How 4H Is Helping Big Ag Take Over Africa
samzenpus posted 2 days ago | from the white-elephant dept.
359
Lasrick writes 4H is in Africa, helping to distribute Big Ag products like DuPont's Pioneer seeds through ostensibly good works aimed at youth. In Africa, where the need to produce more food is especially urgent, DuPont Pioneer and other huge corporations have made major investments. But there are drawbacks: "DuPont's nutritious, high-yielding, and drought-tolerant hybrid seed costs 10 times as much. While Ghanaians typically save their own seeds to plant the next year, hybrid seeds get weaker by the generation; each planting requires another round of purchasing. What's more, says Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with the sustainable-farming nonprofit Genetic Resources Action International, because hybrid seeds are bred for intensive agriculture, they typically need chemicals to thrive."
SO (-1, Troll)
Ol Olsoc (1175323) | 2 days ago | (#48374571)
Re: SO (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374597)
Seriously? Get lost you corporate shill.
Re: SO (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374659)
Corporatuions are evil because they destroy the middle man. Therefor we must destroy the coporations to free the rest of the world. They matter. Those "little brown people" MATTER. What is wrong with you people?
Re: SO (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374973)
Amen brother. Coming from the Black Man amen brother.
Re: SO (-1)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375071)
Beware white people bearing gifts.
Actually, just beware white people.
Re: SO (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375089)
Amen brother
Re: SO (2)
murdocj (543661) | yesterday | (#48375159)
Actually, just beware people
Re: SO (1)
Ol Olsoc (1175323) | 2 days ago | (#48374919)
Seriously? Get lost you corporate shill.
Yes, I'm a paid shill for corporate interests. I've been paid 50 million dollars to piss you off.
Re: SO (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48375037)
I hope so. I'd hate to think you were being such a jerk for free.
Re: SO (1)
fustakrakich (1673220) | 2 days ago | (#48375047)
I've been paid 50 million dollars to piss you off.
You were robbed...
Re: SO (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375131)
I don't know why he thought you were paid. The Internet has made it clear that people are willing to be ignorant, racist douche bags for free.
Re: SO (5, Insightful)
alexander_686 (957440) | 2 days ago | (#48374951)
If he is, he has the weight of evidence supports him.
http://www.plosone.org/article... [plosone.org]
In short, after factoring in the higher costs of using GM seed, GMO crops help developing farms substantially. Even more so than the farmers in developed markets.
Re: SO (2)
fustakrakich (1673220) | yesterday | (#48375165)
...GMO crops help developing farms substantially.
What, are they bullet proof? Africa is a victim of corrupt resource management. Nothing can be done until that is addressed. GMO won't do it.
Re: SO (2, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374725)
Well, consider that the 'better' crops can essentially be held hostage. When you don't have natural seeds commonly sold anymore, guess who suddenly has a monopoly on agriculture?
'This year's a seeds are going to cost double because of manufacturing problems.. You DO want a crop this year, right?'
Re:SO (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374783)
Sad thing is they'll starve either way. Whatever does actually manage to grow will be confiscated by kleptocrat warlords who will use it to secure power and wealth while the NGOs spectate.
Re:SO (1)
CRCulver (715279) | 2 days ago | (#48374851)
The masses are starving and warlords rule in Ghana?
So, does water cost more? (4, Insightful)
mveloso (325617) | 2 days ago | (#48374589)
What are the possible choices for farmers?
1. grow crappy crops with free seeds and lots of expensive water,
2. grow good groups with seeds that you need to pay for but use less water?
#2 will make you more money, so the cost of the seeds is a non-factor. #1 will make you poor, because when it doesn't rain your crops die.
So, what exactly is the issue?
Re:So, does water cost more? (1)
fustakrakich (1673220) | 2 days ago | (#48374641)
So, what exactly is the issue?
Corruption. The technical solutions are comparatively trivial. Nobody needs DuPont's seeds...
Re:So, does water cost more? (1)
CaptainDork (3678879) | 2 days ago | (#48374707)
DuPont does.
