Sustainability is both a belief and physical system of farming that cares and preserves the environment in many different ways. It is a far-sighted approach to farming and ranching that takes the viability of long-term methods into consideration. Nature provides the perfect example of this type of agriculture in the prairie. The extremely fertile prairie soil was a result of natural soil building processes at work. In addition, farmers and ranchers who incorporate sustainable practices are concerned about more than short-term profit, but are also realizing the monetary benefits of organic produce and meat. For example, Carmen Fernholz of Madison, Minnesota is selling his organic “flax for human consumption at $1 a poing, which translates into about $50 to $60 dollars a bushel – compared to $5 to $8 a bushel for conventionally grown flax” (John Ikerd). It can be a win-win situation for both producer and the environment. Agriculture methods that incorporate monoculture, nitrogen-based fertilization, and irrigation are too damaging to the environment and too susceptible to pest devastation to be utilized indefinitely. Sustainable agriculture is a productive answer to these problems.
Sustainable agriculture defies a simple definition. There are as many different methods of sustainable practices as there are farms and ranches. Each producer faces unique challenges to be met based on what they are producing and what type of soil they are producing on. Some things sustainable producers have in common are crop rotation, integrated insect pest management, organic matter management, recycling farm wastes, and natural resource conservation.
Consumers can contribute to sustainable agriculture very simple by supporting it financially. Visits to farmers’ markets and buying organic produce and meats are a very good start. At home, gardens incorporating organic compost and natural pest control will yield fruits and vegetables that will have more flavor than anything you can buy that has been grown conventionally, and will also have a higher yield of vitamins and minerals. Also, mulching flower beds and landscaped areas will reduce water consumption, helping in a small way the very serious problem of declining water storage in underground aquifers.
Works Cited
Ikerd, John. “Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture”, (pg 3), Agricultural Economist Emeritus, University of Missouri, no date given
Monday, July 14, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Food and the Environment
The issue of global warming on food production has many facets; not all of them detrimental. The media has publicized the more negative scenarios, and has given little merit to the positive ones. The general population would undoubtedly be amazed upon discovering information that would shed light on the possible positive effects of global warming on food production.
As stated by the United Nations Environment Program, “. . . there may be benefits for agriculture in many temperate zones, where the length of the growing period will increase, costs of overwintering livestock will fall, crop yields may improve, and forests may grow faster” (Crop Production). Also, shifting growth zones due to rising temperatures will create new regions (mostly North/South pole-ward and the higher elevations) where individual crops thrive as a direct result of specific climate conditions. Another benefit is the increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere due to global warming. This creates “carbon fertilization”, which increases photosynthesis and results in increased net production of certain crops, particularly wheat and rice. Global warming could very well have beneficial effects for certain portions of the world.
However, these anticipated beneficial effects would come at the expense of other agricultural regions of the world. There are massive impacts from global warming projected for tropical agricultural regions. Scientists predict there could be increased rainfall variability, higher incidences of catastrophic weather events, and decreased yields in crops. Many crops grown in the tropics and more arid regions of the world are sensitive to temperature changes. Coffee is one of these crops, and it “. . . is the first, second or third largest export crop for 26 mostly poor countries in Africa and Central America”(Crop Production). Rice is another crop that would be affected by even a moderate increase in temperature. Rice grown today in tropical regions is cultivated very close to maximum temperature tolerances. Recent studies have shown that rice yields in the Philippines are reduced 10 percent for each one degree Celsius increase in night-time temperatures during the growing season.
Another disturbance caused by global warming is related to the possible rise in the oceans of the world. This could create a surging of salt water in low-lying agricultural areas, with large areas of fertile, productive land lost to the sea. For regions that are not permanently flooded, there is the danger of reduced soil and water quality from increased salinity after tidal surges have receded.
All things considered, the forecasted beneficial effects of global warming are outweighed by the negative effects predicted.
