NC

"Plow Sharing"

An Interesting And Informative Newsletter About Alternative and Organic Agriculture

Index

Happy Holidays!!!
Demonstration Plots to Begin
Together We Stand
Seed Savers Unite
Turning to the Sun-Instead of Methyl Bromide
Clues to Redder, More Nutritious Tomatoes
New Grape Trio
Ten Reasons Why Farmers Should Think Twice Before Growing GE Crops

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!

Well, we are turning the corner on another year and the prospect of another growing season looms before us. There are many questions floating through people's heads about what the next year will bring, what should be grown, how to improve production, how to improve the bottom line, how and where to market, and so it goes. Calls have already started to come concerning these points. This coming year, I think we can solve many of these problems and concerns...hopefully.
    The first tool will be through a workshop series started by myself and agents, Debbie Roos from Lee Co., and Taylor Williams of Moore, Lee, and Richmond Co. Topics will be varied but details should abound. Besides bringing in Extension specialists we are also turning to your fellow farmers to talk about their experiences. The workshops will be a mix of in-house seminars with plenty of discussions and actual on-farm field days and demonstration projects.
The series is titled FARMING 2000 & BEYOND. The first session will be on Wed. January 19 from 5-8pm in Sanford (location to be soon determined). The month's topic will be Farm Planning to Thrive in a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Speakers include John Vollmer- from Franklin Co is a former tobacco farmer who presently raises 10 acres of strawberries and vegetables with some transitional organic production and is a member of the North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Assoc. He will talk on his experience in diversifying his family's agricultural enterprises into alternative crops and the challenge of marketing.
   Guido van der Hoevan, NCSU Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics will discuss Evaluating Farm Business Performance. This will include setting goals and objectives to improve your chances of success. Jeff Reives, Small Business Assistant Director for Central Carolina Community College-Pittsboro, will detail How to Develop a Business Plan that will allow you to farm profitably.    The workshop will include a light dinner for $7 and pre-registration is required so we can get an idea of the number for dinner (registration form is on the back of this newsletter). Please address it to Farming 2000 & Beyond Workshop Series c/o Debbie Roos, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service  225 South Steele St.  Sanford, NC 27330  919-775-5624, or call me at 919-542-8202 for more info.
   The February workshop will be on Value-Added Production, Marketing, & Regulation. Speakers will be Alex & Betsy Hitt farmers from Chatham/Alamance Co. line talking about their experiences creating and selling value-added products. Michelle Roberts, NCDA Horticultural Marketing Division will talk about state programs designed to aid farmers in their pursuit of increased profitability. Andy Youngblood of Hickory Mountain Farm Meat Packers will talk about small scale poultry production and processing for direct marketing. NCDA will have a representative to go over the regulations governing fruit and vegetable processing for value-added production and sales.  This workshop will be held on Wed. Feb.16 from 5-8pm at the Chatham Co. Cooperative Extension Center 45 South St. Pittsboro, NC.
   The March workshop will be focusing on irrigation systems for the small farm. More details on this topic will be forth coming.    Later topics will include season extension and low input technology for production, soil management, post-harvest handling, cover crops and rotations, biological control, small scale livestock production, vegetable and fruit production techniques, heirloom plant production, seed saving, CA's and other market development, and much more.  

DEMONSTRATION PLOTS TO BEGIN

 One educational tool that I will use in the coming year will be information gathered from demonstration plots. By setting up some 'in-the-field' experiments, farmers will be able to see first hand some production techniques, variety trials, and alternative crops. Seeing how some varieties respond to our environmental conditions and production practices will be something that I want to learn about and hopefully it will be of use to you all as well.
   I will be running some plots at the Community College Land Lab as well as possibly on some participating farms. the first two trials will be dealing with season extension and 'greens' production.

TOGETHER WE STAND...

   On October 25, a group of small farmers from across Chatham Co. and beyond met to discuss several important issues. One was the option for growers to participate in putting together bulk or collective seed orders. I have taken on the organization of this task. I believe that this will save growers money during the time of the year when cash is tight.
   We can do it several ways. One is to pool orders by seed company to save on freight and then combine like variety orders when possibly to get bulk savings on quantity prices. Ican measure out ounces and fractions of ounces if necessary. some of the seed companies that  can use would be  Cooks, FEDCO (this one can really give some savings and I will be getting a dozen catalogs shortly or use the one in my office),Johnny's, Ornamental Edibles, Shepherds, cover crops or other catalogs you might suggest.  Let's get together and try to put it together.
   Organic materials bought in bulk was also discussed. This is another option. Mark O'Farrell will be looking into this more closely. I will be letting you know more about this as it progresses.
   

SEED­SAVERS UNITE

More information on seed saving and the opportunity to get involved in preserving history and making a difference.
  
