The US-based Monsanto started in 1901 with the production of the artificial sweetener saccharine. By the 1940s, it had expanded its business to Europe and had become one of the leading chemical manufacturing companies in the United States.  Among its herbicide products, the dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) became particularly infamous for its disastrous health risks and environmental damage, and was banned in 1972 in the US, owing to the efforts by environmentalists.

In early 1980s, Monsanto started genetic experimenting on plant cells. This was a big leap for the company, away from chemical production to biotechnical engineering, and by the end of the century Monsanto had become the biotech giant of the world, specializing in genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified (GM) foods, mostly crops, have the advantages of high tolerance of herbicides, resistance to pests, diseases, drought, and low temperature, and added nutrition. At the same time, such crops have been subject to strong criticism. A number of human health risks, including different types of allergic reactions, have been known as caused by GM foods. And equally, or even more, serious are the concerns of genetic invasions caused by GM species.

Studies show that GM plants are capable of interbreeding with non-GM plants of the same species, which are planted near them. Thus, the biotechnologically altered genes travel through crops and multiply in numbers as well as complexity, posing unforeseen threats to public health. Furthermore, the altered genes can be incorporated into the genetic makeup of the weeds growing around them, causing the weeds to become herbicide resistant. This would mean a threat to environment and crops, as well as additional cost to economy due to the need for researching new, stronger varieties of herbicides.

With an expanding business going hand in hand with the genetic contamination of crops, Monsanto also continued to have an increasing experience of litigation against the farming community. Crop farmers in US and Canada have been sued by Monsanto for reproducing GM seeds/crops without paying the due royalty to the company. By 2005, at least 90 lawsuits had been by Monsanto against American farmers alone. A famous case highlighted by the Greenpeace International was that of a Canadian farmer Percy Shmeiser who lost his case in 2004 to Monsanto for failing to pay the company while accidentally discovering herbicide-resistant canola on his farm and reproducing it without the prior permission of Monsanto. Greenpeace called the GM invasion of common crops ‘genetic pollution’. Does a company have the right to genetically contaminate common crops of farms and then claim patent rights when the uninvited GM seeds on one’s own farm are reproduced?

This question, with added environmental concern, has already entered the law court and the verdict of the court will certainly be the determinant of the future of farming and feeding in and outside America. What is unambiguously clear so far is the fact that if you try to transcend nature, it will cost more than it pays; though for companies like Monsanto, the profit may surpass both the investment and the cost of litigation.

farmcommunities.com  

Although it’s to be expected, the slow phase organic fertilizer is currently experiencing is partly due to the fact that farmers are quite confused on what organic fertilizers are and how it can work on their farms. It seems that there is no existing group or organization that helps spreading the word to farmers while commercial fertilizers come complete with instructions and even extend support to small farm communities. According to surveys, almost a hundred percent of gardening hobbyists already made the switch and have been enjoying the benefits of organic fertilizers ever since. It’s because they can afford to wait, spend a little more money and most of all, can try again next time if this season’s batch won’t come out great while farmers don’t have this kind of luxury and unfortunately, they are not informed how to do it properly.

Basically, anything that comes from nature and encourages bacterial growth is considered as an organic fertilizer. Some examples of which are manure, fish emulsions, blood meal, bone meal and even sewer sludge. Organic fertilizers take time to generate results but if one can afford the wait, it will all be worth it.

farmcommunities.com  

Although farm fishing is, by far, the best alternative to commercial fishing, still it has its own environmental effects and may put human consumers in danger as well. Farm fishing is developed by the fishing industries to address the issues of damaged marine life and over-fishing in seas that resulted to the drastic decline of fishes and other marine life, both edible and not. Since farm fishing was born, it earned strong support from the government since it seemed to provide the best possible solution for the problem at hand.

One of the cited concerns in farm fishing is the alteration of habitat for farm-raised fishes which is a very apparent one since most fish farms are manmade. Due to the limited range of motion, disease transmission is almost instant among fishes in cages and since their cages don’t function as a natural one would normally do, their wastes settle and accumulate within their supposedly homes causing bacteria to grow and spread from one fish to another; sometimes, it can get too strong it wipes out the whole batch. These bacteria are also suspected of causing some cases of food poisoning among humans although the link is yet to be established.

And then there’s the issue of pollution which apparently these fish farms cause. It was said that wastes coming from fish farms will eventually lead to larger bodies of water endangering all species living there. While these notions are yet to be established, hopefully someone of authority could shed a light to the issue at hand and arrive to an acceptable solution for all parties concerned. After all, farm fishing still looks promising for fish farmers and the environment alike.

farmcommunities.com  

A glance at the past 40 years of oil input in American agriculture reveals that labor use on farms has not risen, in general, despite the persistent increase in oil prices over the past several decades. While this may sound rather surprising, more than one reason account for this observation.

One important reason that allows continual increase in the use of oil, despite the rise in its price, is that oil still remains a comparatively small expenditure in farming. Land rent, fertilizers, and labor exceed the cost of production on most farms. That is why a rise in oil prices has not influenced the agricultural sector into using more labor or getting more land under menial cultivation.

The exhaustive utilization (or what may be termed ‘overuse’) of fuel-driven farming equipment is another factor that inhibits the practice of employing more personnel and reducing the share of farm fuel as input energy. Such thorough use of machinery also prevents the employment of technical workforce that is often required for running new equipment.

Then there is this psychological barrier of perceiving the use of new/alternative energy inputs as risky business. Oil as farm fuel has won its place as the stuff that works and hence a reliable means of energy for production. In an important sense, farming is now oil-dependent.

Nevertheless, modern agriculture is in need of a greater share of alternative energy sources, including manpower, solar energy, wind energy, and other natural energy sources that are more eco-friendly and less ‘addictive’ than oil. This becomes especially important when viewed in the context of global wars for oil possession. A decrease in dependence of the agricultural sector on oil, therefore, is the next issue to consider.

farmcommunities.com