Work Cited
“Crop Production in a Changing Climate”, United Nations Environment Program, GEO Global Environment Outlook, GEO Year Book 2006, http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp
As stated by the United Nations Environment Program, “. . . there may be benefits for agriculture in many temperate zones, where the length of the growing period will increase, costs of overwintering livestock will fall, crop yields may improve, and forests may grow faster” (Crop Production). Also, shifting growth zones due to rising temperatures will create new regions (mostly North/South pole-ward and the higher elevations) where individual crops thrive as a direct result of specific climate conditions. Another benefit is the increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere due to global warming. This creates “carbon fertilization”, which increases photosynthesis and results in increased net production of certain crops, particularly wheat and rice. Global warming could very well have beneficial effects for certain portions of the world.
However, these anticipated beneficial effects would come at the expense of other agricultural regions of the world. There are massive impacts from global warming projected for tropical agricultural regions. Scientists predict there could be increased rainfall variability, higher incidences of catastrophic weather events, and decreased yields in crops. Many crops grown in the tropics and more arid regions of the world are sensitive to temperature changes. Coffee is one of these crops, and it “. . . is the first, second or third largest export crop for 26 mostly poor countries in Africa and Central America”(Crop Production). Rice is another crop that would be affected by even a moderate increase in temperature. Rice grown today in tropical regions is cultivated very close to maximum temperature tolerances. Recent studies have shown that rice yields in the Philippines are reduced 10 percent for each one degree Celsius increase in night-time temperatures during the growing season.
Another disturbance caused by global warming is related to the possible rise in the oceans of the world. This could create a surging of salt water in low-lying agricultural areas, with large areas of fertile, productive land lost to the sea. For regions that are not permanently flooded, there is the danger of reduced soil and water quality from increased salinity after tidal surges have receded.
All things considered, the forecasted beneficial effects of global warming are outweighed by the negative effects predicted.
Work Cited
“Crop Production in a Changing Climate”, United Nations Environment Program, GEO Global Environment Outlook, GEO Year Book 2006, http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Food Safety
The responsibility for food safety lies at the feet of every person at every level of the food chain. The producers are responsible for growing and/or raising a safe product, the processors are responsible for processing and packaging the product safely, the distributors are responsible for storing and shipping the product safely until it reaches the marketplace, the marketplace is responsible for storing and displaying the product safely until it is sold, and the consumers are responsible for handling the product safely in the domestic arena to ensure those consuming the edible products remain healthy. The federal government is responsible for policing and educating everyone involved at each level of the food chain.
When there is a breakdown of responsibility at any level, people are at risk for becoming mildly to deathly ill. The higher on the food “safety chain” the breakdown occurs, the more lives are affected. Many governmental agencies are involved in keeping America’s food supply safe, and American citizens owe more than they realize to these dedicated offices of food safety.
Everyone involved in food production, from the seed wholesalers to the cook in the kitchen, is responsible for doing their part to keep food safe. Lethal breakdowns can occur anywhere along the food production chain, with the only variable being the number of people sickened and possibly killed. It is up to all concerned to keep “safety” number one when food production is concerned.
When there is a breakdown of responsibility at any level, people are at risk for becoming mildly to deathly ill. The higher on the food “safety chain” the breakdown occurs, the more lives are affected. Many governmental agencies are involved in keeping America’s food supply safe, and American citizens owe more than they realize to these dedicated offices of food safety.
Everyone involved in food production, from the seed wholesalers to the cook in the kitchen, is responsible for doing their part to keep food safe. Lethal breakdowns can occur anywhere along the food production chain, with the only variable being the number of people sickened and possibly killed. It is up to all concerned to keep “safety” number one when food production is concerned.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Organic Food Production
It is an excellent thing that the term “organic” was legally defined by the federal government in the U.S., protecting the consumer and food industry alike. Before the term was legally defined, producers had the freedom to place their own interpretation on the term, which might have been very different from what the consumer had in mind. Producers unknowingly (or not) could be selling a product as organic, when in reality it did not meet the true spirit of organics. With the legal definition, consumers have a much better idea what to expect from their purchases, and producers have guidelines to ensure proper farming and ranching practices.
