Producing enough food to meet a growing and increasingly affluent global population, while respecting the environment and containing climate change, is perhaps the greatest challenge the human race faces. It is a subject that has climbed the political agenda and divided opinion among farmers, scientists, environmentalists and the public at large.

Writing for Farmers Weekly next week, Dominic Dyer of the Crop Protection Association makes the very valid point that, were it not for the increase in farm yields since the 1950s, we would currently have to cultivate three times as much land just to feed today’s population.

To meet the challenges of the future, agriculture will have to pull out the stops to raise its productivity, including the full armoury of agrochemicals, fertilisers and genetic improvements.

And in a Talking Point article for Farmers Weekly, science editor of The Observer, Robin McKie, argues that we as society need to “wean ourselves from false ideas about what is natural, and accept plans to introduce sophisticated new technologies – particularly those involving the manipulation of DNA – to the farmyard”.

But what do you think. Is GM technology the answer, or does small-scale, organic farming hold the key for a sustainable future in developed and developing countries alike?

(Both Dominic Dyer and Robin McKie will appear on a panel, along with other top speakers, to debate the issue of food security at next week’s Tory party conference.)

About 100 years ago wasn't all farming pretty much organic??  The yields Grandpa use to talk about were wheat in the 20s(bpa) corn in the 40s and 50s.  My great grandfather use to buy 4 year old steers out of Texas to run on grass weighing about 800 pounds, I once asked grandpa if there was some sort of contest to see how long a steer would live.  With all the anti meat rhetoric amongst many of the elite, there goes the best source of natural fertilizer I know(manure).  Organic absolutely does not hold the key.

But on the other hand, GM has its fair share of problems, chief among them the patent on the seed.  No longer can you save your own seed, a practice fairly handy in times when money is tight.  There are hundreds of farmers over here that would swear on the Holy Bible that GM crops especially soybeans have a yield drag, I am not one of them but I know a few.  But the real problem is what do you do when resistant weeds show up, and I suppose eventually resistant insects etc.  GM is a great tool, it is not magic, although at first it does seem that way.

Re " to meet a growing and increasingly affluent global population".

That oft-used phrase in the debate about how we can continue to feed the world ignores the 'elephant in the room' of over-population. Until the human species as a whole learns to limit its numbers to a sustainable level no amount of technical 'fixes' will prevent inevitable starvation.

 Over the years I have gone through the commercial route, soil compaction, erosion etc, total organic, low yields,high input costs etc. When I studied Holistic management, I planned my own ideal long term objectives, based on returning as much organic material to the soil as possible, combating soil erosion, using chemicals sparingly when neccessary, scouting crops for pests and targeting the infected areas only. All decisions are made taking the whole business, environment and knock on effects into consideration, the planning is flexible and allows for changes in directionin order to get to the planned objectives. There is no sure answer to all our problems, but this gives a good management tool to get close to the ideal balance we need to acheve.

Lets not muck about. Today they announced a partial AIDS vaccine. It was celibrated as a great discovery. Next article is that we will have to squeeze 2x the food out of each acre.

Stop beating about the bush - too many damned people. RIch or poor, there are too many.

Intensive ag as we know it cannot survive without oil and finite inputs such as mined phosphates.

The problem is solved by war, famine and disease. And by damned doctors stopping keeping people alive for the hell of it, and doogooders trying to stop tribal factions from killing each other as they have done since the dawn of time.

LESS PEOPLE.

andy h, I see nothing different in your "holistic" approach to the way I have gardened and farmed for more than half a century, and I know I am not alone in this. Your response is quite common in the last few years, and I have tried to remember a farmer, any farmer, that I have known who has not tried his best to avoid erosion and soil compaction, or failed to use organic inputs as much as possible, use sprays as infrequently as possible, etc etc. They must exist I suppose, but I have not met one personally.

Holistic Management, Permaculture, Organic Farming are all ideals, based, at best, on sound farming practices of the vast majority of conventional farmers, and at worst, on the ideals of people who have not farmed their own land for the last 40 or more years. Unless and until you have done so then I think even your final sentence is in doubt.

