Famine in Niger

Niger hunger 'worse than 2005'

BBC
Aug 14, 2010
Niger is now facing the worst hunger crisis in its history, the UN's World Food Programme says, with almost half the population - or 7.3 million people - in desperate need of food.

A WFP spokesman said villagers in Niger described the situation as worse than 2005, when thousands died of hunger.

After a prolonged drought, heavy rains have now hit parts of the country, killing at least six people.

The WFP says 17% of children, or one in five, are acutely malnourished.    Read More

I think it’s worth noting that Niger has very few modern ag techniques being used. You don’t seem to find hunger situations like these in countries that have adopted modern production practices. For those that claim we should get rid of the last one hundred year’s worth of food production technology and grow stuff the way they did back in the good old days, I would suggest moving to Niger and see how well it works.

Modern Ag Feeding The World, Benefitting The Environment

High-yield agriculture slows pace of global warming, say FSE researchers
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service

Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.

The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.

The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.

"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More

This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.

Food Inc. Follow-Up in KS

KLA President Defends Conventional Ag In Follow-Up To “Food, Inc.”
05/05/2010 08:58AM
CattleNetwork.com
Article Link

Public broadcasting affiliate KTWU- Topeka has produced a one-hour television program to air tonight at 9:00 as a follow-up to the controversial “Food, Inc.” KLA President Mark Smith served as a member of the diverse six-member agriculture panel discussing food issues on “Taking Stock: Perspectives on Food Production in Kansas.” The program was moderated by WIBW Radio Farm Director Kelly Lenz. Other panelists included Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty, Kansas Rural Center Executive Director Dan Nagengast, natural foods supplier Diana Endicott and former Kansas Gov. John Carlin.Smith, a Wallace County rancher, criticized “Food, Inc.” for presenting an inaccurate picture of American agriculture.

In response to the movie disparaging hard-working farmers and ranchers, Smith explained how today’s conventional ag producers deliver more safe, nutritious food using fewer natural resources due to advanced technology. Smith deflected the movie's criticism of confined animal feeding operations by talking about the quality care cattle receive in a feedyard. He said cattle spend most of their lives on grass, followed by a short 130- to 150-day period eating a balanced feed ration that produces flavorful beef demanded by consumers.

“Taking Stock” will air on all Kansas public television stations tonight following the system’s national airing of “Food, Inc.” at 7:00 p.m. In addition to providing industry sources to present the accurate story of modern beef production, NCBA, KLA and other affiliate groups are driving consumers to www.explorebeef.org, where many of the common misperceptions in “Food, Inc.” are corrected with accurate information. For more information visit www.kla.org.

As we travel around the country speaking to groups, we show them who is out telling their story and ask the question “Is this who want doing that?” If you don’t like who is speaking for you or what they are saying then you have to do it yourself. The Hollywood movie “Food Inc.” has opened the door to many discussions about agriculture. Unfortunately those involved with this movie were more interested in scaring people about their food than they were in sharing the truth. This means we need to. It’s great to see these Kansas producers taking back their story. Even more importantly though is the need for us to not let the truth get hijacked in the first place. It’s not easy but if all of us do something everyday to share the truth about ag we can do it.

Consumer Investigates Her Food

Is organic food really better?

By Elizabeth Meryment

From: The Sunday Telegraph

May 02, 2010 12:12AM



SO you buy organic over conventional produce? I set out to investigate and uncovered some surprising facts.



A couple of years ago I was making a quiche when a weird thing happened. I was cracking egg after egg into a bowl when I noticed these were not ordinary eggs. I took a second look at the packet and saw that I’d accidentally bought the biodynamic, organic, free-range eggs that cost top dollar at my greengrocer.



The amazing thing was the eggs had such rich, golden yolks that the quiche wasn’t its usual yellow colour but a bright pumpkin-orange. And the finished dish tasted incredible. Even my three-year-old noticed the difference. “Look, Mummy, it’s orange!” she cried when I offered her a slice.I try to buy these organic eggs every time I shop, but the price is usually prohibitive. Yet whenever I’m cooking with eggs I can’t help but wonder about the benefit of organic over non-organic food.



