Sustainable Agriculture

A definition for sustainability: to provide the necessities for nourishment with minimal long-term affect on the environment. Sustainability in agriculture relates to a entirely different form of farming. Instead of focusing on the absolute productivity of the here and now, farmers who implement sustainable farming techniques focus on not only the present, but on the future as well. Sustainable farming promotes a future agriculture that will be just as productive as the present, or more so. Conventional farming techniques use all of the resources available at their disposal, with no regard for the environment or for the future. Sustainable farming is important because if the world as a whole does not start focusing on how our actions are going to affect our future, we may not have a future.

Sustainable practices can be implemented in every aspect of farm life. Conventional farms use intense tilling of the land in an attempt to thwart the growth of weeds and other pests. But this is not a sustainable practice because it creates erosion and the loss of nutrients from the soil. With the sustainable process of low or no tillage, all organic matter is kept in the soil, and the soil stays more stable and has more nutrients. The more organic matter and nutrients in the soil make it so inorganic fertilizers do not need to be added. Also, without the need to burn or till, the air will become cleaner because exhaust and soot are not being let out into the atmosphere, this will also help slow global warming. Another sustainable farming practice is crop rotation. Crop rotation is an alternative to monoculture. Instead of focusing on one crop (that is susceptible to disease) crop rotation involves the rotating of either four or five varieties of crops. The varying crops break up pest cycles and disease. Crop rotation is a natural alternative to the unsustainable practice of applying large amounts of pesticides. In crop rotation, different crops replenish the soil with different nutrients, so there is not as great of a need for fertilizers. Sustainable farming also focuses on getting the most out of water sources. Increased efficiency of water usage means less is wasted, and not as much energy needs to be used to harness it. Sustainable farming also concentrates on the health of the animal. If the animal is not in good health, then the product will consequently be poor. To have an animal in good health, it needs to be in a natural as setting as possible. This means eliminating the use of confined feeding operations. Confined feeding operations use high amounts of unsustainable resources. The animals must be raised in a more natural and holistic manner. Lastly, sustainable farmers try to utilize sustainable sources of energy. By using wind, hydro, solar, and other sources of renewable energy, the sustainable-oriented farmers of today are able to provide for the present, while ensuring the future.

There are a variety of ways that a consumer can contribute to sustainable agriculture. Consumers can attend farmers markets or roadside stands and buy food there - because these places involve either family farms or otherwise small farms. The consumer can also choose to buy their food from a natural food store, that almost always carries organic or at least sustainably grown foods. Consumers may also go to a large supermarket and ask whether the food they buy comes from a sustainable source. If the large market gets hounded enough, or has the demand, the sustainable supply will soon follow. It is up to the consumer to negotiate the future of farming, every dollar is a vote towards a particular type of farming. Every dollar put towards buying a product that came from a sustainable farm is a vote cast for the sustainable farming as our future. Buying food that comes from a sustainable farm is a responsible step that everyone needs to take if there is going to be any agriculture, or people for that matter, in the future.

Global Warming and Agriculture

I think that global warming is going to affect the agriculture of the world in many ways. The types of food we eat, the location of crops, and our fuel sources will all become affected by the unavoidable affects of global warming. The affects of global warming is unavoidable because consequences have already become apparent. Further research is not needed, any lay-person can tell, just by peering at disappearing snow line, that global warming is a actuality. This very real phenomenon is going to affect every member of the earth in many ways, agriculture being a substantial partition.

As the temperatures of the earth continue to rise, rainfall, and the location of the rainfall will be affected. This means that crops that need allot of water to grow may die. If crops that we depend on die, we will need to look to crops that are adapted for arid environments. Land that is arid now may become so desolate, that the success of crops adapted to thrive there may become jeopardized. All agricultural plants may have to move either south or north in order to stay in their same biome in the coming times.

Our fuel sources will probably be the first thing to change. Authorities are finally recognizing global warming and its future affects. Fossil fuels have been identified as the main culprit, and their continued use is unlikely. A fuel that is renewable is in the future, and agriculture is going to play a big part. Corn may be grown in larger quantities to be used as ethanol, or soybeans and the like may be grown to be used as biodiesel. Either way, if the world decides to use agriculture as a source of fuel, the implications must be observed. When growing a crop as a fuel source, one must recognize that it will take allot of nutrients, water, fuel to run the tractors, and other resources. Additionally, it must also be realized that even if crops are turned to as a 'green fuel' that the combustion of that fuel is still a combustion reaction - releasing heat and carbon dioxide as its products. The usage of crops as a fuel source will also raise the cost of food.

