Market

Market
Showing posts with label green revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green revolution. Show all posts

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Beyond Green Revolution-New insight into greater food production

Doomsday sayers have been raising the specter of famine and starvation due to mismatch between population growth and food production since a long time. But there are eternal optimists who feel if human race has outlived such situations in the past it will also find some away to perpetuate itself with suitable ameliorating strategies. Whether one believes it or not the oft repeated claim by many pundits is that one in eight people, on an average remains hungry due to inability to get adequate food every day! This works out to more than 800 million of the global population who remain starved, one of the reasons being non-availability of food near their habitat. But this is disputed by some social activists who contend that access to food is denied to these unfortunate fellow denizens because of economic compulsions, viz inadequate buying power. What ever it be, fact still remains that there does exist a problem vis-a-vis food security. This is compounded by the wide prevalence of nutrition insecurity due to imbalanced food production profile that constitutes today's crop mix. It is sad that more priority is accorded to crops like sugarcane and cereals than pulses and oil seeds in may countries depriving the people of the vital nutrient dense food commodities so necessary for an active and healthy life. Added to this the critical shortage of land for expanding agriculture further, places roadblocks for increasing food production. This calls for new strategies and approaches to quantitatively and qualitatively increase food production in coming years. Success of a group of scientists in Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York State in the US on plant flowering and the possibility of gene manipulation to increase yield of crops like Tomato through Florigen-Antiflorigen system gives hope for achieving quantum jump in food production much faster than that which can be obtained through conventional plant breeding. Here is a take on this exciting development.

"Crop yields of tomato plants could be boosted by 100 percent and plant breeders will be able to combine different gene variants among the set to create an optimal plant architecture for particular varieties and growing conditions. The set of mutations will enable farmers to maximize yield in tomatoes and potentially many other flowering plants, including staple crops like soybeans. Natural variation in plant genes stopped being the best way to increase yield a while ago and yield gains are plateauing. That means a modern scientific approach is needed. Worldwide, more than 842 million people do not receive adequate nourishment, about 1 person in 8 alive today. The cost of food is expected to increase and hunger is likely to become more widespread as the global population expands to beyond 9 billion by 2050 unless improvements are made in the agriculture of developing nations. Ancient humans recognized that selecting plants with modified architectures could have a major impact on the amount of fruit they produce. In general scientific terms, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Associate Professor Zachary Lippman explains, "Plant architecture results from a delicate balance between vegetative growth – shoots and leaves – and flower production. To increase crop yields, we want plants to produce as many flowers and fruits as possible, but this requires energy – energy that is produced in leaves." A set of genetic variants can dramatically increase tomato production. On the far left is the average yield from a plant that grows standard canning tomatoes. The next three piles were produced by plants with mutations found in the toolkit. The combination of genetic mutations on the far right produces twice as many tomatoes as the standard variety. Credit: Zachary Lippman/ Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory In tomatoes and all other flowering plants, the balance between vegetative growth and flowers is controlled by a pair of opposing hormones, called florigen and anti-florigen. Prior work by Lippman and Israeli colleagues showed that a mutation in florigen can shift the balance between vegetative growth and flowering, modifying plant architecture in a way that increases yield. This suggested that the balance between florigen and anti-florigen might not yet be optimal in tomato plants, despite centuries of breeding with natural variants. In a study published today in Nature Genetics, Lippman and colleagues identified an array of new gene mutations that allow, for the first time, a way to fine-tune the balance of florigen to anti-florigen. This maximizes fruit production without compromising the energy from leaves needed to support those fruits. "We mixed and matched all of the mutations," explains Lippman. "And we were able to produce plants with a broad range of architectures. Together, our collection of mutations forms a powerful toolkit for breeders to pinpoint a new optimum in flowering and architecture that can achieve previously unattainable yield gains." With multiple genetic variants, breeders can combine different mutations to provide a new optimum for their particular variety (as shown above) and growing conditions. Credit: Zachary Lippman/ Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The breakthrough benefit of the toolkit, says Lippman, is that it allows farmers to customize genetic variations for particular varieties and growing conditions. "For example, we found that different combinations boost yields for cherry tomatoes and other fresh-market tomatoes compared to tomatoes that are processed for sauce, ketchup, and other canned products. We've tested this in multiple genetic backgrounds, in multiple years, and in multiple environments – and the toolkit always provides a new maximum yield." These results are likely to be broadly applicable to other flowering crops, Lippman says. Mutations that affect florigen and anti-florigen are already known to play a role in controlling plant architecture for the oil crops rapeseed and sunflower, and can be applied in those. But the team is anxious to move on to critical food crops, specifically soybeans, which share many growth similarities with tomato"