There's nothing more basic to agriculture than collecting seeds from a crop and replanting them the next season. Documenting how well the seeds grow brings science to the venture. Share the results, and you have education; sell the seeds, and you add business to the equation. A unique informal alliance between the Agricultural Research Service and a group of organic farmers pulls these components together in a manner that may benefit scientists, growers, and consumers.
   The Farmer Cooperative Genome Project (FCGP) based in Junction City, Oregon, seeks to increase the diversity of crop seeds offered for sale to small farmers and gardeners, teach organic farmers how to regenerate seed, and eventually provide the ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) with additional seed and information.   
"The purpose of the NPGS is to retain as much of the natural diversity of crop plants as possible," says ARS horticulturist Richard M. Hannan. "Plant breeders use these plants to develop new crop varieties that offer better disease resistance or improved nutrition or that grow in different environments from existing varieties." Hannan leads the Western Regional Plant Introduction Station in Pullman, Washington, and serves informally as liaison between ARS and the FCGP.
   The germplasm system is a network of 26 repositories nationwide that preserve and regenerate seed and other reproductive tissues­known as germplasm­of crop plants and their wild relatives. The system houses more than 400,000 accessions comprising more than 10,000 species. An accession is a genetically distinct group of plants, such as a crop variety or wild subspecies that has been added to a collection. But providing breeders with these genetic resources is a mammoth task. After a number of years­which can range from just a few, for crops like onions, to several decades for hearty seeds like lentils and peas­the accessions must be grown and new seeds collected and stored again in a repository.
    Backup supplies of these collections are also sent to a long­term storage facility ARS operates in Fort Collins, Colorado. Ideally, each accession is grown out and characterized so breeders have information about the plants­but there is not always enough staff to collect these details.
  
An Idea Germinates

   J.J. Haapala, an Oregon organic seed grower, realized that small farmers and the germplasm system could help each other. "It struck me that there was a huge opportunity for individuals to participate in safeguarding our plant resources," he says. Farmers would benefit by taking advantage of a greater diversity of seeds than they might otherwise have access to, while the germplasm system could have many more hands to carry out its mission. "Four of every five traditional crop seed varieties available just 10 years ago are no longer sold," Haapala says.
   The project began in 1998 with a grant awarded by the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Fund for Rural America. Haapala also works as director of research and education for Oregon Tilth, a nonprofit organization advocating sustainable agriculture. So far, more than 300 farmers, seed producers, home gardeners, and scientists have joined the FCGP. "After someone indicates interest, we send a survey to find out that person's land capacity, experience with seeds, and desired crops," Haapala says. About 80 people have returned the surveys.
   Haapala serves as a distribution point and interface between the various repositories and growers. Working with several of the ARS germplasm management sites, he has requested about 570 accessions covering about 50 species. But, Haapala cautions, the project is not a free seed program for gardeners. Participants must follow rigorous guidelines established by ARS scientists to provide pertinent information on plant growth and development. The farmers are free to use plants they like to develop into newvarieties. They can keep excess seed and fruit.


   A Source of the Unusual

   An eventual goal of the project is to develop an economically viable cooperative of organic growers producing a wide diversity of seeds for anyone interested in growing unique crops. Hannan and Haapala believe everyone could benefit. "Many of these farmers are interested in heirloom varieties and traditional crops that might not be getting much attention from customary germplasm users, such as breeders and botanists," Hannan says.
   Interest in unusual crops could be wide­ranging, agrees Joseph Postman, an ARS plant pathologist at the National Clonal Germplasm Repository in Corvallis, Oregon. The Corvallis site stores, for example, 250 ancient pear varieties. "We have pears that ripen earlier than the normal harvest season, old English pears that provide a fermented beverage of interest to some microbreweries, and pears with Siberian or Manchurian ancestry that could extend production into cold climates where there is no commercial pear production," says Postman. "A pear tree can live more than 100 years, so each heirloom pear tree planted by a farmer essentially becomes a mini­repository­a future source for that cultivar."
   NPGS staff will benefit from the project by receiving information they wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to collect. An example would be data on how a specific variety grows without pesticides in a cool climate such as Oregon's Willamette Valley. "This might be the first information gathered on a particular accession," says Hannan. "The key is developing trust between the curators and farmers," Hannan notes. He says curators are like parents in their protectiveness over their accessions. They are eager to teach farmers about the specific protocols necessary to maintain genetic integrity. And the arrangement could be a real money­saver, since it costs up to $350 each time an accession is grown out for some species.
   Haapala also sees the relationship between organic growers and ARS as a primary benefit. "Some growers have seeds produced and saved for generations that they could contribute to the germplasm system," he says. "Everyone will benefit from this combined effort to preserve our heritage."­By Kathryn Barry Stelljes, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.

   This project is part of Plant, Microbial, and Insect Genetic Resources, Genomics, and Genetic Improvement, an ARS National Program (#301) described on the World Wide Web at             http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/programs/cppvs.htm. Richard M. Hannan is at the USDA­ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, 59 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164­6402; phone (509) 335­1502, fax (509) 335­6654.
   Joseph D. Postman is at the USDA­ARS National Clonal Germplasm Repository, 33447 Peoria Rd., Corvallis, OR 97333; phone (541) 750­8712, fax (541) 750­8717.