While some in the health industry claim that organic food has properties that give it an almost healing quality, is this actually true? And if so, should we feel guilty whenever we select a conventionally grown apple or carrot over the more expensive organic option?



Speak to advocates of organic farming and they will tell you that yes, their produce is almost always better than that which is produced conventionally – that is, using pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers.



“There are some very good studies that show that on balance organic food has higher levels of nutrition,” says Andre Leu, chair of the Organic Federation of Australia. “The data we have from Australia and around the world tends to be consistent. The number one reason people buy organic is for health reasons and concern about the use of pesticides.



Associate Professor Samir Samman, from the School of Molecular Bioscience at the University of Sydney, says there is little evidence to suggest that organic food is nutritionally better than conventional food, especially in relation to fresh fruit and vegetables.



In a yet-to-be released major study that has been accepted for publication in the international scientific journal Critical Reviews In Food Science And Nutrition, Professor Samman and his team “surveyed the international literature and critically evaluated the results” – and they aren’t heartening for the organics industry.



“Our review showed [that] when all the published articles on this topic are considered, organic food is reported to contain more vitamin C and phosphorous than conventionally produced food,” Professor Samman says. “[But] when the articles are scrutinised for scientific quality, and only the better-quality articles are considered, only phosphorous remained significantly higher in organic food as compared with conventional foods."



"Phosphorous is not in any way a limiting nutrient in the diet. The presence of higher amounts in organic food has probably little significance. We conclude from the analysis that the nutrient composition differs very little between foods that are produced by organic and conventional methods." Read More



Throwing wild accusations around about the food some family farmers and ranchers produce helps no one. For me personally, I never trust anyone whose main marketing plan to sell something is to degrade the competition. I think if you have a good product to sell it’s not necessary. In food production, the choices we can provide to the consumer are almost hard to believe. It’s a fantastic accomplishment that needs to be celebrated. Instead we have some farmers and ranchers who feel the need to destroy the family down the road that uses a different production method. There is no perfect system, all of them have positives and negatives associated with them.

Pollan's Visit to Michigan State Univ.

Food expert raises stir at MSU
Author opposes production practices university supports
Matthew Miller • mrmiller@lsj.com • April 13, 2010

EAST LANSING - Amanda Sollman's question was pointed.

"You're currently standing in the state with the highest rate of unemployment in the country," the Michigan State University agriscience major said, "and a lot of the way that you propose we consume and produce food, whether that's more local, organic, mostly plants, that will inevitably result in higher food prices.

"How do you justify a group of people who can afford these luxuries driving food policy and food production practices for those who can't?"

She was speaking to Michael Pollan, food writer, author of such books as "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "In Defense of Food" and, most recently, "Food Rules.," and perhaps the nation's most influential critic of how we eat and how we grow our food.

The simple fact of Pollan's appearance at MSU - he spoke Monday night at the Wharton Center, and did an hourlong question-and-answer session open only to students that afternoon - was enough to cause ripples in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Read More



Food 'Fight' Comes to MSU
Famed food author Michael Pollan spoke at MSU Monday, but not everyone agrees with his views.
Posted: 11:27 PM Apr 12, 2010

What better way for famed food author Michael Pollan to make his point to a crowd at MSU Monday, than to bring along some groceries.

"This bread has 38 ingredients in it," Pollan said Monday.

Pollan's view -- which he's written about in several books -- is that Americans have lost their relationship with food because it's become over-processed, and thus, less nutritious.

"I agree with what he says," Judy Lindberg, who came to the speech Monday, said. "I like the natural food idea."

The author has also been very critical of the agriculture business as a whole, arguing the food industry does not have the best interests of the public at heart. Pollan spoke to a group at Google headquarters in 2008.

