[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Southern Sustainable Farming, pt 2
======================Electronic Edition======================
SOUTHERN SUSTAINABLE FARMING # 12
SEPTEMBER 1996
-part 2-
==========
Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
P.O. Box 324, Elkins, AR 72727
Phone (501) 292-3714; E-mail: HN3551@handsnet.org
Keith Richards, Editor
==========
SOUTHERN SUSTAINABLE FARMING is the bi-monthly voice of
the Southern SAWG, 50 member organizations working for
more sustainable agriculture in 13 Southern states.
Hard copy subscriptions via U. S. postal service:
$15 per year or $25 for two years
===============================================================
CONTENTS, part 2:
* Bt COTTON CREATING RESISTANCE TO Bt?
* U.S. ORGANIC SALES INCREASE TO $2.8 BILLION
* ORGANIC FARMERS RANK RESEARCH PRIORITIES
* NATIONAL ORGANIC REGULATIONS STILL IN THE WORKS
* GRASSROOTS ACTION SAVES SOME FUNDING
===============================================================
Bt COTTON CREATING RESISTANCE TO Bt?
by Max Woodfin
The first widespread commercial use of a
genetically engineered cotton seed has fallen short of
bollworm control in up to half the planted acres across the
South. The failure of the BollgardR seed to live up to
implied promises may result in the loss of Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) as perhaps the most effective tool of
organic farmers and integrated pest management
practitioners.
Even a best-case scenario would require farmers to
continue insecticidal spraying to supplement the genetic
controls, an expense many were led to believe would be a
thing of the past.
The worst-case scenario is economically and
environmentally staggering. If Bollgard's failure leads to a
super-resistant strain, conventional farmers, rather than
having a tool that would reduce insecticide use, would be
forced to spray more frequently. Organic farmers could
lose their most useful tool, with nothing to replace it on the
horizon.
The timing for many cotton farmers couldn't be
worse. Those who survived last year's beet armyworm
disaster were hoping for a good crop to get them back on
their feet. Others are trying to recoup losses from required
payments to boll weevil "eradication" programs that they've
already voted out. And in Texas, the worst drought since
the 1950s has sent projected yields plummeting.
Just as failing to take a full course of antibiotics
leads to antibiotic-resistant strains of germs, failure to
prepare Bollgard seeds with lethal doses of Bt can lead to
Bt-resistant pests.
Farmers Still Had to Spray
Monsanto Company, the manufacturer, said damage
has occurred only in areas with unusually high infestations
of bollworms.
"If you accept their claim about why this damage
has occurred, then there is no way in hell they can stop
resistance," said Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the
Agriculture and Biotechnology Program of the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
The damage occurred in up to half of the almost
two million acres of Bollgard cotton planted throughout the
cotton belt. Monsanto will not be specific about the exact
number of affected acres. In a telephone interview with
Southern Sustainable Farming, Gary Barton, Monsanto's
biotechnology spokesman would be no more specific than
to say "less than half" of the planted acres have been
sprayed, but said the number was closer to the high side of
half.
Bollgard costs the same or slightly more than
regular cotton seed. Monsanto requires a $32 per acre
technology licensing fee. Monsanto counts on the $32
being less than what would have been spent on insecticide
spraying. The Union of Concerned Scientists and others
have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to
suspend sales of Bollgard pending an investigation. EPA is
looking at the situation, but no results have been
announced.
Monsanto insists there is no problem, at least no
long-term problem. Barton said some reports were of
bollworm presence 40 times greater than previously
recorded. Allen Knutson, an entomologist with the Texas
A&M research station in Dallas, said that in North Texas,
with a heavy infestation, Bollgard worked well.
Barton said Bollgard achieved 95 percent or better
control in the areas where spraying was required, and with
that amount of control, "resistance is just not an issue at all
with the bollworm." However, in an August 14 letter to
Science magazine, Randy Deaton, Monsanto's product
development manager, seems to contradict his colleague.
"Monsanto is well aware of the potential for pests to adapt
to the Bt protein." The letter discusses refuges as a
resistance management technique and says with proper
refuge use, "resistance development in the bollworm can be
delayed significantly."
Those Who Make Mistakes Never Seem to Pay
Michael Hansen, a research associate with the
Consumer Policy Institute, called this year's scenario "the
quickest way to produce resistance. It couldn't have been
designed any better to do away with this important tool."
One of Monsanto's competitors also thinks
resistance is a problem. Abbott Laboratories used the
Bollgard problems to push spraying one of its products on
Bollgard fields "to insure Bt resistance management."
"Monsanto should listen more carefully to its
critics; it could learn something," said Michael Sligh of the
Rural Advancement Fund International. "At a conference
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the
spring, an impressive group of entomologists and other
scientists agreed that the question of resistance is not a
matter of whether, but when."
Keith Jones, director of agriculture and rural
development programs at the Sustainable Food Center in
Austin, Texas, said Monsanto should address its
responsibility. "Those who make the mistakes seem never
to have to pay the price. In this case, farmers are going to
have to spray more, we may have stronger pests that require
stronger pesticides and Bt could be rendered useless in a
wide range of crops."
Monsanto contends that it has too much invested in
Bollgard not to be on top of the situation. "Anyway, our
primary sales are in herbicides, not insecticides," Barton
said. "We don't stand to benefit if Bollgard fails."
*********************************************
U.S. ORGANIC SALES INCREASE TO $2.8 BILLION
Sales of U.S. organic products increased 22 percent
>from 1994 to 1995, according to a recent survey conducted
by Natural Foods Merchandiser magazine. Organic sales
increased from $2.31 billion in 1994 to $2.8 billion in
1995. This is the sixth year in a row the market for organic
products has increased more than 20 percent.
Several factors contributed to the continuing
growth, according to the magazine, including a widening
consumer base, expansion by natural products retailers,
regional and national promotional campaigns, greater
mainstream acceptance and increasing organic acreage.
The USDA estimates total organic farmland at
approximately 1,127,000 acres in 1996, up from an
estimated 550,267 acres in 1991. The number of organic
farmers has also increased from 2,841 in 1991 to 4,060 in
1994.
*************************************
ORGANIC FARMERS RANK RESEARCH PRIORITIES
When asked to rank 28 topics in terms of their
priority for research, certified organic farmers in the Mid-
Atlantic States (PA, MD, VA, WV, KY), the South (NC,
TN, AR, LA, GA, FL), and the Southwest (OK, TX, NM,
AZ) rated the following highest:
1. Relationship of growing practices to crop quality and
nutrition
2. Crop rotations for fertility and pest management
3. Relationship between plant nutrition and pest resistance
4. Direct-marketing opportunities and tools for organic
marketing
5. Consumer demand for organic products
6. Soil biology (e.g microbiology, soil organisms, etc.)
Other topics that were rated among the top ten nationally
include:
* Cover cropping, green manures
* Animal preventative health
* Access to markets, market diversification
* Non-synthetic animal medication
The Organic Farming Research Foundation
surveyed 945 certified organic growers in 44 states in
November 1995. Also included were questions on
commodities and markets, managing farm inputs, water
quality and usage, challenges to production, farm labor,
and farmgate economics. Final results of the 1995
National Organic Farmers' Survey is available for $10.00
>from OFRF, PO Box 440, Santa Cruz, CA 95061; phone
408-426-6606; fax 408-426-6670; email:
research@ofrf.org.
*******************************************
NATIONAL ORGANIC REGULATIONS STILL IN THE WORKS
Proposed regulations for the National Organics
Production Act are due out this fall from the USDA. The
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has completed
it's initial work on recommendations and sent them on to
the USDA. Once proposed regulations are posted in the
federal register, the public will have a 90-day period for
comments.
To receive a copy of the regulations when released,
contact Grace Gershuny at 202-720-8331 or e-mail to
Grace_J_Gershuny@usda.gov. If you have access to the
World Wide Web, check the USDA Home Page under
AMS Programs for current information at
http://www.usda.gov/ams/tmdnop.htm. For more
information, contact Dr. Harold Ricker, National Organic
Program at 202-720-3233 or Michael Sligh at 919-929-
7099.
***********************************
GRASSROOTS ACTION SAVES FUNDING FOR MANY SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS
Despite a Congress determined to dismantle much
of the federal government, most of the USDA programs
that help advance sustainable agriculture will receive either
level or only slightly less funding in the next fiscal year.
After the House/Senate conference committee on
Agriculture Appropriations completed its negotiations on
July 30, most of the programs supported by the Campaign
for Sustainable Agriculture received either the same or
slightly less funding than in 1996--although a few suffered
deeper cuts.
"We did remarkably well, because people in key
Southern states took time to telephone and write to
committee members," reports Campaign Regional
Coordinator Julie Burns. From May through July, hundreds
of grassroots activists wrote, faxed and called their
Congressmembers in support of sufficient funding for
programs that make a difference in their lives.
"Saving the ATTRA, State Mediation Grants, and
Minority Farmer programs from extinction was a major
victory," Burns says. "We also managed to get nearly the
same funding level as last year for a number of other
important programs, including SARE, Chapter 3
(SATDTP), WIC Farmers Market Nutrition, Rural
Cooperative Development Grants, and the National
Organics program."
Unfortunately, funding cuts to the direct farm
ownership and operating loan programs were dramatic, and
two new conservation programs were cut severely at the
last minute in the conference committee--the Farmland
Preservation and the Conservation Farm Option programs,
both of which originated with the Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture. Senate negotiators caved in to the
much lower amounts supported by the House, giving each
of these programs only $2 million instead of the $10 and
$7.5 respectively which was allotted by the Senate.
Ferd Hoefner, who worked hard to garner Senate
support for these programs, said, "After all the
environmental self-congratulation in Congress when these
Farm Bill conservation initiatives passed just a couple of
months ago, it's deeply disappointing to watch [the
conference committee] turn around and gut the budgets for
the very same programs." Money cut from these programs
was used in particular for a large increase in spending for
university and ARS building projects (aka "pork").
For more details about any of the programs
mentioned, contact Margaret Krome at 608-238-1440, or
Ferd Hoefner at 202-547-5754.
Connect Mail Sent: September 26, 1996 9:58 am PDT Item: R00YlVG