 If scientists have been able to increase tomato production by 100% through this new approach there is no reason why the same success cannot be ensured for other more critical crops like pulses and oil seeds. In India the agricultural production has no doubt increased after the success of Green Revolution heralded by late Norman Borlaug but the food production profile seems to be lopsided with heavy emphasis on crops like cereals, sugarcane and non-food crops, neglecting such vital crops like pulses and oil seeds which continue to be imported at great cost to the exchequer. Though light, temperature and environment do play a part in crop production, the new emerging technology involving florigen-antiflorigen manipulation through gene mutation to change the plant architecture favoring more flowering and fruiting, appears to be best suited to Indian conditions. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) must collaborate with the the institution that is pioneering the new technology to enable the country to achieve increased production of pulses and oilseed crops without losing much time.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

A Crusader's fiery opposition to modern agricultural system

Given below is a reference to the campaign by a fiery activist in India against modern input intensive agriculture and the fast spreading use of GMO technology for producing food for the world. While reading the report one cannot help getting a feeling that though she has many strong points in repudiating the current system, there are lot more issues that need careful consideration and analysis before out right condemnation.  It is not necessary for the reader to agree with whatever she says but one can get a right perspective on the changing agricultural landscape in the world in response to an expanding population that is predicted to reach 10 billion by the end of this century. 

"Shiva's fiery opposition to globalization and to the use of genetically modified crops has made her a hero to anti-G.M.O. activists everywhere. The purpose of the trip through Europe, she had told me a few weeks earlier, was to focus attention there on "the voices of those who want their agriculture to be free of poison and G.M.O.s." At each stop, Shiva delivered a message that she has honed for nearly three decades: by engineering, patenting, and transforming seeds into costly packets of intellectual property, multinational corporations such as Monsanto, with considerable assistance from the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the United States government, and even philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are attempting to impose "food totalitarianism" on the world. She describes the fight against agricultural biotechnology as a global war against a few giant seed companies on behalf of the billions of farmers who depend on what they themselves grow to survive. Shiva contends that nothing less than the future of humanity rides on the outcome. "There are two trends," she told the crowd that had gathered in Piazza Santissima Annunziata, in Florence, for the seed fair. "One: a trend of diversity, democracy, freedom, joy, culture—people celebrating their lives." She paused to let silence fill the square. "And the other: monocultures, deadness. Everyone depressed. Everyone on Prozac. More and more young people unemployed. We don't want that world of death." The audience, a mixture of people attending the festival and tourists on their way to the Duomo, stood transfixed. Shiva, dressed in a burgundy sari and a shawl the color of rust, was a formidable sight. "We would have no hunger in the world if the seed was in the hands of the farmers and gardeners and the land was in the hands of the farmers," she said. "They want to take that away." Shiva, along with a growing army of supporters, argues that the prevailing model of industrial agriculture, heavily reliant on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels, and a seemingly limitless supply of cheap water, places an unacceptable burden on the Earth's resources. She promotes, as most knowledgeable farmers do, more diversity in crops, greater care for the soil, and more support for people who work the land every day. Shiva has particular contempt for farmers who plant monocultures—vast fields of a single crop. "They are ruining the planet," she told me. "They are destroying this beautiful world."

No matter who says what world has to come up with new ideas and programs to goad the farmers to produce more food to meet the increasing demand for food without expanding the current level of land utilization. In stead of squabbling on this vital issue, it is time that all countries put their heads together to arrive at a consensus regarding the most feasible way of achieving increased production of foods. While debating about the best route to go about the imposing task, what is not negotiable is that safety of humans and quality of the environment they live in. Predominantly private initiatives in seed development and evolution of new farm technology must give way to more government controlled programs that will have no strings attached vis-a-vis direct economic returns. Privatization of fruits of research and finance linked intellectual property regime cannot be allowed to dictate to the world the terms of utilizing the scientific results for the common good of the people inhabiting this planet.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Sunday, November 13, 2011

NEW GREEN REVOLUTION-RUSE FOR PUSHING GM TECHNOLOGY INTO AFRICA?

A hungry world is definitely not a place for peace and harmony and the the origin of the so call economic aid from rich countries lies in this irrefutable fact. while tall promises are made from time to time in multilateral meetings and conferences, the follow up action invariably never matches the rhetoric. True, the people in poor countries owe a lot to the developed countries for food aids which serve the purpose of keeping starvation away from the doors of many famished families but the situation can be improved further if the promised aid is delivered as per the commitments made and without any strings attached. Unfortunately a country like the US, considered the most powerful in the world, has a "stingy" and "with strings attached" policy in releasing its aid as reflected by the following critique by dispassionate observers: 

