Calling James O'Connor! (was Liquidation Sale)

Wed Mar 1 02:26:52 PST 2000

Ken Hanly says:

>P.S. The issue of resistant strains of pests is complicated. In some cases it
>may be a problem in other cases not. If the Bt GM engineering did produce a
>resistant pest then it equally would nullify the usefulness of the GM modified
>plant. But where is the evidence this has happened and where is the evidence
>that it could not happen using organic methods? Using loaded terms like
>overkill
>for the GM technique may be good rhetoric. I suppose the organic farmers must
>underkill :)

Well, Ken, that's cute, but neither environmentalists, farmers (organic or
non-organic), nor *even Monsanto* is as simple-minded as you have them
appear.  They _all_ know that it is not a question of whether resistance to
GM crops will appear; even among those who support Bt crops, the question
is how to _manage_ insect resistance.  Monsanto and some farmers think they
can manage it by creating refuges; other farmers -- especially organic
farmers -- don't think so.  In any case, Bt crops are another step toward
more capital intensive agriculture *tightly controlled* by manufacturers of
chemical inputs.  In my opinion, organic farmers are likely to lose their
sprayable Bt as a tool once Bt crops become widespread (see Soumya Sarkar,
"Greater Pest Resistance Likely in Transgenic Crops" in the other post I
sent in this thread).  There can be *no rational management* of GM
technology, insect resistance, etc. under capitalism.  I'm as
"old-fashioned" as you are when it comes to Marxism!   Yoshie

*****   Beat 'em with Bt
Cotton farmers make history with their never-ending worm battle

by Charles Johnson

As ravenous resistant worms ate up profits last year, cotton farmers could
do little but wring their hands and dream of 1996. Now the new year brings
control options never before available in cotton or any other major crop.

This year, for the first time, transgenic cotton with Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) insecticide naturally in the plant will be grown on a large
scale. Delta and Pine Land Co. and Jacob Hartz Seed Co. both have new Bt
cottons on the market, using transgenic technology developed by Monsanto.
It could be the most complete insect-control weapon yet in cotton, one of
the most insecticide-dependent crops grown in the U.S.

For many, though, the Bt cotton introduction comes a year late. Insects hit
last year's crop with an unprecedented onslaught. Losses came to $1.6
billion, says Frank Carter, manager of pest management/regulatory issues
for the National Cotton Council (NCC). Growers lost 2.03 million bales to
insects and still spent $880 million on insecticides. The budworm/bollworm
complex targeted by Bt cotton cost farmers 785,000 bales.

The average cotton farmer last year spent more than $55 per acre on
insecticides, according to NCC figures. Farmers in the hill country of
Mississippi, however, spent $185 per acre, mostly for budworm/bollworm
control, and many still lost the crop, says Blake Layton, Mississippi
Extension entomologist. Other areas, including Alabama, Tennessee and parts
of Texas reported extensive damage, as well.

Most entomologists cite a twofold cause for last year's worm attack. Five
mild winters let insect population build. In addition, budworms and
bollworms quickly build resistance to insecticides. As the pyrethroid
insecticides most cotton farmers used improved, resistance built that much
faster. Last year, worms hit fast and hard. Farmers began early spray
programs that wiped out beneficial insects, and the race was lost almost
before it began.

Some farmers blame boll weevil eradication programs for the worm explosion.
Entomologists like Layton doubt that, however. "There was no difference in
yield loss to severe worm outbreaks inside and outside the eradication
zone," he says.

The new Bt cottons hit the market to cautionary excitement. Researchers
already have discovered budworm/bollworm resistance to Bt in the
laboratory.

To combat resistance, growers must agree to a plan devised by Monsanto and
the Environmental Protection Agency. Farmers sign a licensing agreement
that they will either plant 20% of their acreage in non-Bt cottons and not
spray Bt insecticide on that "refuge" area, or they agree to plant 4% of
their acreage to non-Bt varieties and use no insecticides on that at all.

The experts believe resistance is a recessive gene present in a small
percentage of the population. The refuge approach, they reckon, will leave
enough worms that they won't develop resistance to the new Bt cotton.
Growers must also agree to let company representatives inspect fields.
They'll have kits for testing cotton for presence of the Bt gene. Farmers
caught violating the license contract will pay a penalty of 120 times the
original cost per acre for the seed, says Delta and Pine Land Co.

None of this will be cheap. Farmers pay Monsanto a $32-per-acre licensing
fee for use of the Bt technology. The seed itself will sell for a premium.

Yet farmers who were hard-hit by worms last year say it could be a bargain.
Kenneth Hood, a Gunnison, Miss., farmer, tested Bt cotton on 4,800 acres
owned by himself and his gin customers last year. In addition, he had 4,200
acres of conventional cotton. He spent $175 per acre to control insects on
the conventional fields. Costs on the Bt cotton, including Monsanto's
licensing fee, ran $96 per acre less.

"I'm enthused about it," Hood says.

Delta and Pine Land Co. has enough Bt cotton on hand to plant 2-1/2 million
acres, says Don Kimmel, vice president of marketing. Hartz Bt seed, on the
other hand, will be limited this year, says sales rep Wes Joost. It'll
likely be 1998 before a third company, Stoneville Pedigreed Seed, markets
its Bt cotton, says agronomist David Guthrie.

The companies' top concern right now is supplying big customer demand. But
for farmers, once seed goes in the ground, the question will be how the
worms react to the new technology.

It'll be a few years before we have the answer. But one thing's certain.
When cotton planters begin to roll, they'll be making history.