Profit driven Agriculture causing famines and soil degradation.

by Uwe Paschen | February 23, 2010 at 08:54 am

1456 views | 35 Recommendations | 21 comments

By, Uwe Paschen.

Modern, new and high tech is not always the anther to our problems. This is especially true when it comes to agriculture and its environmental impact. Most importantly would be the long-term impact here; since some application may give great results at first with over 200% higher yield's and subsequent profits.

However, in the long run those methods may very well cause a great disaster accompany by the very famines and desertification that the new technology and methods where suppose to eradicate for ever.

(See: http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/iabi.1997.27.4.333)

This due to the two opposing philosophies here, on the one hand we have Modern farming wish involves, “GMO, Pesticides, Herbicides, Toxins, Heavy machinery, Centralisation, dependence from Monsanto and Pioneer, Fierce competition, Domination over Nature, Specialisation (mono cultures) and Exploitation (similar to the principal of pest).”

On the other hand we have Organic or Ecological responsible agriculture, this once building blocks are lasting and highly adaptive, because they rely on the principals of “Decentralisation (adapting to once environment), Independence (seed cultures adapted to a particular area and climate), Community, Harmony with Nature, Diversity (essential for adaptation to changes) and restrain (not taking more then one can give back).

Why it is so vital that the Planing and implementing in agriculture has to be made with great care and very long foresight? Simply because money and profits as well as opportunism and stock market shares are the source of mismanagement resulting in natural as well as humanitarian disaster.

This especially in areas that are already very vulnerable with a fragile ecosystem, whose balance can be tipped with the slightest mistake or excess. Such is the case of the Sub Sahara region and the equatorial rain forest.

(See: http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/desperate-farmers-dying-environment)

(and: http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/desertification-part-ii-history-sahara-desert-attem)

Today, American companies such as Pioneer and Monsanto are trying to force their products and ways onto the African continent in order to increase their sales and profits, this to satisfy their stock holders, all the wile accusing those that oppose this endeavour of trying to maintain famines and poverty through out the Sub Sahara region in Africa.

(See: http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/monsanto-gm-corn-disaster-south-africa)

Pioneer and Monsanto have already caused great harm, this not only in Asia where they gave GMO seeds away at first and encouraged the farmers to sale or eat their own seed reserves. This resulted in a dependence of those GMO seeds since the native seeds where now gone. Further those GMO seeds ended up requiring more chemicals and fertiliser then the native seeds did and yet did not bring in the promised higher yeild's nor more profits. In most cases, the opposite happened, resulting in mass suicides and even famines.

(See: http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/1-500-farmers-india-commit-mass-suicide)

The US government is not only supporting companies such as Pioneer and Monsanto. The US does even fight every one and any one that opposes the ludicrous promises those claim and that by now have been proven to be, not only false or misleading, but even criminal and this not only from a humanitarian point of view, but also from an ecological perspective.

(See:http://my.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/monsanto-plans-boost-food-supply)

(And: http://bytestyle.tv/content/court-monsanto-guilty-false-claims-about-product-safety,

Study after study can show that farming with Chemicals, CMO and heavy machinery does not improve or create higher yeild's, nor does it generate more profits then Organic farming. The opposite does happen over the long run. GMO do require large amount of Chemicals, these burn the topsoil and render it useless with in a generation or two. Depleting the top soil of all its valuable and essential organic building block. Further, this does destabilise the ego-balance all the wile causing desertification and contaminating the ground water with Nitrates and phosphates in great excesses. Those chemicals do eventually reach the rivers, lakes and the oceans, causing massive growth of algae’s that deplete the water of oxygen, wish ends up killing its fauna.

Meanwhile Organic farming, when conducted properly, does try to give back to the soil what it took all the wile adapting the crop to the soil and climate rather then adapting the soil and climate to the crop.

(See: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.htm)

Introducing GMO seeds and more chemicals in the Sub Sahara area of Africa would cause further degradation of the already over-stressed top soil and not only deplete the ground water levels more rapidly, it would contaminate the remaining fresh water with Nitrates and phosphates causing massive pollution, that in turn would affect the fauna and human population with disastrous consequences.

(See: http://www.tjclark.com.au/colloidal-minerals-library/soil-depletion.htm)

A good example how wrong the IMF, World Bank and US lead profit orientated thinking is, would be the introduction of rice cultures in a Sub Sahara environment such as Niger.

The IMF, the US and Monsanto supported this crop. Further the World Bank granted loans for fertiliser to improve the Yeild's . Rice being a crop that demands large amount of water was supposed to solve the problem of famines in country plagued by droughts and over population.

