It is sobering to note that agronomists have never been asked to develop innovative management systems that both accelerate yield gains and protect natural resources.

This sounds a little too sweeping. I was talking to a guy from Monsanto at ISMB and he specifically mentioned nitrogen utilization as a goal of crop genetic engineering. If that's successful, it would dramatically reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer.

And fertilizer production is one of the things that the peak oil crowd likes to point to as one of the ways we're dependent on oil. Plus, reducing fertilizer usage should help clean up agricultural runoff, lessening the intensity of algal blooms.

Anyway, it's one example of genetic engineering to reduce resource usage. Also, I'd be surprised if some of the work on drought resistance didn't help reduce water requirements as well.

Ok, how about "Never, except for this one guy Mitch knows at Monsanto"?

Seriously, the point is that it's never been a policy goal, not that nobody has ever thought about it.

Okay, maybe I did read that too narrowly. I was just surprised, since I thought that sustainability had been a goal of agronomy for a long time. A bit of googling led me from Wikipedia's Green Revolution article to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural research:

http://www.cgiar.org/who/history/index.html

The Second Decade (1981-1990)

The objective of research was defined as increasing sustainable food production in the developing countries in such a way that the nutritional level and general economic well-being of the poor are improved. This approach called for a more direct focus on poverty, as well as greater emphasis on protecting biodiversity, land, and water.

The US has been a member of CGIAR since it started.

Amity, Of course replacing nitrogen based ferilizers is a major goal of ag biotech research. Nitrogen based fertilizers constitute 9% of the total per acre costs of corn production and 17% of the variable costs (check out http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/ for some nice farm cost calculators). So while you might be able to say they have never been asked explicitly to "protect natural resources", to the extent natural resources are expensive that's a core aspect of what they must do. Mitch gives the example of water preservation but the reduction in the use of pesticides is another.

On a related point before I read the article Andrew posts, if drought tolerance pans out then it won't so much be the yield improvement that will be key (though that would be part of it) as the expansion of acreage allowed. This would raise new food versus fuel debates as corn expands into, say, Idaho, but would open the ability for the production of much, much more corn.

It seems that all growers in my area (New England)have switched to a hybrid variety that is super sweet and remains that way for days. They can now sell on Friday the corn picked on Tuesday. (One farmer changed his sign from "fresh picked" to "picked fresh".) This is what we used to call "Florida corn", grown year-round for air-freighting to the far corners of an unsuspecting nation.

The problem is, this corn is not tender and does not become so with any amount of boiling. Whereas we could once upon a time sink our teeth into deep tender buttery kernels, the operative word today is "crunch".

The scenario is a familiar one. Take network television, popular music, fashion, the federal government. We who give a damn are victims of the oblivious masses.

I guess it's the American way, but if we can't switch off the preposterous Iraq "war" we can at least bitch to our local farmers. Now everyone, get out there and make a difference!

Thank you for your article, Mr. Leonard. The gmo assault truly has taken on a life of its own, with companies like Monsanto believing that by using the right "influence" they can tell people all over the world what they should eat. I, for one, am not interested in ingesting food-based products like MON863 (or Bt corn), which has the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted into its cells. This bacterium causes the cells to produce a pesticide. And not all studies regarding its safety have been positive.

Monsanto wishes to force-feed consumers with this type of corn, rice, and other grains, without their knowledge. Adding to this is the dubious benefits of growing hundreds of acres of corn to use for biofuel. Not only are other farm crops being jeopardized by drift, but it hardly encourages biodiversity and sustainability.

Let's get real. Monsanto is interested in profits, not in feeding the hungry or making the world a better place. If it's biofuels we're after, we would do better to grow hemp, which has over 100 uses and can be grown organically. Unless consumers speak out against these assaults on our food supply, there may come a time when we won't have any idea what it is that we're eating.

For more information, the following may be helpful:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

http://www.organic-nature-news.com/genetically-modified-organisms.html

Andrew, love the blog, but this is a pet peeve of mine as it makes the user appear mathematically illiterate.

"Among other things, Cassman and Liska observe that despite all that biotech researchers have achieved in recent decades, over the last 40 years yield growth for agricultural grains has only grown linearly. But to double in a single generation would require exponential growth."

Exponential does not indicate dramatic or even positive growth per se, it simply means that it can be mathematically expressed using an exponent. Likewise, linear doesn't indicate slow growth but merely that it can be graphically expressed as a line. The correct terms to use here would be arithmetically (to indicate slow growth) and geometrically (to indicate rapid, dramatic growth).

