchange indicate that 35,000 tonnes (about 160,754 bales) of organic cotton is among the unsold stock of cotton, which is yet to find buyers.
    “In addition, a number of farmers had planted vast acreage of organic cotton on speculation and in response to what had appeared to be a healthy, burgeoning marketplace,” laments the report.
    “As a result, unsold stocks which represent between 17 and 22% of production (some 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes (or 137,789 to 160,754 bales) of organic cotton has yet to find buyers.”
    The report confirms concerns raised by the Cotton Development Organisation (CDO) that farmers especially in the north had been forced to grow organic cotton yet the yields and the income does not help in fighting household poverty.
    CDO explained that enmasse introduction of organic cotton was suffocating the industry and impoverishing the farmers.
    It said there was a need to train and sensitise the farmers as well as compensate them for the losses incurred. The Organic Exchange body called for the organic promoters to respect their contract commitments.
    “2008-09 was a year of challenges for the organic cotton sector,” noted Simon Ferrigno, the Organic Exchange farm development team manager and lead author of the report.
    “But also one that highlights the need to improve recordkeeping, forecasting, pricing and communication systems and gain more firm commitments and contracts.”
    In order to ensure that the farmers do not lose out, Henry Bagire, the agriculture state minister, advised them to spray their cotton fields with pesticides to control pests and diseases.
    “A farmer who sprays his cotton garden with the pesticides earns five times more compared to those practising organic cotton farming,” he said.
    “An acre of conventional cotton yields between 1,500kg and 2,000kg, while one gets about 150kg from an organic cotton garden of the same size.
    “This is unfair to farmers. You should watch out for those who want to exploit you,” the minister stated.
    With conventional cotton growing, farmers use synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, while in organic cotton farming, farmers rely on natural inputs without using pesticides or fertilisers.
    This results into low yields because the crop is highly susceptible to pests and diseases, the minister added.
    International Cotton Advisory Committee(ICAC) has recently also affirmed that organic production practices are complex and require extensive research and training for successful implementation. ICAC provides statistics on world cotton production.
    From the comments, with thanks from the Pundit;
    Dr. Tribe,

    You forgot to mention that the organic industry preys on the vulnerable in Africa with no remorse whatsoever. They lie and cheat, and in Uganda’s economy, those are literally life-and-death issues. These crooks ought to be hauled before a world tribunal to answer to crimes against humanity.

    Uganda: Country’s Annual Cotton Output Falling
    New Vision
    15 February 2008

    “The Cotton Development Organisation (CDO) accuses ginners of forcing farmers into organic cotton growing without adequately preparing them.”

    Switch to organic cotton in Uganda encounters set backs African Agriculture
    February 11, 2008

    “An investigation in the affected growing districts found out that farmers were forced into organic cotton growing after the buying companies threatened not to buy conventional cotton, promising a premium for organic crop.”

    Cotton Development Organisation (CDO)
    August 2002

    “First of all, most of the registered farmers that grow organically, and are certified by foreign inspectors, are not able to sell their organic produce to the projects at organic premium prices. Only some 15% of all organic cotton produced and certified in the project areas is in effect being bought at organic premium prices. The other 85% of
    farmers may aspire to sell their produce at an organic premium price, but in the end they have to sell their certified organic produce at conventional seed cotton prices to conventional cotton traders.”

  • Monsanto reports Bt resistance in Indian pink bollworms

    Monsanto ~ Cry1Ac resistance in Indian pink bollworms

    Cotton in India
    During field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in the state of Gujarat in western India, Monsantoi and Mahyco scientists detected unusual survival of pink bollworm to first-generation single-protein Bollgard cotton.
    Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac was confirmed in four districts in Gujarat – Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot. Gujarat is one of nine states in India where cotton is grown. To date, no insect resistance to Cry1Ac has been confirmed outside the four districts in Gujarat.
    This has been reported to the Indian Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. Mahyco-Monsanto Biotechii in collaboration with the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) and other agricultural research institutes have been conducting field monitoring research across India since 2003, the second season of Bt cotton in India.
    Single-protein Cry1Ac products continue to control bollworm pests other than pink bollworm in the four districts in Gujarat where pink bollworm resistance has been confirmed. In addition, no instance of insect resistance in any of India’s cotton growing states, including the four districts in Gujarat, has been observed with Bollgard II, the second-generation Bt cotton technology. Bollgard II, introduced in 2006, contains two proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
    Current monitoring efforts to manage insect resistance by an Indian-expert network will be expanded. The network is led by the Director of CICR who is nominated by GEAC. The network will continue to conduct extensive insect monitoring, encourage appropriate stewardship practices such as proper refuge planting through an intensified farmer education campaign, and explore new methods of refuge seed delivery.
    Resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important. Among the factors that may have contributed to pink bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat are limited refuge planting and early use of unapproved Bt cotton seed, planted prior to GEAC approval of Cry1Ac cotton, which may have had lower protein expression levels.
    While single-protein Cry1Ac cotton products continue to deliver value to Indian farmers, increasingly Indian farmers are planting two-protein Bollgard II cotton because it reduces the need for insecticide sprays compared to Cry1Ac products and increases yield. Over 65% of Gujarat cotton farmers chose Bollgard II cotton in 2009, and pre-season bookings indicate that over 90% of Gujarat cotton farmers are expected to plant Bollgard II in the 2010 season. Overall, approximately 80% of all Indian cotton farmers are expected to plant Bollgard II in the 2010 season.
    The findings in Gujarat are an important reminder to Indian farmers. When using Bt cotton products it is essential to regularly monitor and scout fields throughout the season for insect presence and plant appropriate non-Bt refuge. Furthermore, farmers must adopt measures such as need-based application of insecticide sprays during the crop season, and properly manage crop residue and unopened bolls after harvest. Examples of such practices include tillage and cattle grazing to minimize the survival and spread of pink bollworm.
    Continuous R&D and innovation to develop new value-added technologies is imperative to stay ahead of insect resistance. To support such innovation, Government policies should encourage investment in R&D which will result in Indian farmers having a wider choice of better and advanced technologies.
    Monsanto is committed to developing new high performing products for farmers, and is currently working on a three-protein Bt cotton technology. Monsanto is open to collaborating with other technology providers in India to develop products that use the best available technologies for the benefit of Indian farmers.
    Last Updated: 03/05/2010

