Additional Case Studies

Terminator Genes
Dust Bowl
Organic farming in Cuba
Regenerative farming in Iowa

Research in biotechnology and genetic engineering is very expensive. Monsanto is reported to have spent $500 million developing Roundup Ready genes, or about as much as the entire annual USDA research budget. Naturally, they want to protect potential profits from this valuable property. Farmers who buy Monsanto seeds are required to sign a contract that stipulates what kinds of pesticides can be used on fields as well as an agreement not to save seed or allow patented crops to cross with other varieties. Seed sleuths investigate to ensure that contracts are fulfilled. By inserting unique hidden sequences in their synthetic genes, forensic molecular biologists can detect the presence of patented genetic material in fields for which royalties weren't paid. Already Monsanto has taken legal action against more than 300 farmers for replanting proprietary seeds. Farmers claim they can't prevent transgenic pollen from blowing onto their fields and introducing genes against their will. A whole new set of legal precedents is likely to be established by these suits.

A new weapon has recently been introduced in this struggle that many people regard as quite sinister. Using genetic research of a USDA scientist, a small company called Delta and Pine Land developed genetic material officially entitled "gene protection technology" but commonly known as "terminator" genes. The terminator complex includes a toxic gene from a noncrop plant stitched together with two other bits of coding that keep the killer gene dormant until late in the crop's development, when the toxin affects only the forming seeds. Thus, although the crop yield is about normal, there is no subsequent generation and no worry about farmers saving and replanting. They have to buy new seed every year. Delta was quickly purchased by Monsanto for $1 billion, or hundreds of times the small company's book value. This may have been the only time a whole company was purchased just to get a gene complex.

Engineered sterility is not uncommon; it is widely used in producing hybrid crops such as maize. What is unusual about this gene-set is that it can be moved easily from one species to another, and it can be packaged in every seed sold by the parent company. It's also unique to deliberately introduce a toxin into the part that people eat. So what's wrong with a company trying to protect its research investment? For one thing, there's a worry that the toxins might be harmful to consumers, even though toxicity tests so far show no danger. Furthermore these genes may escape. What if some of our major crops become self-sterile and can no longer reproduce? A more immediate concern is the economic effects in developing countries. While seed saving is not common on farms in most developed countries, it is customary and economically necessary in many poorer parts of the world. Melvin Oliver, the principal inventor of the terminator genes, admits that "the technology primarily targets Second and Third World markets"-in effect, guaranteeing intellectual property rights even in countries where patent protection is weak or nonexistent.

Large corporations like Monsanto argue that without patent protection, they can't afford to do the research needed to provide further advances in biotechnology. Critics charge that these companies make enough profit in developed countries to pay back their costs. Targeting less-developed countries and introducing something as potentially dangerous as the terminator gene, they claim is immoral. International protests caused Monsanto to announce in 1999 that it was suspending plans to release crops with terminator genes "for the time being." Still, biotechnology research continues at a furious pace and other genetically-modified organisms are sure to be available soon. What do you think? Are those who protest this technology simply afraid of things that are new and unfamiliar, or are there legitimate reasons for concern? How can we assess risks in a novel and unknown technologies such as these?

Dust Bowl Days

Sunday, April 14, 1935, dawned bright and clear over the city of Amarillo in the Texas panhandle. That afternoon, however, a huge black cloud of dust appeared on the northern horizon and quickly swept across the treeless plains. The dust swirled past, thick as falling snow, as cars stalled in the streets and pedestrians bumped into each other, unable to see things a few feet away. Terrified families huddled together with wet towels over their faces and rags stuffed in cracks around windows and doors, but still the dust seeped in. Tiny dunes formed on windowsills and doorjams and even the food in the refrigerator was covered with dust. Is this the end of the world, they wondered. And where did all this dirt come from?

This storm became known as Black Sunday and inspired the term "dust bowl" to describe both the decade of the 1930s and the high plains area where it occurred. The heart of the dust bowl stretched from Texas to Manitoba but airborne dirt was often carried as far as the East Coast. Amarillo averaged nine serious dust storms per month from January to April - the main dust storm season -- between 1933 and 1938. In April 1934, it had "black blizzards" on twenty-three days. Homes, barns, tractors, and fields were buried under drifts up to 7 m (25 ft) high.

