Seeds, Genes and Business as Usual

(April 21) — I would like to know what Americans think about plant biotechnology. What do the Europeans really think about GM products? Or the Chinese? Or anybody, for that matter. But I don’t know how to find out.

Perhaps I should conduct a public opinion poll, you suggest. That might be a good idea, but what questions should I ask? Should I ask people if they approve of the use of genetically modified organisms to grow our food?

Or should I ask if they believe transgenic are safe to eat? Or should I ask them if they are comfortable getting their food from plants that have been made immune to crop damaging insects and require farmers to use less? How should I word my questions?

Remember, we are polling a population where more than half of the respondents to one survey said that normal tomatoes do not have DNA. It is the same population where about half of the respondents in another poll were uncertain whether Africa was a country or a continent.

Asking people anything about genetically modified plants will result in answers that are more a reflection of how the question was asked and less about personal knowledge. Americans know so little about science that they know virtually nothing about current plant biotechnology.

But even if I did conduct a survey, would its results accurately reflect public opinion? I doubt it. Opinion polls tend to reflect the bias of the poll taker as much as public opinion. If I could average ten opinion polls about biotechnology, I might have a better picture of what people are thinking.

But there are not ten concurrent opinion polls on biotechnology. The only topic that I know gets so much attention is people’s opinion about the President and Congress. Www.realclearpolitics.com  tracks ten opinion polls on politics. These results tell us as much about polling as about the President.

Results of these ten polls are summarized by three percentages: Approve, Disapprove and Spread (approve minus disapprove). Regardless how I feel about our President’s performance, I can find a poll to supports me.

As I write this, these ten Real Clear Politics (RCP) polls give the President a +30.4 spread, i.e., 30 percent more people approve than disapprove. If I am an “Approver,” I would cite the CBS News/New York Times poll which gives him a +42 spread. On the other hand, if I am a “Disapprover,” I would cite the Rasmussen Reports poll which gives Mr. Obama only a +10 spread.

Or should I single out the Cook/RT Strategies and Ipsos/McClatchy polls - they both report a +30 spread? My point is this: polling data is not as definitive as it is cracked up to be. Mentioning that the poll has a margin of error plus or minus so many percents sounds authoritarian, it is an irrellevant sideshow.

So, if I want to know exactly how Americans feel about genetically modified crops, where can I find an accurate answer? I’m not sure we have an answer. On balance, I’d say most American know too little to know what they think. Europeans know even less. 

No wonder the EU appears to be so opposed to plant biotechnology. If EU public polling would reflect more of what people know and focus less on fanciful opinions, the results would look entirely different. Beware of anyone bearing news based on public opinion polls.

(April 14) — It seems like it is getting harder and harder to know what is real, to know what is really the truth of an article. I used to think that there are two sides to every story but not anymore. If you listed to the talking heads or read the blogs, there might be at least three or four or twelve sides top every story. But there should always be truth.

I am just old enough that I still believe that for questions of fact, there is only one right, truthful answer. Unless you are trying to solve the quadratic equation, two different answers to the saame question cannot both be correct. 

Life would be so much simpler if we were trying to find answers to the quadratic equation, but few of us spend much time worrying about quadratics. The answers we look for are far less obvious. Nuances surround the not so obvious.

What, for example, is the truth about fuel ethanol produced from corn - does it take more or less energy to make a gallon of ethanol than that gallon delivers? Someplace there is a real answer and that answer does not change from one day to the next just because someone has published a new research paper or given a speech or written a new blog entry.

On a related topic, how much has ethanol’s corn consumption influenced the price of food - a little? a lot? or not enough to notice? There is an absolute answer to that question, but absolute answers seldom serve our parochial interests.

Politicians, it seems, have become notorious masters of spinning the truth for their own personal purposes. But they are not alone - it is hard to find an objective news report that does not have some spin to one side or the other.

Why is it so hard to know what is really happening in the world around us? What has changed from when I first thought that a story has only two sides? Ross Perot’s “follow the money trail” explanation is no longer a sufficient answer, at least in the short run.

