A healthy soybean field on the left, a field with medium to heavy Sudden Death Syndrome pressure on the right.

I couldn’t cut it as a farmer—for a multitude of reasons—but primarily, I couldn’t stomach the business risks involved. There are risks such as weather and disease that are completely out of your hands no matter how much forethought and planning you do.

It appears that U.S. soybean farmers are facing one such risk this year with Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), based on news reports and feedback from farmers and Monsanto sales teams. Farmers are scouting, or surveying, their fields for signs of SDS. Symptoms generally show up in July/August, but can often be mistaken for other diseases such as brown stem rot (BSR). The Upper Midwest—Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, South Dakota—seem to be especially affected. The USDA warned Monday that the amount of acreage impacted is becoming a concern.

To learn more, I called up Steve Arndorfer, a Monsanto sales rep in north central Iowa, which has been hard hit by the disease.

“Most fields are spotty with it, and those south of us are worse,” says Steve.

Sudden Death, I learned, is as ominous as it sounds. The disease is caused by a fungus (Fusarium virguliforme) naturally present in the soil. The fungus thrives in wet damp soil and cool temperatures just like we had this spring. Soil compaction is also a factor. Field entrances or other areas where grain carts drove in a previous year and compressed the soil exhibit more severe symptoms.

With the right weather and soil conditions spurring it into action, the fungus makes its way into the roots and base of the soybean stem. Then the fungus spreads up through the plant’s leaves, showcasing its presence in small yellow spots. The spots grow larger and larger, eventually developing a brown center. The leaves wither and die.

All of this occurs as the soybean is growing and developing flowers and bean pods. Then suddenly, the plant dies. Flowers fall off, and pods stop filling. The result is either reduced seed size or no seeds at all equating to lost yield. Yield loss can be anywhere from “slight” to 100%.

“They die right on the spot,” says Steve. “They [farmers] end up with 0-10 bushel beans in the affected areas. It’s like the crop just froze and stop.”

The worst part about SDS?

“There’s absolutely nothing there you can do about it,” he says. Fungicides are ineffective. Once SDS hits a field, you simply sit back, watch and hope that the disease doesn’t take out your whole crop.

Steve says his farmers are already asking about seed selection for next year. Monsanto offers SDS-tolerant varieties in its product lineup. Monsanto breeders look for soybean products within its program that are naturally more resistant to SDS. We screen and rate the plants to test their natural reaction against SDS. Then, we choose those varieties with higher levels of resistance and breed with them to improve the SDS tolerance of all of our soybean seed varieties. It’s important to note that no soybean variety is completely resistant to the disease, and all soybeans are susceptible if the right weather/soil conditions are present.

Even so, farmers should not choose seed for next year based solely on SDS-tolerance. That’s because SDS is not a yearly occurrence, and farmers will most likely rotate crops next year.

“SDS has been around since the ’70s, but we don’t see it very often so you can’t put rhyme or reason on it,” says Steve. “I guarantee next year won’t be like this year.”

Farmers should also look for soybean cyst nematode (SCN) tolerance in their seed varieties since researchers have identified interactions between the two diseases.

Monsanto’s technical personnel issued have issued an agronomic alert with tips for SDS management, you can find it below.

Agronomic ALERT – Sudden Death Syndrome in Soybean – Northern US (2)

Or, see some related resources:

Scouting and identifying SDS and brown stem rot (University of Wisconsin video)
How Soybean Sudden Death Syndrome Looks at the Root (Ohio State Extension)

I reviewed Monsanto’s current Genuity® VT Triple PRO^TM and Genuity® SmartStax ^TM products versus Pioneer’s Optimum® AcreMax^TM 1 and Monsanto’s in-development RIB Complete concept (not yet available).

Sometimes a picture is better than words. This technical piece provides an effective visual of the four products below.

Much better. Thanks team.

UPDATE: I received a comment (see below) that a caption is needed to help explain this concept. Here is an updated note.