These dust storms were the worst human-caused environmental disaster the United States has ever experienced. The social, economic, and ecological costs were immense. The Soil Conservation Service, founded in 1935 to address this calamity, estimated that 40 billion tons of topsoil from the heart of the world?s breadbasket had blown away on the wind. By 1938, farm losses had reached $25 million per day and more than half the rural families on the Southern Plains were on relief. Thousands of people died of "dust pneumonia," while millions joined the mass migration described by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath (1939).

A prolonged drought beginning in 1931 was the immediate cause of the dust storms, but inappropriate agricultural practices allowed erosion to occur, exacerbating the situation. Early in the twentieth century, American farmers were caught up in a specialized, market-driven system that encouraged all-out production and drove out diversified, subsistence farming. During World War I, rising wheat prices, unusually wet weather, and availability of tractors and combines encouraged speculators to expand cultivation into previously untouched land. Without prairie sod to protect the soil, the land blew away when drought came back in the 1930s.

To combat wind erosion, the Soil Conservation Service sponsored research and demonstration projects in alternative farming methods. It also helped finance shelterbelts (rows of trees planted as windbreaks), strip-cropping, reestablishment of grass on damaged cropland, and new tillage methods. Although it will take centuries to rebuild topsoil, most of the visible signs of this terrible erosion have been erased and huge dust storms rarely occur now. Still, this historic example raises questions for current generations. Have we learned from our past mistakes? Are our agricultural policies and practices sustainable today?

The biggest experiment in low-input, sustainable agriculture in world history is occurring now in Cuba. The sudden collapse of the socialist bloc, upon which Cuba had been highly dependent for trade and aid, has forced an abrupt and difficult conversion from conventional agriculture to organic farming on a nationwide scale. Methods developed in Cuba could help other countries find ways to break their dependence on synthetic pesticides and fossil fuels.

Between the Cuban revolution in 1959 and the breakdown of trading relations with the Soviet Union in 1989, Cuba experienced rapid modernization, a high degree of social equity and welfare, and a strong dependence on external aid. Cuba's economy was supported during this period by the most modern agricultural system in Latin America. Farming techniques, levels of mechanization, and output often rivaled those in the United States. The main crop was sugarcane, almost all of which was grown on huge state farms and sold to the former Soviet Union at premium prices. More than half of all food eaten by Cubans came from abroad, as did most fertilizers, pesticides, fuel, and other farm inputs on which agricultural production depended.

Under the theory of comparative advantage, it seemed reasonable for Cuba to rely on international trade. With the collapse of the socialist bloc, however, Cuba's economy also fell apart. In 1990, wheat and grain imports decreased by half and other foodstuffs declined even more. At the same time, fertilizer, pesticide, and petroleum imports were down 60 to 80 percent. Farmers faced a dual challenge: how to produce twice as much food using half the normal inputs.

The crisis prompted a sudden turn to a new model of agriculture. Cuba was forced to adopt sustainable, organic farming practices based on indigenous, renewable resources. Typically, it takes three to five years for a farmer in the United States to make the change from conventional to organic farming profitable. Cuba, however, didn't have that long; it needed food immediately.

Cuba's agricultural system is based on a combination of old and new ideas. Broad community participation and use of local knowledge is essential. Scientific, adaptive management is another key. Diverse crops suitable to local microclimates, soil types, and human nutritional needs have been adopted. Natural, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass fuels are being substituted for fossil fuels. Oxen and mules have replaced some 500,000 tractors idled by lack of fuel.

Soil management is vital for sustainable agriculture. Organic fertilizers substitute for synthetic chemicals. Livestock manure, green manure crops, composted municipal garbage, and industrial-scale cultivation of high-quality humus in earthworm farms all replenish soil fertility. In 1995 more than 100,000 metric tons of worm compost were produced and spread on fields.

Pests are suppressed by crop rotation and biological controls rather than chemical pesticides. For example, the parasitic fly (Lixophaga diatraeae) controls sugarcane borers; wasps in the genus Trichogramma feed on the eggs of grain weevils; while the predatory ant (Pheidole megacephala) attacks sweet potato weevils. Pest control also involves innovative use of biopesticides, such as Bacillis thuringiensis, that are poisonous or repellent to crop pests. Finally, integrated pest management includes careful monitoring of crops and measures to build populations of native beneficial organisms and to enhance the vigor and defenses of crop species.