My first inclination is to blame the Internet and 24-hour news channels. To its credit (or discredit, depending on your view), the Internet has made it possible for everyone to be connected to the world. Our ability to hear and be heard is limited only by the amount of time we are willing to commit to the effort.

As a result we can say and hear anything without any measure or standard of truthfulness. Urban myths have found new life through Internet’s e-mail. The ability to cheaply and quickly broadcast e-mail messages has blurred the line between news and propaganda.

NGOs (non-government organizations), politicians, corporate PR departments - they have all become masters at telling their side of a story. Take a bit of fact, ignore whatever else is relevant and tell the story that you want told seems to be the rule of the day.

At the end of the day, the first casualty in news is often the news itself.  

 (March 24) — Pardon me if I am confused, but it seems that the alarm of drastic, cataclysmic climate change and daily weather have become so intertwined that I cannot tell one from the other.

Climate change, as I understand it, is indicated by a long-term shift in global atmospheric conditions. It is a gradual shift in weather patterns beyond the usual year-to-year variations in local weather.

My most recent cause for confusion comes from an effort to have people go out to their back yards and document when their trees, shrubs and flowers start to bud, leaf out and bloom.

The idea is to get a lot of people involved with collecting information. This information, as I understand it, will then be analyzed and provide an indication that spring is earlier than usual this year. Thus, this information will give credence to the theory that human activity is causing our planet to become warmer and life as we know it is on the verge of extinction.

Blame it all on climate change

Once the ‘we are causing climate change” bandwagon got rolling, everything is getting thrown onboard. It as if nothing else in the world is changing except climate. I sometimes think people take such a simplistic look at the world around them that they are totally unaware of the complexity that is a part of every aspect of life.

The brown haze hanging over China is there because climate change has caused a shift in how the winds blow across that part of the world. Or, just maybe, is there a brown haze over China because the country has more coal-fire generating plants?

Or that US Airways airplane that crash landed in the Hudson River in January – did you read the report that blamed that crash on climate change? The flock of geese that fouled the plane’s engines (no pun intended!) were there because climate change had altered their migratory route. Or perhaps the airplane was just there at the wrong moment.

Daily weather happenings are widely variable. If weather events followed a strict pattern, we would not need meteorologists. All I would have to do to find whether this afternoon will bring sunny skies or rain would be to look at what happened on this date last year.

But we know weather is variable, and since our climate is the sum of daily weather, climate is also variable. The climate change devotees have arrived at their conclusion and look for validation in the least bit of normal variation.

Looking at when the tulips bloom and the first robin appears may be an interesting springtime observation, but it indicates nothing about our global weather pattern and says even less about the presence or absence of climate change.

As I read the daily stream of antagonistic comments about the role of transgenic crops, it is not too farfetched to conclude that GM corn and soybeans are most certainly the cause of global warming, climate change, sub-prime mortgage derivatives and untold future plagues.

The protest industry is so intent on making its case against globalization, multinational companies and scientific technology that it throws everything including the kitchen sink into the arguments. In the end, whatever legitimate contribution the “anti-everything modern” community could have is lost as it mixes politics and prejudice into what should be a factual, scientific discussion.

In the forensic discussion about the merits of GM crops, science and politics do not mix.

An unfortunate aspect of the anti-GM crop rhetoric is the propensity of the discussion to be couched in the guise of a scientific debate but to use discourse devoid of solid, substantial information. All to often, the genesis of anti-GM crop arguments is lost in a trail of countless Internet blogs and postings.

 One of the familiar refrains used in an attempt to discredit the products of biotechnology is that there has not been enough testing to establish the nonexistence of future harm.

This is a political, albeit illogical, assertion that is presented to contradict the rational assertion that GM crops are safe. This argument is absurd in the sense that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is an example of how scientific and political arguments are two ships passing in the night–never the twain shall meet.

Yet, this not-enough-testing argument is used to discredit products derived form GM crops while it could just as easily be used to discredit virtually anything. Dill pickles, broccoli, ketchup or fruit-flavored yogurt — have any of these been sufficiently tested to prove that no future harm can come from their use?

Or perhaps if enough testing were performed we would know that the cumulative, long-term use of coffee, green tea — you name the product — is causing sinister medical problems throughout our population. If only there were more testing, we could know.