"SEED­SAVERS UNITE" was published in the October 1999 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

TURNING TO THE SUN-INSTEAD OF METHYL BROMIDE

ARS plant pathologist Daniel O. Chellemi has pulled out all the stops, looking for ways to sustain Southeast vegetable farmers after the loss of methyl bromide, now slated for the year 2005. Since 1992, his mainstay has been soil "solarization"­the process of heating soil under clear plastic for at least 6 weeks during the summer to kill off weed seeds and diseases that would otherwise destroy a winter crop.
   Chellemi's efforts are paying off. In 1998, yields from solarized fields ranged from 96 to 123 percent of those from methyl bromide­treated fields on three of the four commercial farms cooperating in Chellemi's study. The fourth farm­an organic farm­doesn't use methyl bromide or any other chemicals. The yields have improved over those in earlier years, when Chellemi collaborated with his former colleagues at the University of Florida at Quincy. "We're getting better at it," says Chellemi, who is now with ARS' U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory in Fort Pierce, Florida. "The more familiar you become with the biology of the fields, the better the outcome."
   That's because solarization requires an integrated pest management (IPM) approach that can include chemicals and changes in cultural practices, depending on which weeds, diseases, or insects lie waiting in a given field. Chellemi has been looking at all possible combinations on farms ranging from 10 to 3,000 acres. The field yielding the 123 percent had been deep­disked before solarization to break up plant material that had not yet decomposed and to bring tiny, destructive worms called nematodes to the surface, where the sun and heat could destroy them. It was planted with peppers. Another pepper field on the same farm, which had been shallow­disked, yielded 106 percent as much as a comparable field treated with methyl bromide. Where no disking was done before solarization, yields were virtually the same as those achieved with methyl bromide, at 99 percent.
    On another farm, two solarized pepper fields yielded better than those treated with methyl bromide­118 and 104 percent. Soils in both had been beefed up with a biosolids compost before planting. It was the second year of solarization for the field yielding 104 percent and third for the one yielding 118 percent, Chellemi says. "Although we're not getting the residual benefits from methyl bromide fumigation anymore, yields are actually going up under soil solarization."
   Chellemi suspects that the revival of beneficial microorganisms­giving the soil a better balance­is behind the increased yields.   
Nothing's Ever Quite Perfect Solarization has its drawbacks: It works only for fall planting, or for half the crop in the deep South. It doesn't control all pests adequately, particularly root knot nematodes and the weeds portulaca and Bermudagrass­all of which succumb to methyl bromide. And it requires that the grower get started preparing beds at least 6 weeks before planting. That poses logistic problems for the larger operations, says Chellemi.
   "Growers are reluctant to adopt IPM to control soilborne pests; they haven't needed it for 30 years. IPM is a niche that will be filled by other types of professionals," Chellemi says, noting that California now has groups of pest specialists who know the least toxic controls to use for specific pests. But for organic grower Kevin O'Dare of Vero Beach, Florida, solarization saved his business. "I can't say enough for it," O'Dare says.      Purple nutsedge was close to taking over the 10 acres of Osceola Organic Farm, he says, and is even hard to control on conventional farms with chemicals.
   Last year, his second year of solarization, "our production was up 30 percent, our labor was down 75 percent, and our profits were up 100 percent," says O'Dare. He grows 10 varieties of lettuce, plus tomatoes, peppers, squash, eggplant, and culinary herbs. At Chellemi's suggestion, O'Dare incorporated compost and manure into the beds and wet them down before solarizing. "When that mix heats up under clear plastic, it produces gases, some of which are toxic to soil pests such as fungi and nematodes and to weed seeds," says O'Dare. And diseases, which blemish produce, are kept at bay. One of O'Dare's buyers commented that he "had never seen organic peppers as nice," says O'Dare. What's more, the covered beds require less water and fertilizer. "It's a very sustainable system." A Little Bit of Trial and Error
   Dale and Greg Murray of Decatur County, Georgia, are solarizing again this summer, after a 2­year hiatus. This year, the Murrays have increased their solarized acreage from 3 to 14 under the guidance of Steve Olson, professor of horticulture at University of Florida­Quincy, who is a former colleague of Chellemi. Each season, the brothers grow 100 acres of tomatoes, rotating them over 400 acres.
   During the last study, says Dale, "we had a respectable yield­encouraging enough to try again. We think we've learned from the mistakes we made." The two most obvious ones were not burying the irrigation drip tape deep enough and not covering the clear plastic well enough with white paint before planting. As a result, the sun burned holes in the drip tape, and the soil stayed too hot for the new plants to survive. "A good paint job is essential," he says.

   This year's test field was home to root knot nematodes, so the Murrays injected a nematocide along with solarizing. "We'd rather do a little study along the way than lose methyl bromide and have to do all the trial and error in a year," says Dale. "It's a big plus to have Dan Chellemi on the farmers' side. He really works to find an alternative to methyl bromide."

