What Is "Genetically Modified"?

The most familiar GMO crops are those which have genes added to provide resistance to a herbicide, or to fight some disease or pest.  The anti-GMO people argue this is messing with mother nature, when you add a gene to corn which comes from some other organism, and that such messing is dangerous.  I don't agree, but I can understand why someone might think that way.

But now comes a report that Chinese scientists have genetically modified wheat to improve its resistance to powdery mildew. What strikes me is the method used: deleting  genes that encode proteins that repress defenses against the mildew.  To me, this undermines the anti-GMO argument--you aren't creating a Frankenstein's monster by combining parts from different organisms, you're simply streamlining an organism.

I suspect few anti-GMO types will agree with me.

[Update: this was a very early use of what is now familiar to most: CRISPR.  I give myself kudos for seeing this and noting the difference with standard genetic modification so early.  Sept. 10, 2018]

Words of Wisdom from Kevin Drum

Towards the end of a rant (Kevin rants? yes) against Thomas Frank's new article on Obama:

"All of us who do what Thomas Frank does—what I do—have failed. Our goal was to persuade the public to move in a liberal direction, and that didn't happen. In the end, we didn't persuade much of anyone. It's natural to want to avoid facing that humiliating truth, and equally natural to look for someone else to blame instead. That's human nature. So fine. Blame Obama if it makes you feel better. That's what we elect presidents for: to take the blame.

But he only deserves his share. The rest of us, who were unable to take advantage of an epic financial collapse to get the public firmly in favor of pitchforks and universal health care, deserve most of it. The mirror doesn't lie."

Handling Emails, Tweets, and Chats

FCW has an article on government failures in handling e-communications of all sorts.  It confirms my previous post about problems in ASCS/FSA.

Bittman and Blah on Cheeseburger Freedom

From a Mark Bittman post at the Times:

If those externalities were borne by their producers rather than by consumers and society at large, the industry would be a highly unprofitable, even silly one. It would either cease to exist or be forced to raise its prices significantly.

In this discussion, the cheeseburger is simply a symbol of a food system gone awry. Industrial food has manipulated cheap prices for excess profit at excess cost to everyone; low prices do not indicate “savings” or true inexpensiveness but deception. And all the products of industrial food consumption have externalities that would be lessened by a system that makes as its primary goal the links among nutrition, fairness and sustainability.

That's the concluding sentences of an argument that industrial ag, as symbolized by the cheeseburger, has very costly externalities: it has a big carbon footprint, it contributes to obesity, obesity contributes to poor health, plus a handful of more minor effects. I've no problem with Bittman's pointing out the negative externalities, but I do have two problems with the piece:

• First, if you're going to discuss externalities, fairness means you need to talk about positive ones as well.  The cheeseburger is one of the great American contributions to the cause of freedom.  It frees women to do something other than cook 3 meals a day, as my mother did.  Whether it's to pursue a career or just to get a second income for the family, that freedom, that ability to choose is important.  (Obviously men and children also gain more freedom, more choice as well, but women are the greatest gainers.)
• Second, I find these words simply incoherent: "Industrial food has manipulated cheap prices for excess profit at excess cost to everyone".  I defy anyone to expand the statement in a way which makes sense.

I'm a Whippersnapper??

Via University Diaries, Pew has a political typology quiz, which says based on my answers:

Generally young, well-educated and financially comfortable, the Next Generation Left have very liberal attitudes on many issues, including homosexuality, abortion, the environment and foreign policy. While overall supportive of an activist government, most are wary of expanding the social safety net. Most also have relatively positive views of Wall Street’s impact on the economy. While most affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, few consider themselves strong Democrats. Compare groups on key issues.

 As usual, you're offered two choices on each question and I'd view most of them as a continuum, not binary.

Rules on Nondiscrimination at USDA

Thanks to Farm Policy, here's the final rule on nondiscrimination at USDA--from the preamble:

" Applicants and program participants will provide the race, ethnicity, and gender data on a voluntary basis."

