More In This Article
-
Overview
Food Fight
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The article "Food Fight"in the April issue details Roger Beachy's involvement in the birth of genetic engineering of food crops, how he went on to become an avid defender of the new technology and how these beliefs will shape his tenure at the agriculture department's newly formed National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Here he answers four more questions for readers about his own background and agriculture in the developing world.
How did your Amish background shape your interest in agriculture?
I grew up on a small farm. Ten of my uncles were farmers, and I had a big family on both sides. Just the responsibility of producing food was enormous. The Amish in those days were using very few agrichemicals, and, gosh, I thought if we could find a way to protect plants against disease while minimizing the use of agrichemicals it would be a good thing. That's largely where my interest in agriculture came from. But I also think about the motto of the Mennonite college I went to in Indiana, Goshen College: "Culture for Service." It really was the service attitude of the church and the faith, that, I credit my career choice to as much as anything. I am not involved in the church at all anymore but like others in the sciences it really did color much of what I did: how to be useful, how to serve human kind, how to use the knowledge that you're fortunate to gather in a way that would help people.
Can technical advances in sustainable agriculture be transferred to the developing world?
Absolutely. At the U.S.D.A., I think we need to return to programs that we did in the '70s and the '80s to ensure the training and the capacity of scientists in developing economies in a far more effective way than we've done in the last 20 years. When I was a graduate student, there were between 10,000 and 20,000 students coming to this country for training and agriculture and other sciences. The number today is a fraction of that, and, as a consequence, we have universities in some parts of the world that have little or no agriculture, have no extension service, have no plant breeding and have no production of seeds. Only if we begin to invest there, in their capabilities, will we jump start the private sector in their countries.
Why is it so important to have agricultural training in countries?
They need local industries to grow up and produce better seeds, so we first have to start with building capacities in those countries so that as new technology comes in, whether it's an Indian company going into Africa or a U.S. company going into Taiwan or Indonesia, you still have to have local, on-the-ground strength in order to make it successful.
Is there a one-size-fits-all strategy for fostering agricultural technology?
Every country is different. China largely now has multinational seed companies and a burgeoning domestic company—and seed policies that are favorable to both. In India there's a strong sense of local ownership and every new variety of seed that comes in the country then has to work within their system, and I think that makes for healthy competition. Hopefully all the governments of other developing economies will invest more in this terribly important sector of food security and agriculture economy.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add Comment"Forget Organic Farming: Agricultural Technology Is the Way to Go"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse dilemma and not mutually exclusive concepts. Practices involved in "Organic Farming" are part of "Agricultural Technology", and vice versa.
"Roger Beachy's involvement in the birth of genetic engineering of food crops"
"I thought if we could find a way to protect plants against disease while minimizing the use of agrichemicals it would be a good thing."
If that was true overall, indeed it would be nice. A case in pint, "Round-up" ready seeds.
"we have universities in some parts of the world that have little or no agriculture, have no extension service, have no plant breeding and have no production of seeds. Only if we begin to invest there, in their capabilities, will we jump start the private sector in their countries"
That is opaque to say the least.
"and I think that makes for healthy competition"
A level playing field makes for healthy competition.
Overall I feel this article is noise at best and does not present us with any really useful information.
There is no use in advocating agricultural technology when agricultural subsidies force 1,000,000,000 people into a state of permanent hunger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is pretty outrageous. It has been shown that what's important in increasing the efficiency of a yield isn't the increase in technological advances, but in knowledge of the land passed on from generation to generation and learned through actual farming experience. Beachy is basically saying that traditional farmers in developing countries aren't smart enough to cultivate their crops, they have to be taught the proper way, the way we teach students in universities in the US about agriculture. He's of the kind that has the complete faith in the modernist progression of technology that will someday save us from all our worries, but agricultural science has produced more and more negative effects than positive. What farmers need now is to know more about their land and be able to work with it instead of being taught how to fight against it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeachy is correct in saying many third world farmers don't have enough information to most effectively cultivate their crops. Or they have been grossly misinformed or misled by others...and persist in destructive agricultural practices. I've visited a rural community in Haiti four times in the last four years. People there depend on agriculture for much of their food. THeir continued loss of topsoil form their current farming practices has been most frustrating. In interviews with local farmers I'm given the reasons why they pull grass from hill sides so they can keep the goats off the hill...so they can grow corn. Terracing? Not yet seen it in this remote area.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific and Technical Solutions are the most efficient of the Solutions. Thats the case of Atomic Energy and others. So, whats the problem with Agricultural Technology ?. The same problem with Atomic Energy and the others.... Is very important to have a higher level of administration to manage the new problems originated by the new solutions(Ackoff). And actually I didn`t know something else related with this new kind of events. Will we be waiting the new problems in a global scale to have institutions like Atomic Energy and others exists now Mr. Beachy?.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetic improved seeds can be grown in a organic way, too. "artificial fertilizer" can be used if needed additional to the organic fertilizers. Its important for birds, insects and other animals when there are scrubs and trees in a line every quarter mile and connected each other. The landscape would look more lovely, and the soil errosion would be stopped. Corn should be uses as human food not for animals--corn is bad for the soil--barley is good for soil and animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou help me, if I make mistakes ,by writing an answer I m a upper grade marriaged female student from germany.