   Now in his eighth year of testing soil solarization, Chellemi says, "There's no doubt in my mind that it has a place. It's not a universal replacement for methyl bromide, but it is a viable option for farmers who are willing to explore it. "We want to tell growers that they're not going to have a widespread crop failure if they use soil solarization."­By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff. This research is part of Methyl Bromide Alternatives, an ARS National Program (#308) described on the World Wide Web at              http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/programs/cppvs.htm.
   Daniel O. Chellemi is at the USDA­ARS U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, 2001 South Rock Rd., Fort Pierce, FL 34945; phone (561) 462­5800, fax (561) 468­5668.

CLUES TO REDDER, MORE NUTRITIOUS TOMATOES


   Tomatoes with much more lycopene than those now found in stores may be on the horizon if ARS research pans out.     Epidemiological research has shown that lycopene, which gives tomatoes their bright­red color, may help reduce the risk of some cancers. While working with tomato tissue cultures, ARS biologist Betty K. Ishida serendipitously uncovered clues about ripening and lycopene formation. As expected, the culture developed into a cherry tomato. Surprisingly, the fruit's green outer leaves, known as the calyx, also ripened into fruitlike tissue.    "We discovered that in this particular tomato, called VFNT cherry, low growing temperatures trigger ripening in nonfruit tissue," says Ishida. Because the fruit was very dark red, they also tested the lycopene content. It was 10 times the amount found in most commercial tomatoes. But the process doesn't work outside tissue culture. "Something else in the plant prevents this transformation into fruit," she says.

   Ishida is on the trail to find the trigger that turns on the gene responsible for the increased lycopene. "When we find that, we can apply it to commercial varieties," she says.

      Medical researchers have shown that the lycopene in processed tomato products­like spaghetti sauce­is absorbed to a greater extent than lycopene in the fresh fruit. Ishida is looking at how different forms of lycopene develop. And she wants to find out if changing the form would increase the nutritional benefits of her high­lycopene tomatoes. "In tomatoes, lycopene is a long­chain molecule," Ishida says. "But in human blood plasma, lycopene appears in several different shapes­the chain is 'bent' in various ways."
      Tomatoes with the bent form (known as "cis"­lycopene) might be more beneficial if this lycopene were more easily absorbed. She plans to develop tomatoes with high cis­lycopene for testing. "The goal of this research is to produce tomatoes that have more value to consumers," she says.­By Kathryn Barry Stelljes, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff. Betty K. Ishida is in the USDA­ARS Process Chemistry and Engineering Research Unit, Western Regional Research Center, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA 94710; phone (510) 559­5726, fax (510) 559­8777.

NEW GRAPE TRIO

Grapes can be a real money maker for an additional crop for farmers, especially at thefarmer's market or as a wholesale commodity with some local retail grocery stores.  Grapes can also be a great commodity to sell to schools for the lunch program or as a value added product.  These varieties have not been tested here in NC and I will be following them and checking with Extension Specialists to view future possibilities. The market is wide open for grape production as a viable crop for farmers to experiment with.

Consumers may be smacking their lips on three new seedless grapes within a few years. Melissa, Summer Royal, and Summer Muscat are the latest sweet offerings of the ARS grape breeding program in Fresno, California. Cuttings were made available to breeders and growers for the first time this spring. More cuttings may be available this winter. Growers stand to benefit from unique traits of each new variety.   Melissa, a white seedless grape, yields large, sweet fruits that ripen about the same time as Thompson Seedless­the most popular seedless grape. But Melissa vines require no sprays of the natural growth regulator gibberellic acid to produce big berries. Summer Royal, a black seedless, is sweet, large, firm, and ideal for snacks and salads. It fills a production gap at the end of August, when few American­grown black seedless grapes are on the market.

   Last of the trio, Summer Muscat is a seedless raisin grape. Its sweet, strong muscat flavor is somewhat like the traditional Muscat of Alexandria grapes favored by some makers of candy­coated raisins. But Muscat of Alexandria seeds have to be removed mechanically, making the raisins sticky and hard to process. Summer Muscat is the second dry­on­the­vine or "DOV" grape from the Fresno researchers. Unlike conventional raisin grapes, DOV grapes can dry on the vine once the cane or branch is severed. They can then be picked by machine instead of by hand, saving on labor costs.
   The Fresno breeding program, active since 1923, is best known for Flame Seedless, America's most popular red seedless grape. David W. Ramming, USDA­ARS Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory, Fresno, California; phone (559) 453­3061.

 

TEN REASONS WHY FARMERS SHOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE GROWING GECROPS


The arguement for and against genetically engineered plants is fierce and often confusing.This following article I found from the Sustainable Farming Connection, really gives somequantitative answers to the discussion.

E. Ann Clark, Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph(aclark@plant.uoguelph.ca)


The tide appears to be turning against GE crops, but farmers may well be the last ones to know. Many citizen and professional groups are now on record, urging everything from an outright moratorium to a slower, more reasoned approach. For example, on 2 June 99, the National Federation of Women's Institutes voted 7055 in favor vs. 368 against a 5­year ban on the growing of GE crops in the UK.

My goal today is to give you some of the agronomic reasons why farmers should think twice about growing genetically engineered crops.