"They load it up," He said in 2008 of manufacturers. "Salt your own food, fatten your own food. You'll do a better job."

Not surprisingly, being MSU is one of the first land grant institutions, several students disagree with Pollan, farmers even came to campus Monday to dispute Pollan's views.

"I view Pollan's food policies as an elitist point of view and man kind, and Americans will pay the price if we follow his policies," Trent Loos said.

Loos, a 6th-generation farmer from Nebraska, also spoke with students Monday. He said he agrees with Pollan's natural view of food, but also says there's nothing wrong with using science to mass produce it, the very thing many MSU students study.

"I see his message as a slap in the face to great land instirutions, like MSU, across the country," Loos said. Read More


As these two articles allude to, Michael Pollan continued his “food scare” tour at Michigan State yesterday, carefully avoiding any critics of his plan to roll back the clock on American agriculture. As usual, he doesn’t seem concerned at all with the fact that his ideas will lead to one-half the population going hungry. That was the estimation of Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug. And he freely admits that the food that will be raised will be much more expensive. People need to get passed the polished surface of his presentations and books and dig into the meat of what he is proposing.

GM Potatoes Approved in EU

Commission gives green light to genetically-modified potato
Published: 03 March 2010
Euractiv.com

In a controversial move, the European Commission yesterday (2 March) gave the green light for the first genetically-modified potato to be cultivated in the European Union.

At present, EU member states are able to restrict GM crop cultivation only under strict conditions as authorisation licences are valid across the 27-country bloc, in accordance with the principles of the single EU internal market.

José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has voiced support for any plan that would allow the Commission to maintain EU-wide authority over GMO safety assessment and approval, while allowing countries the freedom to decide whether to cultivate GM crops.
Yesterday's decision was taken with this principle in mind, as outlined in the political guidelines for the new European Commission.

The EU executive authorised the cultivation in the EU of Amflora, a genetically-modified potato developed by German chemical company BASF.

"Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies," said Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli.

The decision was based on a series of favourable safety assessments carried out over the years by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

After an extensive and thorough review of five pending GM files, it had become clear that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment, as those concerning safety had been fully addressed, the commissioner added. Read More

It’s nice to see the EU actually recognizing sound science as a good resource for their decision making process. That’s normally not the case across the pond. When it comes to genetic modification, the truth is that humans have been doing this for 10,000 years. It’s a good thing we have or we probably wouldn’t be here today.

Adequate Food Production Requires Technology Use

Biotech, Nanotech and Synthetic Biology Roles in Future Food Supply Explored

ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2010) — Some say the world's population will swell to 9 billion people by 2030 and that will present significant challenges for agriculture to provide enough food to meet demand, says University of Idaho animal scientist Rod Hill.

Hill and Larry Branen, a University of Idaho food scientist, organized a symposium during the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting February 17 to explore ways biotechnology could provide healthy and plentiful animal-based foods to meet future demands.

Synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and other applications of biotechnology -- and the public's role in determining their acceptable uses -- were all addressed by panelists during the session.

The goal for the session, which was part of the nation's largest general science meeting held annually, was to encourage a dialogue among scientists and the public, said Hill, a Moscow-based molecular physiologist who studies muscle growth in cattle.

"There will be a significant challenge for agriculture and the science that will be required to provide a healthy, nutritious and adequate food supply in coming decades for a rapidly growing population," Hill said.
A key question, he said, is whether the Earth can continue to provide enough food without technological support. The history of civilization and agriculture during the last 10,000 years suggests otherwise.

"Unaided food production is an unattainable ideal -- current society is irrevocably grounded in the technological interventions underpinning the agricultural revolution that now strives to feed the world," Hill said. Read More

I have no doubts that technology will continue providing with the answers to feeding a growing world. In contrast, obtaining the social license to use that technology could be the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, it may come down to a simple question that everyone will have to answer. Do we abandon technology and concede that millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death? Or do we utilize safe, proven technology to ensure we can feed as many people as possible? How you answer that question will probably depend on how full your stomach is at the time you are being asked.

