From: degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: Malthus was just ahead of his time
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:41:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.154042.10089@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <NELSON.92Apr2215009@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr3.010202.25966@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
|> >
|> >   In article <1992Apr2.230421.5973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> carnes@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> Picking the "best" seeds for next year doesn't give hybrid vigor. Instead
|> it depletes the genetic stock on which hybrid vigor is based. It's a crude
|> old purebred technique that leads eventually to genetic collapse of the
|> stock as the genetic pool becomes smaller and smaller. Your ignorance,
|> as well as your racism is showing.
|> 
|> >Selective breeding is nothing new.  Even dumb niggers like G.W. Carver
|> >figured it out long ago.
|> 
|> This is disgusting. George Washington Carver was one of the brightest
|> agronomists of the pre-genetic engineering era. His work at a land
|> grant University on hybridization led to rapid advances in crop yields
|> here in the US. Thanks to the system of land grant Universities and
|> the Extension service, his techniques, and the techniques developed
|> by many other bright researchers,  were rapidly communicated to
|> farmers in every part of this country. This system of agricultural
|> research and communications is the bedrock of the Green Revolution
|> in agriculture in this country. It's missing from most of the third
|> world. 
|> 
A plus and a minus for this, 
Thanks Gary, that needed to be said, for any who don't know about
George Washingtom Carver, at least a quick read of his biography
should mandated, besides his brilliance and dedication in the face
of predjudice  he was a leader in the fight toward, sustainable,
land conserving agriculture in the Southern US. (Also inventor
of Peanut butter (as part of efforts to create a viable longterm
agricultural system for small holders) and hundreds of other 
marketable products and by products.  
  On the minus, you do some disservice to many struggling, dedicated
scientists, engineers and extensions workers to say "It's missing
from most of the third world". Many third world countries have tried
 and countinue with basic agriculutural research  in the face of
large problems.  Of course the root is poverty, in this case at
a national level.  The A&M school system in US is over a century old,
our investment levels in agricultural research has been running along almost 
that long at 10 to 1000 times the investemt feasible for third world nations.
There is also the almost shameful, failure of cultural chauvanism that
occured in the 50's and early 60's when US trained and lead agricultural
agencies tried to "force jump" many systems from small holder, local resources,
to western style, "expensive high capital, high input" style production.
(To spread the blame somewhat, some countries  followed almost the same
path of ugly destructive effort under the leadership of Marixts following
advice or at least the path of Soviets...these countries concentrated the
land in the hands of the few in the name of collectives and great leaps
rather than in the name of capitalism and world market integration)

|> Few countries in the third world have shown any interest in developing the
|> systems needed to bring their farmers the results of the latest
|> research. That's one of the main reasons their agricultural practices 
|> have remained rooted in the past while we churn out surplus bounty.
|> 
Sorry wrong, in almost every State Agricultural School in US (and/or A&M)
you will find dedicated researchers, learning our methods, working to
develop solutions that fit in their countries and taking them back.

|> Mechanization, mass produced fertilizers, and chemical controls have allowed
|> an enormous reduction in the *labor* input to American farming, but it's
|> the hybrid seed, and the techniques developed at the land grant schools
|> that have been the *real* generators of bounty. The third world can
|> substitute cheap hand labor for machinery and chemicals and *still* reap 
|> many of the gains in production of the Green Revolution.
|> Farmers in the third world aren't stupid. They're like you Russ, they're
|> ignorant. Most aren't as boorish though.
|> 
|> Gary

These aspects have been recognized and the promises of biotech which is 
even greater. (engineered hybrids, with specific traits tailored to 
specific needs and situations)  Major steps have been made in the past
15 years by the establishment of a number of internationaly supported
centers to focus on plant breeding (International Rice Institute is
just one on several dozen)   There still continue the problems, US and
overseas of extension pushing (placing too much effort on) the
"high capital, high input" approaches. (IMO, it is more than a simple
coopting of extension by big business, it has some roots in a kind of
self intentioned "ignorance"..."Gimme a solution, a simple no brainer,
magic powder solution!!!" 
   Looping back again, read up on George Washington Carver, his focus on
small holders, sustainable and reclaimation agriculture, no waste, full
utilization was well ahead of his time (and some what off the prime
track of extensions even then) And he backed it up with good science,
 engineering and economics!!!
   Farmers are generaly not stupid, but are culturally conservative and
frequently stubborn. (Stubborn goes with the territory, otherwise you
walk off and try to find some easier way to make a living. 
Les DeGroff
Newsgroups: sci.environment