1. Do you really need what they offer in the first place? For example, Are European cornborers (Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner) sufficiently predictable on your farm as to justify the extra expense of growing Bt hybrids as insurance? Sears and Schaafsma (1998) reported that infestations had to be high enough to cut yields by at least 5­8 bu/ac before Bt­corn was economically competitive. They further noted that conventionally­bred cornborer­resistant hybrids performed as well as Bt­hybrids under low­to­moderate cornborer infestations. Thus, unless cornborer infestation is high, you have other, less costly, options besides Bt­corn.  
 

Table 1.

When does it pay to grow Bt­corn?
(adapted from Sears and Schaafsma, 1998)
Cornborer Infestation Yield Protection by
Bt­Corn
 Bt­Corn Economically
Justified?
 Conventionally Bred
Cornborer
Resistance Sufficient?
Low 3­5 bu/acnoyes
Moderate5­8 bu/acyes yes
High10­15 bu/acyes no

Transgenic solutions come with a price tag that is high, both in terms of dollars and in indirect costs (see below). Whether Bt or herbicide­resistance, be sure you can justify it economically before trying it out.
  2. How much of a yield loss can you experience and still make enough money to justify growing GE crops? And keep in mind, that if cornborer risk is high enough to justify using a Bt hybrid, then you'll also need to factor in yield loss on the 20% or more of unsprayed "refugia" set­aside that you are expected to plant to a non­Bt hybrid ­ without insecticidal protection..


   Contrary to what has been promised, GE crops often do not yield more and not infrequently yield less than the best available conventionally bred cultivars and hybrids. Why? Because not all genetic backgrounds within a given crop will tolerate a transgene1, and those that will are not necessarily the highest yielding ones. Further, there is a metabolic cost to expressing herbicide­resistance or the Bt­endotoxin. So, if you were expecting a yield gain ­ as promised, if we are going to "feed the world" ­ then you may well have been disappointed. And the fault was not necessarily yours, no matter what they told you.

   A recent review of 40 soybean varietal trials in the north central region of the US by Oplinger et al. (1999) found a mean 4% yield drag in RR soybeans. Even comparing the top 5 varieties from each, RR still yielded 5% less than conventional soybeans. In Ontario, most recent data show a 1­3% mean yield drag in RR soybeans (Table 2), and keep in mind that this is relative to the trial mean ­ not to the highest yielding cultivars. However, the soybean breeder advises that the yield gap is closing. Nonetheless, there is a cost to the crop from expressing the genes for Roundup resistance, and it manifests itself in lower yields.

Table 2.
Two­year mean yields of Roundup Ready soybean cultivars
(n=8) (% of trial mean yield, n=57 cultivars) adapted to the 2900­3300 heat unit zone
(from 1999 Report Ontario Soybean Variety Trials, Table 4)
Variety Designation Clay Soil Loam Soil Proprietor
Dutton Inwood Ridgetown Talbotville
AG1901 100 99 96 102 Cargill
AG2101 102 99100104 First Line
PS86RR102989699 Pride
S20­B991949390Novartis
RR Renown99 9895102 Hyland
AG23019510010095 First Line
3101R93 9610399First Line
MEAN979898 99
bu/ac52.3 54.362.962.1

3. When are they going to get it right? The evolution of pest resistance to Bt is a foregone conclusion, as virtually everybody will admit. Pesticidal plants like Bt­corn are no different than DDT or atrazine ­ insects and diseases, and to a lesser extent weeds, are extremely well adapted to evolve resistance whenever faced with a powerful and efficient "screen" ­ like tens of millions of hectares of cropland all expressing the same toxin.

  The only source of contention among scientists is "when" and how to delay resistance. The high dose/refugia model which has been widely promoted by both industry and government proponents was supposed to be the best available strategy to forestall resistance, but you may have noticed that the size of the recommended set­aside has increased just about every year. When Bt hybrids first came out, producers were told to hold back a 5% refugia (to plant to a non­Bt hybrid). Then it was 10%, and now it is most commonly recommended as 20% (plan submitted to the US EPA by Monsanto, Mycogen, Dow Agrosciences, Novartis, and Pioneer Hi­Bred; AgNews, 23 Apr 99; also by the Bt Corn Coalition to the Plant Biotechnology Office of the CFIA in October 1998), although some are calling for 40%. Why the confusion? Why is the figure changing ­ and always upwards?
   The confusion is caused because those promoting refugia as the best solution have not done their homework. This is a clear example of a general and pervasive problem with agricultural biotechnology ­ namely, technology has preceded science. Ag biotech has been released prematurely, for reasons of profit, before the scientific evidence has been developed. Proponents, and the researchers in their employ, did not take the time to answer some of the key questions regarding the effectiveness of refugia in restricting evolution of cornborer resistance.
   And unfortunately for proponents of this model, many of these untested assumptions have now been challenged by recent research published in the most prestigious journals. What we now know is that the high dose/refugia model is unlikely to work, at least for cornborer.

Table 3.