Based on what are you making the claim that "knowledge of the land" will increase efficiency in yield? Subsistence farmers in some developing countries are NOT producing enough food for their families. The need for manual labor in a low-yield field forces families' children to work in the field; taking away from their opportunities to receive proper education (IF available). Yes, subsistence farmers in some countries still enjoy fertile soil and benefit from growing a much more diverse range of crops based on generations of crop variety and "knowledge of the land". But this does not represent reality for all. How do you argue that agricultural science had led to more negative outcomes than positive? A useful dialogue has to take into account the reality of farming in various developing countries and identifying the reason some farmers are not having the yields they wish for. Agricultural technology may not be the answer for all, but it surely will help many. It shouldn't be up to us to decide for the farmers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article demonstrates the business aspect of modern society. One must ask oneself, What are the relevant properties of organic VS genetically modified organisms? Organics are generally very carefully selected species that are well know to have good yield properties. The interference of carbon signaling systems between soil, radiation and growing organism determines the properties of a given species, a plant in this case. As a person who originates from traditional agricultural area, I must say that the quantity would not be a problem if proper soil were selected. There are negatives of GMO's in terms of nutritional properties or environmental consequence. One of them is that soil gets very exhausted due to high growth capacity and elements acquisition. On the other hand agricultural technology gives very high yield.But overproduction do not necessary mean low price due tech investment. The other negative side is that, there is high amount of nitrates and/or proteins within GMO which affect how fast stem cells divide and possible interference with good gut bacteria and therefore interfere with carbon signaling systems. Thus much has to learned onto control. The positive side of GMO cultures is that they can eliminate chemical treatment against parasites. Thus, there is problem on both sides. If a given culture is conditioned in a proper way, minimal chance of disease may occur. Defensins expression are important in disease prevention. Mainly plant diseases occur due to poor fixation conditions provided to bacteria responsible for the interference between symbiotic organisms. Anther negative is that gene modified organism often have no offspring, thus loosing defined gene pool may happen. As we well remember, the GMO were intended to feed Africa. Therefore, GMO must be mainly streamed towards poor soil determinants unless perfect generation has been discovered. Organic farming is dominant in terms of quality properties. GMO's are difficult to dose with micro elements so that very well method for dosage is needed. It is like making a normal cell going cancerous, it makes high mass, but definitely different properties. Seeking GMO with organic farming nutritional properties is probably the way to go. For other commercial such as cotton etc, if no negative impact on ecosystem, GMO's can be applied. Until then organic soil should not be substituted or used for GMO. We should preserve Nature's creation,compare it to GMO and search for optimal solutions relative to usage and effects on health and development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore drivel from one who obviously should know better!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, when did Scientific American become the mouthpiece for Monsanto's PR campaigns? Honestly, what is going on that would allow two slanted articles about the glory of biotech foods in short succession by the same publication?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrganic farming is some rich people`s whim.As population is rapidly increasing we are now more than seven billion. How can we feed them with organic food?We must use Genetic proceeding seed.Use new agricultural technology
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is embarrassingly false. Organic farming can feed as many people, longer and more nutritiously (and without the dangers). Two well-known documentaries to start with: The Future of Food and Food Inc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMix it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome industrialised farming (cos that's what it is-- an Industry).
Organic farming from 16 sq ft plots to small farms to forest food growing.
We are not in the BIGPRODUCTIONFACILITY age any more we need appropriate mixing of sources of supply.
We don't need just Technology we need KNOWLEDGE and we need to share the knowledge.