Worker brigades from schools and factories help provide farm labor during harvest season. In addition to state farms and rural communes, urban gardening provides a much-needed supplement to city diets. Individual gardens are encouraged, but community or institutional gardens-schools, factories, and mass organizations-also produce large amounts of food.

Although food supplies in Cuba still are limited and diets are austere, the crisis wasn't as bad as many feared. In some ways, this draconian transition is fortunate. Cuba is now on a sustainable path and is a world leader in sustainable agriculture. It could serve as a model for others who surely will face a similar transition when our supplies of fossil fuels run out.

Dick and Sharon Thompson operate a diversified crop and livestock farm near Boone, Iowa. Originally, the Thompsons practiced high-intensity, monocrop farming using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers just as all their neighbors did. But they felt that something was wrong. Their hogs and cattle were sick. Fertilizer, pesticide, and petroleum prices were rising faster than crop prices. They began looking for a better way to farm. Through 30 years of careful experimentation and meticulous recordkeeping, they have developed a set of alternative farming techniques they call "regenerative agriculture" because it relies on natural processes to rebuild and protect soil.

Rather than depend on synthetic chemical herbicides and pesticides to keep their fields clean of weeds and pests, the Thompsons use a variety of old and new techniques including crop rotation, cover crops, and mechanical cultivation. Instead of growing corn and beans over and over again in the same fields as most of their neighbors do, the Thompsons change crops every year so that no one weed species can become dominant and all species remain relatively easy to control. In the fall, nitrogen-fixing cover crops are planted to hold soil against wind erosion and to keep down weeds.

Before planting, animal manure is spread on fields to rebuild fertility. During the summer, cattle are pastured on fallow land, using intensive grazing techniques that discourage weed growth and spread of manure over the whole field. The soil organic content-the sentinel indicator of soil health-registers at 6 percent, which is more than twice that of their neighbors. Untouched Midwestern prairie usually has about 7 percent organic content. The capacity to store extra carbon in soil might allow farmers to bid on carbon set-aside contracts.

The high levels of organic matter and available nutrients in the Thompsons' fields, coupled with the absence of pesticides that might harm beneficial microbes and pathogens, help crops compete against weeds and insects. Weed control specialists predict that in the future more farmers will follow the Thompsons' lead and concentrate on microbial biocontrol rather than depend on conventional herbicide-dependent systems, some of which can impair soil quality and lead to carryover injury to crops.

Among the cultivation techniques used by the Thompsons are chisel plowing, ridge-tilling, and rotary hoe cultivation. These techniques leave more crop residue on the surface to protect the soil than does conventional moldboard plowing. Chisel plowing merely scratches the surface rather than turning the soil upside down. The rotary hoe is a tool used just after crops germinate to skim the soil surface and remove recently germinated weeds. In ridge tilling, a small plow scrapes weeds out of shallow valleys and mounds up soil into small ridges where crops grow.

More is known about the Thompson operation-production methods, yields, costs and returns, weed counts, soil quality, and environmental impacts-than any other similar farm in the United States. Through 30 years of on-farm experiments, the Thompsons have collaborated with scientists from a variety of institutions. Dozens of research reports and articles have been written about how the Thompsons' diversified farming system affects land fertility, erosion, and livestock health. Every year a field day is held on the farm to give neighbors and others a chance to see how the diversified system works.

While yields on the Thompsons' land is comparable to those of their neighbors, lower reliance on off-farm inputs-including pesticides, fertilizers, and animal drugs-keeps the Thompsons' production costs significantly lower than those in conventional cropping systems. Growing corn costs the Thompsons $1.50 per bushel compared to $2.11 per bushel on neighboring farms. Similarly, soybeans cost the Thompsons $3.90 per bushel compared to $4.80 per bushel for their neighbors. In addition to favorable financial returns, the Thompsons benefit in other ways from their innovative system. The quality of their soil is significantly better than that under conventional agriculture and is steadily improving in fertility, tilth, and health.

Through their innovative work, Dick and Sharon Thompson are helping find ways to profitably produce high yields without degrading the land or the environment. In 1996, the Thompsons were selected by the Des Moines Register as Iowa's "Farm Leaders of the Year" in recognition of their contributions to the science of sustainable agriculture.