As Stark phrases a company mantra: "The best gene in the world doesn't fix dogshit germplasm." What does? Crossbreeding. Stark had an advantage here: In the process of learning how to engineer chemical and pest resistance into corn, researchers at Monsanto had learned to read and understand plant genomes¡ªto tell the difference between the dogshit germplasm and the gold. And they had some nifty technology that allowed them to predict whether a given cross would yield the traits they wanted.also btw...
The key was a technique called genetic marking. It maps the parts of a genome that might be associated with a given trait, even if that trait arises from multiple genes working in concert. Researchers identify and cross plants with traits they like and then run millions of samples from the hybrid¡ªjust bits of leaf, really¡ªthrough a machine that can read more than 200,000 samples per week and map all the genes in a particular region of the plant's chromosomes.
They had more toys too. In 2006, Monsanto developed a machine called a seed chipper that quickly sorts and shaves off widely varying samples of soybean germplasm from seeds. The seed chipper lets researchers scan tiny genetic variations, just a single nucleotide, to figure out if they'll result in plants with the traits they want¡ªwithout having to take the time to let a seed grow into a plant. Monsanto computer models can actually predict inheritance patterns, meaning they can tell which desired traits will successfully be passed on. It's breeding without breeding, plant sex in silico. In the real world, the odds of stacking 20 different characteristics into a single plant are one in 2 trillion. In nature, it can take a millennium. Monsanto can do it in just a few years.
By 2000, Monsanto's last Roundup patent had expired, and as chief operating officer, Mr Grant turned the company's focus more firmly toward seeds... Last year, the company stepped up its efforts into so-called "precision agriculture" ¨C the application of advanced GPS, data analytics and remote sensing to farming ¨C with the near $1bn acquisition of Climate Corporation, a San Francisco-based data company. Mr Grant becomes more animated when describing the new areas Monsanto is moving into, noting that its investments in research in enzymes and genetic information transmissions, as well as data analytics will help its core aim of increasing yields... Having seen the mistakes of the pharmaceutical industry, holding back drugs from the developing world, Monsanto is offering its innovations to regions such as Africa. It has formed partnerships with the likes of the charitable foundations of Bill Gates and Howard Buffett ¨C the son of Warren Buffett ¨C the UN's World Food Programme as well as US Agency for International Development.
Some farmers have discussed aggregating data on their own so they could decide what information to sell and at what price. Other farmers are joining forces with smaller technology companies that are trying to keep agricultural giants from dominating the prescriptive-planting business. The owner of one small company, Steve Cubbage of Prime Meridian LLC, says his Nevada, Mo., company's independence from the seed, machinery and chemical industry "adds credibility," giving farmers an alternative with "their overall best interests in mind." About 100 farmers use Prime Meridian's precision-seeding service, and Mr. Cubbage expects the number to "increase dramatically over the next few years." The company is developing a system to store farm-by-farm information on a cloud-computing service that could give access to seed dealers, financial advisers and other outsiders approved by farmers. The Farm Bureau has held internal talks about whether the trade group should set up its own computer servers as a data storehouse, says Mace Thornton, a spokesman for the trade group.
Is it beyond the imagination of anti-GM activists that genetic modification could be used for public benefit instead of private profit? The activists may well be sincere in opposing social injustice, but all the same, they think that these problems arise from something inherent in the technology. In so doing, the complaint is in fact not the business practices of Monsanto, or even capitalism, but technology and progress itself.Debate: GM Is Good For You has a response:
Don't believe the hype. Genetically engineered products have consumed a disproportionate amount of public time, energy and money. There are better approachesposted by the man of twists and turns at 4:02 PM on March 9, 2014
« Older They endured. | In Focus: Mothers and Daughters Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
i have a lot of mixed feelings about all of this. I don't like agribusiness, for a lot of reasons, but as far as I can tell it's a true thing that we are just going to run out of capacity to keep people well-fed if we're not working really hard and leveraging high technology very smartly in our quest to get more nutrition per acre.
I would really really love to see a plausible road map to get there without agribusiness. Because I trust agribusiness precisely as far as I can spit the whole industry through a cocktail straw.
posted by lodurr at 1:40 PM on March 8, 2014 [2 favorites]