The problem of mixing policies into a fact-based, scientific argument is that the result is nonsense. An even greater problem is that it is seldom possible to logically dissuade someone of an opinion arrived at illogically. Never mind the absurdity of the argument, antitechnology activists will continue use ambiguous political arguments in a science-based discussion.

 (March 4) Yesterday I had my day in court and I am glad I went. I had jury duty which meant I did not post any comments yesterday, so today a few reflections on being called to jury duty.

This was not my first call, I have been called several times into the pool of potential jurors and again today – in the words of Simon and Garfunkel – “I never got the chance to serve, I did not serve.” (Some of you surely remember Baby Driver.)

When the criminal court’s Summons to Jury Duty arrived in the mail several weeks ago, my initial thought was “I don’t have time for this.” All I remembered was sitting in a large room waiting for something to happen.

You have take time off from work, get there by 8:30 and hope that something begins to happen by 10:00. In other words, take a good book. The whole routine is predictable and scripted. From what I have seen in these occasional brushes with the court system, everything is scripted, even delays.

Promptly 30 minutes after the scripted starting time, a Judge came to the waiting room to thank us for coming and to remind us of the importance of the American jury system for settling legal issues.

It would have been easy to by cynical about the Judge’s remarks - what else could we do but wait patiently? To not be there at all would have put us in contempt of court - not a good idea.

Eventually 42 of us were called to the court room.  Before we entered, there were scripted instruction - hats off, cell phones and pagers off, stand when the Judge enters, no loud talking, etc.

Once inside the court room, we sat until we were told to stand for the Judge to make his entrance. Then he began to instruct us. His remarks were all scripted from a book provided by the state.

The Judge read our instructions in a tone that was friendly but serious.  As re instructed us about the value and importance of having a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes, I began to have an appreciation for the scripted procedures.

In this case, the accused was a twenty-something African-American man charged with assaulting a police officer. As far as the court was concerned, the nature of his alleged crime was immaterial — our instructions were focused was on the essential importance of a fair trial.

We were carefully instructed by both attorneys on the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” We were instructed on the deliberative process. We were told that the State has the burden of proving guilt and that the defense has no burden to prove innocence because the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

In the end, I was not called to sit in the jury box. But it was a worthwhile day that renewed my confidence that the American system of justice - in spite of its human frailties - is as fair and just as humanly possible. There is no better system anywhere in the world.

(February 24) — I seldom post a yield contest news release on the Seed Today web site for one simple reason: I do not trust yield contest results any more than I trust yield results from local, unreplicated strip plots.

Actually, if the truth be told, I think there are even reasons to not fully trust University yield data. Statistically, University yield results are probably the most accurate. But statistical accuracy is not the same as real world relevance. More on that idea sometime later.

Back to my reluctance to publish yield contest results. In a nutshell, it is too easy for someone to spin the numbers, distort the truth and extrapolate more from the numbers than what the numbers actually mean.

When I start looking at yield results, two thoughts come to mind. First, “Figures lie and liars figure.” Second, tell me “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

There is so much that goes on behind the scenes at yield contests that the whole concept is little more than a manipulated promotional stunt being passed of as something with real meaning.

Genetic Potential vs Environment

Recently I broke my own rule when I posted results of a yield contest.  I decided to use the article for one imple reason: the contest winners produced some astonishing corn yields. Several categories had winning yields over 300 bushels per acre (bpa). The highest yield was 368 bpa.

Whatever else the contest sponsors claim, there is one indisputable conclusion: some corn hybrids have the genetic potential to produce at least 368 bpa. For every farmer who planted those hybrids and harvested less than 368 bpa, it was the growing environment, not the seed’s genetic potential, that limited how much grain was produced.

All I can conclude is that seed genetic technology is ahead of production techniques and economics when it comes to producing higher yields. I suspect that there is also a lot more to be learned about how various hybrids interact with the various environmental variables in a grower’s field.

That brings me back to one of my basis suspicions about variety yield comparisons. I can make your hybrids look bad by comparison if I deliberately plant your seed in an environment that I know will favor my seed over yours. This bias, of course, is never mentioned. Unless I am unusually astute observer, I could never realize the deck had been stacked.