Locavores Know Not What They Ask For

Study evaluates local agricultural production
Don Curlee • Agriculture • February 22, 2010

Producing food near population centers is the dream of locavores, but now it's also the subject of a serious study by a Ph.D. agricultural resources student at the University of California, Berkeley.

The study concludes that the benefits of such a massive shift in such production and distribution methods are not likely to be as substantial as has been asserted. Furthermore, it suggests that the benefits are dwarfed by the costs of less-efficient production and reduced access to nutritious food.

The perspective taken by study author Steve Sexton is global. He cites projections of a world population of 9 billion by 2050, and says feeding a hungry world is a paramount objective. He summarized his findings in the November/December issue of Update, published by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California, Davis.

"A doubling of food production in the second half of the 20th century saved the world from mass starvation," he writes, "as population doubled to six billion." He credits the rise of modern farming propelled by the Green Revolution for that accomplishment.

While current food production and distribution systems are criticized by locavores for their consumption of energy, Sexton says such criticism ignores the economies of scale and the gains of moving from a mule-dominated farm economy to the efficiency of tractors and other motorized equipment. He believes those advantages likely will be lost in smaller diversified farm units nestled against the city limits.

The fantasy land Sexton identifies as pseudo-locavorism will require more than 214 million additional acres in farm production, an area twice the size of California. The transition means 40 million additional acres will be required in California, 34 million in Texas and 26 million in Florida.

"If mass starvation is to be avoided in the current century," Sexton reasons, "then we must either forsake natural land including tropical forests, or renew our commitment to crop science."

Read More

For some unknown reason, we have people in this country that are upset that we have the most affordable, abundant, and safest food supply in the history of the world. Instead they would rather have their food supply grown in places that would make it inefficient and more damaging to our environment. Not only that, but there are several billion people that will have to volunteer to go hungry as well. This article talks about the consequences of moving to a completely local food system.

Growing Enough Food

Food crisis looms, warn scientists
By Stuart Gary for ABC Science Online
Feb 12, 2010

A new report by Australian researchers claims far more needs to be done if we are to feed the estimated 9 billion people who will be living on the planet by 2050.

The report, by Professor Mark Tester and Professor Peter Langridge of the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, appears today in the journal Science.
"The simple fact is while food production has increased by 32 million tonnes a year, an annual increase of 44 million tonnes a year is what's actually needed to meet the food targets for 2050 set down by the World Summit on Food security," Professor Tester said.

"But this represents a 38 per cent increase over historical improvements in food production and it needs to be sustained for the next 40 years.

"This scale of increase is unprecedented and will require huge changes to current food production methods."

"India, which has more undernourished people than Africa, is a real challenge," he said.
"Especially with their government's hard stand on genetically modified foods."

Professor Tester believes new breeding technologies are needed to increase crop yields by quickly identifying the best genes for any given conditions.

"This is the way forward if we are to feed the world in the future." Read More

We continue to hear food production experts stress the importance of using technology to meet demand. Just like Norman Borlaug used all the resources and technology at his disposal to stave off world wide famine, we will need to do the same. It would be unethical at this point in time to do anything less. We can’t turn our back on the ability to produce more food when we have hungry people in this world. We can’t let the Michael Pollan’s of the world decide who will eat and who won’t.

Africa Needs Modern Farming

African Farmers Urged to Innovate to Offset Climate Change
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.

Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.

“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.

One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More

In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.

The Confusion Over CAFO's

This letter to the editor appeared in the Columbia Tribune, MO.

Independent family farms’ methods safe
Saturday, January 16, 2010

Editor, the Tribune: In light of Hank Waters’ confusion about chicken CAFOs and Cindy O’Laughlin’s confusion about family farmers, a lesson is in order.

