Genetically engineered (GE) crops (Transgenic crops)

Genetically engineered (GE) crops (Transgenic crops) such as corn, cotton, and soybean became both or either herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (Bt) through biotechnology since 2000. If you have a positive or negative opinion about this process one must consider the increase in population in every country. Many observers have suggested that biotechnology has the potential to increase world food output and reduce food insecurity by improving crop yields and reducing crop loss. As with any improvement in technology, farmers in developing countries must find the new advances profitable. Consumers in developing countries will benefit if biotech crops are less expensive or more nutritious than traditional crops. By adding genes to conventional crops to help them resist pests, disease, or drought, producers of biotech seed can make crops that use less of an expensive input or crops that produce higher yields. Any or several types of improvements toward increasing food supply can be tailored to make individual crops more likely to thrive in a particular country’s growing conditions, and can potentially allow a wider variety of innovations.


The benefits of using GM crops included enhanced taste and quality, reduced maturation time, increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance, improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides, new products and growing techniques. Animals increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency; better yields of meat, eggs, and milk; improved animal health and diagnostic methods. GM crops would be healthy on the environment through "friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides, conservation of soil, water, and energy; bioprocessing for forestry products, better natural waste management, more efficient processing. Societies can increase food security for growing populations.


Controversies include safety of potential human health impacts including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects. Potential environmental impacts including unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity. Access and intellectual property domination of world food production by a few companies; increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries; biopiracy or foreign exploitation of natural resources. Ethics such as violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species; objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa; stress for animal; labeling; not mandatory in some countries (United States); mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts. Society - new advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries.

Mitchell, Lorraine. 2011. Biotechnology and food security. United States department of agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib765/aib765-11.pdf (accessed October 14, 2011).


Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge. 2011. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. United States department of agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ (accessed October 14, 2011).


United States of Energy. 2008. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms. U.S. Department of Energy Genome Program. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml (accessed October 14, 2011).

USDA Conservation programs

Water Quality and Management Research Programs is a main category for many smaller research projects such as natural resources and sustained agricultural system. Their National Programs include Water Availability and Watershed Management, Climate Change, Soils, and Emissions Bioenergy, Agricultural and Industrial Byproducts, Pasture, Forage and Rangeland Systems, and Agricultural System Competitiveness and Sustainability.

Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems National Programs support researchers developing the technologies and strategies needed to help farmers, ranchers, and other managers effectively steward the diverse agricultural mosaic spread across the nation. From livestock grazing expansive natural western rangelands, to crops grown in the rich Midwestern Heartland and the Southern States regions, to the high-value produce that comes from the valleys and plains along both coasts, these diverse landscapes generate more than $200-billion in goods and services that are the basis of a strong rural economy. Emphasis is given to developing technologies that are economical to use and systems that support profitable production and enhance the Nation's vast renewable natural resource base. Research priorities are identified through a continual dialogue with a wide range of customers and stakeholders to ensure that their science is relevant and provides effective solutions to their concerns. They address issues affecting both private and public lands, because together these are the foundation of a healthy and vibrant agricultural industry that not only provides food, feed, fiber, and renewable energy to the nation, but also abundant and high quality supplies of fresh water and clean air, as well as healthy ecosystems (USDA 2011).

Water Quality Information Center (WQIC) provides electronic access to information on water quality and agriculture. The center collects, organizes, and communicates the scientific findings, educational methodologies, and public policy issues related to water quality and agriculture. For example, The Electronic Publications Database offers 1,900 online documents covering water and agriculture from decision-making technology, irrigation, laws and regulations, nutrient management, and pollution (USDA 2011).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. It is not necessary for a national emergency to be declared for an area to be eligible for assistance. The program is designed to help people and conserve natural resources by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, wind­storms, and other natural occurrences. EWP is an emergency recovery program. All projects undertaken, with the exception of the pur­chase of floodplain easements, must have a project sponsor.

NRCS may bear up to 75 percent of the construction cost of emergency measures. The remaining 25 per­cent must come from local sources and can be in the form of cash or in-kind services. Funding is subject to Congressional approval.

Their purpose is to remove debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges, reshape and protect eroded banks, correct damaged drainage facilities, establish cover on critically eroding lands, repair levees and structures, and repair conservation practices (USDA 2011).

References:

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Emergency watershed protection (EWP) program. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Natural resources and sustainable agricultural systems. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Water quality information center. 

Swampbuster provisions

The Food Security Act of 1985, more commonly known as the “Swampbuster Act,” refers to certain provisions of the act discouraging the conversion of wetlands to farmland.

Under the Swampbuster provisions, a landowner is allowed to use farming practices as long as wetlands are not converted or wetland drainage increases for agricultural purposes. The program discourages farmers from altering wetlands by withholding Federal farm program benefits such as lose eligibility for USDA program benefits, including loans, subsidies, crop insurance, and other important agricultural after December 23, 1985. There have been several revisions since this date, such as 1990 and 1996. The 1990 provision added conversion of a wetland for the purpose of or to make agricultural commodity production possible.

The 1996 Farm Bill changed Swampbuster to give increased flexibility to farmers in complying with Swampbuster including the option to for the USDA to certify and make a determination if the land is indeed a wetland, the expansion of wetland mitigation options, fast tracking changes that are considered to have a "minimal effect" on a wetland and finally a clause that allows converted wetlands that were abandoned to again be used as farmland without violating Swampbuster.

Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administer the Swampbuster provisions jointly and determine if a producer's land has wetlands that are subject to the provisions. The agency maintains a list of the plants and combinations of soils and plants found in wetlands and uses these technical tools, along with the hydrology of the area, to conduct determinations, which stay in effect as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes or until the producer requests a review.

U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA). 2011. Wetland conversation provisions (Swampbuster). http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/?ss=16&navtype=SUBNAVIGATION&cid=stelprdb1043554&navid=100170150000000&pnavid=100170000000000&position=Not%20Yet%20Determined.Html&ttype=detailfull&pname=Wetland%20Conservation%20Provisions%20(Swampbuster)%20|%20NRCS (accessed September 28, 2011).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 2003. Wetland conservation – swampbuster. http://www.fws.gov/policy/504fw4.html (accessed September 28, 2011).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Section 404 and swampbuster: wetlands on agricultural lands. http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/facts/fact19.cfm (accessed June 17, 2011).