Another bias in that contest was the disclosure that a grower with a winning yield would receive $4,000 reward if certain products from the sponsoring company were used. How much that influenced what went on behind the scenes, I don’t know.

Finally, as if I did not already have enough doubts about that contest, the yield results were reported to four decimals: 368.8742 bpa. That is absurd! Presenting data in that fashion implies that the contest operators can determine plot yield within one tenth of an ounce.  It is an extraordinary example of overstating what the data represents. 

Unfortunately, overstating the significance of competitive data comparisons is all too common. That is why I seldom present plot or contest yield data.

(February 10) — This entire week I find myself hunched over my desk as I work to get the next issue of Seed Today ready for print.

Hopefully, I will be able to return next week with some sage comments relevant to the seed industry.

Ross Korves is an Economic Policy Analyst with Truth About Trade & Technology and the former Chief Economist for the American Farm Bureau.

(February 3) — As the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the global economic crisis, an advanced report outlines the grim challenges ahead for the world, including warnings of weather-related disasters disproportionately affecting subsistence farming and the threat of drought to food security.

But the report also holds out the hope that the economic crisis will motivate nations to increase cooperation and adopt policies that better address the current threats.

It is my hope that the discussions at Davos and beyond will lead to greater adoption of agricultural biotechnology to boost productivity and increase the economic security and standard of living for farmers.

For struggling farmers — especially in developing countries — the benefits of biotechnology crops are apparent. Buying or renting more land or taking an off-farm job to increase family income is usually not an option. Their only hope is to increase yields per acre, increase efficiency and lower input costs.

Biotech seeds or plant cuttings are a scale-neutral technology allowing farmers of all resource levels and economic backgrounds to share in the benefit from their use.

In developed countries farmers were first attracted to herbicide-tolerant crops to lower weed competition for water and sunlight and to reduce the need for herbicides. Herbicide-tolerant crops also enable conservation tillage programs that leave crop residue on the surface to reduce water and wind erosion and lower fuel use by tractors.

Farmers in Brazil and Argentina also use minimum tillage systems to increase double cropping (producing two crops in one year) — soybeans after winter wheat in Argentina and winter corn after summer soybeans in central Brazil.

Four million limited-resource farmers in India, most of them living on $1-2 per day, and 7 million limited-resource farmers in China grow biotech cotton. Studies in India show that cotton yields increased 30-60 percent while the number of pesticide sprayings declined by 50 percent from an average of 3-7 times per year. Net income increased by $30-100 per acre, a 50-100 percent increase.

In China, which has higher yields than India, biotech cotton increased yields by 10 percent, reduced insecticide use by 60 percent and increased incomes by $90 per acre.

In South Africa, insect-resistant hybrid corn yields about 30 percent more than regular hybrids. Adoption of biotech maize, soybeans and cotton has contributed to an estimated increase of U.S. $156 million in farm income.

In the Philippines, 125,000 resource-limited farmers grow an average of five acres of biotech corn, with several studies showing increased net income of $50-75 per acre with minor reductions in pesticide costs.

In addition, the next generation of biotech crops is being developed to increase the yield of commodity crops and help plants use water more efficiently, alleviating two of the growing threats — high food prices and water scarcity — to global stability.

Agriculture has long been tied to the economic propensity of nations. Today more than ever there is a dire need for a long term commitment to agricultural research, particularly to research in agricultural biotechnology.

For the world to succeed in addressing the threats facing it, governments, on their own and working through multilateral institutions and foundations, need to invest significant new funds in agricultural biotechnology and adopt polices that increase farmers’ access to biotech crops.

“Fear of loss is the first and most powerful emotional response to change. Yet change is neutral; it is neither good nor bad. You make it one or the other by the decisions and responses you make in response to change.”

Robert Ian speaking at the 20^th Annual IPSA Conference

 (January 27) –Last week I had the privilege to attend two seed association conferences: the Southern Seed Association’s (SSA’s) 90^th conference in Austin, TX and the Independent Professional Seed Association’s (IPSA’s) 20^th annual conference in Indianapolis, IN. Each association represents a different segment of the seed industry.