Global warming will no doubt place strains on our ever day life, especially as Americans. The already outrageous gas prices will be coupled with negative changes in our environment. Changes in temperature will no doubtly be accompanied by the extinction of some species of both plants and animals. It will be a challenge to feed the growing population in times where the environment is changing. But this challenge can be faced by the bright minds of the world. Our society, technology, and agriculture now must be directed in a new direction, a 'green' direction.

Globalization of Agriculture

When considering the globalization of agriculture, there are both good and bad aspects that must be taken into account. The advocates of globalization usually include corporations and affluent people who enjoy spending less on groceries. The opponents of globalization are family farmers and the people of developing countries. Good or bad, the globalization of agriculture affects everyone.

Globalization of agriculture is the idea that countries should trade with each other, and specialize in a realm of production that that particular country is best at. This specialization and international trading can lead to increased efficiency and higher yields. Because of trading networks, like the World Trade Organization, countries cannot put trading restraints on other countries. Globalization means that one country can focus on one particular facet of agriculture. This focus can lead to great wealth when the aspect at hand is a lucrative one. Already rich countries are the countries that engage in the more profitable types of Agra-business. Developed countries who have manufacturing plants, and the like, have large profit margins. A bushel or corn flakes sells exponentially more than a bushel of corn.

But with the same aspects that make globalization a good thing for some people, also make it a bad thing for allot of people. Although the globalization of agriculture is causing the profit margins for developed countries to increase significantly, it is causing the gap between the rich and poor to widen. This is because poor countries do not have the capital to start up their own processing plants. Processing plants represent the secondary market, which is far more profitable then the primary market of actual farming. Poor countries also are not able to give their agriculture companies loans because it violates rules set into place by the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization (WTO) puts additional constraints on countries. Countries are not allowed to reject imported commodities that are considered hazardous because it violates trade agreements set into place by the WTO. Family farms are also hurt by globalization because they cannot compete with the low prices of global agriculture companies. Globalization is much more efficient because it focuses on one crop, while family farms support diversity, which decreases efficiency. While corporate ownership of farms provides a uniform, efficient type of farming, many things are thrown to the wayside. Considered negligible by agribusinesses is the affect of hormones, fertilizers, and pesticides on the environment and animal welfare. Family farmers as well as those in developing countries are failing because they place quality over quantity.

Globalization has been boost to the green revolution in recent years, increasing efficiency and the amount of food produced. But this mass amount of food tends to be delivered where it is needed the least - in the most affluent countries in the world. Rich companies pay cents on the dollar to get food and then process it into an extremely profitable commodity. The profit margin gap is increasing between farmers and processors as well as between the poor and the rich. Globalization is a good thing because of its increased efficiency and food quantity, but in order for the profits of it to be reaped properly, a correct ratio of profit and worth must be put into place.

We all experience globalization. We get most of our fruit in the winter from South American countries and allot of other food is imported as well. We have trading agreements with other countries that strengthen our economy, as well as the worlds. We are able to support other countries who are in need of a commodity, but unable to grow it themselves, and vice-versa. Also, it is because of globalization that we have such cheap groceries. The producers are able to produce it cheaper, so we get to buy it cheaper.

Food Safety

When it comes to the responsibility of food safety it is the consumer who is ultimately responsible. It is up to each and every person to do the research that will protect them from the microbial world of food-born diseases. People should take a microbiology class, or at least read about food safety on a government website. Upon taking a microbiology class, I went from being ignorant about the causative agents of disease, to knowing how microbes cause disease and how to prevent microbial growth. The average person remains ignorant to the invisible world of microbes, so is unknowing as to why someone gets sick.

Fortunately for the general public, our government has organized several different departments that overlook the food industry and keep a sharp eye out for any potential outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The United States government has organizations that regulate the actual food industries themselves. Additionally, it has organizations that detect and keep records on food-borne illnesses, and finds ways to control and prevent outbreaks. The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for inspecting meat, poultry, and egg products; while the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for testing all other foods. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work on finding ways to treat problematic pathogens, and preventing future spreading and outbreaks of food-borne diseases. Our government is working hard at preventing food-borne illnesses by inspecting the food before it reaches the consumer, and it is also protecting us by researching ways to control a food-borne outbreak when it occurs.

