Ignored Agriculture Study Illustrates Why Corporate Power Hurts Common People

The New York Times reports on a USDA funded study conducted by the University of Iowa that illustrates that farming can be done with fewer chemicals.

The study was done on land owned by Iowa State University called the Marsden Farm. On 22 acres of it, beginning in 2003, researchers set up three plots: one replicated the typical Midwestern cycle of planting corn one year and then soybeans the next, along with its routine mix of chemicals. On another, they planted a three-year cycle that included oats; the third plot added a four-year cycle and alfalfa. The longer rotations also integrated the raising of livestock, whose manure was used as fertilizer.

The results were stunning: The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.

In short, there was only upside — and no downside at all — associated with the longer rotations.

I admit that I haven't searched every South Dakota newspaper to see if this article has been picked up, but I couldn't find the study mentioned in the Argus Leader or the Yankton Press & Dakotan. The Times points out that many publications seem to ignore this study; it has been ignored by " has been largely ignored by the media, two of the leading science journals and even one of the study’s sponsors, the often hapless Department of Agriculture." The article documents the journals that might fear corporate repercussions if they publish the findings.

The agency declined to comment when I asked about it. One can guess that perhaps no one at the higher levels even knows about it, or that they’re afraid to tell Monsanto about agency-supported research that demonstrates a decreased need for chemicals. (A conspiracy theorist might note that the journals Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences both turned down the study. It was finally published in PLOS One; I first read about it on the Union of Concerned Scientists Web site.)

The Times points to the obvious conclusion:

So this is a matter of paying people for their knowledge and smart work instead of paying chemical companies for poisons.

Since the people who have the knowledge and are willing to work smart aren't going to increase Monsanto's bottom line, it's obvious that the sponsor of most corporate agriculture practices will continue to prefer poisons to people.

Quotation Of The Day: Suicidal, Hard-Hearted, And Spineless Edition

Writing about the House Republican farm bill that "cut food stamps by more than $12 billion while actually adding new subsidies to agribusiness," Walter Russel Mead sums up the decision than nearly anyone else:

The House Republican majority certainly looks like it’s trying to destroy itself. The combination of raising agricultural subsidies by billions of dollars and cutting food stamps is one of the most stupid, self-destructive moves an American political party could make.

A party with principles might cut food stamps and farm supports. A party with no principles but good political instincts might spend more on food stamps and farm subsidies. But to cut food stamps while subsidizing big agriculture manages to make Republicans look hard-hearted and spineless at the same time.

HT: Rod Dreher

Quotation Of The Day: Ag Policy Edition

From this New York Times article:

“The future is local,” said Narendra Varma, 43, a former manager at Microsoft who invested $2 million of his own money last year in a 58-acre project of small plots and new-farmer training near Portland, Ore. The first four farmers arrived this spring alongside Mr. Varma and his family, aiming to create an economy of scale — tiny players banded in collective organic clout. He had to interrupt a telephone interview to move some goats.

Economists and agriculture experts say the “slow money” movement that inspired Mr. Varma, a way of channeling money into small-scale and organic food operations, along with the aging of the farmer population and steep barriers for young farmers who cannot afford the land for traditional rural agriculture, are only part of the new mix.

Any paragraph that has a millionaire interrupt a conversation to move goats deserves to be the quotation of the day.

The curious side of me wonders if Big Ag Farma will allow this trend to continue. The article reports that "[t]he federal farm bill, passed by the Senate last month, has provisions to support farmers’ markets." I suspect, however, that Representative Kristi Noem,South Dakota's reigning Ms. Monsanto, will continue her DC efforts to ensure that corporate agriculture continues to be the norm.