Dear Dr. Bernal and all:

There are many good reasons for comparing the 27 metric ton/ha output in Iowa to the 0.2 metric ton/ha output of Oaxaca. Dr. Bernal pointed out some of the reasons for the differing outputs, but failed to note how the difference is salient.

For all the vaunted "native wisdom" of Mexican maize growers, their "native landraces," the "biodiversity" of their crops and the "acclimation of these precious cultivars to varied microclimates," the fact is, maize isn't a weed. It's an artificial plant and its sole purpose is to feed people. It would disappear if it were given no attention by humans. Given the 138:1 Iowa:Oaxaca ratio, it's apparent that whatever Iowa has, it's superior to the native-natural-ancestral-biodiverse Oaxaca stuff by such a massive multiple that whatever you say, the "museum of Maize" in Mexico does an obviously lousy job of feeding people.

Iowa does not use "biodiverse landraces." We gave that up decades ago in favor of high-producing hybrids. Iowa does not rely on "organic" farming methods. We found out decades ago that there are better methods that produce more per acre. Iowa has crops genetically engineered to resist its native insect pests... Mexico rejects the technology.

One can complain about energy differentials, subsidies, variable soil fertility, rainfall and any number of other things, but the fact is, on a per-acre basis, an Iowan can feed 138 times as many people as a Oaxacan. Maize only exists for the purpose of feeding humans, and it doesn't take a big logical leap from there to determine that in terms of feeding humans, Iowa is a success, while Oaxaca is a failure.

Not too long ago, it made sense to argue that "native Mexican landraces" needed to be preserved because of their "biodiversity" and the "possible benefits" that might lie undiscovered in their germplasm. Seeds from these various landraces are held by CIMMYT at great expense, and are about to become obsolete and worthless.

Yes, that's true. Obsolete and worthless. The more advanced the knowledge of gene function and transfection becomes, the more pointless "biodiversity" and seed banks become. Seed banks and biodiversity are only important if your only available technology is conventional breeding. With more advanced knowledge and techniques, antique germplasm becomes increasingly irrelevant. If you need a trait (such as resistance to the European Corn Borer), you engineer it in--as with the YieldGard gene. Ten years from now, the expense for seed banks will be deemed pointless, their contents will be fed to cows and pigs and people will relent from making bizarre claims in favor of biodiversity, such as that 3 bu/a is an acceptable yield in Mexico. Mexico, and Mexicans, deserve better.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **