INGENUITY WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY CAN HELP SOLVE THE CONFLICTING DEMANDS OF MARKET, YIELD AND FARM SURVIVAL
April 28, 2000 / The Vancouver Sun / Editorial
Ross Smith, a graduate student in the geography department at Simon Fraser University writes in this op-ed that considering Mark Winston's comment that science does not happen in isolation, but in context, several important points must be raised with respect to the role of technological advances and 'saving' farms (How science saved farms, April 20).
Smith says that the science of agricultural research, including plant breeding, has advanced and changed the Canadian agricultural industry over the past few decades. We have higher protein content varieties, increased drought resistant varieties and faster growing varieties of many crops. This provides important nutritional and health benefits and makes economic sense.
Along with the improvements in plant breeding and crop production, we have had improvements in agriculture machinery, another important aspect of technological advances. With large-scale infrastructure, it is possible for farmers to plant vast quantities of a single crop and speculate on commodity markets to achieve the greatest potential profit on a single year. Selective herbicides and insecticides allow for some precision in controlling weeds and pests and a maximal yield.
The face of farming in Canada is very different than it was 50 or more years ago. We have fewer small farms and vastly increased production. There are fewer farmers on the land and more people involved in agricultural support industries.
Where does this leave us? Research has shown that prices for primary commodity products, like grain, decrease over time. This is largely due to a glut on the world market, as Winston has pointed out. It is imperative that producers maintain a competitive edge and increasingly narrow profit margins on these crops stretch budget and time constraints.
Smith says that Winston points to the technological fix attitude of many producers which, through genetically modified crops, will increase the specialization of seed, help reduce the cost of weed control, and keep farmers on the farm.
If we accept Winston's argument that the public concern over GM foods, centering on food safety primarily, doesn't resonate with producers, there remain fundamental questions about the justification for genetically modified crops.
If we want to help increase the profit margin for farmers, than does it make sense to help them increase their yields and improve their efficiency, through biotechnology, while still contributing to the glut on world markets? What of those producers who cannot afford this new seed or to compete with those who use GM seed?
Smith says the recent introduction of genetically modified crops will increase the trend towards larger farms, loss of family farms, and concentration within the Canadian agricultural industry. This pattern, which mirrors previous technological advancements in agriculture, may have a profound impact beyond the food safety issues.
We must ask questions about the long-term sustainability of the agriculture industry. Academics point to the theoretical rise in post-productivist agriculture alongside industrial models. This means that certain regions are becoming more diverse and moving away from intensive agriculture methods.
Organic agriculture is an example of this shift. The Canadian Prairies are still largely reliant on industrial agriculture, with large, often vertically integrated farms, monocropping, and intensive tillage methods.
The environmental impact of these methods are varied, and contribute to decreased yields with the subsequent effect of decreased profit margins.
Thus, GM seeds may provide a technological fix to weed problems and poor yields, but the long-term effects may not contribute to the sustainability of the industry.
Intensive tillage is a primary cause of weed problems, as natural plant succession is continually interrupted. Erosion as a result of improper and continued tillage also contributes to a loss of yields.
Many studies of the corn-belt of the U.S. show that a five-centimetre soil loss will result in a 15-per-cent yield reduction. This minimal soil loss has profound impact on the profit margin. It is estimated that between two-and four billion tonnes of topsoil are lost in the U.S. each year. The Canadian Prairie experience is no doubt similar.
How can biotechnology address this fundamental issue? If we accept the need to move toward a sustainable agriculture industry, we should address the fundamental causes of unsustainable practices and critically examine the role and impact of new technologies. Smith says the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, is pioneering work on mixed perennial cropping. This would eliminate the need for intensive tillage and allow succession among different crops to play its natural hand. This is being done with current plant breeding techniques, greatly benefited by a knowledge of plant genetics, and is a fundamental change in the way that we approach agricultural cropping methods.
The only problem is that there is no way to harvest mixed seed crops at different stages of maturity. Why can't we put technological innovation to work in solving this problem?
Thus, we can address some of the fundamental causes of decreased yields and lower profit margins, while contributing to the long-term sustainability of farms and farmers.:
