The Original How-to Magazine of Alternative and Traditional Crops, Livestock, and Direct Marketing—Established 1984
Editorials...
From the Ridge:
Mar/Apr 2008: Water, Water...
Jan/Feb 2008: Keeping the Fire Going
Sep/Dec 2007: A Look Back, and Moving On
Jul/Oct 2007: The Truth: An Irate Editorial
May/Jun 2007: Carbon Credits
Mar/Apr 2007: A New Year
Jul-Oct 2006: Say No to NAIS
May/Jun 2006: Planning Ahead
Jan/Feb 2006: Reading This Magazine
Nov/Dec 2005: Show Lessons
Sep/Oct 2005: A Farm by any Other Name...
Jul/Aug 2005: Poor Planning: Patenting Life and Preemptive Laws
May/Jun 2005: The Best Show in the Country
Mar/Apr 2005: Our Connection to the Earth
Jan/Feb 2005: Pricing Your Product
Nov/Dec 2004: Better Than Ever
Sep/Oct 2004: A Risky Business
Jul/Aug 2004: Sustainable Ag in Danger in Missouri
May/Jun 2004: Spring Renewal
Mar/Apr 2004: A Mostly Happy Anniversary to Us
Jan/Feb 2004: What Are Your Plans?
Nov/Dec 2003: Ramblings From the Ridge
Sep/Oct 2003: Some Risks You Have to Take
Jul/Aug 2003: Problems with the Farm Problem—Technology is Not the Answer
May/Jun 2003: Planning for the Show
Mar/Apr 2003: Old Breeds and Old Seeds
Jan/Feb 2003: A New Year, A New Cycle
Dec 2002: Start Planning Now! The New Year Brings New Opportunities!
Sep/Oct/Nov 2002: The Show is Here! Ten Years and Still Growing!
Jul/Aug 2002: Saving Seeds Makes Your Farm More Sustainable
May/Jun 2002: 10,000 for the 10th Show
Mar/Apr 2002: Biotechnology is NOT Saving the World
Jan/Feb 2002: Farm Numbers Dwindling? They Don't Have To.
Nov/Dec 2001: The Farm Program. Yes or No? or Why?
Sep/Oct 2001: Nothing is Inevitable
Jul/Aug 2001: A Problem With Soybeans
May/Jun 2001: Changes in Current Farming (and an apology)
Mar/Apr 2001: Trade Show Talk
Jan/Feb 2001: Changing Our Thinking
Nov/Dec 2000: Good Life, Good Money
Sep/Oct 2000: The GM Blues
Jul/Aug 2000: Eurofarming
May/Jun 2000: Doom and Gloom and Optimism
Mar/Apr 2000: Opportunity Knocks
Jan/Feb 2000: 2000 and Beyond
Oct/Nov/Dec 1999: Choosing the Right Solutions
Aug/Sep 1999: Attitude for Success
Jun/Jul 1999: Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory
Apr/May 1999: The More Things Change...
Feb/Mar 1999: Protecting the Future
Contents:
Home
About Us
Content / Subscriptions
Country Store Books™
Books / Back Issues
Advertising
Writers’ Guidelines
For the Farm
(new and used products
for your farm)
Calendar
Online Resources (links)
16th National Small Farm
Trade Show & Conference™
November 6-8, 2008
• Schedule of Events
• Audio tapes from past seminars & short courses
about Small Farm Today
3903 W Ridge Trail Rd
Clark MO 65243-9525
573-687-3525
(call for fax number)
800-633-2535
smallfarm@socket.net
www.smallfarmtoday.com
Rebecca DeCourley
ChaosDesignArt
Feedback on our web site
Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory
Editorial from the June/July 1999 issue of Small Farm Today® magazine.
This editorial was initiated after we received an e-mail from an Extension agent in which he had some comments about my previous editorial (see Letters, SFT Jun/Jul 99). He disputed my statement that, "In a rational world a farmer would have a case against the bioengineering company, for ruining his [or her] open-pollinated seed." I plan to expand on that statement and explain my reasoning.
I believe that contamination of the remaining open-pollinated crops on this planet by "genetically modified" seed does nothing but destroy a gene pool which we may need in the future. To convince you of this, I think it is necessary that everyone first understand the terms involved in plant breeding–not everyone is aware of the definitions and mechanics involved in pollination.
Pollination is how nature selects genes from plants for future generations. My old college botany book explains pollination as the fertilization of an egg in the plant's ovary. A seed will form only if pollen grains are deposited on the stigma of the plant. There are several terms generally used for pollination: open-pollinated, cross-pollinated, and self-pollinated.
Open-pollinated is a general term meaning that the seed saved from a plant will breed true–the seed will produce a plant similar to the parent plant. In contrast, seed saved from hybrid plants (if it germinates) will not produce a plant similar to the parent plant. This is often because hybrid plants are produced from crossing two inbred parent lines, as is done with hybrid corn. Hybridization might also be described as crossing two plants which are different in at least one set of characteristics. (This is a simplification of the difference between open-pollinated and hybrids, but sufficient for the purpose of this editorial.)