Key assumptions of the "high dose­refugia" model of resistance management.
No Assumption Evidence to the Contrary
1 Major resistance genes must be very rare In diamondback moth, one of eight species  that have already evolved resistance to Bt, Tabashnik et al. (1997) showed that resistance is not rare ­ its actually 10X higher than the highest previous estimate
2.Resistance genes must be nearly recessive According to Huang et al. (1999), resistance in ECB is dominant, while in other pest lepidopteran species, resistance varies from recessive to incompletely dominant. Furthermore, resistance varies not only among species, but also among types of Bt endotoxins, e.g. CryIAc, CryIAb, CryIIA
3. Non­Bt refuges must provide susceptible pests to mate with resistant ones; requires Random mating and suitable dispersal distances Cornborers consuming Bt (and living) typically suffer delayed development, which causes them to reach reproductive maturity out of phase with their neighbors in the refugia. They won't be able to mate anyway.

4. Do the GE crops, in fact, do what is promised? Reduce production costs? Reduce pesticide applications? Increase yield? Increase profit?

Costs and profits are a hard issue to address in the abstract, as much varies with weed and insect pest pressure and other farm­specific issues. Yield is already known to be lower ­ or at best, no better ­ than conventionally bred crops. But what about insecticide use? If you use Bt, then you don't need to use insecticides, right? And that protects both you and the environment, and that's good, right?
Indeed, Monsanto made just such a claim in a press release dated 21 May 99, in response to recent research showing an adverse effect of Bt pollen on Monarch butterflies (see below). Monsanto stated:  "In 1998 use of Bt insect­protected corn reduced or eliminated the use of broad spectrum chemical insecticides on some 15 million acres of US farmland".
   Now, that would be a pretty impressive achievement, if it were true. So, let's see ­ some 71.4 million acres of corn were grown in the US in 1998, and data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/rptscal.htm,
courtesy Chuck Benbrook, personal communication) shows  First, only a tiny fraction of corn acreage is treated with insecticides at all (Table 4).
   Second, most insecticides are used for rootworms and soil insects, not Europeancornborer (ECB, the target of Bt­corn). Thus, based on the known target organism of the applied insecticides (Table 4), at best Bt­corn could have reduced insecticide usage on 1­2% of the acreage sown to corn in 1998 in the US ­ e.g. 0.7 to 1.4 million acres not the 15 million acres trumpeted by Monsanto).
   And finally, given that the purpose of the Monsanto claim was to debunk the notion that Bt pollen affected Monarch butterflies more than insecticides, note that the rootworm/soil insect insecticides are applied at planting ­ well before Monarch butterflies could possibly be at risk.
 

Table 4. Exposing the myth of "reduced insecticide use" from growing Bt corn

Insecticide % of 71.4 million ac
treated in the US 		Target Pest
bifenthrin 2 rootworms, soil insects
carbofuran 1 ditto
chlorethoxy 1 ditto
cyfluthrin 3 ditto
dimethoate 1 possibly European cornborer (ECB)
fipronil 1 rootworms, soil insects
fonofos 1 ditto
lamba­cyhalothrin 2 some for ECB; mostly soil insects
methyl parathion 1 rootworms, soil insects
permethrin 2 possibly partly for ECB
tebupirimiphos 3 rootworms, soil insects
tefluthrin 5 ditto
terbufos 6 ditto

Further detracting from Monsanto's claims, insecticide usage in the US agriculture has not diminished despite the increasingly prominent role of Bt­crops in the last several years. Allocating 30­50% of US crop acreage to Bt crops has not reduced use of insecticides. So, if GE crops don't increase yield, lower costs, increase profits, or reduce risks of insecticide use ­ just what is it that GE crops DO do?!
     5. How will genetic pollution, from your fields and from your neighbors' fields, compromise your ability to control weeds on your own land? The term "genetic pollution" refers to the fact that pollen moves ­ sometimes great distances. And when transgenic pollen moves, it carries with it transgenic traits ­ like herbicide resistance. Pollen of canola can move 8 km, while that of both corn and potato can move about 1 km. Gary Stringam, a professor at the University of Alberta has found that canola could out cross and produce 5­6% contaminated plants up to 400 m from the original source (MacArthur, 1998b). All of this makes it difficult to imagine how Monsanto and others can hold onto their precious genes ­ or for you as a farmer to avoid genetic pollution of unwanted genes ­ either moving to your fields from your neighbors, or to your neighbors fields from your land.
   Consider the case of Tony Huethers, who farms near Sexsmith, Alberta. In 1997, he planted two fields, separated by 30 m, to canola. On the west side, he planted Quest, a Roundup(glyphosate)­resistant cultivar, while on the east side, he planted 20 acres of Innovator, a Liberty (glufosinate)­resistant cultivar, and the rest of his 140 ac field to 45A71, a cultivar that is resistant to Pursuit (imazethapyr, an ALS inhibitor) and Odyssey.
  In spring of 1998, two applications of Roundup to the east field ­ the one sown in 97 to Innovator and 45A71 ­ killed all his weeds, except for a healthy population of blooming canola! It was apparently, and predictably, Roundup resistant canola, and was thickest near the road.

  The biotech manager for Monsanto in Saskatoon ­ Aaron Mitchell ­ said "We always expected a level of natural out cross would occur within the species", and that the source was likely native pollinators. He stated that the potential for cross pollination was already well known to seed companies and researchers, and that "farmers need to talk to their neighbors about the canola they grow" (MacArthur, 1998a).