Re:So, does water cost more? (2)
silfen (3720385) | yesterday | (#48375197)
Who exactly are you alleging is being "corrupt" here?
Re:So, does water cost more? (1)
CauseBy (3029989) | yesterday | (#48375207)
Are you saying breeding and engineering DuPont's special seeds is 'trivial'? I don't know if I'd say that.
Re:So, does water cost more? (4, Interesting)
pubwvj (1045960) | 2 days ago | (#48374705)
You are demonstrating a classic lack of understanding about farming and agriculture. Reality is not the either or situation that you hypothesize.
In the real world we save our best seed and livestock year to year using that to grow the next generation. With each generation the plants and animals become more adapted, stronger and do better with the local conditions. The seed and livestock are free, other than having to save some back from the harvest. This is how we have traditionally improved our stock, both plants and animals, for thousands of years. It works without paying high prices for fancy seeds.
Thus the option is #0, which you completely neglected to consider.
Re:So, does water cost more? (2)
amiga3D (567632) | yesterday | (#48375109)
What you say is true but there is more to it. The GMO crops are often immune to diseases that plague traditional crops. They thrive where others die. They produce more per acre. There is a reason farmers buy the GMO seeds and that is that it makes them money. Yes they have to go back to buy more seeds but I remember my Grandfather buying new seed in the sixties. He didn't keep seed over year to year either. Even then it was often hybrid crops that didn't have the same properties when used as seed.
Re:So, does water cost more? (4, Insightful)
hibiki_r (649814) | yesterday | (#48375177)
OK, if that's really how it works, why do American farmers plant so much agribusiness seed? Are they all wrong, and losing money? Because if there's one thing that a farmer will ask when you suggest a change to his growth protocol, is how is it going to make him more money.
Hybrid vigor is a thing, and the only way to maintain said vigor across generations is to grow inbred plants, and then cross them purposefully. This works without GMOs, and is easy to prove.
Again, for your option to be true, hundreds of thousands of farmers in the US are making terrible choices, season after season. 95% of soybeans planted in America come from agribusiness: The seeds people had just can't compete in yield. How do you explain farmer's behavior?
Re:So, does water cost more? (1)
silfen (3720385) | yesterday | (#48375203)
And selling GMO seeds is taking away option #0... how?
Re:So, does water cost more? (1)
CauseBy (3029989) | yesterday | (#48375211)
Yeah but if that were working so well then DuPont would be buying seeds from the Africans, right? Clearly in this instance DuPont has done a better job making superior seeds than the locals have. Otherwise this would not be an issue.
Re:So, does water cost more? (3, Informative)
ChromeAeonium (1026952) | yesterday | (#48375225)
We did that for millennia before switching to hybrid seed. Ever consider that there might be a reason why farmers would be willing to pay more for their seed? Over the past century hybrid seeds, as well as increased focus on plant breeding, have given massive yield gains. No one is saying that locally adapted traits shouldn't be used, of course they should, everyone including the companies selling they hybrid seeds know that, but hybrid vigor is a very real and very powerful thing, and there's no way around that.
Re:So, does water cost more? (3, Informative)
dbc (135354) | yesterday | (#48375227)
??? Dude, that is the way my great-grandfather farmed when he moved from New York to homestead in the Iowa territory. Most grains haven't been grown from saved seed for two generations. Pigs are now hybred breeds. Dairy has been using artificial insemination breeding programs for two generations. You are a little behind the times, my friend. Before you go spouting off about agricultural science, I suggest you learn some..
Re:So, does water cost more? (3, Insightful)
TubeSteak (669689) | 2 days ago | (#48374709)
#2 will make you more money, so the cost of the seeds is a non-factor. #1 will make you poor, because when it doesn't rain your crops die.
So, what exactly is the issue?
The issue is that you didn't RTFA.
Most farmers cannot afford the seeds, so the cost turns out to be the main factor.
Add in the price of synthetic fertilizers and most farmers can only use DuPont seeds if their government subsidizes the products.
There are important questions surrounding the wisdom of allowing 1 corporation to be a choke point for a significant portion of any country's agricultural output.
