Recently I was invited to participate in a series of online exchanges called Room for Debate, organized by the New York Times. This is the second one I've done, and the format calls for 300 words or so in response to a problem highlighted by the Times. The exchange was about Roundup resistant weeds, and can be seen here: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/invasion-of-the-superweeds/
The other participants said about what you'd expect: Michael Pollan hates GMO's, and Monsanto. The weed scientists remarked upon the need for rotation in chemicals, as did I. The foodie hates Monsanto as well, and the only solution to our present problems in agriculture is a retreat to the past, a sort of search for Eden. Biblically, as well as agronomically, this presents some problems.
The interesting part was the 100 or so comments. When I get involved in these things, I sometimes wonder whether it is even possible for me to communicate with those who've decided that agriculture is too big, too scientific, and without a moral compass.
Almost all of the comments show an unbelievable ignorance of the problems we farmers' face, and the solutions we've adopted. Agriculture shouldn't be immune to criticism, but the critics should take time to do their homework.
I'm perhaps too wedded to the present system, too conflicted to examine problems fairly, too bought and paid for by the chemical companies to have anything worthwhile to say. But I've seen my crops ruined by weeds, I've spent days swinging a hoe and driving a cultivator, and I have some vague grasp of how much food it takes to feed 6 billion inhabitants of this planet.
All those things are ignored by our critics, assumed away in a rush to be greener than the last commentator, more socially conscious than the guy who went before. These people are different than you and I, and not in a good way.
Well, no, we can't control weeds by counting on armies of the unemployed to show up at our farms with hoes. I don't really want prisoners on work release to be responsible for tending my crops, as one reader suggested. Michael Pollan sparked a whole line of comments with his call for 'polyculture' - growing different crops at the same time in the same field. That, I guess, would imply hand harvesting as well. We could keep the prisoners busy longer that way!
One correspondent noticed that the picture attached to the article showed a sprayer applying what was obviously (to me) Treflan to an unplanted field. An example of ignorance and over-application, as the reader automatically assumed that the stupid farmer was spraying Roundup before the weeds even appeared! Clearly, we farmers are too dumb to be trusted, and should vet all field operations with the readers of the New York Times.
Sauted pigweeds?The example of a Roundup resistant weed given in the original article was giant pigweed. Several respondents thought the perfect solution was to just eat the pigweeds. I'm not sure how you prepare pigweeds - a sauté, ground up as a paste, mixed with broccoli? I'm sure I'd have to douse them with lots of blue cheese dressing to get them choked down.
I'm not happy that Roundup resistant weeds have surfaced, and if Monsanto actually said that the development of those weeds was unlikely, then shame on Monsanto. Several commentators made snarky comments about evolution-implying that we who practice modern agriculture have never noticed the process of natural selection, or somehow have doubts that weeds and insects evolve to survive natural and man made enemies.
The real denial of all science and experience is on the other side. This idea that technology is unneeded, that we can increase food production without modern fertilizers and weed control, that farmers have adapted genetically modified seed and pesticides because of advertising, ag schools co-opted by grants from Monsanto, and free seed corn caps, is the true triumph of faith over facts.