And wasn't it just Friday that it was announced that the "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is growing BECAUSE OF THE OVER-ABUNDANCE OF THE CORN CROP!

The choice of 'Biggest' as the first word in the title gives a useful framing context.

We know that in todays economic scheme the planet is under more and increasing pressure to yield more faster and more often. Biggest profits. Biggest gains. Biggest yields. If it is Biggest then surely it is also Biggest good.

Human population counts are at levels across the planet that require more of the planets daily life support and leave less untouched or in deep planetary patterns of resilent reserves.

Biggest as a measure is very much the scale in use today.

Some Biggest criteria listed or described below...

Whether it be oil or coal extraction from the planets near surface strata.

Whether it is surface water in the forms of rivers and coastal areas being pressed to yield profit and utility.

The rivers of China and even moreso the Mekong and others in SE Asia now being put to work or reshaped by man in ways not seen in any previous era or epoch. Entire Asian social systems now being demolished or altered along these rivers.

Since 1800 the major rivers of the planet have been changed and altered more than in prior 1000 years.

Today only a few major rivers in Africa or South America remain free of lock systems,dams and river course/flow curbs.

Coastal areas are being transformed into high end housing and tourism profit generators.Entire coastal ecological/marine natural systems being put under increasing duress to yield profits.

Surface water is being degraded increasingly by multi point pollution/contamination,reckless abuse and heedless riverine/stream despoilment.

Whether it is minerals,ores or gems.

Whether it be timber from previously untouched virgin forests.

Whether it be fully pressed fishing gains from the planets oceans.

New ways of doing things or greater focus on extended margins of old ways are both being sought harder,deeper and with increasing determination to convert the planets surface and near surface natural features and states into profit zones.

The high powered global machine business that could be termed in a generic way as the high power/high capacity machines industry is fully geared to powering man into heretofore untouched planet places. Logging,mining,farming and land transport all having since the end of WW2 undergone massive high powered mechanization makeovers. All having undergone "militarization"in scale,power and capacity of machine build and operational ability.Biggest in the machinery business is very big indeed.

Corn is both a historical and present day part of humankinds success on this planet. The cultivation of corn was and is a very big part of humankinds civilization epochs.

Today corn is being pushed with greater determination to yield more and more for global food web needs and now as a energy source as well. Biggest plant science advances seen as good and having Biggest success potential outcomes. Governments then encourage more land being put under cultivation to give Biggest harvests. Year in and year out.

The danger in all this is humankinds very dangerous tendency to draw straight lines in places where nature would rather have lots of curves,dips and rises. Where nature provides for several paths and indepth redundancy man is much more inclined to zero out all that "wasteful and non performing" natural world randomness and focus on profits and wealth yield Biggest returns.

The planet Earth up to just very recent times(the year 1800 considered here) has remained a natural world of surface water run and air,of vast forests, plantlife and wildlife where man did not often intrude deeply,widely or lastingly on any human quest for wealth or profit.

The means to do so were limited and small in scale.

The wind or humans powered water borne vessels and animals or humans powered most land transport. In 1800 to travel a small distance was the measure of a day. To travel across an ocean or up a large river the measure of weeks or months. Going around the planet? Such a feat could indeed be measured in years.

Since 1800 man has altered and reshaped global travel,human intrusion and human settlement and how this planet is put to work or made to yield in ways never before attempted.

This is the real threat that remaining forests,water runs and all prior remote plant,wildlife and natural world ordering of things now face.

That threat being one where the profit/wealth motive pushes the outcome always to Biggest is better.

That is a very dangerous way for man to proceed on this planet and is frought with some very acute risks should the natural state of things be altered too much too often.

Example: What is up with current honey bee failure patterns?

Example: What is up with global warming outcome(s)?

Example: Are the oceans being over fished?

Example: When the rainforests are all cut down what then?

Todays cultivation of corn and ever increasing desires to margin out the chaos and randomness within and around the cultivation of corn presents some very real 21st century and 22nd century fork in the road sort of choices.

It is doubtful any of those upcoming forks are getting the attention and consideration they deserve.

Much more attention going to near/short term gains and profits.Which then are allowed to shade out or mask the risks and very real pushback of heedless human behaviour outcomes.

This is the core problem with 'Biggest' as only template.