Over the past three decades, scientific facts have steadily accumulated showing organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally grown food. Science is showing that the fruits and vegetables our parents ate when they were children are more nutritious than the ones we are serving our children today. Research has been done world-wide, and these findings are consistent.
For example, Donald R. Davis is a research associate employed by the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas. He recently analyzed data retrieved from the USDA that it had gathered in both 1950 and 1999 concerning the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. “He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes)” (NY Times). Phosphorous, iron, calcium, protein, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid declined 6% to 38%. "What all our data shows," says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center and a former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, "is that whenever there's been a valid comparison between conventional and organic, organic is virtually never lower than conventional and, in a significant number of cases, it's higher. Sometimes it's significantly higher in several important nutrients." (NY Times). Sweden and Britain have also conducted studies with similar results.
Organic farming and ranching are environmentally friendly. Organic farming is based on the philosophy that any food produced is only going to be as good as the soil it is grown in. Organic food producers work in harmony with the ecosystems on the farms and ranches, utilizing techniques such as crop rotation, soil enrichment, natural pest management, composting and companion planting.
Organic farming is much more labor intensive than conventional farming, and this accounts in part for the general increased costs associated with purchasing organic products. Also, while organic farming and ranching can be managed on a larger scale, the certification requirements that come along with being “organic” are much more time consuming than traditional farming. Much more time is devoted to gathering information, planning, scouting for pests (since traditional pesticides are not allowed), and other related duties.
The interest of big business retailers such as Whole Foods could very well apply pressure for improved technologies that will fit the organic standard but reduce time and labor costs. Big business will also lend an air of legitimacy to the organic industry for staunch disbelievers.
Work Cited
"Organic Fruits and Vegetables Work Harder for Their Nutrients", Deborah K. Rich, Special to The San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, March 25, 2006
Over the past three decades, scientific facts have steadily accumulated showing organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally grown food. Science is showing that the fruits and vegetables our parents ate when they were children are more nutritious than the ones we are serving our children today. Research has been done world-wide, and these findings are consistent.
For example, Donald R. Davis is a research associate employed by the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas. He recently analyzed data retrieved from the USDA that it had gathered in both 1950 and 1999 concerning the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. “He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes)” (NY Times). Phosphorous, iron, calcium, protein, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid declined 6% to 38%. "What all our data shows," says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center and a former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, "is that whenever there's been a valid comparison between conventional and organic, organic is virtually never lower than conventional and, in a significant number of cases, it's higher. Sometimes it's significantly higher in several important nutrients." (NY Times). Sweden and Britain have also conducted studies with similar results.
Organic farming and ranching are environmentally friendly. Organic farming is based on the philosophy that any food produced is only going to be as good as the soil it is grown in. Organic food producers work in harmony with the ecosystems on the farms and ranches, utilizing techniques such as crop rotation, soil enrichment, natural pest management, composting and companion planting.
Organic farming is much more labor intensive than conventional farming, and this accounts in part for the general increased costs associated with purchasing organic products. Also, while organic farming and ranching can be managed on a larger scale, the certification requirements that come along with being “organic” are much more time consuming than traditional farming. Much more time is devoted to gathering information, planning, scouting for pests (since traditional pesticides are not allowed), and other related duties.
The interest of big business retailers such as Whole Foods could very well apply pressure for improved technologies that will fit the organic standard but reduce time and labor costs. Big business will also lend an air of legitimacy to the organic industry for staunch disbelievers.
Work Cited
"Organic Fruits and Vegetables Work Harder for Their Nutrients", Deborah K. Rich, Special to The San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, March 25, 2006
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Biotechnology
One of the most virulent diseases to strike a papaya tree or shrub is “Papaya Ringspot Virus”. Once this virus secures a foothold in a field, it can lead to financial ruin and abandonment of the acreage in a matter of two growing seasons.
