New drought resistant seed to be distributed in Zimbabwe

Predictions are for more dry conditions for the upcoming planting season in Zimbabwe. The country has suffered many poor harvests in a row due to low rainfall. With all of the
successive small harvests,  Zimbabwe is now producing less food than it eats.

After a long debate over using genetically modified seeds, the lack of food as prompted action in Zimbabwe.  A new drought resistant seed for corn will be distributed this year. Farmers say that it is about time, but worry if will be cheap enough to afford.

From Reuters Alert Net, writer Madalitso Mwando describes the seed.

The Scientific and Industrial Research and Development Centre (SIRDC), in partnership with the University of Zimbabwe and Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI) has developed a drought-resistant variety of maize seed called Sirdamaize 113.

Farmers have had to wait between 150 and 180 days before harvesting their traditional maize crop, but the centre says the new seed takes only 136 days to mature.

Thomas Ndlovu, a smallholder farmer in Nyamandlovu, some 60 km (38 miles) from Bulawayo, said the new seed was welcome news, as he has lost his crop because of successive poor rains.

“This is what we have always asked for,” Ndlovu said. “My only hope is that this seed variety is affordable to us. We have for some time now been buying seed maize outside the country because the locally produced type is expensive.”

SIRDC says research into drought-resistant maize began more than a decade ago and has cost around $200,000. The centre’s current research forms part of a policy on food and nutrition security adopted by government early this year.

Already, more maize hybrids are being tested across the country as farmers prepare for the planting season.

This fresh commitment to scientific research could just a significant help in a country where smallholder farmers, who produce up to 70 percent of the country’s food, continue to face severe challenges from lack of farming inputs, absence of irrigation schemes and poor weather-forecasting techniques.

The con view of the genetically modified seed debate

There are some in the west that are against using genetically modified seeds for under-developed world farming. They say that there is no proof that these technologies can improve yields, and that forced use of technology takes control away from the farmer. This side of the argument has taken the aim of their views squarely at the Gates Foundation for investing so much in GM seed technology.

From the great Business of Giving blog at the Seattle Times, writer Kristi Heim interviews a critic the work of GM crops and the Gates Foundation. Phil Bereano of AGRA Watch explains why they would rather have the farmer control yields instead of bio-tech.

Q: One of the projects the Gates Foundation is working on with Monsanto, Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), is being billed as a way to deal with worsening drought due to climate change, a serious problem for farmers.

A: It may use water more efficiently, but it's not drought tolerant. Drought tolerance is a complicated interplay between several dozen different genes.

There are thousands of varieties of maize, including drought tolerant varieties. The problem is they can't be patented and sold because they are in the public domain. Multinational corporations like Monsanto are attempting to gain control over food by patenting GMO seeds and presenting them as a savior to peoples' needs.

Q: Do you believe any genetic modification (GM) of food has merit?

A: It's very hard to say the existing GM products satisfy any criteria I would find socially useful. A UN and World Bank study said there is no necessary role for GM in the future in order to deal with issues of hunger and increasing production. Agroecological methods are able to do it.

None of the technologies which have been presented respond to the genuine needs of people. Herbicide resistance has not increased food production or reduced food costs for farmers.

But no one really knows because there are no adequate scientific assessments of the risk with the potential benefits. We actually don't know whether it's worth it.