Re: [pronut-hiv] Biofortification Method (6)

["Kristof & Stacia Nordin" <nordin@eomw.net>]

Thanks for the correction Stuart - you are very correct that it is a control barrier, not a physical one.  I'll be more clear next time.  They talked of developing terminator genes, but I believe they gave up on developing that one?

A bigger source of sub-optimal yields in the 'traditionally' bred varieties is the care of the soil and the methods of planting.  There are many more factors that go into the choice of seed, it isn't all that helpful to have a higher yield if that higher yield just goes out of the household budget and back into the purchase of high inputs.  Farmers need to understand the whole mechanism in order to make the best choice for this situation. We need to start taking care of the soil and the other parts of our environment - no matter what seed choice we make.

Stacia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stacia Nordin, RD
GTZ German / Malawi Basic Education Programme
MoE Sustainable School Food & Nutrition Programme
GTZ BEP, Box 31131, Lilongwe, Malawi
Tel:  + 265-(0)1-755-000 or (0) 1-757-358
Fax: + 265-(0)1-755-000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personal contacts:
Crossroads Post Dot Net X-124, Lilongwe, Malawi
Physical Location:  Chitedze Trading Centre, Lilongwe, Malawi (Africa)
+265  1-707-213  (home)
+265  9-333-073  (home cell)
nordin@eomw.net
www.NeverEndingFood.org (site being built)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----  "Stu and Kira" wrote:

>
> Just a slight correction to Stacia's note:
>
> There is no biological reason why seeds of genetically altered crops 
> cannot
> be saved or replanted. Use of genetically altered seed (e.g. Roundup Ready
> Canola) is often governed by a licence agreement, whereby farmers agree 
> not
> to replant the seed unless they have paid for their licence. However, this
> is a contractual rather than agronomic barrier to replanting. Thus, the
> issue with genetic bio-fortification is one of control over the seed. If a
> bio-fortified seed were donated, then farmers would be free to grow it. If
> it remains a patented commodity, then one has to assess the potential
> nutritional benefits against the potential economic costs of farmers being
> beholden to a licence year after year.
>
> I wonder about the feasibility of enforcing licence agreements in a place
> like Zambia, where there are millions of farmers operating very 
> small-scale
> operations far from the prying eyes of inspectors. It is also important to
> note that most farmers here prefer the hybrid (non-replant-able) 
> "improved"
> seed and many try to replant the seed regardless - a significant source of
> suboptimal crop yields.
>
> There have been efforts to introduce improved open-pollinated varieties of
> maize here, including a variety from Ghana called Obatampa, which the BIC
> Church provided to some communities in the Choma area as part of a seed
> relief package this past season.
>
>
> Stuart Taylor
> c/o BIC Church
> P.O. Box 630115
> Choma, Zambia
>
> Home: +260 95 775774
> Office: +260 3 220228
> Fax:    +260 3 220127
>
>> -----Stacia Nordin wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are exactly right Jinda.  These seeds have taken a long time in labs
>> to develop and create the seed.  I'm not sure which process they've used
>> to do the biofortification
>>  *  open-pollinated so that the seeds can be saved and replanted, or
>>  *  hybrid that are forced to cross and the seeds cannot be saved and
>> replanted, or
>>  *  genetic engineering that are forced to have a gene added and the 
>> seeds
>> cannot be saved and planted.
>>
>> I would guess they are hybrid or genetically engineered.
>>
>> Encourage people to plant and eat more nutrient dense foods, that is the
>> root issue of alot of our problems.
>>
>> Stacia