   6. Will genetic pollution expose you to lawsuits or other legal actions by neighbors, analogous to spray drift? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS; with a membership of 100,000) surveyed 100 chartered surveyors out of the 6,000 who specialize in rural properties (Table 5).

   Rural land managers in the UK are uneasy about the implications of growing GMO's, in such areas as land value (74%) and risk of future lawsuit (71%). More than 70% of the chartered surveyors would advise neither land owners nor tenants to grow GMO's. Almost 60% believe that growing GMO's on land would lessen its future value, and 64% think it wouldmake it harder to sell the land in the future. A whopping 76% support a register of all land where GM crops have been grown, with 68% concluding that the register should be open to the public.

   Have we in Canada even begun to think in these terms?

    

Table 5. Survey of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors specializing in rural practice, regarding attitudes toward GMO's and land valuation (June 1999)
Issues Concerning Clients............... YES NO Undecided
Neighbors growing GM products? 77 6 17
Effects on land values? 74 12 14
Legal implications? 71 14 14
Should there be a clause obliging tenants
to notify landlords if they intend to grow GM crops? 		90 4 6
Would you advise landlords to allow tenants to
grow GM crops on their land? 		11 75 14
Would you advise tenants to grow GM crops on their land? 11 73 17
In your opinion Would the growing of GM crops affect
the value of land?		 58 16 26
In your opinion would the growing of GM crops on
neighboring land affect the value of client land? 		43 32 24
In your opinion would the previous or present
growing of GM crops make land more difficult to sell? 		64 24 11
Would you support the maintenance of a register of
all land where GM crops have been grown? 		76 19 5
Do you think such a register should be
publicly available? 		68 27 5
Will you ask about the GM history of a site
when carrying out a valuation? 		89 7 4

     An article in the UK Farming News (18 June 99) notes that farmers are increasingly unwilling to grow GMO trials on their farms, specifically because of fears of legal damage claims from neighbors. One underwriting manager, Sid Gibson, reportedly advised that "The big unknown is where there is a risk of cross­contamination. Farmers considering growing GM crops should get their legal advisers to look at the contract very carefully. Responsibility should be with the biotech company or institution carrying out the trials."

  7. Who is responsible/liable for GE risks? In Spain, those who produce or plant GMO's are being obliged to contribute to a US $100 million insurance fund to cover environmental accidents. In other countries, disaster plans are being drawn up, complete with sterilization of large tracts of land in the event something gets out of hand.

   Did you know that the life science companies are reportedly running without catastrophic or long­term disaster insurance ­ partly because it cannot be calculated, but mostly because no one will insure them?  So, where does that leave you?
  8. How will you control mosquitos when the bats are gone? The balance of nature is more than ju st a teaching tool for grade school students. It is reality ­ even in today's highly artificial agricultural environment. It has been said that the only really effective control of insects is that provided by nature, by the competition, predation, and parasitism of one organism on another. Just as killing off the wolves unleashes deer populations and allows them to skyrocket beyond the carrying capacity of their environment, so too our efforts at pest control can often have unintended side effects on other insects or microbes.
   For example, bats are an important vehicle for mosquito control in our area, but when they can't get mosquitos, they eat moths and butterflies. Now, moths and butterflies are important because they are the class or insects targeted by Bt corn ­ so, one unsavory side effect of Bt corn could be fewer moths and butterflies, including Monarch butterflies (Losey et al., 1999), fewer bats, and........... more mosquitos?

   Another example of an adverse effect of Bt radiating out into the wider environmental community has been reported from Switzerland and Scotland. One of the insects which normally feeds on cornborer is a beneficial called the green lacewing, which favors soft­bodied insects such as cornborer and aphids. Unfortunately, green lacewings are harmed (killed or suffer delayed development) by Bt, whether they ate it directly or after eating cornborers which had been reared on Bt corn. The same thing happened with ladybugs eating aphids which had  been raised on transgenic (snowdrop lectin) potatoes.
   So ­ the adverse effect of these plant pesticides affects not just the target organism but beneficials, such as ladybugs and green lacewings too. And of course, this could have additional effects on natural pest control for other crop and garden pests.
   9. Is it safe to eat GE foodstuffs? The government says so, but is that enough? Consider what professionals working in the field have to say: a. On 17 May 99, the mainstream British Medical Association, representing 115,000 doctors, published a statement calling for an open­ended moratorium on the planting of GM crops, a ban on releasing GMOs into the environment, and a review of the World Trade Agreement to ensure that human health and safety take precedence over global trade in foodstuffs and seed (Frith and Murphy, 1999). Their specific concerns included the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes, which were regarded as posing a slight but "completely unacceptable risk"of enhancing drug­resistant bacteria. Their general call was for much greater scientific certainty about risks of GMOs.
b. A survey of Canadian dieticians shows a pronounced unwillingness to trust biotech proponents to provide unbiased information on food safety issues (Sheeshka, 1999)
c. Transgenic DNA can survive long enough in the gut to transfer genes into intestinal microflora. Because almost all commercial GE crops are bred using antibiotic resistance genes as a marker (this is unrelated to the agricultural use, just part of the breeding process), this means that consuming GE foodstuffs can allow genes for antibiotic resistance to move into the E. coli and other microbes that are naturally present in your stomach, or that of your child.