  • Scientists support progress on GM canola in WA

    Friday 5 March 2010
    MEDIA RELEASE
    JOINT STATEMENT: Scientists support progress on GM canola in WA
    Influential agricultural science specialists from across Australia enthusiastically support and encourage the Western Australian government’s intent to fully commercialise approved GM varieties of canola from the 2010 cropping season.
    They say that the WA government will join both the New South Wales and Victorian governments in providing a new and proven technology to farmers to improve productivity, sustainability and international competitiveness.
    The scientists include:
    • Professor Peter Gresshoff, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence Integrated Legume Research
    • Dr TJ Higgins, former Deputy Chief, CSIRO Plant Industry
    • Professor Peter Langridge, CEO, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics
    • Dr Jim Peacock, Immediate-Past Chief Scientist, Australia
    • Professor Stephen Powles, Director of the Western Australian Herbicide Resistance
    Initiative, University of Western Australia
    • Professor Jim Pratley, Charles Sturt University
    • Dr Christopher Preston, The University of Adelaide
    • Professor Rick Roush, University of Melbourne
    • Dr Rex Stanton, EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation
    • Professor Mark Tester, Director, Australian Plant Phenomics Facility
    • Dr Glen Tong, CEO, Cooperative Research Centre for Molecular Plant Breeding
    • Dr David Tribe, University of Melbourne
    In supporting this move, the scientists join with the major representative farming organisations in Australia, including both WA-based farm bodies, to commercialise approved varieties of GM canola in a manner that provides choice in the adoption of valuable agricultural technology.
    Dr Jim Peacock says Australia can no longer ignore a decade of proof and success, “GM crops for feed, fibre and food are a reality of Australian life; they have been successfully grown, traded and consumed in Australia and around the world since 1996; all gene technology research and resulting products are highly regulated in Australia to ensure human health and environmental safety and those who campaign against GM crops conveniently overlook the science.”
    The scientists agree that there are no safety concerns about any of the approved GM crops. Dr David Tribe of the University of Melbourne says, “Every major scientific and health organization in the world has endorsed the safety of approved GM crops to human health and the environment.”
    Equally, there is no basis to the marketing concerns that are sometimes highlighted in the media: Europe and Japan have continued to import millions of tonnes of GM grain products. Further, countries such as Spain, France and Germany and others in Europe have allowed their farmers to grow GM varieties, including corn and soy.
    Although there has been speculation that there would be premiums for ‘GM free’, the fact remains that there are no premiums large enough to offset the net profits of GM varieties.
    “After more than a decade of GM crop production elsewhere – and since 1996 in the vast canola and wheat plains of Canada – the only thing WA farmers have to show for their ‘non-GM’ status is the fact that they’ve been forced to forego tens of millions of dollars in revenue”, notes Rick Roush, Dean of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne.
    Farmers use approved GM canola varieties as another production system tool to provide:
    • An alternative and effective way to control ryegrass, radish and other weeds
    • Less use of, and reliance on, residual herbicides
    • Reduced soil tillage requirements
    • Large diesel fuel savings
    • Fewer CO2 emissions
    • Improved canola oil quality
    “In Canada, average canola yields have increased by 27 per cent since 1996. Over the same period, Australian yields have stagnated or even declined”, says Professor Roush.
    Professor Jim Pratley of CSU adds that his research in a five-year trial, “has shown that one of the GM canola varieties consistently delivered superior weed control, higher yields and oil quality and better profits.”
    Dr Chris Preston of the University of Adelaide says the environment has also borne the burden of WA’s GM crop ban. “GM crops have already demonstrated around the world over the last decade significant advantages to the environment, including reduction in pesticide use (5-90 per cent crop), reductions in tillage (which means lower fuel use and erosion), and reduced CO2 emissions on the order of billions of kg from better carbon storage in soil and reduced fuel consumption.”
    GM cotton, which historically contributed some 40 per cent of Australia’s cooking oil, has been a great success, assisting the cotton industry to reduce its environmental footprint by decreasing pesticide use by up to 90 per cent. Growers willingly plant GM varieties where the economic and environmental returns are clear.
    Western Australia’s CBH regularly handles many millions of tonnes of grains, representing several hundred-thousand separate truckloads, delivered into more than fifty segregations per customer specifications. GM varieties are just another part of these routine operations.