Figure A
Healthy papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1992
Figure B
Severely PRV-infected abandoned papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1994
Papaya ringspot is characterized by “. . . a yellowing and stunting of the crown of papaya trees, a mottling of the foliage. . ., shoe-stringing of younger leaves. . ., water-soaked streaking of the stalks. . ., and small darkened rings on the surface of fruit. . .” (State of Hawaii DOA). The leaf canopy of a papaya tree decreases as the disease gains a stronger foothold; as a result, the number, size, and quality of the papayas produced decreases.
By 1995, Hawaii’s papaya industry was faced with economic ruin due to the ringspot virus. 95% of the state’s papaya was grown in the Puna District, and the ringspot virus was decimating field after field. Fortunately, research had already begun in the direction of developing a papaya that was resistant to ringspot disease, as it had previously been detected on Oahu and Maui. By the time ringspot disease was discovered in the Puna District, a field trial of transgenic papaya had been established on Oahu (a transgenic papaya has had its genome altered by the transfer of a gene from another species; in this case, a ringspot resistant gene).
The success of the transgenic papaya was beyond any of the researchers’ wildest dreams.
Figure C
This picture shows a solid block of PRV-resistant Rainbow papaya growing well even though it was planted in the middle of a severely-infected field.
The positive impacts of the use of this biotechnology are the development of a PRV-resistant strain of papaya, the resulting continuation and growth of Hawaii’s papaya industry, and a safe and affordable product for consumers. Interestingly enough, the Hawaiian papaya industry has kept both transgenic and non-transgenic species of papaya in production. The transgenic papaya allows for planting in previously unusable infected acreage, and is sold both domestically and to countries where there are no restrictions against bio-engineered produce. The non-transgenic papaya market is a much smaller industry, but allows the Hawaiian Islands to continue to export their papayas to countries that restrict bio-engineered produce, most notably Japan. Japan accounts for 20% of Hawaii’s export market. On a side note, Canada accounts for 11% of Hawaii’s export market and approved the import of transgenic papaya in January 2003.
This biotechnology has been implemented since 1992 in the countries of Brazil, Jamaica, Thailand, Bangladesh, and several East African countries through a technology transfer program. “. . . [S]tudents or scientists [come] to the host institution (at that time, Cornell University) to develop a transgenic papaya that would be useful in their countries” (APS). As there are varying strains of papaya ringspot virus specific to different nations, this has allowed for development of a transgenic papaya (using papayas from the individual countries) that will be able to resist the particular strain of a particular country.
I could find no health concerns relating specifically to transgenic papaya, and only the concern of durability of the ringspot virus resistance (of which there has been no breakdown noted in transgenic papaya).
Works Cited
“Papaya Ringspot Virus”, State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, New Pest Advisory No. 02-03, May 2002, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/npa-1/npa02-03_prvmaui.pdf
“Transgenic Virus Resistant Papaya: From Hope to Reality for Controlling Papaya Ringspot Virus in Hawaii, The American Phytopathological Society, APSnet, Feature Story July-August 2004, http://www.apsnet.org/ONLINE/FEATURE/RINGSPOT/
All pictures are copied from the aforementioned APSnet feature story
Figure A
Healthy papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1992
Figure B
Severely PRV-infected abandoned papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1994
Papaya ringspot is characterized by “. . . a yellowing and stunting of the crown of papaya trees, a mottling of the foliage. . ., shoe-stringing of younger leaves. . ., water-soaked streaking of the stalks. . ., and small darkened rings on the surface of fruit. . .” (State of Hawaii DOA). The leaf canopy of a papaya tree decreases as the disease gains a stronger foothold; as a result, the number, size, and quality of the papayas produced decreases.