Re:So, does water cost more? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374891)
I know it is a mother jones article and all but you would think some common sense would come about.
in farming (I grew up spending my summers on my grandparents farm so 25% of my youth was on a working farm) you are in the business of making money. To do that you raise crops. If the cost of seed + labour + fertilizer + insecticides + etc > cost of yield you do not do that. in fact if you have two different cops you can do the maths and see which one is more profitable.
Guess which one the farmer chooses?
Re:So, does water cost more? (1)
currently_awake (1248758) | 2 days ago | (#48374739)
Re: So, does water cost more? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374813)
So when the non-GMO crops are entirely replaced with GMOs, and the farmer can no longer afford to buy big ag seeds, what then? They switch back, but the natural seeds cross pollinate with GMO seeds and then the farmer no longer owns his crops (read: seeds of GMOs are patented and selling them or the crop without paying dues is illegal). The farmer can't afford to pay to keep his crops or farm in a legal battle and now big ag just inherited another farm.
So how is #2 better?
Oh Noes, stop the evil Chemicals! (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374599)
Heavin forbid, CHEMICALS! How dare we use chemicals to produce more food. The next thing you know, they will require copious amounts of OHO, a known chemical responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands every year.
This post is anti-science, ignorant and maliciously stupid. "Big Ag" is why we don't live in a Malthusian apocalypse. We could never sustain our population without modern, advanced farming techniques.
Alternative? (5, Interesting)
sideslash (1865434) | 2 days ago | (#48374613)
Instead of disparaging charitable works in Africa that a rational person will perceive to be doing good to feed hungry people, why don't you focus on donating money to promote "open source" crop lines somewhere in the States so there are good alternatives to give to Africa and the rest of the world? Put your money where your mouth is (in a couple of senses).
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374687)
...Put your money where your mouth is (in a couple of senses).
I'd like to, but Big Ag and GMO proponents have lobbied hard to keep labels on food from saying if it is GMO or not. If this shit is soooooo good for us, then label it and let the market decide. Oh, and I'm tired of the "people are too stupid to figure things out" arguments that get dragged out regarding labels. Are you calling me stupid because I want to know more about what me and my family are eating?
Re:Alternative? (4, Insightful)
sideslash (1865434) | 2 days ago | (#48374761)
I'd like to, but Big Ag and GMO proponents have lobbied hard to keep labels on food from saying if it is GMO or not. If this shit is soooooo good for us, then label it and let the market decide.
GMO foods are harmful in exactly the same way that homeopathy can cure major illnesses. i.e. it may be true, but nobody has proven it yet, so it hasn't entered the pages of peer reviewed research, just like homeopathy hasn't penetrated Western medicine. I would guess that's the reason that laws about labeling of GMO foods aren't ubiquitous. If you are aware of respectable studies that prove otherwise about GMO foods, I'd love to see them -- seriously.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374835)
All the more reason to put it on the labels. Not looking for definitive ruling of goodness or badness if no ruling can be made at this time, just looking for information so I can make a choice. I don't understand why they want to hide the facts.
Re:Alternative? (1)
sideslash (1865434) | 2 days ago | (#48374923)
Re:Alternative? (1)
amiga3D (567632) | yesterday | (#48375137)
They already mark organic foods and it's not hurting sales of non-organic produce at all. If they put GMO on the label most people aren't going to pony up to pay two or three times the price for non-GMO. If they were the high priced organic produce would sell better.
Re: Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374869)
Have you considered that some are paying big to keep peer reviewed research from ever being published? If that literature ever got out the first article will be highly publicized and scare enough people to cause a significant change (i.e. economic) that will strike at the heart of the problem. No we can't have that.
Another alternative is the journals are likely threatened with law suits that stop them in their tracks.
oh bullshit (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374887)
I love a good conspiracy theory, but any journal that publishes a decent article showing a reproducible harm from GMO crops will be hansomly rewarded.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374877)
And yet we label homeopathic medicine anyway. Go fuck yourself, shill.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374883)
Smoking tobacco was not proven or considered to be harmful for a few thousand years, neither was drinking from lead cups.
