Friday, September 19, 2014

What do they do?

As a disclaimer, this is the densest post I've ever written. I normally strive for brevity and simplicity, but this is a complex topic. Yes, the details regarding corn breeding sound like something from high school science class, but, they are important to understand as the entire state of Hawai'i becomes embroiled in the debate over industrial agriculture. As we all engage in this conversation, I believe that we need to understand exactly what the seed companies do. Also thank you to Ryan Oyama, Kristen Ma, Jen Vaughn, and Sarah Styan from DuPont Pioneer for taking three hours out of their work-day to show me and my dad what they do. Special thanks to Sarah for answering my endless email inquiries and giving me a much-needed crash course on biology and corn breeding.  

"The vast majority of farmers in the world farm because it is their only option.  In many cases, it is a failing option.  The global food ecosystem is complex; we need to develop a deeper understanding of where food comes from and what people who grow it have to endure."
- Howard G. Buffet

What do the seed companies do? I’m embarrassed to say that that is not a question that I’d given much thought to. All I knew about corn was that I was a failure of a corn farmer (apparently bugs like corn as much as people).  Despite my agricultural woes, I knew enough to notice the disparate rhetoric regarding the seed companies. One side says they test poisons and aren’t real farmers while the other wears t-shirts that say we are ag. One side calls them chemical companies, the other calls them seed companies. One side says they spray pesticides nearly every day, the other side says they don't spray any more than a conventional farm. Which one of those contradictory beliefs is true? Since I had no idea, I went to DuPont Pioneer to find out. As I expected, the answers aren't so simple. 

What do they do?
They grow inbred lines of corn in order to produce improved inbred lines that can be used in hybrid combinations in the pursuit of improving yield for farmers. To understand what that means, it's important to understand a little about corn reproduction and the 20th century history of corn farming.  

Corn can pollinate itself or be pollinated by pollen from other corn plants within a few hundred feet. Each plant produces both tassels (male part) and kernels (female). Each kernel has a silk connected to it, which catches a single grain of pollen in order to fertilize. That means that every kernel can be pollinated from a different plant. And, because of genetic variability (in the same process that makes each human being different, you also never know how the genes will recombine in each individual pollination), you end up with an ear that is highly variable containing seed (kernels) that may also be highly variable. With human intervention (selecting the best kernels to replant), corn slowly evolved over the millennia from its wild ancestor to the corn of the 20th century. However, in the 1940s, hybridization completely changed the rules of the game.  

If you take a corn plant and ensure that it's self pollinated (meaning that you take pollen from the tassels and sprinkle it on its own silk) the next generation will have both less genetic variability and less vigor than if you allowed it to open pollinate from other plants. This is where the bulk of the work at Pioneer occurs. Because there is genetic variability between each inbred line, they need to select which plants have the traits (genes) that they are looking for. Some traits can be observed while others need to be genetically tested for. The best of each generation is then used as seed for the next crop, and the process continues. After about seven generations of selecting the best of the best, you are left with a crop of inbred lines that is less vigorous than the genetically diverse crop you started with, but they are now genetically uniform with the exact traits that the breeder initially selected them for.   

Breeders will then take those two genetically distinct inbred lines and combine them in what is known as hybridization. This can be done by planting alternate rows of two inbred lines, each with traits that they want to combine. One variety will be de-tassled (pollen source taken away) and the other will remain intact. The de-tassled plant (which is now a female) is then guaranteed to be pollinated by the other variety that is now the sole source of pollen. The resulting kernels from each ear of the de-tassled plant now have the genes of both distinct parents and can grow into a new plant that is significantly more vigorous and better yielding than either of the parents. This phenomena is known as hybrid vigor or heterosis.

If this new hybrid plant is better than any existing corn, then the seed company will use it as seed corn. Out of 1000 test crosses, one will be a winner. Since generally less than one pound of seed will exist for this new "grand champion" hybrid, it takes three more years to plant out the inbred lines en-masse, and then cross those lines into hybrid seed corn.  The entire process (from development of specific traits, to inbreeding, to seed production and hybridization) can take up to 13 years. Modern farmers do not have the time or technological resources to do plant breeding or hybrid seed production, so that is where Hawai'i and the seed companies fit in.  

In 1926, DuPont Pioneer was the first company to market hybrid corn seed. Over the century, corn yields exploded 600% from 25 bushels per acre to 150 bushels per acre.  Whereas one American farmer in 1926 was feeding 26 people, one American farmer now feeds over 155. This is due both to genetic gains associated with hybrids, and other advances in agricultural research. On the graph above, you can see the massive yield increases from hybridization as opposed to soybean, which is not a hybrid crop.  