The white beans in all the jars represent traited, insect-protected seed. The black beans are the refuge seed. In the first two jars on the left, they are pictured separated because refuge is planted separately in those systems. Farmers have to plant two types of seed products – or two bags – one with traited seed, and one with refuge seed. The numbers on the jar represent the ratio. For example, with VT Triple Pro seed, farmers can plant 80% of their acres to the traited seed, and must plant a separate 20% of their acres to non-insect protected seed.

In the two jars on the right, the black seeds are blended with the white seeds, representing the new “refuge in the bag” concepts. The last jar on the right shows Monsanto’s future RIB complete concept (not yet available) whereby a farmer purchases one seed bag product and the refuge is blended inside in a 95:5 percentage mix.

The jar right of center (labeled Optimum AcreMax 1) has white, black and red beans. The white and black beans also represent a blend – for the corn rootworm trait. Pioneer has said that Optimum AcreMax 1 simplifies refuge. However, the product seems to only simplify for corn rootworm refuge. Optimum AcreMax 1 still requires that a separate 20% refuge be planted for corn borer refuge. That is represented with the red beans and literally represents a second seed product or second bag.



Canola was originally bred in the 1970s, and is used as a food oil and as biofuel. Canola is also used as an animal feed and can be found in candles and lipsticks.

Have you ever seen a canola plant? It’s a very pretty crop produced for its oil and distinguished by its bright yellow blooms. From a purely aesthetic point of view, it’s not a bad plant to find growing as a weed along the roadside, which often happens. Some probably even mistake it for a wildflower. One department of transportation is purposefully planting it roadside.

Canola (and more specifically, GM canola) is the topic of a research survey described as “the first evidence of established populations of genetically modified plants in the wild.” The survey was presented at the Ecological Society of America annual meeting today in Pittsburgh. To see Monsanto’s official statement on the finding, click here.

The researchers sampled 406 feral canola plants they found along 5,400 kilometers (or approx. 3,355 miles) of roadsides in North Dakota. “Feral” means the plants were growing in the wild, rather than as a crop in-field

The researchers collected, photographed and tested the 406 canola plants to see whether they were biotech (GMO). They found non-GM canola, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® canola as well as Liberty Link® canola (a Bayer Crop Science product).

Testing showed that 86 percent of the canola plants (or 347 of the 406) tested positive as either Roundup Ready or Liberty Link. The study also found two plants (0.7 percent) had both the Liberty Link and the Roundup Ready gene.

There are several pieces to consider here:

1. All types of canola – GM or not– can be found growing along roadsides or other areas near farm fields.

Most commonly, canola seed falls off trucks during transport between fields and elevators or processors. Canola seed is very small and light and can also be carried limited distances by the wind or by getting caught in farm equipment. Canola that is unwanted is commonly referred to as “volunteer” canola. Volunteer canola (which can also be organic, conventional or GM) can appear in farmer fields when they are growing other crops such as wheat, barley, peas, etc. The issue is how to get rid of the volunteer, which in these cases, is viewed as a weed because it’s unwanted.

One way to manage roadside GM canola is through mowing, but Monsanto also provides information to farmers and other professionals on alternative ways to manage volunteer canola. Others are also researching ways to manage it as this Australian study, “Roadside Canola Won’t Go Wild,” shows.

2. A collection of roadside canola, unsurprisingly, is expected to reflect the makeup of nearby farmers’ canola crops.

About 90 percent of the U.S. and Canadian canola crops are biotech varieties. A collection of volunteer canola would be expected to reflect this same proportion.

North Dakota accounts for 91 percent of the total 1 million acres of U.S. canola production.

3. The idea that GM canola would volunteer –just like traditional canola—was recognized and considered as part of the regulatory approval process by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in the mid-1990s. Depending on where the volunteer canola was found, the agencies noted that it would require management.