Maybe people died of other causes long before lung cancer set in or they just did not know it was lung cancer until about 50 years ago.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374909)
This is a bad car analogy. Homeopathic medicine does not cure anything, you might as well compare homeopathy to prayer.
Re:Alternative? (1)
sideslash (1865434) | 2 days ago | (#48374961)
This is a bad car analogy. Homeopathic medicine does not cure anything, you might as well compare homeopathy to prayer.
My point was that homeopathy has the same level of peer reviewed, scientific research supporting it as do hippie paranoias about GMO food. Specifically: none at all.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48375027)
So wouldn't that mean you would want homeopathic remedies clearly labeled as such so you can make an informed choice?
Re:Alternative? (1)
sideslash (1865434) | yesterday | (#48375081)
So wouldn't that mean you would want homeopathic remedies clearly labeled as such so you can make an informed choice?
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
To answer your question seriously, absolutely I would like a medication to inform me whether it is merely homeopathic. And relax, because the government is way ahead of you on this. When companies provide "remedies" that are not scientifically shown to treat or cure any disease, they are already required to have it clearly labeled that they have not been shown to treat or cure any disease. Go and look, and you will already find such labels on homeopathic "medicines" sold (at least legally) in the USA.
For drugs prescribed under the auspices of Western medicine, they have been shown to be worthwhile (in some measure), by scientific methods. And similarly, GMO foods have been shown to be safe (in some measure) by scientific methods. So the government shouldn't give GMO food producers any grief unless further scientific inquiry gives a reason to do so.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375125)
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
Which is not what anyone would possibly be referring to.
To answer your question seriously, absolutely I would like a medication to inform me whether it is merely homeopathic. And relax, because the government is way ahead of you on this. When companies provide "remedies" that are not scientifically shown to treat or cure any disease, they are already required to have it clearly labeled that they have not been shown to treat or cure any disease. Go and look, and you will already find such labels on homeopathic "medicines" sold (at least legally) in the USA.
Great, so we should have the same accurate labeling for food.
For drugs prescribed under the auspices of Western medicine, they have been shown to be worthwhile (in some measure), by scientific methods. And similarly, GMO foods have been shown to be safe (in some measure) by scientific methods. So the government shouldn't give GMO food producers any grief unless further scientific inquiry gives a reason to do so.
But all such medicines have extensive label information about contents, side effects, etc. So if that's okay for drugs why do you hold food to some other standard?
Re:Alternative? (1)
sideslash (1865434) | yesterday | (#48375161)
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
Which is not what anyone would possibly be referring to.
Before going any further in this conversation... do you know what homeopathic medicine is?
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375099)
Nope, because now you are talking about labeling everything else as homo-free. So we drive up the price on all the other remedies just because some crackpots want labeling for their current pet theory. Let those that care label.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375113)
Yeah it would drive it up an entire fraction of a cent. Oh the humanity!!!
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375133)
Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacterial disease that effects insects, and kills them by forming protein crystals in their midguts. It is approved for use on food crops in the USA, and is known for being quite effective--and relatively harmless to the environment. In field conditions, it degrades quickly.
The problem is that Agroscientists figured out how to code plants for the production of the fatal proteins in their tissue, giving their transgenic corn its own natural pesticide. However, corn is also a prolific producer of pollen, and the proteins that they encoded into the corn were from a subspecies of Bacillus thuringiensis (Aizawai) that can be very, very fatal to honeybees in low concentrations--and severely effect a hive's ability to reproduce. Compounding the issue, is that most studies aren't up-front about what they are actually testing.
For instance there is Bt corn expressing Cry1F proteins, and there is also Bt corn that expresses other proteins (Cry1ab). When you read the science headlines, they typically don't tell you what protein the tested plant was expressing. I grow corn, right next to a hive of wild bees. I use Bacillus Thuringiensis--but not the Aizawai strain. You'd have to be an idiot to use anything expressing Aizawai-related proteins anywhere near bees you don't want to kill.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20024947
-4H Alumnus
Re:Alternative? (1)
thevikas (3824613) | yesterday | (#48375175)
Re:Alternative? (3, Insightful)
hibiki_r (649814) | 2 days ago | (#48374879)
No, it's really about a binary label of GMO/No GMO being pretty deceitful, and pretty expensive for what you get, especially for very processed foods.
