Heard this on the radio and this might be an interesting discussion. An author on NPR suggested it's greener to get rid of the fertilizer the great American Breadbasket and replace them with genetically modified crops. Agree or disagree?
I'm all for technology, GMO seem totally appropriate. GMO is a much precise method of getting a better crop than previous crude methods, with better results. Bt corn doesn't kill butterflies.
I'm not an expert on this subject, but as I understand it, there are many issues tangled together here - genetic diversity, patent rights, the risk of GM genes getting "out", and unknown health risks on the GM side - soil issues, water pollution and CO2 emissions on the fertilizer side. Also, the highest yields (profits) might come from fertilized, GM crops - so it's not an either/or question. You can modify crops for many traits - pest resistance, drought resistance, nutritional qualities - so even GM itself isn't an either/or question. My guess is that we're not going to see the back of fertilizers any time soon, and that GM is here to stay too. The trick will be to use both technologies responsibly. -Simon
How does GM replace fertilizers, other than nitrogen if they can modify a non-nitrogen fixing plant with rhe Rhizobium genes that fix nitrogen? I can see where they could possibly make a plant more efficient at absorbing phosphorus, potassium, and the other elements needed for plant growth from the soil by transferring genes from plants that can grow well in poor soils. But these elements are still being removed permenantly from the soil when crops are shipped to market and are also leached from the soil by rain and/or irrigation, and so would need to be replaced in the soil on a regular basis. At best GM might reduce the need for fertilizers, but it is not going to eliminate it.
I’m no expert either and I have not done any reading on GM crops, only what I read in the news. I don’t see this is much different than selective breeding, which I practice every year. I have vegetable, flower and herb gardens. Every year I take plants that have desirable characteristics (fruit size, taste, appearance, drought resistance, pest/disease resistance…) and pollinate them with another and plant those seeds the next year. Within a few generations I can sometimes have a more desirable plant. I really don’t think I will create a Frankenstein or poison plant but you never know. Heck, I could cross 2 tomato plants and bring out a recessive nightshade gene and poison everyone who ate one! As far as needing less fertilizer I think that is great. If we could develop more nitrogen fixing plants maybe I would have to do less crop rotation (and shoveling of manure). Folks who shun the laboratory process should try some selective breeding themselves. Possibly it is just the idea that it is being done by man instead of the process they never see that nature does?
Hi, Woody -- I don't think that is quite the concern. It is a little different when you start mixing genes from different species -- that can't really happen in your back yard with just pollination.
True, but how much different is it really. What is the worst case scenario that folks are worried about, creating a poison plant? Creating a mutant that is going to become an invasive to the area? GM’s crossing with local plants and wiping them out? We already have hybrids that are accepted and farmers as well as home gardeners have been using them for years.
Which brings you into the patent infringement problems and the lawsuits brought on by worldwide companies who force farmers to use their hybrid seed or risk being sued when the wind carries the hybrid pollen and/or seed into the farmers field and propagates their fields with hybrid crops. In addition to buying the seed they pay a separate usage fee or face lawsuits. Old article (ie, it's been going on for a while): http://www.keepmainefree.org/suesuesue.html An organized effort to fight the big bully?: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm Doesn't always produce more as advertised: http://www.biotech-info.net/nelsons_frustrations.html I could go on about this some more but I've got to go, but in short.... Fear the control of major corporations to regulate your food sources. :flag: - Dale
There is also the concern that we'll end up with a crop we depend upon that is susceptible to some sort of plague that could wipe it out completely. We may end up with the "Cheetah" of wheat, but... Yes, I know there always concerns with everything but these sorts of things need to be both considered and prepared for.
The main difference between traditional plant breeding and GM is that traditional breeding can only transfer genes between closely related species that are able to cross pollenate and produce viable seed. This limits the amount of change that the plant breeder can make. GM can take the genes from totally unrelated organisms (plant, animal, bacterium, or virus) and add it to a plant's genome, so they can make huge genetic changes in the plant, for better or worse. But GM is also largely practiced by large corporations that patent the results and are lawsuit happy.