Before food reaches the consumer, its safety is in the hands of a number of different entities. First, it is the producer who has the responsibility of providing a sanitary conditions for the food to be grown/raised. Next it is the processor's responsibility to process the food under sanitary conditions. The government officials should also be doing their best to discern whether or not the food is being prepared under the proper conditions. But in the end it is up the consumer to make sure that the food they are about to consume has been prepared safely. The consumer can do so by conducting his or her own research on the subject. It is up the consumer to make sure that they clean, separate, cook and chill their food properly.

Organic Food Production

In order for a food to be labeled 'organic', it must adhere to stringent guidelines. Organic foods must contain limited amounts of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, must not be grown in contaminated soil for three years, not use any human sewage sludge as fertilizer, not have any genetically modified organisms, promote soil building, conservation, manure management, rotate crops, avoid contamination, not use any hormones or antibiotics on animals, and keep meticulous records (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nnop/ indexIE.htm).

I think it was a good thing that our government legally defined what it means for food to be organic. Organic is a powerful word in today's market. If price is not involved, most people would probably pick the organic product over the conventional one. The word 'organic' means to the consumer that the product is produced under stringent guidelines that have the end result of producing a more natural, potentially healthier product that contains limited amounts of man-made products. If the government did not set these guidelines into place, then the word 'organic' would have no meaning. Any corporation could slap an organic label on its product, fooling the customer. This would not be right, the customer would be paying more for a product that is inferior to its labeling (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html).

There is no evidence yet that affirms that organic foods are better for humans than traditionally produced foods. But genetically modified foods have not really been on the market long enough to complete any substantial tests. Organic farming practices are better for the environment, howbeit. Organic farming techniques focus on sustainability, while conventional farming techniques focus on productivity. Organic farms practice things that support nature, like soil building to prevent erosion and crop rotation to mimic nature's diversity. By dumping synthetic fertilizers into water sources and exuding hormones and antibiotics out into the biosphere, conventional farms are hazardous to the environment (Kuepper, 2004).

I think businesses like Whole Foods are doing a good thing. Unlike many food suppliers, Whole Foods is trying to promote well-being through natural and organic foods. They leave out the artificial additives, sweeteners, colorings, and preservatives. This could mean they are also leaving out carcinogens. By providing a healthy choice and supporting local farmers, I think businesses like Whole Foods are doing a good thing, especially for obese nations like America (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/index.html).

Biotechnology Number 2

I feel that biotechnology is the way of 21st century agriculture. If people plan on proliferating at this extreme rate, biotechnology transfers from convenience to necessity. Biotech not only increases framers profit margins, but it provides enough food for a hungry world. But the many positive affects of biotechnology do not exist without their obverse affects.

The Green Revolution is responsible for the survival of millions of people who would of otherwise starved. The rate of farm productivity due to farming practices is still increasing, but has slowed. The world needs a new advance in agriculture to boost its productivity to match the ever-growing population. Biotechnology, also known as the 'gene revolution' is this much needed advance. With the technology of today, we can make the plants themselves more productive, not just the land. Biotechnology can make the plants produce more grain or fruit, produce anti-insect toxins, produce increased resistance to pesticides and fertilizers, and even produce medicine. This increase in productivity has lead to increase in food and profit margin.

But a negative shadow looms over biotechnology 's bright future. With the manipulating of genes comes many moral and health issues. Is changing the blueprints of life right? Can it harm us? Will it cause cancer 10 years down the road? All are valid questions yet to be answered. The United States values productivity, while other countries or bands of countries like the European Union value the safety of their food supply. The European Union requires that all of their grains must be properly labeled if containing genetically modified organisms. The United States on the other hand, has found no health issues with genetically modified organisms, so requires no such labeling. This does create discrepancies for U.S. farmers. Farmers in the U.S. cannot export their products to the countries requiring labels unless they label their food themselves. The added worry and cost of labels makes it hard for American farmers to compete in European markets.

Both sides of the argument have valid viewpoints. But I think as long as biotechnology is doing good, and its effects are proved to be harmless, no labels should be required. Labels only urge the consumer into thinking there could be something wrong with the food when it is perfectly healthy. The labels are also and added cost to the farmer, unnecessarily raising the price of food.