   Plasmids, which are a special kind of vector commonly used to insert transgenes into chromosomes, have been tracked not just in the stomach of rats, but across the intestinal wall and into the nuclei of rat cells. Even more alarming, these same plasmids have been followed across the placental barrier and into the nuclei of embryonic rats in utero. This gives new meaning to the phrase that "you are what you eat"!

   Do we actually know enough to be able to state with confidence that the food is safe? Are we asking the right questions?

     10. Who is going to buy your grain, and how confident are you of demand for GE grains(or meat or milk) this fall?  Even locally, concern is growing among consumers about the implications of growing GE foodstuffs. For example, in an 18 June 1999 Corner Post commentary, Elbert van Donkersgoed questioned the use of some kinds of biotechnology on the farm. While noting the potentials, he emphasized also the risks, even going so far as to state that "disaster is possible".


   He contrasted Integrated Pest Management with biotechnology, noting that IPM requires monitoring of pest populations before deciding to spray ­ essentially, "knowing what we are doing" before we do it. Conversely, the biotech equivalent is Bt­crops which synthesize a plant pesticide in every cell of every plant, throughout the season, irregardless of pest populations. He states that IPM is "essential to the overall credibility of the use of pesticides in agriculture. Some biotechnology is eroding that credibility."

  And then, there is the export risk. Did you know that Canadian canola growers lost $30 million in export sales to Europe in 1998 alone, because consumers refused to accept GE canola oil? Japan is not far behind.  This spring (Reuters, 20 April99), Cargill and ADM announced that they would not buy unapproved GMO corn, that is corn hybrids that are acceptable to European buyers. Roundup Ready and Liberty Link corn hybrids are disallowed. I'm told that some elevators in Ontario are already declining to accept any GMO grain, because they won't be able to sell it in  Europe. Just this week, major supermarket chains in the UK have begun to pull off the shelves meat products that could have been produced from GMO grains.  In short, demand for GMO grain and products, or livestock produced from GMO grains, is rapidly drying up. The high­handed behavior of the US, Canada, Australia, and three South American nations in refusing to sign the Biosafety Protocol at Cartagena, Colombia this winter is beginning to look short­sighted. As acknowledged even by Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture in the US, you cannot force people to eat something they don't want to eat.

     Conclusions

     So, when deciding whether or not to grow GE crops next year, I'd encourage you to consider:

     1. Do you really need what they offer, and is GE the best way to deal with it, given the likelihood of higher costs and lower yields?

     2. Be very aware of insurance/liability risks from neighboring farmers (for genetic pollution), environmentalists (for Monarch butterflies and other issues), and consumers (for food safety).

     3. Don't assume that because it is in the marketplace, that it is "safe", has been tested for "environmental risk" (a la Monarch butterflies), or is necessarily in your best interests.


     Government is not asking the right questions. Trade interests are taking precedenceover the interests of producers, consumers, or the environment. The world doesn't want our grain.


     Don't get caught in the middle.

     4. Only industry data stands between you and potential risks from genetically engineered crops. Are you willing to entrust these companies with this responsibility?

     Frith, M. And E. Murphy. 1999. BMA Calls for ban on GM crops and food. PA News 17 May 99

     Huang, F., L.L. Buschman, R.A. Higgins, and W.H. McGaughey. 1999. Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the european corn borer.

     Science284:965­967.

     Losey, J.E., L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214.

     MacArthur, M. 1998a. Canola crossbreeds create tough weed problem. Western Producer, 15 October 98.

     MacArthur, M. 1998b. Resistant canola expected. Western Producer, 15 October 98.

     Sears, M. and A. Schaafsma. 1998. Responsible deployment of Bt corn technology in Ontario. http://www.cfia­acia.agr.ca/english/plant/pbo/btweb2e.html

     Tabashnik, B.E., Y­B Liu, N. Finson, L. Masoson, and D.G. Heckel. 1997. One gene in diamondback moth confers resistance to four Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Proc. NationalAcad.
     Sciences 94:1640­1644.

     1Particularly in corn; in soybeans, only some constructs are able to regenerate from tissue culture

 The use of brand names and any mention or listing of commercial products or services in this publication does not imply endorsement by North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T state University or North Carolina Cooperative Extension nor discrimination against similar products or services not mentioned.

 If I may be of further service to you, please contact me at the following number:
Phone:(919)542-8202; FAX (919) 542-8246

 If you have something to list in the next newsletter, send it to me by the first of the month before the next issue comes out. Address it to: P. O. Box 279, Pittsboro, NC 27312.

Sincerely,


Robert Hadad
Assistant Agriculture Agent

Return to Chatham County Home Page

This page was created by
Paulette Thomas
Secretary II

Date Created 1/31/00.