However, the one draw-back of hybrid plants is that you only have one generation of genetic uniformity. If you save seed from hybrid crops, the resulting progeny will be genetically variable and likely will produce lower yields. So, in order to get the benefit of increased yields and predictability, seed needs to be purchased from someone willing to go through the years of plant breeding and hybrid production. Which is why the major seed companies have been so successful.  

So, what goes on behind the intimidating guard shack across the Russian Fort is less sinister and more mundane than I'd imagined. Farmers from around the world come to Pioneer with a request for certain traits: including adaptation to regional soil type and rain fall, disease resistance, plant architecture, time to maturity, pesticide resistance, etc. Breeders around the world will send kernels of plants with desirable traits to Kaua'i for the scientists here to plant, so that they can be pollinated for testing in other locations, to cross pollinate to test hybrid performance, or to add particular traits through breeding. They do it in Hawai'i because our extra growing season allows them to develop inbreds twice as fast as it would take in a temperate climate.

Do they spray more often than conventional farms? 
The traits important for each plant breeder are determined by the region they are focused on. The traits (including biotech traits) are all developed and tested on the mainland. Because the plant breeding process is so time consuming, they will only develop inbreds strains from plants with proven genetic traits. For example, round-up resistance is a biotech trait that was developed by Monsanto. Pioneer will license that trait and breeders will cross pollinate a round-up resistant inbred with an inbred that has other desirable traits. The herbicide resistant trait, before it is ever cross pollinated, is extensively tested for efficacy (by, for example, spraying it with round-up).

Just to reiterate, because this part is important, the traits themselves are developed on the mainland. What they are doing on Kaua'i is merely growing out the inbreds in order to enable the breeders to eventually pick the best inbred parent to be crossed with another inbred to get a hybrid that will (hopefully) be good enough to sell to farmers. Because the development of the traits (including, for example, genetically modified herbicide resistance) is done on the mainland, the crops on Kaua'i are grown under the same conditions that they ultimately will be on the farm. Each test plot is roughly 36 sq feet and contains about 25 plants, and pesticides are applied to each particular plot based only on need (i.e. an insect infestation). So, while the companies are spraying more than 250 days per year, the average application area is very, very small. Whereas, on a conventional farm, pesticide application occurs less often, but over a thousand-fold more area.*

Why are they necessary?
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is predicting that we need to increase food production by 70% to feed the population by 2050. There are only two ways to increase production: more productivity per acre or more acres of productivity. The FAO predicts that 80% of our increased production will come from increased yields, and the rest will come from expanding farm land in Sub Saharan Africa. So, in order to minimize the expansion of farm land we are dependent on breeders such as Pioneer to continue research into increasing yields.  

Yet, as I've written before, we have some distressing issues with our food system that we also need to work on solving. Government subsidies for corn production leads to cheap processed food, effectively killing off small farms; we are losing topsoil at distressing rates; nitrogen fertilizer has created massive dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico; one calorie of industrially grown food takes up to 10 calories of fossil fuels to grow and distribute; agricultural operations contribute to 10% of total US carbon emissions, making it a significant driver of climate change; we are over-exposed to pesticides (agricultural drift, household use, and in our food); while Americans are overweight and unhealthy from excess calories, 925 million people don't have access to enough food. 

Of all of those issues, the single most important one is the inequality inherent in our food supply. When you're starving, you're less likely to pursue an education and more likely to cut down the rain forest next door in search of arable land.  Applicable to food security on Kaua'i as much as the world, the United Nations report on hunger says that solving the hunger crisis "requires an integrated approach, which would include: public and private investments to raise agricultural productivity; better access to inputs, land, services, technologies and markets; measures to promote rural development; social protection for the most vulnerable, including strengthening their resilience to conflicts and natural disasters; including specific nutrition programmes..."  Reducing the inequities and externalities inherent in industrial agriculture requires accurately identifying the problems and then using a mix of government intervention as well as consumer education. As Howard Buffet writes: "but in the end, improving food security for almost one billion people will require the use of the best practices at many different scales, tuned to local conditions, to achieve success."  


Our next questions should be:
As an integral part of the complex food chain of American industrial agriculture, how can we on Kaua'i work to both support reducing global malnourishment while working to fix the problems mentioned above?  

Are the current voluntary buffer zones (100' on residences, 1000' on hospitals and schools) and disclosure being utilized by the seed companies adequate? If not, what is?  