This contributed to lower the water level of the Niger River further and contaminated the ground water with Nitrate concentrations as high as 10-meq l−1. (The 10-mg/l standard expressed as nitrogen (N) is equivalent to 45 mg/l expressed as nitrate.) To identify the source(s) of this pollution, (nitrate and the15N contents) the polluted wells were monitored over a 20-month period by the University of Montreal in Quebec. Those level have increased since this initial study of 1996 by a factor of 8 and exceed the US maximum levels of Nitrate considered safe from Human consumption by a factor of 12, wish is highly dangerous for infants because they may cause methemologlobinemi a, a condition known as “blue baby.”

High nitrate levels interrupt the normal body processes of some infants. Nitrate becomes toxic when it is reduced to nitrite, a process that can occur in the stomach as well as in the saliva. Infants are especially susceptible because their stomach juices are less acidic and therefore are conducive to the growth of nitrate-reducing bacteria.

(See: http://my.nowpublic.com/world/world-bank-praising-niger-government)

The crops native to Niger, like Millet , Sorghum and Anasazi bean, all high in fibber, starch and protein and highly adapted to the arid climates, where neglected due to subsidy that promoted Rice and imported food at low cost.

This has not only contributed to new famines and caused pollution as well as water shortages. More over it has created a dependency off imported food since much of the rural population fled the land and abandoned farming native crops to establish them self in large Cities, now working for co-operations owned rice fields, funded by the IMF, the World Bank with subsidy from the Industrial nations. This is a major disaster that is yet to unfold it self. A Human and environmental catastrophe that is making Monsanto and its stockholders richer though.

Still, Monsanto and co do want more and demand to implement this madness through out the sub Sahara and the rest of the World. When will we finally wake up and say enough is enough?

How much more land and lives are we willing to sacrifice before we stop this destruction of our environment and Societies?

http://www.stone-env.com/docs/reports/StoneISD-PhaseIPrelimPovWBrpt.pdf

http://my.nowpublic.com/culture/hidden-message-avatar-protect-indigenous-cultures-2543790.html

http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/german-court-allows-ban-monsantos-toxin-producing-seeds

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument

http://pameladrew.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/21/1502582-bad-news-about-pesticides-end-pesticide-reporting

http://my.nowpublic.com/health/new-movie-damns-monsantos-deadly-sins

http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/biotechnology-seed-companies-accused-thwarting-research

http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/superweeds-coming-your-neighborhood-soon

http://my.nowpublic.com/health/terrifying-new-disease-linked-genetically-altered-crops

http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/monsanto-microsoft-food

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p644g58t85250673/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6C-3T7HHRX-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F10%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1218851037&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d144ee75f71e158b24e2ffc2fa35f58d

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Caoimhin1

at 10:02 on February 23rd, 2010

Monsanto is a monster that few people know about, nice piece Uwe!

Hugh Askew

at 11:28 on February 23rd, 2010

So the very same companies that developed the method that feed the world are now the bad guys, eh? Would Niger be better off if Monsanto were to pull out of the country completely and let farmers go back to traditional methods? Could they then raise enough to feed themselves? I doubt that is the case, else there wouldn't be a concerted effort to find new methods.

stejeb

at 13:49 on February 23rd, 2010

Those companies, I'm afraid to say Hugh, will make the world starve. Niger would have been better off if Monsanto had stayed away in the first place.

The farmers would have been better served if they had been educated into better use of the land they farm., rather than being used to further line the pockets of international eco criminals.

I'm not against genetic manipulation of crops, mankind has been doing that for a very long time, with cross-breeding of varieties of plants to produce better yields and bigger and stronger plants, but the methods have changed...and the aggresive marketing methods employed by the likes of Monsanto don't take into account the impact on local fauna and flora. Depriving one insect of it's food source leads to extinction of everything up the chain, and guess where that chain ends nowadays?

Please don't try to defend these Monsanto people, they'd poison their gran as long as they got a profit from it.

Caoimhin1

at 14:12 on February 23rd, 2010

Hugh is a smart guy, I'm sure he'll do some research and find out the facts, right Hugh? ;)

Hugh Askew

at 15:01 on February 23rd, 2010

Fact is, until profit driven companies changed agriculture, people starved by the millions. That IS a fact, like the companies or not. Look at grain yields before Pioneer and Monsanto and Dow got involved, look at them (yields) now. Then come back and tell me about how everyone would be better off without them.

I can drive a thousand miles in any direction (500 to the west) from where i live, and see nothing but fields of grain. Everyone of them is growing seed produced by one of the evil seed companies. The same is true in Europe, much of Asia, South America, Australia, and parts of Africa.

You can tell them to go away. Me, i like to eat. So do the folks in the rest of the world.

You can preach you message in fat cat countries that feast on plenty, try selling it to starving Africans.