The SSA represents 16 southern U.S. states from Virginia to Arizona producing an equally diverse range o crops: cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, corn, warm season grasses and vegetables.

In contrast, IPSA represents mainly corn and soybean seed producers concentrated in the I-states (Iowa, Illinois and Indiana), Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. 

At both meetings, seedsmen were concerned about farmers’ indecisive 2009 planting decisions. Spring 2008 was a season no one wants to repeat – cold weather with too much rain, delayed planting, replanted acres and returned seed corn as farmers switched to soybeans.

Everyone is hoping that 2009 will bring a more favorable turn of events, but present indications are not looking too optimistic.

The National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center’s three-month forecast indicates La Nina has returned. This sets the stage for 2009 spring weather patterns similar to the wet 2008 spring.

Short Term “Long Range” Planning

Any hope that farmers would have an equally long-range approach to their planning have been displaced by low (low compared to several months ago) and high, turbulent fertilizer prices.

From the independent seed corn company’s point of view, the situation is being made even worse by the predatory pricing policies of some major seed companies. With deep pockets, these companies can choose to discount seed in order to move product and essentially buy market share.

If a family-owner seed company tries to compete on price, it is in a losing position as its big price competitors are also its seed trait providers. One seedsman likened the situation to having a boa constrictor coiled around your chest.

“Every time I lower my price, they lower theirs more,” he said. “Eventually, they will squeeze all the profit out of the sale. All you are doing is fighting for your life, hoping at the end of the day that you have not lost another customer.”

The message at these recent meetings – especially the IPSA meeting – was that smaller, independent companies can offer benefits that the majors cannot match. But in a tight economy, the big question is whether farmers will see anything but the dollar signs on the order sheet.

Right now, it is too early to tell for sure. But with high fertilizer prices taking an exurbanite chunk out of the corn input budget and dismal prospects for higher corn prices anytime soon, discounted seed corn prices are looking pretty good to many producers.

Send comments to joe at seedtoday.com

(”at” eleminates spam - you know the correct format)

(January 21)  Agriculture in general, and the seed production industry in particular, are thus far are not directly participating in any kind of economic slowdown. Although not isolated from the rest of the economy, there seems to be a level of insulation.

To be sure, there has been a lot of volatility in commodity prices. Corn based ethanol production has taken a hit as gasoline prices tumbled. High, unstable fertilizer prices are causing farmers to delay finalizing their planting decisions until the very last minute. For the most part, these are secondary effects of what is going on in the larger world.

While availability of credit is a concern for the housing market and other segments of the U.S. economy, seed production companies seem to be able to get the credit they need to operate. At least that is what I am hearing as I attend the Southern Seed Association and Independent Professional Seed Association annual meetings this week in Austin, TX and Indianapolis, IN, respectively.

At both meetings, there is more concerns about customers’ credit - will customers be able to make payment for the seed they purchased as the bills come due later in the year?

Why then, do seed companies seem to be living above the credit fray? I can think of several reasons. First, the financially weaker seed businesses have already been removed from the scene by acquisition, merger or some other means.

But maybe more to the point, the majority of local, regional and independent seed production companies are small in comparison to multinational industrial companies. Their credit needs are relatively modest, although significantly important.

These companies have established relationships with bankers who understand the unique credit needs of seed companies. These bankers do not rely on he Federal Reserve to supply money to lend. While their banks are not always “local” in the strictest sense, they are not usually “big city,” either.

Somehow, being smaller, has its advantages for both the seed companies and their bankers. For seed customers, however, being small may mean being too small to absorb the volatility in commodity prices and input costs. For those with a questionable credit history or a dwindling profit margin, they may have a harder time with credit. Paying their bills-seed bills included-may be more of a problem.

So, the seed companies are insulated if not isolated from the rest of the economy. As long as acres are planted, farmers will need to buy seed. This year, the 64 thousand dollar question is which acres, which seed? Will it be soybeans instead of corn or cotton? For the seed corn producers hoping to clear their inventory in anticipation of the new 2010 traits, more soybean acres is not good news.

It is an entirely different economy for seed production companies.