I would like to draw attention to those last few words of yours. You have the intelligence to realise that none of us know everything. I am quite happy that you believe in your current approach to the problem of feeding the world, and accept that you may be right. In fact it is downright difficult for anyone to argue that you are wrong. At the same time, I use chemical fertilisers and spray against insect and fungal pests (remember I am in Portugal where winters are mild and summers are hot) because I need to if I am to harvest most crops. In a country with harsh winters it is much easier to exist without so many sprays. There is no single global answer to growing crops efficiently. I am inclined to think, but not yet totally convinced, that in some areas GM might be beneficial. My gut instinct is that too many people, not necessarily farming their own land, see GM as an immediate profit booster rather than a sound farming practice. Any farmer who goes for the short-term profit over the long-term interests of his land, and I would hope, his descendants, is likely to lead us all to food shortages in the not too distant future.

if GM wheat made its own nitrogen, it would be a winner. but the fert boys wont allow that to happen.

till then, its just a cash cow for monsanto. roundup will soon be useless as resistance develops.

 GM is the future, the way forward to a bright future for all mankind, organic farming is the pathway to hell and it condems the people to a lifetime of starvation for the vast majority of the human race. Let the tree huggers and the  eco warriors die of hunger if that is what they want but for goodness sake allow the rest of the world to go ahead and feed itself with confidence. The Luddites seem to have made another appearance and like King Canute trying to turn back the waves they have not got a snowball in hells chance of succeeding.

Dick

'FEWER' PEOPLE, please!

l am not a great one for organic agriculture, particularly for controling pests and disease. But my son got us to buy a rear discharge muck spreader, and we can now  top dress our grass with rotted manure, and watch it go nice and green, just as if it had a bag of N scat about. l would like to try it on our cereals next spring. Mainly to prove to myself that it was not £16000 wasted

There seems little point using much bag N if the price for grain stays down were it is.    

boveyfarmer:

l am not a great one for organic agriculture, particularly for controling pests and disease. But my son got us to buy a rear discharge muck spreader, and we can now  top dress our grass with rotted manure, and watch it go nice and green, just as if it had a bag of N scat about. l would like to try it on our cereals next spring. Mainly to prove to myself that it was not £16000 wasted

There seems little point using much bag N if the price for grain stays down were it is.    

Good for you for making good use of organic manure rather than seeing it as a waste disposal problem.  Have you worked out how much manure you'll need though, to replace a light dose of say 10:10:10 ? 

flutefriend:

'FEWER' PEOPLE, please!

 Quite so, but I'll be quite happy if the population number is less next year than this.

If GM wheat fixed it's own N, it would still need the other 12 other essential mineral nutrients to produce - and if the GM wheat has higher yield potential, than it's going to need more of them if the fertility of the soil is going to be maintained or better still improved. I don't think the fertiliser companies will mind too much - the best businesses embrace changes in market demand and capitalise upon the new opportunities created.

I have been struck with a rare moment of clarity.  First of all, most people in the world today who are hungry are hungry because of a lack of money, not a lack of food.  Second, there is no silver bullet when it comes to feeding the world, the best practices will have to be used, some may be GM, some may be along the lines of organic.  An example can be found right here in the Kansas Flinthills where our native rangeland has been infested with sericea lespedeza, and invasive plant that cattle don't like.  After spending a decade fighting it with herbicides and fire with no success, large herds of goats have been introduced to control it, with much more success.  The double positive of this is because of all the new ethnic groups in this nation who prefer goatmeat to anything else, it gives ranchers a way to diversify. 

kansasfarmer:

An example can be found right here in the Kansas Flinthills where our native rangeland has been infested with sericea lespedeza, and invasive plant that cattle don't like.

That's very interesting Kansas. I've actually considered planting an acre or so as a test plot. Good example of one man's ceiling being another man's floor. If it's the same as the stuff featured in this link, those goats may not even require much in the way of worming and it's a legume to boot. Expensive seed though. Wondering if old macdonald might be willing to split a bag with me?

      http://simsbrothers.com/

Jon

jimbo 72, these other minerals are not supplied from bag fert anyway, except p,k and s.

they can be easily obtained and spread, ensuring the fertlity of the soil.

none of them require a lot of fossil fuel to make.

the current system of using a finite resource to grow food is totally unsustainable.