When considering approval of Roundup Ready canola, USDA-APHIS found that nothing about the volunteer GM canola (and its offspring) would give it ability over traditional canola in the wild to outcompete other plant species. Following is language from the USDA Roundup Ready canola approval. The Liberty Link canola approval language is the same. Note that CP4 EPSPS refers to the Roundup Ready trait.

“In nature, the gene that results in accumulation of CP4 EPSPS and GOXv247 proteins will not provide glyphosate-tolerant canola or its progeny with any measurable selective advantage over non-transformed canola plants in their ability to disseminate or to become established in the environment. There is no reason to believe that glyphosate-tolerant canola exhibits any increased weediness relative to traditional varieties.”

USDA APHIS #98-216-01p (RT73, RR canola)

The agencies also considered the possibility that canola would cross with other species. The CFIA—while noting this was a concern for the long-term efficacy of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides— concluded that these crosses are manageable using available agronomic practices and are not invasive species.

“If glyphosate tolerant individuals did arise through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the tolerance would not confer any competitive advantage to these plants unless challenged by Roundup® herbicide. This would only occur in managed ecosystems where Roundup® is applied for broad spectrum weed control, or in plant varieties developed to exhibit Roundup® tolerance and in which Roundup® is used to control weeds. As with glyphosate tolerant B. napus volunteers, these individuals, should they arise, would be controlled using other available chemical means. Hybrids, if they developed, could potentially result in the loss of Roundup® as a tool to control these species. This however, can be avoided by the use of sound crop management practices.

The above considerations led CFIA to conclude that gene flow from GT73 to relatives is indeed possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.”
CFIA DD95-02 (RT73, RR canola)

4. Finally, as it relates to volunteer/roadside canola and saved seed and intellectual property, it has never been Monsanto policy nor will it be to exercise patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Monsanto’s sole objective is to protect its patent rights where there has been a knowing and deliberate misappropriation of our technology.

What questions or comments do you have about this finding?

More resources:

Green : A New York Times Blog – Roadside Invader: Engineered Canola

Canola Council

U.S. Canola Association

Northern Canola Growers Association

Canola-info.org (info on canola oil use in food)

Canadian canola farmer talks about why he grows GM canola

George Ball wrote a guest column for the Des Moines Register called “A Juicy Debate: Hybrids vs. Heirlooms.” Ball is a past president of The American Horticultural Society and chairman of the W. Atlee Burpee & Co.–well known for the line of Burpee Seeds sold in big box stores around the country. Fair disclosure: Monsanto sells some of its Seminis brand of hybrid vegetables through Burpee.

Ball explains better than I did the difference between heirlooms and hybrids and fairly credits the benefits and deficiencies of both (taste/ancestry/uniqueness vs. hardiness/yield/also taste) while passing no judgment on gardeners’ choices.

Like a proud father (Ball notes his company does 50/50 business in both hybrid and heirloom), Ball does not allow us to choose one at the detriment of the other. Instead he says “it’s time for gardeners to stop slinging mulch and return to the pleasures and rewards of gardening. There’s plenty of room in the vegetable patch for both heirlooms and hybrids.”

More Information

Hybrids and Heirlooms – University of Illinois Extension Service

Hybrids, Heirlooms and Open-Pollinated Crops (includes video) – University of Arkansas

Ideally, a refuge-in-the-bag option provides both types of seed—insect-protected and non-insect-protected—in one bag. The seed company manufactures the right mix based on the refuge percentage required for a particular corn technology. In a true RIB concept, farmers buy the interspersed seed and plant it on all of their acreage. There is no need for special set aside refuge planting.

There are several different product concepts out in the marketplace right now for reduced refuge. Monsanto is currently pursuing U.S. EPA registration for its refuge in the bag concept for Genuity® SmartStax^TM and Genuity VT Double PRO™. (These products currently require a structured refuge planting of 5% in the Corn Belt versus the traditional 20%.) Pioneer Hi-Bred International (a DuPont company) announced the EPA registration of what it calls its blended seed product, Optimum® AcreMax^TM 1, earlier this year. Pioneer is also working toward a single-bag solution for refuge in Optimum AcreMax 2. But it’s not here today.