What is the barrier to increasing local food production on Kaua'i? Access to land? Capital? Lack of a market? Lack of willing farmers? How do we utilize that information to reverse the trend of declining farms

Are the seed companies a barrier to local food production? If so, why?


* Edit 09/24/14 -- Just to clarify, I purposely didn't answer the question of "do they spray more" because I don't have the answer.  But, as I recently heard from a friend who works for one of the companies, while they are spraying in response to pest pressures (like a conventional farm), on average they are still probably spraying more for two reasons:

1) Seed crops stay in the field longer to dry out, so, just based on time in the ground, on average they're being sprayed more than other crops.* (edit 09/25/14-- not verified and potentially not true).

2) There is more pressure from insects, mold, and weeds in the tropics than on the mainland.  So, while spraying in response to those things, they are inevitably going to spray more (as any conventional farmer in Hawai'i likely is).

The complexity and nuance in that simple question is one of the primary reasons that I have consistently advocated for disclosure. As the state/county studies further to ensure the health and safety of those on the west side, it's important to know what and how much is being sprayed.



22 comments:

  1. Thanks for the informative, nuanced and rational commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Suggest to look at both sides, there are other solutions out there as well,Scientists are not in Union on all this at all, there are reasons why Europe and other countries fight those practices, You can even sell GMO in Germany but you need to label it, so they dont (only indirect in farmanimal feed gmo-corn/soy and produce milk products and eggs) I dont think is only one solution road, food security is in danger if our seeds are patented, and that the corn produces BT in itself. I recommend studieing the connection between Disegtion process its bakterias and the wellbeing of a human.... and what pestecides resedues, BT and Glysophete does in your Colon... there are many sides to it all, and I dont say GMO is all bad since it such a vast area that goes far further than food production. I recomment looking into the practices, and all the Pro GMO studies where you find alot, but bone proffes its safe to eat, since that takes lifetime studies. With all the half million spend on Adds in the moment, that could have been used to pay fir studies to check for the concerns people have, but the money rather goes into propaganda to tell how safe it is for some media concern. Its all about Profit, and when it comes to profit by know most of of know its not always done with ethtics and being hornest and having wellbeing in mind... Ihttp://www.navdanya.org/attachments/Latest_Publications9.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Scientists are not in Union on all this at all"

      Yes, they are. It is the politics that is not. In fact, independent peer-reviewed research on GMOs is common and conducted worldwide. There have been thousands of scientifically valid, peer-reviewed studies, conducted by hundreds of independent research groups, showing that consumption of GMOs is just as safe as non-GMOs. Here's a good starting point for you:
      http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

      Delete
  3. They (Pioneer specifically) spray far more than conventional farms. They may spray a small amount at a time but they have sprayed small plots up to 24 times with up to 18 different pesticides. I see what your saying that they are not doing one intensive spray like a conventional farmer but if you live next door to the two acre plot getting a cumulative 8lb/acre plus does it matter what is happening on the other side of the farm? The 24 times in one season may have a chronic exposure effect that has not been considered by the EPA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Luke,
    The real story behind the story is the overproduction of corn. We sit on mountains of corn and keep producing more and more. Subsidized corn nobody needs. So we use it to produce low quality meat and diary, cows are herbivores, maize is not something a cow would eat if it had a choice, we use it to make ethanol, the wonderful gasoline additive that requires almost as much energy to produce than it will render during combustion in your engine, and since we need to get rid of all this surplus we turn it in high fructose syrup found in everything we eat. Corn is bad news, doesn't solve any problem but creates a lot of them..We don't need new corn varieties, we need alternative crops.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some other questions:
    Why have most European nations banned GM corn?
    Why would Mexico, the motherland of corn, ban GM corn production?
    Should planet Earth's seeds be the intellectual property of a few corporations, enforceable by patent law?
    Cheapening food production to feed more and more population is not sustainable in the long run
    Fortunately there is an ever increasing demand for healthier food produced locally creating opportunities for more local farmers
    The key to increasing local food production is everyone gradually adjusting habits and increasing demand for the foods which can be readily grown here and gradually weaning ourselves from Matson and Aloha Air Cargo supplied food.

    Thank you Luke for your interesting posts I hope your orphan nene stops in for a visit from time to time
    Thor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why have most European nations banned GM corn?
      Why would Mexico, the motherland of corn, ban GM corn production?"
      Because FUD is not exclusive to the US.