Google “CAFO” or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation,” and you’ll learn a CAFO, or “factory farm,” is an operation where livestock are mass-produced in confinement and are usually, and most important, owned by a corporation and not the farmer (i.e. Smithfield, Tyson). These absentee owners, headquartered in fancy offices miles away, call the shots yet seldom go near their factories while local dollars funnel out of Missouri.

Another confused term: “family farm.” These days it’s necessary to include the word “independent” when referring to family farms. Conversely, independent family farmers make daily decisions about their animals. Sadly, these independent farmers, despite their rich heritage, find it difficult to compete with factory farms on an unleveled playing field created by agribusiness corporations that have, through big money and political influence, duped the public and politicians into believing factory farms are the same as independent family farms, which they’re not. Corporate dollars and special interests at the federal level block independent family farmers’ access to an open and competitive marketplace and take away jobs from our once vibrant rural communities.

Independent family farmers must remain strongly independent. No livestock board, filled with a handful of pro-industry representatives, need dictate daily decisions on raising livestock as independent family farmers have done so for centuries.

Both conservatives and liberals support independent family farmers’ safe and sustainable methods over factory farms’ antiquated and unfair practices.

Julie Fisher

Link

I have said many times that if you want to know more about agriculture and food production you should ask farmer, not a search engine. This letter to the editor that appeared recently in a newspaper in Missouri proves my point. This lady Googled the term “CAFO” and she determined that it means a farm with mass produced, confined animals and owned by a corporation. Unfortunately, Google failed her in her quest to define the term.

At no time does a CAFO designation reflect who owns the livestock on the facility. As much as the anti-agriculture crowd would like to make people believe that, it’s just not true. It’s also a fabrication to say absentee owners make all the decisions. How could they? It would be impossible for these “absentee owners” to make any daily decisions about the health of an animal or to make ration determinations. These allegations fly in the face of reality and logic.

A CAFO is solely determined on the number of livestock that will be present on a farm or ranch and fed in a specific area for a certain amount of time. For example, on our ranch during the winter we feed our cattle in a designated area so we can provide them adequate protection from the weather and a balanced ration that matches their nutritional needs. Even though we didn’t have enough livestock to require us to do anything, we felt the right thing to do was create a more comprehensive nutrient management plan and become permitted.

So it’s interesting that since our family ranch took those steps to become better stewards of our livestock and land, people like Julie Fisher want to paint us in a negative light. It highlights the lack of understanding about animal agriculture and motivates me to do a better job telling my story.

The Benefits of Modern Ag For Pigs

Study shows moving pigs inside has huge benefits
Nov 23, 2009 12:09 PM MST

COLUMBIA, MO(MU release) – A study by University of Missouri Extension swine experts shows that moving pigs indoors has led to improved health for pigs and higher-quality product for consumers.

Since the shift to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), veterinarians have seen a significant decline in parasites, said Beth Young, swine veterinarian with the University of Missouri Commercial Agriculture Program. Young spoke at the 2009 Swine Institute in Columbia, Nov. 10.

The Commercial Agriculture Swine Focus Team looked at changes in the swine industry since 1945.

In the 1940s, 55-70 percent of pigs were infected with lungworms. By the 1970s lungworm outbreaks only affected about 11 percent of farms. "In the past decade, lungworms are rarely seen," Young said.

"Likewise, 78-94 percent of pigs were infected with kidney worms in the 1940s, and now infestations are rarely seen," she said. Read More

It’s more than annoying to hear the anti-agriculture crowd try claiming that modern livestock housing is unhealthy for our animals. Even without these scientific studies, farmers and ranchers can easily see what methods for raising livestock allow them to be more comfortable. But it’s studies like these that we need to combine with our own stories to share with our consumers.

Animal Welfare In Modern Production

Speaker: Meat animals likely to stay in confinement settings
By ART HOVEY / Lincoln Journal Star Posted: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:00 pm

Despite increasing criticism from animal rights and welfare groups, Tim Amlaw doesn't expect to see the gates thrown open in livestock confinement settings in Nebraska and other prominent livestock states.