How does Monsanto’s RIB concept compare to Pioneer’s? Simply, it’s one bag versus two

If approved, Monsanto’s RIB Complete products would enable farmers to plant only one seed product (i.e. “one bag”) on all of their acres. Pioneer’s Optimum AcreMax 1 product still requires farmers to plant two separate products (or two bags) on their acreage and provides only a single mode of action on corn borer and corn rootworm. Two bags are required because the RIB concept in Optimum AcreMAX 1 applies only to corn rootworm not to corn borer. Pioneer has approval for Optimum AcreMax 1 this season, but will need to re-register with the U.S. EPA this fall.

Confused? I was too. Here’s how it currently shakes out. (And for a brief review of refuge and why it’s important, skip to the bottom of this post.

The graphic below shows the percentage of refuge acres currently required for above-ground insects (corn borer) and below-ground insects (corn rootworm) for both products.

*Please note that the above- and below-ground refuge requirement for Genuity SmartStax is 20% in cotton-growing regions in the South.

Monsanto’s Concept

Both Monsanto’s Genuity SmartStax and Genuity VT Double PRO products currently require farmers in the Corn Belt to plant 5% of their acres to separate structured refuge (as illustrated above). The lowered refuge is enabled because the corn technologies employ multiple modes of action. (Mode of action is a classification that describes the way a pesticide works.) Having more modes of action provides a higher likelihood that insects will not develop resistance. The U.S. EPA recognizes that multiple modes of action improve the product’s durability or life span. In fact, EPA has concluded there is an increased risk of resistance with single mode of action products.

Monsanto, cooperator farmers and universities are evaluating the RIB concept in approximately 1,000 locations across the U.S. this summer.

If approved, the orange line you see in the chart above as the “5%” would be non-existent as a structured refuge and the refuge would be interspersed in the field.

Pioneer’s Product

Pioneer’s approach is a two-bag system. A farmer purchases one product with the corn borer and corn rootworm-protected seed. That product includes a blended seed mix of 90% of a rootworm-protected corn hybrid (Herculex® XTRA) and 10% of a non-rootworm protected seed (Herculex® I—to satisfy the rootworm refuge). However, that product can still only be planted on 80 percent (at best) or 50 percent of the acreage (depending on the region) due to corn borer refuge requirements.

A second, separate, product of non-Bt corn or rootworm-protected seed (Herculex® RW) must be planted on either 20 percent or 50 percent of the acreage (again, depending on region) as the corn borer refuge. This is shown above in the chart in the green/yellow diagram. The yellow 20% refuge portion also needs to be planted up to a half mile away from the rest of the field. Pioneer says this is convenient to farmers because it’s easier to switch out the whole planter for a different field rather than reconfigure the planter for an in-field or adjacent refuge.

Sound complicated? It shouldn’t be.

More Resources from Monsanto.com

• The Real Deal: Explaining Monsanto’s Refuge-in-a-Bag Concept
• The Role of Refuge
• The Importance of Reduced Refuge
• The Science behind Refuge

Currently, the only biotech products approved for planting in the EU are potato (BASF’s Amflora) and a Monsanto corn product, MON 810. MON 810 is an insect-protected (B.t.) hybrid called YieldGard which protects the crop against European corn borer. MON 810 was grown in six EU countries in 2009: Spain, Portugal, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia. Spain accounts for 80% of the total acreage, which was 94, 750 hectares in 2009. (Information from ISAAA)

Germany grew 3,173 hectares in 2008 but discontinued planting later that year. France grew MON 810 from 1998-2000 and from 2005-2007, but suspended it in 2008. Though both Germany and France discontinued planting, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) called the bans unjustified and stated that:

“No specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause.”
(EFSA, 2008).

