I don't disagree with a lot of that Keith as I think all of these things have a place in our future. "Small" holdings though cannot feed the needs of the urban poor and this is where I believe GM has its place, to enable higher yields and the use of presently under farmed areas. We do, of course, need to maintain diversity but there seems to be no conflict to me. Both approaches have their use.
Quote Originally Posted by keithAngel View Post
That may be true David but the core issue here is sustainability if you are small holding and using your animal manures to fertilise your gardens , which is still how a lot of the world feeds itself you are engaged in a self sustainable cycle and maintain the heart of your soil structure.Without needing to enter the agribusiness chain using disease resistant seeds that have evolved over Millenia.

We have had the ludicrous situation here in Europe were native seed stock is not allowed to be sold and the only way to obtain it is via seed libraries such as The Henry Doubleday Organisation.

We run great risks in reducing bio diversity and loosing Native Wisdom's in a single generation may have an as yet a catastrophic impact on future generations Nature is in a constant state of flux and our attempts to promote mono-culture disturbs this dynamic

In the third world it is not increasing dependence on machines and oil that needs to be promoted but rather Poly-culture and land access and small scale subsidies for multi-layered approaches to increased production such as niche farming (fish ponds ,beekeeping, deciduous reafforestation) running side by side with existing small holdings thus improving bio-diversity whilst maximising sustainable production.