Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Sometimes we dig in our heels to our own detriment.

January is the time of year when people renew their commitment to eat healthier and take better care of themselves and their families. As we entered the New Year, mainstream media seemed to be fixated on the benefits of a diet that favors local and organic production.

This is also the time of year when farmers get together with their urban friends and family and rehash the debate on organic food versus conventional crop production methods, most of which now include biotech enhanced seed products. The debate is getting tired and I’ve had my fill of all the rhetoric from both sides.

Let’s wipe the slate clean and look at this objectively. Surely we can all agree that biotechnology is about a lot more than herbicide tolerance. It is about maximizing the resources available to produce safe, nutritious food. These goals mirror the objectives of all farmers, including organic producers. Is it that crazy to suggest that a potential partnership between the science of biotechnology and the organic philosophy could trigger a new era in food production that could potentially benefit consumers, the environment, developing nations, and the entire planet?

If organic food is to grow beyond its elitist market niche with urban foodies, the production systems must become more efficient and sustainable, especially when it comes to fertility. Relying on composted manure is problematic and represents a constraint to significant expansion of organic crop production. Crop genetics that require lower amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium would seem to be a natural fit for organic systems. Same goes for water utilization. On the weed front, nature has provided examples of allelopathic traits (walnut trees for example) where plants exude chemistry that prevents competition from weeds. Imagine how much less fuel organic producers would burn if weed control came with the seed in the form of an allelopathic trait instead of using iron, flames, etc. to beat back the weeds. Could biotechnology make organic production systems the default method of farming? I say dare to dream, but if these two camps continue work in isolation from each other, we all lose.

Over the history of agriculture, it has been common for like minded individuals to come together to strengthen their knowledge base and find community and solidarity. This can be good – no-tillers talk to no-tillers, share experiences and learn together. But the downside becomes apparent when these groups become insulated and start to sink deeper into the ruts they drive in. No one is served if biotech researchers and progressive organic producers refuse to consider the common goals and objectives they share. Both sides have a responsibility to explore partnerships.

My gut tells me that the anti-biotech sentiment that has been a cornerstone of the organic farm culture has less to do with the science than the entities who design, develop and deliver the tools. Would it be more palatable for organic producers to consider biotech advances if the science did not come from multinational companies? If a nitrogen efficiency trait fell from the sky would organic producers walk away from it? Don’t think so.

Surely we are mature enough to get beyond these silly thought patterns. Think about the potential of a global food production revolution that could arise from the merger of organic stewardship philosophies and cutting edge biotechnology. As a conventional producer without super-strong binds to either organic or biotech dogma, I welcome the possibilities. Would you?

Click here to join this discussion.

Peter Gredig
Farms.com
Peter.Gredig@Farms.com

Follow me on Twitter. I’m Agwag.
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.

Views: 176

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Greed, money and nature of the beast. Organic farming to me is the reign of the entrepreneurs and biotech the reign of the multi-national. Both demand high prices either for the product or production costs, both need farmers to grow their product, and both want the other one gone from the market. To think they will work together, is barking up the wrong tree. If you are running a farm business, your end product is the money in the bank, to pay of debt. And I don't know many farmers who are no in debt. The ones who tend to play with organic farming tend to be very small farms and have other forms of income to play in it or have a market.
Peter's Commentary generated some interesting discussions on the main Farms.com chat forum. Here are some threads.

I have recently decided to transition to organic dairy farming. The reason I have decided to do this is not to make more money in a niche market but entirely for health reasons. I am not convinced that GMOs are safe and it is quite easy to find research that questions the safety of pesticides. I want to provide myself and my family with the safest and healthiest food and home possible and I believe not using pesticides and GMOs will help me to do that. I know there are many who don't have the same views as me and I'm ok with that. Everyone can make there own decision on what is best for them and their families. I can't speak for all organic farmers but I would have no interest in using seed with a nitrogen efficiency trait.


Date Posted : 1/9/2010 7:53:11 PM Delete






Re:Biotechnology and Organics: Why can’t they be f Report this Message | Reply to this Message
I have made a study of biotech, from the brazen disinformation campaigns to the safety of the technology and there is nothing organic or safe about genetically modified fake food as far as I can see. Biotech appears to be in it for the money and not for "helping feed the world" as they would have people think. They pay a whole lot of money to people to write propaganda for them. On the other hand, the organic culture has worked to stay true to the idea of real, natural, healthy and safe food. In my mind, its apparent who should I trust.