 Old Macdonald,I began with Holistic management as a progression from a rotational grazing system I used to rejuvinate the badly degraded grazing on my farm in the fragile Kalahari ecosystem of south western Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I wasn't quite 40 years on the farm, but the improvement in grazing and crop production and soil conservation was ahead of any other system used in our environment. Read a little on the website, you may find some of the concepts of interest, and of use in your environment.

Jon, it is the same stuff, I have read the info you posted.  You really need to consult local experts before you plant any.  In your conditions you might not have a problem with it.  Here in the Flinthills it is costing ranchers a small fortune to battle, and the battle at best is a draw.  It is possible our part of the world will become known for goat production just as much as cattle.  It is my understanding sheep are also effective in controlling it.

I don't think any one path holds the answer, rather a holistic combination of the available techniques and technologies.  Each region, each crop, each holding is different and so will need a unique approach that is best determined in detail by those who work that holding.  The trouble with 'organic', 'GM', etc. is that the advocates pitch themselves against all others to make their case rather than say: "we have some ideas that may be useful, look at how they might work for you."  So the organic advocates basically get by on saying how awful everyone else is in every way.  Similarly the GM advocates suggest their technology is going to save the world.  In fact none of these things are true except in part.  Why can we not incorporate concepts from the organic world (e.g. reducing inputs, putting control back into the hands of the producers rather than the merchants) with those from the advanced technologies?  Surely inputs would be reduced if we can engineer, for example, plants that require less spraying or sheep that require less footbathing?  With lower input costs and fewer losses, then smaller scale producers start to gain back the advantage of flexibility that any small operator has and retain their independence.  To balance that, though, farmers will have to make sure they retain control over any technology they use: it makes no sense to replace thrall to fertiliser merchants with that of the GM technologists.

Townie, that's pretty much what Peter Kendall said at a fringe meeting in Manchester this morning. He was very critical about the Soil Association's stance that conventional farming is bad (he even accused them of 'frightening' people about conventional farming methods in order to boost their sales).

As Peter said, conventional farming organisations don't seek to rubbish organic systems, they admit there are things they need to learn from them to help them farm more effectively.

 Anyway, my report on the meeting should be going up on FWi soon, I'm sure Isabel will helpfully post the link on here

Am I the only one to see a bit of irony in this debate?  On one hand, we have "professional worriers" telling us constantly that the world is close to the point it cannot feed the people on it, on the other, plummeting grain prices.  In my hour long morning scan of the internet I have found an article on the BBC about the number of Indian farmers who commit suicide each year because of economic hardship, a report via the Farm Journal website stating Illinois farmers will lose money on their corn and soybean crops this year, and the bit on FWi about the farmer getting turned away at the mill.  The market certainly does not tell us we are nearing any type of food shortage.  One would think in a nation like India farming would be profitable, of course one would think in a nation like the USA farming would be profitable, but then too, one would think with a population of 60 million plus living on 90 some odd thousand square miles, any miller in Britain would be happy to get domestic wheat. 

The big thinkers of the world, those who hate animal agriculture, or believe in organic, or some other cause they want to inject into agriculture always fail to address one issue....farmers shouldn't be charity workers.  If teachers get paid, and police get paid, professional ball players and dare I say politicians all are worth a paycheck, why aren't farmers?  IF we can get past a frost the next several days, 2009 will probably be a profitable year for me.  After that all bets are off.  What difference does it make whether GM or organic take over if neither will turn a profit? 

I believe most farmers, at least most I have ever met, are realistic in their expectations of what their work is worth, we all realize we will never get contracts like professional athletes or movie stars.  But why shouldn't we make a profit on each bushel or ton of wheat we grow, or gallon or liter of milk we produce, or pound of beef or pork(and what about wool, what fiber is more green then wool, yet it often is worthless, unless it is in a wool jacket)  if the world indeed is short of food?  Die hard capitalists would say we have no right to expect that, let the marketplace do its job and regulate production....but as a farmer, the question I have to ask is how can the world believe farmers can continue to produce the food that is obviously needed if year after year we have to exist on razors edge margins? 