The argument of wanting information would make a lot more sense if the labeling was actually detailed, as it's not like there is only a single strain of GMO corn in the market: We are well in the hundreds over the years, just with corn and soybeans. Surely a variety of GMO that has been out there for 10 years is different than one that is new for this season, right?
When you make the label binary, then what you are really telling the consumer is that all that matters is whether there are GMOs in there or not, and that only makes any sense for people that just think that GMOs are bad in principle.
There's also the costs involved. It's not as if most companies out there buy their grain from a single farmer, so accurate labeling puts quite a bit of expense into the entire supply chain.
You'd be better off just labeling certified organic. Then you at least only put the onus on those that really want a certification, instead of on everyone. Not that it increases food safety anyway: You'd be surprised by how toxic many treatments that are certified organic can be,
Re:Alternative? (1)
drinkypoo (153816) | yesterday | (#48375199)
When you make the label binary, then what you are really telling the consumer is that all that matters is whether there are GMOs in there or not,
When you make the label unary, you are telling the customer nothing. It is left as an option for the manufacturer to engage in more detailed labeling which provides more information than mandatory. A GMO labeling requirement does not preclude the manufacturer providing information on the type of genetic modification in question on the package, or on their website (perhaps provided to the customer via QR code.)
You'd be better off just labeling certified organic.
Ah, but which organic certification? The USDA certification is a pathetic joke.
Not that it increases food safety anyway: You'd be surprised by how toxic many treatments that are certified organic can be,
Would I be?
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375215)
That sounds, in part, like just another take on the "consumer is too stupid to understand" argument. I mean, they already list chemical names for some ingredients that I can't even pronounce. Are they expecting consumers to be chemists but not biologists?
There are laws in some places that explicitly prohibit the labeling of food items as non-GMO. Boy, does that piss me off! Now pro-GMO people will say that's because nobody can be sure if a particular food item doesn't actually contain GMO products or not, so you really can't label it "non-GMO". To them I say, "if you can't keep track of 24? 30? ingredients in the supply-chain of a product, then I don't want you mucking with genetic material where there are literally millions? billions? of combinations and potential interactions both in the food-chain and outside of it".
I would pay extra to have food certified non-GMO. Sadly, big corporatations have taken that choice away from me. I can understand that some people would not want to pay extra for non-GMO food. That is their choice. Where's mine?
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374921)
No you're stupid because this information already exists and if you would just read and comprehend it you would understand why a label is stupid plan.
In fact, people have explained this time and time and time and time and time and time and [....] again, but you still bring up the old 'but me and my f-f-f-f-f-f-f-aaaaaammmily' line of bullshit like somehow you and your family digest food any differently than the billions of other living beings out there,
which, again, you would know if you weren't so god damn stupid
Re:Alternative? (1)
CauseBy (3029989) | yesterday | (#48375217)
Is there a law against labeling food as GMO-free? If so, let's get rid of that law with great haste!
If not your argument is baseless.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374731)
The alternative is called permaculture. It works everywhere. Once a food and medicine forest ecosystem is set up you have to bulldoze it for it to go away.
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374797)
Fortunately, unicorns and leprechauns are magically bulldozer-proof.
Re:Alternative? (1)
Sarten-X (1102295) | 2 days ago | (#48374755)
This is very much the case. Much of west Africa (Ghana in particular is mentioned in TFS) alternates between "too wet" and "too dry". In the dry season, the winds from the Sahara leave farmland covered in moisture-sapping dust, which isn't particularly fertile when the wet season comes, but it sure is good for letting the water run away downhill.