Biotechnology: Transgenic Cotton

The genetic manipulation of plants has been going on for centuries, but now speedy genetic engineering can replace the slow tedious process of cross-breeding distinct varieties. There are several ways of genetically manipulating a plant, including: infecting the plant with a plasmid carrying the gene, and shooting microscopic pellets containing the desired gene directly into the plant cell. There is no real distinction between somatic and germ line cells in plants, this makes it easier to genetically manipulate plants than animals(http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/TransgenicPlants.html).

The complicated gene manipulating procedures of the cotton plant are done for a variety of reasons. Insect resistance (Bt) is produced by the Monsanto company to control tobacco bud worm and cotton bollworm. Glyphosate (roundup) tolerance has also been developed by Monsanto to increase cotton's resistance to herbicides. With glyphosate, a cotton field can be completely sprayed with roundup, and a minimal amount of the cotton plants will die, if any. Bromoxynil (BXN) tolerance has also been produced by Monsanto for the same purpose as glyphosate. Sulfonylurea (SU) tolerance has been developed by DuPont also for herbicide resistance. 25% of the cotton population was transgenic in 1997, the percentage jumped to 45% a year later (http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/cotton.html). In 2007 the percentage of transgenic cotton crops ranged from 100% in Arkansas and Tennessee, to 71% in California (http://www.ams.usda.gov/cottonrpts/MNPDF/mp_cn833.PDF).


Higher crop yields, improved nutritional value, salinity resistance, decrease in pesticide and fertilizer use, decreases in tilling and other farm labor are just some of the positive aspects of using bioengineered crops. However, destruction of native crop diversity and possible consequent native crop failure has led to farmer suicide in some cases. Monsanto released a transgenic variety of cotton into several southern India states. Coupled with debt and drought, 70 farmers committed suicide - their deaths are being blamed on the biotechnology company Monsanto (http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Monsanto-Indian-Farmers11sep03.htm). Some countries will not even accept genetically modified foods. Starving African countries have denied our aid because the corn we offered was genetically modified. Genetically modified foods have their positives and negatives; but they are here to stay, so we should find a middle ground of perhaps growing them in a nature friendly manner.

Green Revolution

I think that new technology is needed to keep increasing food production. The population of the world is almost certainly going to keep growing to an unfathomable amount. The only way to keep up with the booming population is to having a booming agriculture as well. An industrial revolution was needed to moderize the growing western civilization in a sanitary fashion. Large cities could not function with their large populations without the aid of modern sewage systems and other modern structures. The indutrial revolution met the needs of a population living in close quaters. Now the world needs an agricultural revolution to feed those hungry people and their children. New technology is needed to keep increasing food production; but there is a sustainable way to do so.

The world does need technology incorporated into its farming practices for sure, but it needs this scientific knowledge supplemented in a sustainable way. If not implemented with the future in mind, technology could lead to disastrous ends. We must think like the Native Americans who believed in thinking about how each of their actions will affect their future generations. High-impact modern 'green revolution' type farming no-doubtedly has negative impacts on the environment. Loss of bio-diversity, droughts, erosion, poisoning from pesticides and fertilizers are some of the detrimental effects of the 'green revolution'. These advanced farming practices have the good intent of being able to feed expodential amounts of people but farms must do so with the environment in mind. We should put its name to use and turn this 'green revolution' into a revolution of agriculture that has the main goal of perpetuating all of the green in our world, while also feeding our people.


Modern technology is the only way to provide the world's population with a sufficient amount of food. If one wanted to feed the population of the world using traditional techniques, an unrealistic amount of acerage would be needed. Farmland is being closed in on by the growing poulation. Rural communities are being replaced by suburbs. The only way to get more food out of less amount of land is by increasing the efficeintcy of the land, farming techniques, and the plants themselves. Plant hybrids must be produced that require less fertilizer, pesticides, and water. This all is possible, but positive feedback from the public is needed. The world cannot expect to get all natural or original type of plants when they are having seven children each. Each child is going to encroach on even more farnmland. There is a way for these plant hybrids to be grown in a natural way that sustains the environment for future generations. Hybrid plants should be grown with other hybrid plants in a field with the lowest amount of tilling possible so the environment is kept in an as natural state as possible.

Modern technology is definitely needed to feed the growing world population. The 'green revolution' does not have to be a set of reckless techniques that disregard the environment. New technolgy should be coupled with the natutral style of growing. In a natural setting, agricultural plants may live in a harmonious cycle with the earth rather than at an unnatural grueling pace. This will sustain the resources of our earth in a way that feeds our people.