The typical chicken is not going back to scratching his way across the barnyard and the typical hog is not going back to burying himself up to his snout in his favorite mudhole.

Amid rising worldwide demand for food, "a concentrated system of production is going to be a necessity," Amlaw, based in Colorado as director of the farm animal program for American Humane, said in Lincoln Tuesday.

He expects demand to also dictate production systems "that keep costs reasonably low."

Amlaw's appearance at the 2009 Nebraska Cattlemen Beef Industry Issues Summit comes at a time when new laws in California, Michigan and other states are taking aim at cages for laying hens, gestation crates for pregnant hogs, and other tight spaces used for food animal production.

Read More

Reassuring consumers that our livestock are well cared for is always going to be an important thing. And every farmer or rancher that I know is always trying to make the care of their livestock even better. Modern livestock facilities can offer the higher level of care to our animals. It allows for more individualized care and closer monitoring. Animal welfare is a top priority, if it becomes anything less than that you will not be able to keep the family farm going. Successful family farms depend on high quality animal care.

Robert Gates: Borlaug a 'warrior against hunger'

Colleagues and friends of Norman Borlaug remembered the Nobel Peace Prize winner on Tuesday as a humanitarian who "built armies of agricultural workers" to combat famine in the world's developing countries.



By BETSY BLANEY

Associated Press Writer



COLLEGE STATION, Texas —

Colleagues and friends of Norman Borlaug remembered the Nobel Peace Prize winner on Tuesday as a humanitarian who "built armies of agricultural workers" to combat famine in the world's developing countries.



Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was president of Texas A&M University during the scientist's tenure at the school, told about 1,000 who attended the memorial that Borlaug was a teacher, a scientist and a warrior against hunger.



He "inspired thousands to work to feed the world, and inspired millions to believe it's possible. Our most important observance of Norm's passing," Gates said, is to persist in that work and in that belief.



"This was Norm Borlaug the builder who at every opportunity encouraged learning, and built armies of agricultural workers," Gates said.



"He was in favor of anything that would keep hungry people fed," Ed Runge, the retired head of A&M's soil and crop sciences department and a close friend who persuaded Borlaug teach at the school, said before the memorial. "He used science to advance food production." Read More



The statement by Ed Runge really wrapped up what Dr. Borlaug was all about, “He was in favor of anything that kept hungry people fed.” It’s that type of attitude that more people need to have. There are many elitists on our society that don’t have that same mentality though. Michael Pollan and his followers would rather have a system that grows our food more slowly, and less efficiently. That was the type of agriculture that Dr. Borlaug grew up in and spent his life trying to change.

We Can Grow Enough, But Will We Be Allowed To?

Can We Grow More Food in 50 Years Than in All of History?
Science Leader Says Population and Global Warming Make the Job Hard
By NED POTTER
Oct. 5, 2009 —

How dire is the world's situation? So bad, says a leading Australian scientist, that the world will have to produce more food in the next 50 years than we have in the thousands of years since civilization began.

There have been dark predictions -- mostly wrong -- of worldwide food shortages before.
But this one comes from Megan Clark, the head of Australia's national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO. Clark is hardly a wild-eyed extremist; she is a former mining executive.

In a speech in Canberra last week, Clark said growing population will cause exponentially-rising demand, and a warming climate will make the challenge more difficult.

"It is hard for me to comprehend that in the next 50 years we will need to produce as much food as has been consumed over our entire human history," she said.

In her Canberra speech, Clark said the difficulty will grow as more and more people move to cities and as a warming climate makes it more difficult to grow more crops.