By 1995, Hawaii’s papaya industry was faced with economic ruin due to the ringspot virus. 95% of the state’s papaya was grown in the Puna District, and the ringspot virus was decimating field after field. Fortunately, research had already begun in the direction of developing a papaya that was resistant to ringspot disease, as it had previously been detected on Oahu and Maui. By the time ringspot disease was discovered in the Puna District, a field trial of transgenic papaya had been established on Oahu (a transgenic papaya has had its genome altered by the transfer of a gene from another species; in this case, a ringspot resistant gene).
The success of the transgenic papaya was beyond any of the researchers’ wildest dreams.
Figure C
This picture shows a solid block of PRV-resistant Rainbow papaya growing well even though it was planted in the middle of a severely-infected field.
The positive impacts of the use of this biotechnology are the development of a PRV-resistant strain of papaya, the resulting continuation and growth of Hawaii’s papaya industry, and a safe and affordable product for consumers. Interestingly enough, the Hawaiian papaya industry has kept both transgenic and non-transgenic species of papaya in production. The transgenic papaya allows for planting in previously unusable infected acreage, and is sold both domestically and to countries where there are no restrictions against bio-engineered produce. The non-transgenic papaya market is a much smaller industry, but allows the Hawaiian Islands to continue to export their papayas to countries that restrict bio-engineered produce, most notably Japan. Japan accounts for 20% of Hawaii’s export market. On a side note, Canada accounts for 11% of Hawaii’s export market and approved the import of transgenic papaya in January 2003.
This biotechnology has been implemented since 1992 in the countries of Brazil, Jamaica, Thailand, Bangladesh, and several East African countries through a technology transfer program. “. . . [S]tudents or scientists [come] to the host institution (at that time, Cornell University) to develop a transgenic papaya that would be useful in their countries” (APS). As there are varying strains of papaya ringspot virus specific to different nations, this has allowed for development of a transgenic papaya (using papayas from the individual countries) that will be able to resist the particular strain of a particular country.
I could find no health concerns relating specifically to transgenic papaya, and only the concern of durability of the ringspot virus resistance (of which there has been no breakdown noted in transgenic papaya).
Works Cited
“Papaya Ringspot Virus”, State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, New Pest Advisory No. 02-03, May 2002, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/npa-1/npa02-03_prvmaui.pdf
“Transgenic Virus Resistant Papaya: From Hope to Reality for Controlling Papaya Ringspot Virus in Hawaii, The American Phytopathological Society, APSnet, Feature Story July-August 2004, http://www.apsnet.org/ONLINE/FEATURE/RINGSPOT/
All pictures are copied from the aforementioned APSnet feature story
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Green Revolution
New technology is necessary to increase food production. There is a finite ability within the DNA of any given plant to reproduce. To increase this reproduction ability, the DNA must be genetically altered through cross breeding or genetic engineering. Otherwise, the plant will be unable to exceed its original production capability. There are downfalls to depending on technology to increase food production. Plant pathogens are consistently evolving to allow themselves to invade resistant plants. “These genetic interactions between host and parasite constantly occur in the natural environment” (Plants & Society). It is a never ending battle for plant pathologists and breeders to stay ahead of the mutations that could conceivably destroy a major part of the world’s food supply. Also, crossbreeding is generally limited to the “big three” of the world’s food supply – wheat, rice and corn. This has drastically reduced crop plant diversity, increased pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and removed water from underground sources so rapidly that nature cannot replenish it, and huge sinkholes have resulted in various parts of the country as the earth collapses into what was once a water-filled aquifer.
There is a growing awareness of the problems due to the effects of the “Green Revolution”. As wonderful as the increased food production was in many countries, the dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation, and machinery has pushed many small and/or poor farmers out of the industry. The reliance on machinery and pesticides has become more and more expensive as the cost of petroleum has increased. The environmental damage due to the “. . . dramatic increase in fertilizer use over the past several decades has also caused serious environmental problems” (Plants & Society). This, coupled with pesticide use, has created numerous environmental and health issues worldwide.