Population Growth and Food

I think Mathus was right, but it may take a while for his philosophy to become aknowledged by the modern world. His postulate that "the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence" is apparent today in Africa. Africa has one of the fastest growing populations with proportionatly smallest amount of resources in the world. The African continent has a desert that is the size of the United States, this leaves for a smaller area that can be used for agriculture. The starving people in Africa is proof that the power of population is greater than the earth's power to produce food.

I do not think that limiting births like China is a viable option for the United States. America is land of the free. Limiting births is a way of limiting freedom, and would not go over well in America. A more realistic way that we can control the escalating population is by developing cheaper and more effective birth control techniques. By offering birth control pills or other methods, the population won't feel repressed. If a population feels repressed other problems besides hunger will become apparent. Passively offering cheaper birth control won't put the desired cap on population, but it will preserve our freedom.

We should also start teaching sex education more in depth. We should be teaching in detail about each and every repercussion that comes from having sex. As of now, the chance of having a child is always there unless you are barren. We should teach this to the public, starting with middleschoolers. If teens know what the chances are that they will have a child, maybe they won't engage in as much sexual intercourse. In addition to adding to the population, most of these children born to teen mothers are born into a broken family and poverty. We should therefore teach the respectfulness of abstinence and the proper techniques of birth control.

My proposed solutions of birth control and knowledge won't stop our population problem, but it may slow it down fast enough for us to really think about it. If the world really thinks about the earth not being able to support an infinite population, maybe people will decide on their own that it is not so wise to have seven children.

Federal Lands Grazing

I think that we should allow grazing of domestic animals on public lands. Although there are many potentially negative aspects, they are easily overtaken by the positive ones. Environmentalists claim that by allowing domestic animals to graze freely in wild habitat, the natural ecosytems will be destroyed in that area (http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/). This is a valid point that should be considered. Another point is often made that leasing public land is cheaper that renting private land (http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/grazing-fees.htm). This creates dicrepencies, so should also be dealt with. The last main point I would like to make is the potential amount of energy in the form of meat that can be harnessed by utilizing public grazing land.

Environmentalists have brought up the valid point that natural ecosysytems can be detroyed by the over-grazing of public livestock. Plant life that wild grazing animals depend on could potentially be consumed by domestic livestock. This could lead to the malnutrition and possible starvation of these native animals. Without the herbavores in an ecosytem, the carnivores also cannot survive. Without primary producers (grasses, trees, etc.) the entire ecosystem will fall apart. Erosion can also become a problem where large domestic livestock are grazing. Where the soil is degraded less plant life is able to take root, this leads to less food for both domestic and the indigenous animals. In small numbers, domestic livestock does not pose a large threat. But when a certain area is overgrazed, the natural ecosystem cannot support the numbers of both the large domestic and native animals. Natural ecosytems should be evaluated by professionals to calculate the number of domestic animals that can be added to an ecosystem without harming the natural environment.

It is cheaper to lease public grazing land than to lease private land. The pricing should stay this way for it is fair in many ways. When someone leases public land for grazing they are just leasing the rights to graze their animals on that land. When someone leases private land, that deal is between the owner and the renter.In the private arena, the renter can make a personalized deal with the owner, while public deals are set. With public lands there are no fences in many cases, and it becomes the livestocks owner's responsibility to keep them contained. In private deals the area is often time fenced. In private deals there is almost always surveilance on the livestock, while with public the rancher takes on the added liability of having his livestock less secure and private. But public should be leased for a price. The revenue taken in can be used to fund the governments land management programs. These programs help to keep our lands in a sustainable form. We must keep our lands viable for a posterity.

The forest service controls 307 million acres (http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/grazing-fees.htm). It is hard to imagine that all of this land is being utilized by the indigenous grazing animals. American ranchers should be allowed to utilize the potential energy of this large amount of land. The grass that is living and dying without being eaten is a waste of potential energy. Instead of just being decomposed by a microorganism, that roughage can be eaten by a cow, that can in turn, be used for human consumption. Granted we should not overgraze the land that would lead to disastrous environmental affects, we should graze as much of this land as possible. We might have the possibility of opening up the organic meat market, and we may also lower the risks of wildfires.

With the overwhelming amount of potential energy in wild American, it would be irrational not to harness it. We should keep the wild in a natural state though. But there is a balance to be had. We can graze as many livestock as is healthy for that particular environment. This leads to a healthy relationship between man and wild.