MON 810 is currently banned by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg.

Monsanto is following these developments closely. EuropaBio, the industry organization in the EU of which Monsanto is a member, has issued a statement. Here is a brief excerpt and a link to the full statement:

We appreciated the vision put forward by the Commission of enabling the EU member states to move forward on the issue of GM crop cultivation at their own pace. Central to this vision must be permitting those member states and their farmers who wish to embrace the benefits of GM crops the freedom to do so.

Here are links to early coverage.

• EU Aims To Give States Greater Freedom On GMOs, Wall Street Journal
• EU Seeks To Clear Way For GM Crops, Agence France Presse
• EU’s Solution To A 12-Year GM Crop Ban: Let Individual States Decide What They Grow, The Guardian (London)
• EU To Let States Rule On GM Crops, BBC News

Yield matters for a variety of reasons, but one was illuminated this week in a new study released by Stanford Earth researchers: Increases in crop yields may slow the pace of global warming.

The study’s authors estimated agricultural emissions from 1961-2005. (Agriculture presently accounts for 12% of greenhouse gases). During that time, crop yields increased by 135%. The researchers compared those emissions to alternative scenarios. Say, instead of increasing yield on existing land over the last 44 years, what if we had converted more land into farmland in order to produce enough food for the population? What would the emissions be then?

The full study can be found in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Here are some highlights:

• Advances in high-yield agriculture have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere—the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.
• The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
• The researchers calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases – methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide – were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide – a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.
• Although greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of fertilizer have increased with agricultural intensification, those emissions are far outstripped by the emissions that would have been generated in converting additional forest and grassland to farmland.
• “It has been shown in several contexts that yield gains alone do not necessarily stop expansion of cropland,” said David Lobell, one of the study’s authors. “That suggests that intensification must be coupled with conservation and development efforts. In certain cases, when yields go up in an area, it increases the profitability of farming there and gives people more incentive to expand their farm. But in general, high yields keep prices low, which reduces the incentive to expand.”
• The researchers concluded that improvement of crop yields should be prominent among a portfolio of strategies to reduce global greenhouse gases emissions.

Yield continues to be an important driver for Monsanto’s research. Productivity and efficiency matter for our customers because it’s how they earn a living, but quality–in regards to product and to the Earth’s natural resources –is what enables them to continue farming.

• High Court Sides With Monsanto in Alfalfa Case -Wall Street Journal
• Monsanto Wins as Court Backs Alfalfa Seed Planting (Update1) – Bloomberg
• Monsanto wins Supreme Court ruling – Des Moines Register
• Justices Back Monsanto on Biotech Seed Planting – Wall Street Journal

Then, surprisingly, the Center for Food Safety issued a statement mid-day claiming victory. According to CFS, they are “celebrating” today the victory of a 7-1 ruling against them. I guess maybe CFS runs with a glass half-full mentality.

We had a reporter call and ask if CFS mistakenly issued the wrong statement. Go figure.

What happens now?

The court’s ruling is clear, and it unequivocally overturns the ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa. That does not mean that alfalfa seed can be planted today, but the Supreme Court decision does clear the way. Now, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) can determine what interim measures need to be established for farmers to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa while the agency completes the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). That framework could include processes such as minimum distance requirements for planting.

No date has been set by USDA/APHIS for the completion of the EIS nor when a final decision will be made to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa. Partial deregulation does NOT have to wait until after the EIS is complete, which the USDA estimates is approximately a year away. During the Supreme Court proceedings, USDA-APHIS stated it saw no reason to block expanded planting in the interim of the EIS completion.

USDA-APHIS had a proposed framework in place for partial deregulation at the time of the original court proceedings to allow farmers to plant.

Alfalfa is planted in the spring and fall, and Monsanto and its seed partner, Forage Genetics International (FGI), hope to be able to deliver seed in time for fall planting under USDA’s guidance.