Date Posted : 1/10/2010 11:45:33 AM Delete






Re: Biotechnology and Organics Report this Message | Reply to this Message
I have worked and run an organic certification agency for more than 6 years. I have heard it from both sides. I myself have started to become convinced that "sustainable agriculture" has taken several wrong turns, including not paying enough attention to why large scale conventional agriculture is the way it is--there are reasons. This piece, one by Blake Hurst over at the American Enterprise Institute, and the recent Stewart Brand book on Eco-pragmatism has got me thinking about how sustainability in agriculture and organics specifically has marched its way into a dead end. Too often organic, sustainability, and environmental activists have settled for a fossilized rhetorical purity that is increasingly divorced from the realities of the problems we face. Increasingly, organics is a vehicle for self righteousness and scalism and is less and less relevant to feeding a growing world in a time when natural resource shortages loom over the horizon. In my opinion, the sustainable agriculture movement has to backtrack to where it went wrong and to my eye that is when it began to turn away from scientific rigor and towards rhetorical rigor. What we need is to reboot sustainability under a new mantle of Sustainability 2.0. , which should be pragmatic and science based, and which should include an objective discussion of the role of GMOs in sustainability. Don't get me wrong---I love organics and what it stood for--there was a purity and a simplicity to the idea that appealed to my younger romantic self. And I do believe that people should have the right to vote their ideals in the checkout line. But organics has co-opted and fully occupied the sustainability turf, choosing to ignore the massive improvements that "conventional agriculture" have developed, including IPM, no-till farming, and yes, perhaps even the advent of GMO crops. But make no mistake, the way forward is not to reform organics and bring the movement to the table with bio-technology promoters. Organics cannot and will not go back. It has become to big to do that. Organics has become a 23 billion dollar industry in the U.S. That pales next to the size of the entire agricultural market in the U.S. but it is not a pittance, and there are entrenched players with vested interests in seeing the market preserved as it is because they have grown this market from nothing. They will not jeopardize it by tinkering on that scale. No, what is needed is a new movement towards sustainability, one that is pragmatic rather than dogmatic, one that is science based rather than rhetorically based. That is the only way forward. The world needs to quit ceding the sustainability banner to organics. I for one would welcome that dialogue and welcome that effort. Anyone want to start a new certification standard along those lines? I would. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"


Date Posted : 1/10/2010 1:45:05 PM Delete






Re: Re: Biotechnology and Organics Report this Message | Reply to this Message
Agree with the writer above. There has to be a proper balance in this situation. I wonder if anyone realizes that the organic market has also been an attraction to the big companies who now have branches under different names that are selling "organic" foods at higher prices than their usual products. Speaking of "being in it for the money", these companies are going in the same direction. As usual the old adage, CAVEAT EMPTOR, applies.


Date Posted : 1/10/2010 10:07:29 PM Delete






Re:Biotechnology and Organics Report this Message | Reply to this Message
I don't see how a partnership between biotechnology or better known as GMO's and Organics could potentially benefit consumers, the environment, developing nations, and the entire planet?
60 years ago it was said that chemical fertilizers and pesticides was the way to go that it was the magic solution to hunger in the world. I don't deny the great increase on yields achieved thats admirable but last year the number of hungry people in world reached 1.2 billions! Farmers are still fighting the same or more resistant pests and diseases relying completely on the continuous use of toxic pesticides that reach our water streams and food chain, If we can not feed the world despite the heavy use of chemicals and the complete dependency on oil to produce food there is gotta be something vey wrong and that is GREEDINESS.
Biotechnology can not benefit consumers because the very few published SCIENTIFIC studies show that use of GMO'S can cause sperm reduction, new allergies and a decrease on progenie's size, generational studies should be performed before claiming that GMO's are good for the world.
Organic Farming not only relies on composted manure, there is tons of many products that can be composted that end up in the landfills and could be used to improve soil fertility.
The only way to benefit the consumers, the environment, developing nations and the whole world is to start NOW bringing soils back to life by composting all the excessive wastes, stop monocropping and promote biodiversity, protect the varieties that have been feeding the world for many generations and reduce reliance on oil to produce food.
We dont need any other temporary patch to the present agricultural situation, we need a real solution and thats not GMO's for sure.



Date Posted : 1/11/2010 10:52:46 AM Delete






Re:Biotechnology and Organics Report this Message | Reply to this Message
I am sorry Peter but you are not qualified to make any of your asumptions.
It is simple math-Bioteck= Corporate greed and control of nature=no accountability
Organics=Education and woking with nature=accountability

Take notice of all the posts here and get educated about what oganic farming is!