There are others who say such worries are overblown, and that because of genetic engineering and other advances, there will not be vast increases in the numbers of the world's hungry.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It," has argued that there are really much more pressing priorities, such as disease. Read More

It’s not climate change, it’s not a lack of technology and it’s not too many people that will cause starvation in this world. The determining factor of whether or not we can grow enough food for everyone to eat is if society will give us the public license to utilize and develop the technology necessary to make it happen. If America’s farmers and ranchers are given the tools, we will be able to continue as the breadbasket of the world and keep hunger at bay. On the other hand, if our society chooses to abandon the use of livestock for food and refuse to accept new varieties of crops then starvation is something that we will have to learn to live with. It’s a rather simple choice. You can be for or against starvation.

Consumers Enjoying Affordable Food

When it comes to food, consumers say price does matter
By Drovers news source Tuesday, September 29, 2009

As consumers place more emphasis on price and value as they fill their grocery carts, America’s conventional beef producers are helping ease the financial burden of rising food costs.

According to the Food Marketing Institute’s (FMI) 2009 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends1, nearly 70 percent of shoppers say the recession is affecting their food shopping — up from 48 percent in 2008. Consumers in every income bracket are checking prices before checking out at the grocery store.

“U.S. consumers are facing rising food costs in a very challenging economy. What most consumers don’t know is that conventional production systems and using modern technologies keep beef affordable,” says Jan Lyons, owner of Lyons Ranch near Manhattan, Kansas.

“Conventional beef production significantly increases the volume of beef produced while conserving natural resources and reducing production costs across all segments of the industry. The result is more affordable beef for everyone.”

Conventional beef production keeps meat-case prices down

A 2009 analysis by Iowa State University agricultural economists Dr. John Lawrence and Maro Ibarburu shows if conventional beef production practices were replaced by organic- or natural-only practices, beef production would decrease by 18 percent and retail prices would increase by 11 percent. Read More

Conventional modern agriculture is under attack, mostly for being too productive. Elitists in this country don’t appreciate a safe affordable food supply since it doesn’t really matter to them. But to families that live paycheck to paycheck, it’s a make or break difference. This article does a nice job of highlighting the benefits of modern beef production.

New Crop Protection Ideas

Scientists Discover How To Send Insects Off The Scent Of Crops
ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2009) — Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)-funded research, published recently in Chemical Communication, describes how scientists have discovered molecules that could confuse insects’ ability to detect plants by interfering with their sense of smell. This could reduce damage to crops by insect pests and contribute to food security.

Lead researcher Dr Antony Hooper of Rothamsted Research, an institute of BBSRC said: “One way in which insects find each other and their hosts is by smell, or more accurately: the detection of chemical signals – pheromones, for example. Insects smell chemicals with their antennae; the chemical actually gets into the antennae of the insect and then attaches to a protein called an odorant-binding protein, or OBP. This then leads to the insect changing its behaviour in some way in response to the smell, for example, flying towards a plant or congregating with other insects.”

Dr Hooper continued: “As well as learning about the nature of this interaction we’ve actually found that there are other compounds that bind to the OBP much more strongly than the pheromone. We could potentially apply these compounds, or similar ones, in some way to block the insects’ ability to detect chemical signals – the smell would be overwhelmed by the one we introduce. We’d expect the insects to be less likely to orientate themselves towards the crop plants, or find mates in this case, and therefore could reduce the damage. Read More

Figuring out new ways to protect our crops from pests and disease could significantly increase our yields. New research suggests that there’s a possibility we could make our crops smell different so that insects wouldn’t recognize them. Essentially being able to “hide” our crops from these devastating insects is great example of using modern technology to solve food production problems.

Increased Food Production by 2050 Needed

World will need 70 per cent more food in 2050: FAO
Hindustantimes.com
9/23/09

World food production must increase by 70 per cent by 2050, to nourish a human population then likely to be 9.1 billion, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation forecast on Wednesday.

"FAO is cautiously optimistic about the world's potential to feed itself by 2050," said FAO Assistant Director-General Hafez Ghanem. However, he stressed that feeding everyone in the world by then "will not be automatic and several significant challenges have to be met."