Open-pollinated plants can be pollinated in two ways. Self-pollinated is the pollination of a stigma by pollen from the same flower or another flower of the same plant. Oats, wheat, barley, rice, peas, beans, soybeans, peanuts, flax, cotton, lettuce, tomatoes, and tobacco are all self-pollinated.
Cross-pollination is the transfer of pollen from the anther (male part) of a flower of one plant to the stigma (female part) of a flower of another plant of the same or related species. In corn, the male part of the tassel produces about 30 million pollen grains, which drift to the silks (female) of another ear of corn. Each silk produces one kernel of corn (the seed). The mechanism of the transfer of pollen maybe wind, insects, birds, or even water. In controlled breeding experiments, people will "paint" the pollen they desire from one plant onto another. Cross-pollination brings about a greater diversity of hereditary traits from the two parents. In general, cross-pollination is more common than self-pollination, and occurs in corn, canola, asparagus, cabbage, broccoli, carrots, celery, cucumbers, beets, spinach, radishes, melons, onions, parsley, pumpkins, most berries, and most orchard trees.
Neither self- or cross-pollination of a plant are always guaranteed-it is possible for cross pollination to occur in self-pollinated fields (and vice versa). Many cross pollinated plants do have adaptations to avoid self-pollination–if self-pollination does occur in these plants, it may reduce yields. Blueberries, for instance, need two different varieties planted in the field, or berry production will be severely curtailed.
I have said that pollination is how nature selects genes for future generations. There is another way to select genes, which I will refer to as genetic modification (GM). GM crops are those which are artificially manipulated by humans, by inserting genes into a plant by means other than pollination. These genes may be shot in, placed in, replaced, or inserted–any non-natural means of placement counts. These genes may or may not be from the same species–or even the same kingdom. Many experiments involve manipulations such as putting a fish gene into a tomato. The plants are then bred and multiplied in the normal manner.
Some people will argue that this is no different than what nature does. In truth, pollination does genetically modify a plant–but at a slower rate than (artificial) genetic modification, with time for nature to select suitable plants and eliminate oddities. Of course, in nature, an animal gene will never find its way into a plant. Even in nature, selection mistakes can occur, such as when one grower produced potatoes with an excess of a poisonous alkaloid. How much more likely are mistakes in GM crops, where major changes are easily accomplished?
All of this discussion of definitions leads up to my point. Seed corporations need to acknowledge their debt to farmers, and take care to avoid damage to our genetic seed legacy.
Over 1,000 varieties of corn were developed by the American Indians and early farmers of this country before the first ag school was founded. Later, farmers donated their homegrown open-pollinated seed to university researchers, who used tax dollars to develop public varieties. These varieties then went to seed companies, who developed their own hybrids, sometimes with the aid of additional university research. Since we can trace those varieties back to public ownership, how can Corporate America claim these seeds as their own? Yes, their research dollars are involved, and they need a return on their investment–but ownership of the seed should be out of the question.
My original editorial statement was, "In a rational world a farmer would have a case against the bioengineering company, for ruining his or her open-pollinated seed." It is a fact that GM crops have the capability of crossing with open-pollinated crops, contaminating the OP crop with the artificially-added genes. Imagine a farm family that has saved their seed for 40 years, and developed a strain particularly adapted to their farm, soil, and weather, for sale to a niche market such as organic com chips. Why is a neighboring farmer allowed to use a GM seed which will cross with the organic seed and eliminate the family's niche market and premium price? Why shouldn't the family have a case against their neighbor, and the GM seed company?
In some areas of the country, industrial rapeseed (with high erucic acid) and canola (an edible rapeseed with low or no erucic acid) are grown. If they are planted within a few miles of each other, the resulting crosses render both crops unsuitable for their intended purposes. To avoid these problems, Idaho established six rapeseed production areas in 1986. This same idea–areas of production–could be applied to GM crops, although the resulting legal hassles would be horrendous.
This idea could be applied in other ways, too. Organic farmers must pay a fee and grow their crops and livestock by regulated methods, and must be inspected before they can claim organic certification. Conventional farmers who plant GM crops, spray them repeatedly, and feed their livestock growth regulators, pay no fee, have no restrictions, and do not have to put any of what they do on a label. Why not?
Consumers certainly seem to have an interest in healthy, sustainably raised crops, and would probably appreciate a label identifying sprays used on them. In many places consumers have voted with their dollars against GM crops. ADM and A.E. Stanley have announced that they will not buy GM crops except for four specific varieties approved by European governments. European consumers do not want any other varieties imported. If consumers don't desire it, why raise it?
Corporate America is not offering or participating in any compromises. They are unfortunately taking a short-term view on profits, rather than a long-term view of what is best for the country. Also unfortunately, they have deep pockets and lots of lawyers. Their patents say that all seeds and all plants are theirs, period. If you don't like it, too bad. They are willing to sue anyone, enact draconian laws, exert social pressures, and use any other methods they can to eliminate their competition–the open-pollinated, seed-saving growers. It's time for those growers–that is, you and me–to fight back.
Happy and Profitable Farming,
Ron Macher
Publisher/Farmer