Date Posted : 1/11/2010 2:44:29 PM

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Map: Prairie Dryness, Drought Little Changed in May

Abnormal dryness and drought across Western Canada were little changed in May compared to a month earlier. The latest monthly update of the Canadian drought monitor shows 19% of Prairie agricultural lands were being impacted by abnormally dry or drought conditions as of the end of May. That is 2 points higher than the end of April but slightly below 21% at the end of March and sharply below 47% in February. Much of the Prairie Region received below to well below normal precipitation in May, with the Peace Region, south-central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba recording less than 25% of normal. On the last day of the month, however, a large storm system in Alberta produced 40 to 80 mm of precipitation alone. In east-central Alberta up to 300% of normal monthly precipitation fell in the one day. Significant rainfall was also recorded in western regions of Saskatchewan but at lower levels than in eastern Alberta, the monitor said. Temperatures were generally below normal across

U.S. Soybean Ending Stocks Steady

U.S. soybean ending stocks – both old and new-crop - were left unchanged in USDA’s June supply-demand update on Thursday. For 2026-27, USDA made no changes to the U.S. soybean balance sheet this month. Estimated production remained at 4.435 billion bu, up 173 million from 2025-26, while the crush was held at 2.75 billion bu and exports at 1.63 billion. With no changes, forecasted 2026-27 U.S. soybean ending stocks were left steady from May at 310 million, modestly below the average trade guess of 314 million bu. The USDA also kept the 2026-27 season-average farm price unchanged at $11.40/bu, up from the 2025-26 estimate of $10.40. For old-crop 2025-26 soybeans, the USDA raised crush by 20 million bu, citing stronger soybean meal exports and domestic meal use, while soybean oil use for biofuel was also increased. However, exports were lowered by 20 million bushels based on available U.S. Census data, offsetting the increase in crush and leaving ending stocks unchanged at 340 mi

Only Modest Adjustments for Old-, New-Crop U.S. Corn

The USDA left its 2026-27 U.S. corn outlook virtually unchanged this month, with the only supply-side change a 3 million-bu increase tied to a higher import forecast carried in from the old-crop balance sheet. In its June supply-demand update on Thursday, USDA left 2026-27 U.S. corn production unchanged at 15.995 billion bu, while all major demand categories were also steady. Feed and residual use was held at 6.1 billion bu, food, seed and industrial use at 6.955 billion, including 5.6 billion for ethanol, and exports at 3.15 billion. With no change in use, the small increase in 2026-27 beginning supplies carried directly into ending stocks, which were raised 3 million bu from May to 1.96 billion, slightly above the average pre-report trade guess of 1.942 billion. The season-average farm price was unchanged at $4.40/bu. Corn futures were trading about 7-8 cents/bu lower this afternoon, following the report’s noon hour EST release. For old-crop 2025-26, USDA also made only mo

Don’t miss June 12 deadline: Share your feedback on the Beef Cattle Code of Practice

Public comment period nearing close on proposed updates to national beef cattle care standards.The Beef Code outlines expected and recommended animal care practices for beef cattle. The public comment period is an opportunity for anyone who has an interest in how beef cattle are raised in Canada, including consumers, veterinarians, food service professionals, and producers, to review the draft content and share feedback. Feedback gathered through the public comment period is critical and helps determine the content of the final document. Strong producer feedback from all regions of Canada is an important step in this process. The Beef Code is meant to drive continuous improvement in animal welfare and is built to be scientifically informed, practical, and reflect societal expectations for responsible farm animal care. The Code uses an outcome-based approach that focuses on achieving successful standards while allowing for flexibility in how these outcomes are met rather than dictati

From the Government Desk: ABP keeping up momentum

Spring is always one of the best times of year in this business. Calving is underway, seed is going into the ground, and there’s a sense of momentum heading into the grazing season. This year, that momentum also includes a few policy wins worth noting. Strychnine is back in 2026! After its approval was pulled in 2023, producers have been searching for a useful option to control infestations of Richardson’s ground squirrel. If you’re impacted, you’ll know why this is a meaningful development. The rollout is still underway, with initial access expected toward the end of May. For some, that timing will miss the most effective spring window, which is frustrating. There is expected to be another opportunity later in the summer, but it won’t fully replace what many producers were hoping for this spring. That said, getting this approval across the line was no small task. This was very much an Alberta-led effort, with strong collaboration between cropping groups and ABP to build the case. A

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service