The best chance a farmer has is to have mostly-level farmland where he can control the runoff, to lengthen the short ideal growing season. There's not much land that fits those qualifications. On the other hand, West Africa has a thriving trade network, so getting chemicals and supplies is just a matter of making a deal with the local tro-tro master. Using seeds that are more likely to thrive in the harsh conditions is a pretty good bet for a farmer.
Re:Alternative? (2)
fustakrakich (1673220) | 2 days ago | (#48374889)
They don't even need "open source crop lines", whatever that is. The best alternative, least likely to be applied, is for them to lay down their damn weapons. They already produce enough food to feed themselves. Most of it rots in warehouses, waiting for a higher price, or for lack of transport, or the truck's been hijacked. Your "charitable organizations" are only creating a dependency situation for profit.
Re:Alternative? (1)
sideslash (1865434) | 2 days ago | (#48374897)
Your "charitable organizations" are only creating a dependency situation for profit.
The 4H? Seriously?
Re:Alternative? (1)
fustakrakich (1673220) | 2 days ago | (#48374983)
Well yeah, if they're being chumps for DuPont or Monsanto or whoever. In which case, they would be nothing but a tax dodge for laundered money. What the hell, why not? The kids don't know any better. This is schtick.
Re:Alternative? (1)
sideslash (1865434) | yesterday | (#48375145)
Re:Alternative? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374901)
Not to mention that they apparently thought the best way to plant corn was to just toss the seeds in the field and 4-H is teaching them some pretty basic farming practices.
Francis showed his parents the money he had made from 4-H gardens, and that, rather than scattering seeds on the ground, he'd learned to plant the reddish-pink Pioneer ones a set distance apart from one another, with just one or two per hole so that the plants' roots didn't get too crowded.
They are also teaching them how to run a farm as a business. Like the kid in the story, smart kids aren't going into farming because it is considered a poor uneducated person's job and that's not going to help them feed themselves in the long run.
When Francis later told his parents he'd decided to become a farmer, they were not happy. They wanted something better for their son, who had always shown so much promise. "But then I educated them about agriculture," Francis says. "I told them that you can use tractors. You can allow people to work on your farm for you."
I do understand some of the issues with GM seeds. Expensive and lock-in. Promotes use of pesticides than can damage animals, unintended plants, etc. But honestly I am having a real hard time getting all worked up about this.
Re:Alternative? (1, Informative)
Khyber (864651) | 2 days ago | (#48374953)
" And Big Ag doesn't just feed hippies, it feeds the world, and there currently isn't any good substitute for it."
Bullshit. We have plenty of alternatives to chemical-intensive agriculture. From vertical farming methods to advanced hydroponics methods that can reduce water AND nutrient requirements by 95% and 60% respectively.
~former research director for international horticultural company
Fear mongers (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374621)
Devlin Kuyek makes a living off of selling fear of modern living. Why should we believe anything he says? Or are you simply trying to confirm that there's one born every minute.
Dihydrogen Monoxide. (1, Offtopic)
Just Some Guy (3352) | 2 days ago | (#48374633)
because hybrid seeds are bred for intensive agriculture, they typically need chemicals to thrive
...unlike natural, free-range grains that are invulnerable to pests and thrive under the gentle light of the waxing crescent moon. Sorry, but you lost me at "chemicals". Yes. They're matter-based lifeforms, and need a whole slew of chemicals to exist.
Chemicals! (3, Funny)
JBMcB (73720) | 2 days ago | (#48374663)
Chemicals are *everywhere*, in all of our food, and many will kill you! I only eat chemical-free food, mainly neutrons and assorted leptons.
Re:Chemicals! (2)
Entropius (188861) | 2 days ago | (#48374671)
Well, if your assortment of leptons includes positrons, some of them will hit the neutrons and undergo inverse beta decay, and then the electrons in your Mixed Lepton Soup will bind with them and make atoms, and then chemistry. So you're not safe.
Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide. (1)
Khyber (864651) | 2 days ago | (#48374991)
I would mod you up so much if I hadn't already posted.
It is about time bullshit journalism and marketing got castrated.
Hybrids (1, Troll)
hibiki_r (649814) | 2 days ago | (#48374645)
Sure, hybrid corn gets weaker by the generation, but it's also far higher yielding.