"In March 2009, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed its Global Food Security Act (SB 384). The legislation, known as the Lugar-Casey Act, aims to focus on longer-term agricultural development, and restructure aid agencies to better respond to crises. Funding for agricultural development - some US$7.7 billion worth - would be directed in large part to genetically modified crop research.[1] In other words, food aid policy for the first time mandates the use of genetic modification technologies. Engineered crops will need engineered seeds - seeds that are no longer a result of natural cross-pollination. The Lugar-Casey Act represents the biggest project in agriculture since the original Green Revolution in the 1950s and 1960s. Fifty years ago, developing countries had yearly agricultural trade surpluses of over US$1 billion. Today the Southern food deficit has grown to over US$11 billion per year,[2] helping create dependency on the volatile international markets that led to the 2008 food crisis.[3] The first Green Revolution increased global food production by 11 per cent in a very short time, but per capita hunger also increased equally as much.[4] How could this be? Green Revolution technologies are expensive. The fertilisers, seeds, pesticides, and machinery needed to cash in on productive gains put the technology out of reach of most small farmers, increasing the divide between rich and poor in the developing world. Poor farmers were driven out of business and into poverty-stricken urban slums. The new Green Revolution highlighted in the Lugar-Casey Bill suffers from all these same problems. This time, however, the genetically-engineered seeds will be under patent and privately owned by the biotechnology corporations that monopolise the seed industry, and farmers will have to buy new seed each year.[5] R&D dollars in the millions go to engineered climate-smart seeds as a solution to food security under climate stress. DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta and Limagrain control 29 per cent of the world market in seeds, with Monsanto controlling almost all of the genetically engineered seed. The Gates and Rockefeller foundations' partnership with Monsanto to bring an Asian-type Green Revolution to the African continent will invest US$150 million into the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). On its website, the Alliance describes itself as a 'dynamic partnership working across the continent to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger ... focusing on key aspects of African agriculture: from seeds, soil health and water to markets, agricultural education and policy'."

While as a country the US has every right to adopt GM foods for its citizens, it is nothing but travesty of justice that this donor country tries to export its GM technology from the monopolistic MNCs to the impoverished countries in African continent. As rightly pointed out by the critics, the farmers in Africa are being pushed from the "frying pan to the fire" because as it is they find it difficult to replicate even the proven but input intensive Green Revolution of Asia. The GM technology, if forced on them, will make them perennial slaves of the exploitative seed suppliers based in the US for generations to come. World must resist this neo colonism and find sustainable alternatives to solve the hunger crisis of the continent.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Thursday, March 31, 2011

GREEN REVOLUTION-ROOT CAUSE OF TO DAY'S FOOD PROBLEMS?

Some times it is very difficult to discern what is true in floods of statements eulogizing a person or a development for some visible short term gain. The Green Revolution (GR) in Asia, supposed to be engineered by Dr Norman Borlaug has been acclaimed as the most significant achievement of man in the last century and India was also supposed to have been benefited by the break-through in agriculture technology that ensured increased supply of Rice and Wheat. How ever GR could not succeed in making any impact on the production of pulses and oil seeds in which the country is still stagnating. That aside, recent attempts by some world bodies to encourage replicating the GR in North Easter Region (NER) is attracting genuine criticism which must be addressed before GOI invests its resources, obviously to please the local people from political angle. The most severe criticism of GR is about the chemical intensive nature of the cultivation practice and predominant shifting from multi-culture to mono culture cultivation, causing severe damage to millions of acres of fertile land in the country and no amount of "repair" can restore the soil to its original health. Who is going to answer to this serious apprehension? Those, who glorify themselves year after year for past "achievements", setting up tax sheltered foundations, for research in their name, acquiring national and international grants, accept innumerable "awards" showered on them, serve in umpteen number of Babu-dominated committees at Delhi to give politically convenient recommendations, must be held accountable and responsible for thousands of farmer suicides during last two decades.

Economic Survey 2011 too suggests strengthening Green Revolution in eastern India as the probable route to increase food production. The other day I heard Ashok Gulati of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) saying on the TV that extending Green Revolution to eastern India would provide a sustained supply of surplus food for the next 30 years or so. Well, if you followed the work of IFPRI, this shouldn't come as a surprise. IFPRI is essentially a PR agency for agribusiness industry masquerading as a research institute. Green Revolution has already played havoc with the intensively farmed regions in India. The use and abuse of chemical inputs have already taken a heavy toll. Soils are poisoned, environment is contaminated, aquifers have gone dry, and the resulting the food chain has become unhealthy. The devastation wrought by the NPK model of agriculture, and the unwanted application of chemical pesticides, have in many ways caused a kind of a Holocaust that remains hidden from public glare. The destruction that Green Revolution has inflicted has been deliberately kept under wraps. In fact, the large number of farmer suicides that we witness in India -- more than 250,000 in the past 15 years -- are actually the outcome of the failure of Green Revolution. We are now hell bent on extending the great tragedy of Green Revolution to the hitherto verdant lands and people of eastern India.

The critics are right in pleading that NER, one of the most fertile land areas remaining untouched by GR must be spared the agony of long term adverse consequences which can drive more farmers to suicide. Recent banning of Jhum cultivation in some parts of NER, with government encouragement and financial support may push the farmers to GR practices which will also be heavily subsidized by the government and one can imagine the consequences to future generation in that region. Why are the politicians, "scientific politicians", bureaucrats sitting at Delhi ignoring the writing on the wall and spare the poor farmers from the agony of future depredations? Will sanity prevail before it is too late? One can only hope so!
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com