How 4H Is Helping Big Ag Take Over Africa

Lasrick writes 4H is in Africa, helping to distribute Big Ag products like DuPont's Pioneer seeds through ostensibly good works aimed at youth. In Africa, where the need to produce more food is especially urgent, DuPont Pioneer and other huge corporations have made major investments. But there are drawbacks: "DuPont's nutritious, high-yielding, and drought-tolerant hybrid seed costs 10 times as much. While Ghanaians typically save their own seeds to plant the next year, hybrid seeds get weaker by the generation; each planting requires another round of purchasing. What's more, says Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with the sustainable-farming nonprofit Genetic Resources Action International, because hybrid seeds are bred for intensive agriculture, they typically need chemicals to thrive."

Comments

Alternative?

[sideslash]

Perhaps the alternative is seeds for fragile crops that will die in a drought and never yield much despite access to cheap chemical fertilizers? Look, I get that it's fun to hate on "Big Ag", but I also get that hippies are fond of biting the hand that feeds them. And Big Ag doesn't just feed hippies, it feeds the world, and there currently isn't any good substitute for it.

Instead of disparaging charitable works in Africa that a rational person will perceive to be doing good to feed hungry people, why don't you focus on donating money to promote "open source" crop lines somewhere in the States so there are good alternatives to give to Africa and the rest of the world? Put your money where your mouth is (in a couple of senses).

Re:So, does water cost more?

[pubwvj]

You are demonstrating a classic lack of understanding about farming and agriculture. Reality is not the either or situation that you hypothesize.

In the real world we save our best seed and livestock year to year using that to grow the next generation. With each generation the plants and animals become more adapted, stronger and do better with the local conditions. The seed and livestock are free, other than having to save some back from the harvest. This is how we have traditionally improved our stock, both plants and animals, for thousands of years. It works without paying high prices for fancy seeds.

Thus the option is #0, which you completely neglected to consider.

Re:So, does water cost more?

[lkcl]

What are the possible choices for farmers?

1. grow crappy crops with free seeds and lots of expensive water,
2. grow good groups with seeds that you need to pay for but use less water?

#2 will make you more money, so the cost of the seeds is a non-factor. #1 will make you poor, because when it doesn't rain your crops die.

So, what exactly is the issue?

this is a completely wrong analysis. if (2) was true those people would have been dead centuries or millenia ago. the fact that they are still alive tells you that they get by, and that, honestly, is good enough.

there was an attempt a few decades ago to do exactly what DuPont is doing [again]. i do not understand why 1st world countries do not leave the 3rd world alone to grow their own food. 1st world conditions are NOT THE SAME as 3rd world conditions.

the study that i heard about was exactly the same situation. a 3rd world country which had extremely poor yields was interfered with by a 1st world country providing donations of high-yield maize. for three to four years the success of the trials resulted in bumper crops and the surrounding farmers clambered onto the 1st world genetic variety maize.

then there was a drought.

the high-yield 1st world maize died, and the entire area went into famine. next year, because nothing had grown, nobody had any food the year after, either.

basically it turned out that the low-yield maize had a MASSIVE genetic diversity. some variants thrived in good conditions, some grew successfully *EVEN IN DROUGHT CONDITIONS*. no matter what happened, those people always got some food. not necessarily a lot, but enough so that they didn't die.

now the problem was with this stupid, stupid interference by a 1st world country was that because everyone in the area had converted over to this wonderful high-yield maize, NOBODY HAD ANY OF THE OLD GENETIC VARIETY LEFT.

it was a decade before the country properly recovered, and that was just from one drought.

so the conclusion is, unescapably, that DuPont is intent on killing people just to make a profit, as this isn't the first time that providing 1st world maize to 3rd world countries has gone very very wrong.

just leave them alone. we *DON'T* know better.

Re: SO

[Ol Olsoc]

I don't know why he thought you were paid. The Internet has made it clear that people are willing to be ignorant, racist douche bags for free.

My my, that escalated quickly.

and stupidly.

I some mythical world, it is racist to give people seeds that are high yield hybrids. Seeds that are racist.

Well Sparky, if the people were given seeds that didn't produce such yields, it would be likewise racist, because you were not giving them high yield seeds. Those high yielding varieties would feed more people. Why would we keep the highest yield seeds to ourselves?

The basic truth is that if present day subsistence farmers are going to feed their countries, they are going to have to move forward. Hard to imagine that would be all that bad a thing.

Which is where my commentary comes from. If the conditions for helping a person is to enable them to continually need help, they really are not being helped, are they. We've just become permanently supporting pseudo-parents.

So instead of bellyaching, crying, moaning, and gnashing of teeth about how fucking awful we are, if some farmer in these lands wants to use high yielding seeds that need to be purchased - let them. Then if other farmers want to use the non-racist seeds that they can continue to save seeds from - let them.

Seems like a win-win situation to me. And if the non-racist seeds prove superior to the racist seeds, then the racist seeds won't be used any more.