The agency is preparing for a high-level expert forum in Rome on October 12-13 on "How to Feed the World in 2050" and plans to gather 300 specialists from academic, non-governmental and private sector institutions.

The world population is expected to grow from 6.8 billion today to 9.1 billion in 2050, according to the latest UN forecast. Read More

We either have or will have the technology and the ability to continue feeding everyone on this planet. The real question that will need to be answered is whether or not our society will allow our farmers and ranchers to do it. The questions will be a simple one, either we utilize modern food production techniques in crop and livestock production, or we will decide that some people will go hungry. That is the choice that will need to be made.

In Defense of Farmers

Farmers unite in response to Pollan appearance
(9/20/2009)
Sarah Muirhead

Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food: The Omnivore’s Solution, is scheduled to speak Sept. 24 at 7 p.m. at the Kohl Center in Madison, Wis., as part of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s new common book program known as Go Big Read.

Local farmers are reacting to Pollan’s scheduled appearances by organizing a show of solidarity and have invited all farmers, students, agriculture professionals and “people who are thankful for our safe abundant food supply” to attend the event and wear the color green.

“The choice of this book for the Go Big Read, together with the recent movie Food Inc., and the Time magazine cover story, and now a New York Times article attacking Wisconsin Dairy Farms all call into question the decisions we make on our farms about raising crops and animals. It’s important that we show up at this public event to share our stories,” said the agriculture-based group known as In Defense of Farmers.

The group said that while it supports and believes in the University of Wisconsin, the choice of this book and the unintended endorsement of Pollan and his views simply cannot go unanswered.

Since there will be no other speakers to balance the discussion on Thursday night, “We hope to be there and offer ourselves as reasonable and respectful people who are willing to talk about our farms and answer any questions people may have about how their food is produced. We see this as a chance to gather and share,” said In Defense of Farmers. Read More

I have been getting emails from people all over the country about how to deal with the irresponsible agriculture system that Michael Pollan is promoting. Wherever he goes to speak, local farmers and ranchers are working to counter the one-sided message that many universities are arranging for him to deliver. Those of us that do more than just talk about growing food have been getting pushed and shoved for too long. It’s exciting to see that there are more farmers and ranchers willing to stand up and tell the real story of agriculture. If you aren’t actively working to promote modern food production yet, come join our growing team.

The Passing of Norman Borlaug

The Father Of the Green Revolution
By Joe Holley and J.Y. Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 14, 2009

Norman E. Borlaug, 95, an American plant pathologist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for starting the "Green Revolution" that dramatically increased food production in developing nations and saved countless people from starvation, died Saturday at his home in Dallas.

"More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world," the Nobel committee said in honoring him. "Dr. Borlaug has introduced a dynamic factor into our assessment of the future and its potential."

Edwin Price, director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture at Texas A&M University, said his mentor died of cancer. Since 1984, Dr. Borlaug had been a distinguished professor of international agriculture there.

From the 1970s until his death, he increasingly took the politically incorrect view that environmentalists were hampering world food production by indiscriminately attacking the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

"They claim that the consumer is being poisoned out of existence by the current high-yielding systems of agricultural production and recommend we revert back to lower-yielding, so-called sustainable technologies," he said in a speech in New Orleans in 1993.

Unfortunately, he said, it is not possible to turn the clock back to the 1930s, when the population of the world was 2.2 billion. It was estimated at 5.6 billion in 1995 and was projected to rise to 8.3 billion by 2025. Read More

One of the great heroes in the history of agriculture, Norman Borlaug passed away this weekend at the age of 95. During his career, Borlaug always believed in using modern technology to end hunger. He believed in the proper use of fertilizers and chemicals as well. Those beliefs and his determination and hard work led to saving millions, if not billions, of people from starvation. He moved us away from the type of agriculture that many people like Michael Pollan and others want us to go back to. With a growing world population we have to continue moving forward with our ability to grow food, not backwards.