Search

This article represents the perspective of one retired, academic forage breeder and cultivar developer after 50 years of working experience. Developing cultivars that help farmers within pastoral agriculture is the main goal, a system where livestock is the consumer. International Grassland Congress proceedings, as well as the general literature, are historical guides for the state of forage breeding. Efficiency was achieved through technologies; better equipment for planting and harvesting; and advances in computer computation and communication. Biotechnology achievements were fitful and continue to evolve. Cultivar performance mean‐reversion, cost to the program, and what the farmer seed buyer was willing to pay are important considerations for applying any technology, especially biotechnologies. Biotech promises were too optimistic. This was due, in part, to a lack of understanding that traditional phenotypic/genotypic field selection programs operate in a complex way with multiple species and several traits screened simultaneously at a modest cost. The majority of current forage cultivars are from field‐based selection. Industry participation at scientific conferences declined over time, with less sharing of information the result. Cultivar developers will continue using basic field selection methods but should explore applying any technology; just be clever on when, how, and with whom to use them. Practical advice and experiences are also presented and discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The technological changes that have occurred since the mid-1960s in Argentine agriculture - first the Green Revolution and then the Agribusiness Paradigm - have been conceptualized as revolutionary not only with regard to their productivity improvements but also because they brought with them a change of mentality. Based on two different business conceptions, during each period an agrarian elite led the 'revolutionary' process, offering a technological response as the means of guaranteeing agriculture's 'survival' after various crises. For each period, we can identify a correspondence between the status given to technology, the conception of business and the type of government regulation. This paper analyses how the proposition of a 'technological revolution' corresponds to the construction of the ideological leadership through which the agrarian bourgeoisie managed to orientate agrarian development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]