Farm Subsidies

After reading the information on websites both for and against farm subsidies, I have decided that we need a new program that will support modern American agriculture. Farm subsidies were developed in the Great Depression era, almost eighty years ago. Since then, the world has changed, especially American agriculture. We are no longer the Jeffersonian vision of a family farmer with twenty acres solely living off the fat of the land. That vision died at least a century ago. Agriculture is now more of a bussiness than anything. An American farm-owner is probably more likely to be seen in a suit rather than overalls. The family farm has been morphed into a huge corporate money-making machine, that left most of its values in the dust. Farm subsidy money is largely being granted to rich corporations. The family farmer is practically extinct in America, why should taxpayers fund a program that was geared towards him? American farms may flourish if subsidies are reduced, but we do need a program that will protect them if the market becomes saturated or if a natural disaster strikes. This is why farm subsidies need to be changed or put to an end all together.

If subsidies are vanquished, it will lead to a free market, this may not be a bad thing. Capitalism, America's founding virtue, will be set free in the agriculture sector of the United States. Product quality will be the determing factor in whether the consumer purchases, rather price. Subsidized farmers have to conform to regulations, rather than produce their own amount of food. Competition amoung farmers will lower prices for the consumer, rather than government regulations.

But what if severe weather strikes, and diminishes our food supply in a free-trade style of agriculture? This is where farms need the government's support. The government should support farmers by offering them the resources needed to get back on their feet. The small portion of the huge amount of money used to subsidize farmers should be put into a mutual fund of some sort - invested back into our own economy. Then, when our farmers (our food supply) is in dire need, we will have the capital to fund their recovery. Some members of congress have already started looking into farm insurance (www.taxpayer.net/agriculture).

The government should also be concerned with agriculture if the market becomes saturated. If an overabundance of food becomes a problem for farmer's prices the government should buy up some of the extra food, thus giving the farmers a fair price for their crops.

But subsidies should not be done with altogether. President Bush signed a bill that limited subisdies by only giving to farmers whose income was under $200,000. But the Agricultural Commitee wants to set the cap at a ridiculous $1 million annual salary (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/wm1566.cfm). An annual salary cap must be set at a reasonable price - around the average American salary. This much needed cap keeps the rich farmers from recieving money that they do not need. But farmers do need the governments help in an uncertain world. But to constantly give to farmers who do not need the money is a waste of taxpayer's capital; capital that could be used to buy extra food.

The Diversity of Food

1. A. Amaranth, or edible pigweed would make an excellent staple crop. Its stalk and leaves are high in vitamins, and can also be used in many ways like hemp. Its flour or grains are high in protein and can easily find their way into vegetarian diets. It is an inexpensive crop that has been labeled a crop of the future for many reasons: it produces lots of fruit (seeds = grain), easily harvested, contains large amounts of amino acids, and is tolerant of tropical environments. Amaranth can also be used for dyes or ornamentally. B. Yacon roots, indigenous to South America can be eaten on the account that they are nutritious, sweet, and a good source of energy. Its stems and leaves contain about 15% protein. Yacon is also a good insulin producer, and has been prescribed to diabetes patients. Yacon could find its way into our diets by providing a natural alternative to artificial sweeteners.

2. Having such minimal diversity the human diet can have a number of ill effects on society. By only consuming three staple foods, we are fairly limited by them in our nutrient intake. If the staple foods in our diets are lacking nutrients, diseases may occur within the population. In addition to having an unvaried diet, famines can occur if the staple crop fails; like the Irish potato famine. If the crop that a society depends on fails, that society will also fail and people will die of starvation. If a society has a variety of staple crops they will have more of a chance to survive if one of the species of crops fails, and their diet will be more balanced as well. Having a varied cuisine also increases the joy and palatability of meals.
But having a minimal diversity in the human diet does have a positive implication upon society. Societies can base their diets around a known staple, and design many recipes that add in different foods that accent, and complete the nutritional needs of the population. The society can also focus on that one crop, and work on making it more productive.