Caoimhin1

at 15:17 on February 23rd, 2010

Darn it Hugh, you proved me wrong. :(

Hugh Askew

at 02:45 on February 24th, 2010

Between 1950 and 1990, the grain yield per hectare grew at 2.1 percent per year - WORLDWIDE.

Total grain harvest nearly tripled from 630 million tons in 1950 to 1.8 billion tons in 1990.

Rice harvests doubled in a 30 year span, beginning in the 1960's.

Ignore the facts if you like, if we want to feed the world, grain harvests have to keep up with the population.

Uwe Paschen

at 04:11 on February 24th, 2010

Hugh, Cao gave you some good advice here. If you read up in the links given here you understand that we had record yield's for a short time, less then one generation. This due to the use of heavy machinery, Chemicals in form of fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides and Hormones.

Further we deforested and levelled the fence lines that served has wind breakers and protected the crops. Soon the hild's where still high, but the crops destroyed due to the lack of wind breakers, we responded with low growing crops manufactured by Pioneer.

Then followed the soil erosion due to the missing cover crops we used in the triennial system that was abolished after WWII by the Chemical Industry. Wind and rain eroded the good fertile soil, blowing it and washing it into the sea or lakes and rivers where it caused fish dying and massive algae growth and caused a chain reactions of destruction that lead to the extinction of countless species, Plants as well as animals and fish.

Pest became resistant to pesticides and we developed more deadly chemical to counter this evolution wish lead to cancers in Farmers and in the rural population that used those. Further, birth defects where linked to those chemicals as well as mutations.

For the past 20 years the yields have been dropping back to what once was, because we destroyed the ecosystem and burned the top soil. We failed to maintain the balance and never gave back any thing for over two generations.

The price we will have to pay will be substantial, and the lives we will lose are extremely high. Every thing needs to be kept in balance or it dies.

We can abuse any thing for a wile and get great results, even a cow can be pushed to the limits, eventually though she will get sick and die no matter the amount of medications and hormones we put into her and her life span will have been very short.

Only a lack of conscience and common sense can still support this form of abuse. Like Roy said in his commend, Greed may very well be an important factor here and one that may lead to our demise as Humanity.

We behave like pest destroying all and every thing in our pass and once destroyed moving to the next piece of earth to be destroyed through merciless exploitation and abuse.

Finally, we are over populated and need to reduce our numbers or at least not increase those any further or we will inevitably be destroyed. Eternal growth and ever increasing profits are an American made illness that is genocidal.

The world lives on credit in every sector and area, Nature wants to be paid back now and this with interest.

Hugh Askew

at 05:51 on February 24th, 2010

Hmmm, yields do not lie.

The farmers i know - and i am literally surround by them (see above), love,and make a living from the soil. There is no one - envirornmentalist claims aside - that cares more about the land than they do. They treat it with respect.

They would be fools not to. If they mistreat it, it will not produce for them tomorrow or next year. Do you think they are idiots? Do you make your living from the soil? Do you know the work they invest in the land?

Have you ever seen what they do to keep the land productive? Do you have any idea how much time and energy they spend looking for, and trying new ways to not only keep the soil productive, but to increase their income? Farming is a very marginal operation. Most of the farmers in this country go to college to learn the best ways to farm and to care for the land.

If you are concerned about over-population, then i recommend that you set a good example, and leave this planet. In the meantime, the stupid farmers and seed companies will work at finding new ways to continue to feed the rest of us.

Uwe Paschen

at 06:55 on February 24th, 2010

:) I am a farmer and a researcher Hugh. Most farmers in the Western World today are going under because they believe in doing thing the right way and are being killed by Monsanto a co.

Those that followed Monsanto and co just want to make a profit and then sale the land to a developer. This has been going on for decades. Now this has come to a halt though.

To conclude, Who give Monsanto the right to kill countless species so they may achieve their goal? Read up on their track record.

Hugh Askew

at 01:51 on February 25th, 2010

Well, no offense, but i happen to live in a place surrounded by millions of acres grain. If the farmers are going under, they haven't received notice of the fact.

I have absolutely no agenda here. I just know what the facts are regarding seed research and developement, the fact that farmers who till the land care about what they do (it is their livelyhood), and that without constant improvement in crop yields, much of the world will go hungry.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 05:48 on February 25th, 2010

Most of the farmers in North America farm between a quarter section to a section and sometimes larger in a family farm. Their yields are dependent on the weather, i.e. moisture at the right time and warmth and sun and relatively little moisture at harves5 time and of course the markets, which are not farmer friendly. Most have kept their head above water in Alberta, because they had mixed operations of grain and cattle. The cattle market has dried up too as it costs too much to feed livestock now through the long winter months.