American farmers buy it because they make more money buying seeds every year than they would saving seeds. Thinking that farmers from Ghana will not be able to make a rational decision between buying industrial seed every year or saving whatever strain they have already from year to year is a not so subtle form of racism.
Re:Hybrids (1)
cduffy (652) | 2 days ago | (#48374875)
Or maybe what is or isn't rational varies based on local conditions. Capital availability is a concern. Distribution infrastructure (and differences in cost based on same) is a concern.
Ghana is one of the best-governed countries in its region, but even so, there's still an infrastructure gap -- a decade ago (which is as recent as I had knowledge) you had daily rolling blackouts even in the capitol as a matter of course; electrical generation capacity wasn't growing with demand.
Accusing those who disagree with you of assuming anything other than rational behavior in light of full knowledge of local conditions strikes me as starkly unreasonable.
Re:Hybrids (1)
vux984 (928602) | 2 days ago | (#48374907)
Thinking that farmers from Ghana will not be able to make a rational decision between buying industrial seed every year or saving whatever strain they have already from year to year is a not so subtle form of racism.
Now that you've made your mind about it, why don't you go read the actual article, and more about the issue.
Its far more complicated issue than a simple price per yield, with aspects of the ethics of using 4H as free advertising for Dupont, with the consideration that the money paid to Dupont for seeds flows out of the local economy. That the Dupont corn is considered tastier thereby, and that yeilds with it being higher mean increased total supply. These factors combine to drive down the price of local variety and make farming it a losing proprosition over time too.
Re:Hybrids (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48375015)
this might be true, fortunately, people breed.
Re:Hybrids (1)
CrimsonAvenger (580665) | yesterday | (#48375189)
So, the Dupont corn tastes better & produces more edible grain. Enough so that the local competition is a "losing proposition".
And this is bad, why?
Do keep in mind that industrialization pretty much requires that you get some of those farmers out of the fields and into factories. if 80% of your population are growing food, you don't have much left for anything else, and will end up with a population of peasants....
Will it ruin natural seeds? (1)
Alex Kasa (2867743) | 2 days ago | (#48374647)
Re:Will it ruin natural seeds? (1)
Khyber (864651) | 2 days ago | (#48375013)
You have the time to post using Slashdot's new laggy as fuck and sometimes browser-lagging system, but not the time to RTFA?
Bullshit, son.
Go RTFA first, then try asking questions.
Dear Africans (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374675)
You should go without food. Because ... politics
So "Big Ag" is short for (2, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374677)
"Big Agriculture", and not "Big Silver". I thought this was about mining silver in Africa.
Re:So "Big Ag" is short for (1)
penguinoid (724646) | 2 days ago | (#48374885)
"Big Agriculture", and not "Big Silver". I thought this was about mining silver in Africa.
In some languages, silver is synonymous with money. Eg "plata" in Spanish. So you're not far off.
As to whether it's a good thing or not... well, it's not for nothing that farmers are buying expensive hybrid seeds. But I don't know the details to be able to say whether the same factors apply in Africa.
Proprietary seeds (1)
manu0601 (2221348) | 2 days ago | (#48374759)
This is bad (4, Funny)
Kohath (38547) | 2 days ago | (#48374827)
I've never owned a farm.
I've never planted or harvested a crop.
I've never used fertilizer.
I've never seen GMO seeds.
I've never gone a day without food.
I've never been to Africa.
But I know this is really bad.
Sent from my iPhone
You're everything that's wrong in this world. (2)
penguinoid (724646) | 2 days ago | (#48374933)
I've never owned a farm.
I've never planted or harvested a crop.
I've never used fertilizer.
I've never seen GMO seeds.
I've never gone a day without food.
I've never been to Africa.
But I know this is really bad.
Sent from my iPhone
You don't know anything about the topic, and aren't involved or affected, but you're going to pass judgement on other people's choices.
Re:You're everything that's wrong in this world. (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48375035)
[WHOOSH!]You don't know anything about the topic, and aren't involved or affected, but you're going to pass judgement on other people's choices.[/WHOOSH!]