If I read it correctly, it makes the rules currently applicable to the service center agencies (FSA, NRCS, and RD) apply also to other USDA programs which directly serve people.  That's important, because most of USDA's money is indirect--the food stamp, WIC, etc. program administered through state agencies.  It also expands the protected grounds to political beliefs and gender identity.

The Power of Organization and Wealth

I draw one moral from two different stories in today's Washington Post. 

• In one, South Korean men are searching for brides in China and Vietnam.  According to the story the Korean men are too poor to attract a Korean bride, so they exploit the difference in wealth to go to Vietnam for a woman from a poor background who's hoping to jump up in status.
• In the other, the Kurds in Iraq are expanding the territory they control, and according to the story the people being brought under their control are accepting it.  Order and security are better than a ruling elite of one's own ethno-religious affiliation.

My moral: the old "golden rule"--he who has the gold rules, modified to say, he who has what people want (money, order) rules.  That's cynical, but it's also rewarding those who provide what people want (and only hurting the poor Vietnamese peasant man and the ideologue in Iraq who puts ideas above human welfare).

Yields on Lake Woebegon Farms

By definition, the farms around Lake Woebegon normally have above average weather.  And "around" extends to the 48 states, at least.  The question really is, whether "normal" should include below average years.  At one time we used "Olympic averaging" in ASCS--tossing the highest and lowest years and using the remaining ones.  But there's always pressure from the field and from Congress to recognize that we live in Lake Woebegon, and that applies to crop insurance as well as the old disaster programs of the 1970's.

From yesterday's Farm Policy:

A news release yesterday from Chairman Conaway stated that, “[Chairman Conaway] called on the Agriculture Department to implement the Actual Production History adjustment in 2015. The adjustment was part of the 2014 Farm Bill and allows farmers to prevent harvest years that are affected by severe weather from having a negative impact on the calculations determining their crop insurance coverage. ‘There are farmers and ranchers who have experienced severe drought for three years,’ Congressman Conaway said. ‘Many remain in severe drought this year. A good many of these areas are in D-4 drought condition. Despite all of this, we understand the department intends to administratively delay APH relief until 2016, the THIRD year of a FIVE year farm bill. I respectfully urge the department to respond to this natural disaster in states like Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado and other states around the country with the same speed and determination as one would expect in the case of a wildfire or a hurricane.’
“While Under Secretary Scuse did not commit to implement the provision earlier than the fall of 2015, he did commit to go back and investigate and provide the committee with detail about potential timelines, and even consider a partial implementation for areas and crops most impacted by drought and losses in the farm bill.”

Didn't Know This--Roosters Have Breeds

From Reuters, hattip Farm Policy:

"key breed of rooster has a genetic issue that is reducing its fertility"

(Never thought about the breeding of chickens, I assume given the short life span of roosters, we're talking about a son of a son of a son--i.e., a lineage?)

The Enrichment of Rural Life

Was looking at a recent post on Life on a Colorado Farm, the one where she asks for help in identifying a bird at her feeder, then viewed the comments.  The LCF writer lives on a butte in Colorado, so she sees a lot of weather, and nice views.  In this she's a lot like my mother, who lived near the top of a hill in upstate New York, and enjoyed the views looking west over the hills. 

When mom married she moved to the valley, which she regretted. Her life on the hill was  back in the early 1900's so there's a great difference in life experiences.  A few of them:

• LCF has a camera with which she takes many great pictures.  Mom had a similar enjoyment of natural phenomena, the clouds, the snow, the seasons, etc. but had no way to record it.
• LCF has the Internet and a blog.  Mom had a lonely life on the hill--they had a watering trough by the gravel road which passed between house and barn and she was eager to visit with the few passersby who would stop to water their horses.  During my childhood she was equally eager to visit with the people who came to buy our cracked eggs.  But I'm sure she would have much enjoyed the companionship available through a blog and blogroll and sharing with people with similar circumstances and backgrounds.

The Rural Blog does a good job at reporting on rural life, which often has greater problems than nonrural life (i.e. drugs, access to healthcare, economy, etc. etc.). One thing we need to remember is the isolation of rural life in the not too-remote past, and the changes made by modern technology.