I think the "key" to addressing the food needs of the world is to quit treating farmers like serfs, and let the best production practices prevail.  But at the end of the day, if the market place continues to penalize us for producing enough food, land in third world countries will continue to be idle or '"underfarmed" and land in nations like mine will continue to be built on and turned into hunting preserves, and the poorest in the world will suffer chronic food shortages, not because the food can't be grown, but because farmers can't AFFORD to grow it.  Money is the real issue in the world food situation, not GM versus organic.

 

I think our politicians, to a certain extent, aided and abetted by our own professional representatives (NFU FDSEA etc) will be judged to have failed in their inability to grasp the value and importance of the development of GM crops.

They will be judged to have taken the easy option and by surrendering to the bogus claims made by various disgruntled pressure groups and  banning their use and effective development in almost the whole of Europe, failed in their duty to help protect the future of the general population.

This will cost us dear in the future; investment, research and expertise having  deserted the old continent in search of more favourable climates elsewhere to do their research and development.

 

There seems to have been 3 dominant options:

 

1. Stop intensive agriculture, encourage organic farming and to hell with the hungry poor countries, it's not our problem and in any case what can we do.

 

2. Status quo with extra pressure to reduce pesticides for normal farmers but banning GM crops even if it's for 50-60 years - "principale de precaution"  taken to its extreme!

 

3. Anticipating growing population and global warming, accepting GM crops thus driving up the quantity produced and lowering the cost of food, allowing more people to access affordable food .

 

For me it's a no brainer.

 

The first option is unbelievably self conceited, uncaring and short sighted. Promoted by people who are rich and insulated from the real decisions many have to take about whether to buy food for the family or shoes for the children or to repair the roof.

 

The second seems to have been the holding position favoured by many in Europe. This looks increasingly like burying one's head in the sand to me. Remember we used to say no one ever got fired for buying IBM, now they don't even make computers.

 

The third option is at last gaining some support. Thank goodness.

 

There is little or no valid scientific evidence that would suggest that GM foods are in any way dangerous to animals or the environment. In any case the reduction in pesticide and energy use offered would far outweigh this risk.

I am pleased that some of the most carcinogenic pesticides have been banned, but by definition many pesticides still used are poisons, GM technology would render many more obsolete.

 

I  couldn't care less that I would have to buy my seed from powerful multinational companies. They spent the money they deserve the reward.  If it works, there will be competition in the market and I'll manage my purchasing as before, if they behave badly I'll switch to someone better.

Politicians could be of more  use in scrutinizing and applying themselves to competition law, weaknesses in this area will always be exploited by  big groups often with more resources and rigor than Countries seem to manage.

 

Whilst I have watched the Confederation Paysanne destroy GM maize trials in France (they even invaded a farmers store and destroyed his harvested crops), I am pleased to be planning to grow some Express resistant sunflowers next year, hopefully followed by corm borer resistant maize and some of the other exciting crops being developed by Monsanto, Pioneer and others.

This is still in Europe, I'll be competing with myself in France, but quite frankly waiting for the right decisions in "old Europe" is just taking too long. I doubt that my French farm has a future in real farming under our stupid short sighted and mainly self imposed rules.

 

The Romanian government may be far from perfect but they do seem to understand that agriculture is important and has a valuable role in the country's future. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and am investing my resources there.

 

Bon Courage.





JC


 

 

Very good post Flash.  Like you, I don't begrudge a company being paid for their research, within reason.  But what I am seeing now is no matter what commodities do, seed prices go up.  At the end of the day for GM to be profitable, you have to be able to afford the seed to begin with.

organic farming is good for reducing production while improving soil fertility.

the old fallacy about feeding the world is pure crap, just look at zimbabwe, the bread basket of africa reduced to famine by one madman.

if every western farmer went organic, can you imagine the shortages?

in 1815, the price of a tonne of wheat was £22/ ton because of a famine in europe. that was more than twice the average annual wage at the time. At that time an acre of land was worth about £5, so 4.5 acres of land equalled 1 ton of wheat.

can you imagine a ton of wheat at £30,000?