Re:You're everything that's wrong in this world. (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375093)
whoosh?
Re:You're everything that's wrong in this world. (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375173)
That's the sound of the joke going over your head.
Re:This is bad (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374939)
You would if you owned an Android.
Insert free advert for GMO crops .. (1)
lippydude (3635849) | 2 days ago | (#48374841)
There's just so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to begin. 'bred for intensive agriculture' is a meaningless statement. What's preventing farmers from saving their own seeds is threats of litigation from the GM corporations not that the seeds get any weaker. Hybrid seeds don't need chemicals to thrive, the seeds are bred to be immune to chemicals such as glyphosate. Through over use, weeds are developing resistance to these chemicals, meaning that more of it has to be used.
Re:Insert free advert for GMO crops .. (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48375033)
if they're developing resistance to the chemicals, different chemicals have to be used, not more.
that said, though, do you suppose its more or less pesticide than we used before GMO's?
I think the answer to that question is more important, thus your reluctance to ask it.
4H is bad for your resume (1)
penguinoid (724646) | 2 days ago | (#48374861)
Not for all colleges, but there are plenty of colleges that are less likely to admit students who've taken part in 4H.
Re:4H is bad for your resume (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48375025)
Not for all colleges, but there are plenty of colleges that are less likely to admit students who've taken part in 4H.
Yeah, thanks to the same left-wing admissions people who frown on scouting, jr rotc or anything else the "smells" of traditional.
Do these these left-wingers, and many readers here, realize that the 4H does more than agriculture related things? For example raising/training puppies in normal home/family environments, puppies that will as adults be moving on to becoming guide dogs for the blind.
Re:4H is bad for your resume (1)
silfen (3720385) | yesterday | (#48375213)
Maybe not attending those colleges is a good thing anyway.
DuPont only cares about the money (1)
Bob_Who (926234) | 2 days ago | (#48374987)
Re:DuPont only cares about the money (1)
silfen (3720385) | yesterday | (#48375233)
Of course they only care about the money; that's what corporations are supposed to do.
(I mean, could you please make up your mind whether you want corporations to engage in politics or not? Sometimes you want corporations to get drawn and quartered if they as much as utter a squeak on social or political issues, at other times, you whine and complain that "they only care about the money".)
How is anybody forcing you to buy their plants? If you think that non-sterile, non GMO crops are a better deal, just buy those instead. Where is the "criminal extortion"?
Open-source Seeds....kill Big Ag (1)
Rick in China (2934527) | 2 days ago | (#48375001)
A few years ago, this was started: http://www.opensourceseediniti... [opensource...iative.org]
For some reason they haven't spread into Africa - but are all over North America/Europe in a large way, someone needs to start providing higher quality seed options for the poorest farmers of the world rather than leave the door wide open for obvious pillagers like most of the shameless extortionists in the Big Ag industry. Once they convince people of the higher yields and lock them in, ah.. one of the saddest things in the world - and seeing it happen in the poorest nations just compounds that feeling. These people need food. Technology can help make that happen. The technology that will make that happen - must not be patented and created with self-degradation causing forced-repurchase as a 'feature'.
Re:Open-source Seeds....kill Big Ag (1)
amiga3D (567632) | yesterday | (#48375147)
How are they locked in? Can they not go back to using traditional seed? Or do you mean they're locked in by the better value?
So few actually read the article... (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375151)
It's a classic addiction scam like a drug dealer or pharmaceutical company would use. Get the mark (in this case farmers) hooked on seeds that only produce high yields when given large amounts of fertilizer that they sell, then as the yields decline they need more fertilizer, helping them reap higher profits and farmers are stuck with low yield crops
As for their farming methods. Humans on all continents have for decades, even before the green revolution, planted enough food and known how to grow more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem has been the distribution of it.
The true alternative (0)
Anonymous Coward | yesterday | (#48375167)
The true alternative is to not live in places where food won't grow. Evolution is a lie when it comes to humans. These dumb fuckers would have been dead eons ago if this wasn't true.