UPDATE: It’s unclear whether this is a misinterpretation of yesterday’s ruling or a purposeful misdirection, but in its ruling the Supreme Court did NOT give legal standing for lawsuits or injury claims as the result of cross-pollination or gene flow between conventional/organic alfalfa and biotech alfalfa. What the court said is that litigants have constitutional standing to challenge the government’s regulatory process. Those are completely different.

What about sugarbeets?

The Supreme Court decision doesn’t a have direct impact on other crops, including Roundup Ready sugarbeets.

What it does is give a clear legal process to environmental challenges. A court can’t order an injunction (ban) on the presumption of harm (as it did in Roundup Ready alfalfa), but must follow a four-factor test to determine whether injunctive relief is necessary. Learn more about the four-factor test (and why this ban didn’t pass muster), in the official court ruling.

For more details, check out www.monsanto.com/roundupreadyalfalfa.

Resources on Today’s Decision:

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision in Monsanto’s Case – Legal Planet (UCLA/Berkley Law blog)

High Court Lifts Ban on Monsanto’s Alfalfa Seed – Law360 blog

Supreme Court Decides on Alfafa Case – Biofortified

Supreme Court’s Ruling on GE Alfalfa: Who Won? – Grist

Additional Resources on Alfalfa:

Roundup Ready Alfalfa page – USDA
Supreme Court hearing on GMO Alfalfa – Biofortified.org
Roundup Ready Alfalfa: An EmergingTechnology – University of California-Davis

• Monsanto contacted the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture and offered specific non-GMO seed varieties and quantities suited for Haiti’s growing conditions. The Ministry reviewed the offer and asked some questions, including whether we intended to include GMO seed because Haiti does not have the legal framework in place to approve or use biotech seeds today. We clarified that Monsanto’s offer was only for conventionally bred hybrids. The Ministry let us know what crop seeds would be acceptable to their farmers. In a letter to Monsanto, the Ministry said:

“Thank you for Monsanto’s generous offer to donate Vegetable seeds and Hybrid maize seeds to benefit the Haitian farmers. The vegetable seeds have been tested in Haiti previously and are well accepted by the farmers. They will definitely contribute to an increase in vegetable production in Haiti.”

• Monsanto informed the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture that certain seeds would have a fungicidal treatment on them. Fungicidal seed treatments are often applied to seeds prior to planting to protect them from fungal diseases that arise in the soil and hamper the plant’s ability to germinate and grow. The treatments also provide protection against diseases the seed might pick up in transfer between countries. Seed treatments are commonly used in agriculture worldwide.

Monsanto notified the Ministry that the donated seeds would have fungicide treatments. The Ministry continued to be supportive, offering the following:

“Let me also thank you for the information about the seed treatments for the Monsanto Hybrids. The products listed are used everyday in Haitian agriculture and should pose no problem.”

• Some of the vegetable seed products Monsanto donated were already grown in Haiti. That, coupled with our consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, gave us confidence that farmers would welcome and benefit from the donation.
• There are no contractual obligations between Haitian farmers and Monsanto since this is a donation. In fact, there are no business transactions at all between Monsanto and Haitian farmers in regards to these seeds. Monsanto is earning no revenue from this donation.

• Monsanto noted that hybrids are not commonly grown in Haiti today. We have received questions about how much this hybrid seed donation will change current farming practices. Will farmers need additional inputs? What additional education/resources are needed for this to be successful?

These are all good questions, and ones that we considered prior to making the donation. This is partly why the donation took so long to make – we wanted to ensure that farmers would have the necessary tools and support since our involvement ends once the seed hits the ground in Haiti. We felt it would be irresponsible and ineffective to simply send the seed without a plan.