      "Should planet Earth's seeds be the intellectual property of a few corporations, enforceable by patent law?"
      No, but the problem there is the business practices of certain companies, not the organisms that result from the seeds they produce. The solution to that is the fix patent law, not to ban GMOs. It would be like banning cars because of the business practices of Ford and GM.

      Delete
  6. So because there are supposedly "two sides" saying different things, you went to one side to get their "explanation" and call that "the facts." And they played you like a violin conflating standard hybridization with barely mentioned "and biotech traits" and adding some rhetoric on "feeding the world."
    Standard, natural cross-breeding and genetic manipulation are two totally different techniques.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact is that the seed companies are not "testing poisons" like you would like others to believe, Andy. The moral of the story is that if you have questions or concerns about the seed companies' business practices, you'll find more truth if you actually ask one of the employees rather than believing every rumor you hear.

      Delete
  7. Luke. The cows actually will eat corn if given the choice. Fences around the farms in mana are up for exactly that reason. The wild cows come down and want to eat the corn. Go ask, check it out for yourself. Glad you are taking the time to get the real story. Keep going!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, yes they will eat the maize plant as a whole.. Give a cow a choice:a pile of corn and a pile of maize plant you will see.

      Delete
    2. How many head of cattle do you raise? Where is your ranch located? What are you raising?

      Delete
  8. Regardless of whether the genes are being replaced on the mainland or here, the scientific consensus (more that 1,700 studies using the scientific method and published in peer-reviewed journals in many, many countries) says that GMOs are just as safe for human consumption as non-GMOs. What I don’t get is why many of the same people I hear from accept the scientific consensus that tells us anthropomorphic climate change is real and is a problem but don’t accept the scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe, even they use the same scientific method and peer review process.

    Additionally, the argument about banning them due to extra spraying of herbicides/pesticides is a red herring. If you’re concerned about herbicides/pesticides, then focus on things such as mandatory reporting or buffer zones. Herbicides/pesticides are sprayed on non-GMO crops too. Focusing on Monsanto’s business practices (which I loathe much of) is also a red herring. If you’re concerned about their business practices, then focus on patent law or the politics of corn subsidies.

    It’s natural that people are afraid of what they don’t understand, but it’s like the anti-GMO folks actively resist trying to understand what GMOs actually *are*. Because this bugs the heck out of me, I’ll write a little summary here. There are 2 types of GMO crops that the anti-GMO folks are concerned with: Roundup Ready and Bt. Roundup (glyphosate) works by disrupting a very specific enzyme, EPSPS. Plants rely on EPSPS, but it is only found in plants and some microorganisms, not animals, and has no function whatsoever to animals. It’s presence or lack thereof does not affect animals. In Roundup Ready corn, the gene that is responsible for synthesizing EPSPS is replaced with another gene that creates another version of EPSPS, which is not affected by glyphosate but otherwise serves the exact same function in the plant, and again is irrelevant to animals. What’s cool about this method of gene replacement is that we know *exactly* what gene is changing and exactly what it does.

    Then there Bt GMOs. Bt is naturally produced by a naturally occurring bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is effective at controlling caterpillars and worms such as corn borer. It does not affect other animals, including humans, mammals, or even other orders of insects such as beetles, flies, or bees, which is why it was selected for this purpose. Bt is commonly used in Organic farming. That’s right, if you eat Organic foods you’ve consumed Bt. With Bt GMOs, the genetic sequence for Bt is added to the plants’ genetic sequence. Again, like Roundup Ready plants, we know exactly what changed in the plant’s DNA and what its function is.

    Want to know what type of genetic modification is used for Organic (and non-organic of course) crops? Mutation breeding. Mutation breeding is when seeds are blasted with ionizing radiation (high energy radiation) that causes random changes in DNA. The seeds are then bred and the breeders decide if they like the resulting plant better than what they started with. The changes are random and the breeders don’t know what part of the DNA has changed. It’s a mystery, they just decide if they like the resulting plant better. The same thing is also commonly done with chemicals that randomly change the plants’ DNA. There are over 3200 plant varieties that have been modified using this method, they are common and can be considered Organic! That’s right, if you eat certified Organic non-GMO foods you’ve actually eaten foods that have been genetically modified using this method.