3. The negative implication of the three staple crops (wheat, corn, rice) being annuals is that they need to be resown every year. This puts a yearly strain on the farmers. Crops that are perennials can become more productive over time but do take a while to get started, while annuals become highly productive almost immediately. Annuals also lack an extensive root system, so if struck with a drought they are more vulnerable than most perennials.
The positive implication about the three staple crops being annuals is that if the farmer plants his crops in a bad location one year, he can relocate the next year in more fertile soils. The annuals that are grown in one area drain the soil of specific nutrients in most situations. But growing annuals allows the farmer to replant his soil with a different variety of plant that can replenish the soil with much needed nutrients. In a process called crop rotation, farmers alternate crops that use up and put back different nutrients back into the soil. For example, corn takes a lot of nitrogen out of the soil while legumes put nitrogen back into the soil. Crop rotation cannot be done with perennials.

Worst Mistake

This blog is on my feelings towards Jared Diamond's essay, Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race.

I believe that Mr. Diamond had a few good points to his essay, but overall he was mistaken in his rather blunt argument. In his argument he failed to identify with the human race's want and need to make things better. It would have been nearly impossible for the human race to better itself while constantly on the move; worrying about whether or not they are going to have a full stomach tonight. The anxiety of the people who were a part of hunter gathering societies must have been something to heed, because without the storage of food you have no guarantee when or where you are going to eat your next meal.
Mr. Diamond did bring up a good point when he stated that with agriculture came the development of huge societies with an increase in disease. This would definitely be a realistic assumption because in large populations disease spreads more readily. Instead of having small tribes over a vast area consisting of a total of 100,000 people; with agriculture you instead have 100,000 people in a very close quarters. Instead of isolating the disease in a certain tribe, the disease in a city quickly becomes endemic, perhaps an epidemic if other cities are involved.
But where Mr. Diamond's essay lacked thought was where he states that agriculture is virtually the cause of wars. This was a outrageous statement. Just because agriculture was invented and widely used, and was accompanied by wars, does not mean it spawned wars. Wars were taking place on the America plains long before the Vikings or Columbus ever cam here. It is the same argument when people say religion is the cause of all wars. We must look past these entities and look into why the wars start because of these things. It is out of domination and power that humans feel the need to violate and kill one another. A person with the most stored grains in a town would not be any different than an alpha male of a tribe who possesses the strongest bow. Both have access to the largest food supply, and thus have the most power. That is what causes war and violence: power struggles, hierarchy, and poverty. No one person wants to be at the bottom of the to tum pole, whether they are in a hunter-gatherer society or in an agriculture type society.
Another point Mr. Diamond failed to make was that most of human society's advances were made because of agriculture. When the Europeans came to the Americas they found civilizations whose technology was lacking by hundreds of years. They had developed firearms and sailing ships while the natives had bows, arrows, and canoes. Agriculture has led to most major inventions because the people who invented them had the time to think and create their invention without worrying about the reliability of their food supply.
While Mr. Diamond was right about the spread of disease associated with agriculture, that was about the only valid point he made. He failed to look deeply into human nature, before assuming agriculture to be a mistake. He failed to realize that agriculture allows the modern human race its freedom to travel, eat a variety of foods, invent, and countless other objects that allow us to have this unprecedented quality of life.

Nutritional Extremes

Sorry I was a bit late on posting this blog.


It is apparent to me that the United States of America is in the midst of an obesity epidemic. It is hard to believe people that are dying from the complications of overeating while in many countries people are starving. If America gave food to the needy instead of storing it up for ourselves, the world would be a much better place. This would not even have to be an overseas venture. Many American people in impoverished parts of the nation are starving in addition to the much publicized third-world countries.
If the gluttons of America cut back on their food expenditures, the demand on agriculture would not be so severe. Consequently food prices would go down without the same high demand, thus making it possible for the poor to attain the food that they need.
America must purge herself of this overeating craze. Just because you can afford a 1500 calorie meal from McDonald's does not mean you should buy and eat it. Instead of buying enough food to feed three people, why don't we just try buying enough food to feed ourselves?
If Americans saved that money they would have spent on extra groceries and put in towards the government, maybe our country would not have a multi-billion dollar deficet. Or maybe if they spent that saved money on helping out third world country children, instead on just publisizing their pain, maybe they would not be dying. But most Americans are lazy, why would they spend their money on anything but themeselves? Americans care more about their stomachs than they do about our governement, let alone the children starving around the world.

Welcome!

Hello to all who enter! If that is I did this right. I am not very good at computers but I tried my best. This site is designed for others as well as me to chat about agriculture and society. This should pan out to be exceptionally interesting. I like talking philosophically/critically so we'll have fun and see what each of us learns.