We sought on-the-ground support in Haiti and again consulted with the Haitian Ministry. The USAID-funded WINNER project and The Earth Institute will handle distribution and will support farmers with recommendations and resources. That support includes helping farmers decide whether to use additional inputs (including fertilizer and herbicides) and deciding how to handle next year’s planting season.

For some farmers, those may be new techniques, and for others it may not. A seed is a seed. And technically, it can be planted without any additional inputs. Fertilizer and herbicides increase the output of the crop. But again, the decision on whether to use those will be left to the individual farmer.

It’s disheartening to see people encouraging Haitian farmers to “burn Monsanto seeds,” especially when the ones hurt by that action will be Haitian farmers and the Haitian people—not those of us watching on the sidelines. Fortunately, we have not received reports that that is actually occurring.

A building in Haiti almost 4 months after the initial earthquake.

It’s been four months since the ground shook in Haiti. A few weeks after that catastrophic event, the World Economic Forum was held in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss a variety of global issues, including the outlook for agriculture. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant and Executive Vice President Jerry Steiner attended the event and had conversations with attendees about what could be done to help Haiti. Monsanto had already donated money, but it was clear that a donation of our products—corn and vegetable seeds—could really make a difference in the lives of Haitians.

Simple directive, but complex in execution. First, Monsanto had to identify seed from its inventory that would be well-suited to Haitian growing climates. That was perhaps the simplest part. The seeds include corn (field, not sweet), cabbage, carrot, eggplant, melon, onion, tomato, spinach and watermelon. Contrary to some online reports (sparked by this erroneous blog posting), these seeds are not derived from biotechnology (GMO). They are conventionally bred, hybrid seeds. Also, Monsanto is not donating herbicide or fertilizer, as those reports falsely state.

Though hybrid seeds were widely grown 30 years ago in Haiti, we were sensitive to the fact that hybrid seeds are not widely used in Haiti today. Hybrids have been in use for decades in other countries, including the Dominican Republic. Given the choice, farmers generally select hybrid seeds because they generate more food and grain per acre or hectare. Monsanto personnel consulted with the Ministry of Agriculture in Haiti and heard very clearly the ministry sees the opportunity for increased yields that hybrid seed creates for Haitian farmers.

A similar donation of hybrid seed to Malawi a few years ago produced a five-fold yield increase—enough food to feed a million people for a year. It was the first time many of those farmers had planted hybrid seed. See a diagram below on how hybrid seeds work.

By understanding the laws of heredity, plant breeders can cross a large yellow pepper and a small red pepper to create a hybrid that is large and red. In this case, the traits for size and red color are dominant (yellow is a recessive trait).

What took the longest amount of time in this process was finding partners who could 1) help deliver the seeds and 2) ensure that once the seeds arrived, they would get into the hands of Haitian farmers. Additionally, we wanted to ensure there were resources on the ground in Haiti to distribute the seeds and provide necessary agronomic support. UPS brought the vegetable seeds in via air freight. Kuehne + Nagel delivered the corn seed via boat.

The USAID-funded WINNER program will manage seed distribution and support in Haiti. That support will include educational resources to explain how to best use the seed and plan for this year and next. Although Monsanto is providing the seed free of charge, farmers will pay for the seed. Providing an outright donation of seed would undercut one of the basic pieces of Haiti’s agricultural and economic infrastructure. WINNER will distribute the seeds through stores that are owned and managed by farmer associations. The seeds will be sold at a significantly reduced price, and the revenue will be reinvested in local agriculture by the farmer associations.

The WINNER program estimates the seed donation could help 10,000 farmers on the island.

When a national disaster occurs, the immediate focus for relief needs are food, water and shelter. The impact on the agriculture planting season is not lost on us. As the U.S. State Department noted this year on its blog, getting the agriculture sector back on track is critical for Haiti’s food security. There are already a number of efforts to help, and we’re proud to offer what we can as part of a holistic approach.

View the slide show of the seed delivery as well as learn about Haitian agriculture by the numbers on Monsanto.com