I have no idea how big your farm is, however, the methods you advocate just won't work out here in Western Canada (Alberta and the Prairies). Mosanto is a problem, no doubt about it and the corruption of that company is being addressed in Canada as their seed contaminates fields of those that don't want to be associated with them.

Just for the record, most of the farmers in my neighborhood have no intention of selling to developers. We're too far from major centres.

Uwe Paschen

at 06:14 on February 25th, 2010

What methods am I advocating Karl?

Did I not say that what works in one area does not work in another?

Or that crops have to be adapted to the land, climate and ecosystem rather then trying to adapt the land and climate to the crop?

(For measurements, weight, high, distances and sizes, it is best to use metric since it is the international unit.) (Online Conversion - Convert just about anything to anything else)

If you read the Studies here you realise that they fund that Yields are as you say dependant on climate, soil and management. Further, they show that soil that is rich in organic matter and alive with worms and micro organism can take much higher levels of stress, may that be a drought of a to much rain and the crops can there for survive and strive in even harsher then normal condition. With lower yields of course.

GMO and especially chemical such as pesticides and herbicides as well as compaction of the soil due to heavy machinery kills all micro organism and insects that are essential for a healthy soil.

Most disaster in Alberta are made worth due to bad management. All the fence lines bushes and so on have been destroyed to allow large field suited for very large machines, causing not only degradation of the soil but also erosion by wind and rain for the land is no longer protected.

There is an extensive study about this, funded by the Canadian government and the UN, this was conducted by several Canadian and foreign Universities in 1986, I collected data for the University in Hanover back them.

In Ontario many farmers sold to developers same in the State of New York.

Karen Hatter

at 14:07 on February 23rd, 2010

Sadly, the problem is an age old one, with the so called developed world's ability to politically and monetarily control the process and the debate around the issues.

YankeeJim

at 07:43 on February 24th, 2010

I wote a story awhile ago posing the question, where should people be living and working? Further, how should they be living and workng? How many of us should there be? And last, what should we be eating?

The best answer came from a person in Boulder Colorado. Like the guy said about plastic in The Graduate. I have one word for you son: Grenola.

Caoimhin1

at 09:12 on February 24th, 2010

There's another word that comes to mind also Jim, it is "wafer" from the movie Soylent Green.

steve1 (not verified)

at 13:04 on February 24th, 2010

Genetically-modified foods should be banned. Corporations shouldn't be allowed in agriculture. And farmers should be protected from imports driving them out of business.

Barry ORegan

at 09:10 on February 27th, 2010

Of course this is something well known and reported about, no one believes it, though I have reported on this time and time again, for oh, three years, beginning with the old corn for fuel, thus depriving the starving masses of food, as those starving masses must compete for corn prices used for fuel. Not to mention how all this began in the 1960s with the Green Revolution and many who did not see the ramifications of all this.

Here is a background from an environmental perspective on this I wrote and continue to monitor. There will always be consequences to every action.

Be prepared to be enlightened.

Food for thought.

Hugh Askew

at 15:39 on March 1st, 2010

A few will die, no doubt, from cancer. Some would have died from cancer without the chemicals being used, and many more would starve.

The problem lies in the fact that WITHOUT the modified crops, without the chemicals, hundreds of millions will starve to death.

I'll take my chances with cancer, thank you very much.

I can tell it has really set back life expectancy rates - not.

I would suggest that those countries opposed to the use of genetically modified grains, and chemicals, simply not use them. If Uwe is opposed to using them , he can simply refuse to eat them. The rest of use will continue to do so, thank you very much.

mooseman (not verified)

at 20:01 on March 20th, 2010

AS I read your dicussion I cant help but see that uwe said he was a farmer I wondered how long it takes to pick a thousand acres of corn by hand since he doesnt use heavy machinery and do you have any kids if so you need to get a vasectomy to help control population growth and wasting electricity on the net, get serious uwe

Uwe Paschen

at 03:00 on April 4th, 2010

:) Mooseman, we used to use machines, made some calculations and impact research and changed over to small machines, corn is not planted for it degrades the soil and has negative effects on the soil, it is also a crop that is not to healthy for consumption, Much research has been done on the subject, you may find most of it by Goggling it.

Food habits have to change for the current habits are most destructive and polluting as well. Again you can find more information by Goggling it or visiting the University of Chiba or Hanoi, Witzenhausen, Bern and the University in Vienna have all done extensive research on the subject as well as applied this for over two decades in some cases.

Best protein source comes from beans and insects, see Burmese died for instance, it is also good for the environment. But I suppose the Western Nations will first have to starve and feel the impact of their mismanagement before they shall make any changes or be able to learn.