Critics looking at the problems created by the Green Revolution believe that modeling agriculture after natural systems will help restore local environments, health and economies. A move towards perennial plants that would be harvested at different times of the year and would need replanting only after several years of production would yield many benefits. Soil erosion would be decreased, and dependence on fertilizers and pesticides would be minimized.
Works Cited
"Feeding a Hungry World", Plants and Society, 5th Edition, Levetin and McMahon,
pg 239 for both sources
There is a growing awareness of the problems due to the effects of the “Green Revolution”. As wonderful as the increased food production was in many countries, the dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation, and machinery has pushed many small and/or poor farmers out of the industry. The reliance on machinery and pesticides has become more and more expensive as the cost of petroleum has increased. The environmental damage due to the “. . . dramatic increase in fertilizer use over the past several decades has also caused serious environmental problems” (Plants & Society). This, coupled with pesticide use, has created numerous environmental and health issues worldwide.
Critics looking at the problems created by the Green Revolution believe that modeling agriculture after natural systems will help restore local environments, health and economies. A move towards perennial plants that would be harvested at different times of the year and would need replanting only after several years of production would yield many benefits. Soil erosion would be decreased, and dependence on fertilizers and pesticides would be minimized.
Works Cited
"Feeding a Hungry World", Plants and Society, 5th Edition, Levetin and McMahon,
pg 239 for both sources
Friday, June 13, 2008
Population Growth and Food
Malthus is correct in his theory that the world’s population growth will be kept in check, but it will be more because of the death rates from infectious diseases than insufficient food supply. At this time there is enough food in the world to nourish its population, but people die of starvation and starvation-related diseases each year because of inequities in the food distribution system. Unless political and logistical obstacles to food distribution are resolved, this situation will continue. At this point in time, I believe that the decreasing supply of fresh, unpolluted drinking water will be the world’s “population policing” system. At the present time, “less than 1% of the Earth’s water is fit and available for human consumption” (Sustainability). The amount of fresh water available for human consumption is constant. Consequently, as population increases, the supply of fresh water per person declines. This results in an ever-decreasing amount of water available per person. Polluted water causes sickness and disease, and water is a major carrier of disease causing germs. Already, nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages, and the problem will only grow worse.
This ties directly into one of the secondary impacts of increasing food production. Increased agriculture production means increased fertilizer use, which translates directly into increased pollutants contaminating the world’s watershed. In addition, increased agricultural production means more water being diverted for irrigation purposes. Also, increasing food production alone will not solve the inequities of distribution.
The best population control method available worldwide is the education of women. Educated women have a broader view of what their capabilities are and what opportunities are open to them economically. This allows women to make child-bearing decisions based at least in part on what they see in their future.
Studies have shown that “as much as 90% of the reason that women have families of a particular size is simply because that is the number of children they want. Where women gained education and rights, birth rates fell” (Horrid History).
Works Cited
“Horrid History”, from The Economist print edition, May 22, 2008, http://www.economist.com/books
“We Have Passed Our Sustainability”, Mark R Elsis, May 1, 2000, http://overpopulation.net/
This ties directly into one of the secondary impacts of increasing food production. Increased agriculture production means increased fertilizer use, which translates directly into increased pollutants contaminating the world’s watershed. In addition, increased agricultural production means more water being diverted for irrigation purposes. Also, increasing food production alone will not solve the inequities of distribution.
The best population control method available worldwide is the education of women. Educated women have a broader view of what their capabilities are and what opportunities are open to them economically. This allows women to make child-bearing decisions based at least in part on what they see in their future.
Studies have shown that “as much as 90% of the reason that women have families of a particular size is simply because that is the number of children they want. Where women gained education and rights, birth rates fell” (Horrid History).
Works Cited
“Horrid History”, from The Economist print edition, May 22, 2008, http://www.economist.com/books
“We Have Passed Our Sustainability”, Mark R Elsis, May 1, 2000, http://overpopulation.net/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