    Do you still think it’s rational to ban GMO crops?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Are the current voluntary buffer zones (100' on residences, 1000' on hospitals and schools) and disclosure being utilized by the seed companies adequate? If not, what is? " How do we know Luke that these companies are disclosing all of their pesticide use (and they are not). How do we know the buffer zones are what they say they are? They are not telling us how much "general use pesticide" they are using (and they are using it by the container load).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Luke: The cigarette industry fed people the same reassuring garbage for years. EVERY industry will resist regulation and claim that it is not needed, redundant and expensive. These companies continue to attempt to redirect you and our entire state toward the safety of gmo's. As I hope you know by now Luke this argument is not about the safety of gmo's but about the impacts this industry has on our specific community. We need to independently verify and independently study the local impacts on our health and on the environment. Kauai cannot do this properly without disclosure and these companies refuse to fully disclose and simply ask us to trust them. Please Luke read their history. Read "Tom's River" which was just published last year and you will gain a better understanding of the corporate history, corporate values and corporate mindset of these companies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The cigarette industry fed people the same reassuring garbage for years"
      There is a big difference: There was a mountain of evidence, verified using the scientific method, that smoking causes lung cancer among other things. In the case of GMOs, there is a mountain of evidence verified using the scientific method that GMOs are not harmful to human or animal health. So, if you want to compare it, you're going in the wrong direction, the same scientific method and peer review process that proved that cigarettes are not safe has proven that GMOs are.

      "Kauai cannot do this properly without disclosure and these companies refuse to fully disclose and simply ask us to trust them."
      Are you talking about GMOs, or about pesticides? Do you know the difference, or have the anti-GMO folks sufficiently confused these two issues that you can't see that they are indeed two separate issues? If it's pesticides you're concerned about then the solution is not to ban GMOs, it is mandatory pesticide use reporting and buffer zones.

      "you will gain a better understanding of the corporate history, corporate values and corporate mindset of these companies."
      Most any public traded company acts as a sociopath, and in fact are legally bound to care about profits (shareholder interest) before anything else. That has nothing to do with the safety of GMOs that has been verified in thousands of scientific studies by hundreds of independent sources. I wouldn't trust Monsanto as far as I can throw them, and fortunately we don't have to. As a side note, Whole Food Market is a publicly traded corporation too, with revenue about equal to Monsanto ($13b), and the health food industry as a whole is a $35 Billion industry. Yet, nobody seems to question the motives of the health food industry. Btw I think Monsanto is a fundamentally evil corporation, but that doesn't mean GMOs are unsafe. You're focusing on an Ad hominem attack, and there is a reason that is considered a logical fallacy, rather than focusing on the scientific consensus that says that GMOs are safe for consumption (and cigarettes aren't).

      Delete
  11. As always, thanks for reading and commenting. I just want to clarify my intent here.

    I'm coming from a perspective where I believe that biotech can be done on Kaua'i in a way that is both safe for the humans who live nearby and conducive to local food security. I believe in buffer zones, disclosure, and further study as an end into themselves, not as a means to an end. I believe in those actions simply to ensure the safety and well being of the people and environment of Kaua'i. In my opinion, the agenda (pursued by some) to use those aims as a way to push the companies off of Kaua'i has been detrimental to progress and the dialogue. And, by focusing on genetic modification, we are missing the bigger picture of what is wrong with our industrial food system.

    How our island transitions to the evolution of agriculture is one of the most important questions of our time. And I respect those (pundits and politicians) who are willing to engage in the difficult and loaded subject. I just hope that we can continue to engage in a respectful and solutions oriented manner.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Luke, thank you very much for putting it out there with the best of intentions, and for your adherence to decorum.
    You are doing a great service to this discussion, and I would love to engage in substantive discussions with you, particularly on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much. Engaging in substantive discussions is my favorite hobby-- I'm always on the look out for a good dialogue. Thanks for posting and contributing.

      Delete
  13. Great post! This is a complex topic which unfortunately tends to be discussed from extremist positions, but the sincerity and fair-mindedness of your post seems to help us all to stop talking at each other and start talking with each other..

    ReplyDelete
  14. I still hold to the belief you would have been an outstanding council candidate....you exhibit more rational and reasonable thought than those who represent us now....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, I really appreciate that sentiment. However, for a few reasons, I don't consider myself an ideal council candidate. Other than the obvious barriers to a successful candidacy (fear of public speaking, hesitation to be in the public's "cross-hairs," inexperience managing a campaign, lack of island-wide support, etc) my biggest set back is the fact that I already have a full time job managing my business. I feel strongly that the complexities of being a council-member necessitate that each member make it their full time job. Because I believe that council-members shouldn't make decisions simply based on ideological biases (from either side of the spectrum), I don't think that I could be effective unless I dedicated my time solely to understanding and solving the deep and systemic issues that we face. Which, in my humble opinion, with a full time job (or even part-time) is impossible. Thanks again though.

      Delete