Sustainable Agriculture Blog

Food & the Environment: Extra Credit Blog

How do you predict that global warming will impact global food production in the future?


Because of the very nature of the problem with Global warming being that the globe, our Earth is warming at an alarming pace. Carbon dioxide and other gases are being trapped in our atmosphere exponentially fast, and this combined with the loss of plants due to clear cutting and climate changes has caused a decrease in the amount of photosynthesis by plants of turning carbon dioxide into oxygen, thus exacerbating the problem.

Many studies have shown the decrease in biodiversity of plants and animals in the last decade due to rising temperatures. Climates are changing across the globe before life forms have had a chance to adapt, meaning that some species simply cannot survive in their current habitat anymore. Bees are dying meaning that plants cannot be pollinated, butterflies are migrating too soon meaning that some species of birds cannot survive, etc. etc.... It is a food chain, and the precious cycles of this planet are feeling the immediate strains of our human actions. If temperatures increase, precipitation increases, as well as natural events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Increased rain leads to increased runoff in some areas, and increased drought in other areas. Absolutely without question global warming is a huge issue at the front of feeding tomorrows world.

Globalization

What are some positive aspects of globalization? How does globalization impact your life? In your blog feel free to reflect on the negatives as well, many of which were pointed out inthe readings for the week.

I greatly appreciated the critique by Vandana Shiva on globalization and agriculture especially in India, one of the greatly disproportionately unindustrialized countries today. Obviously globalization on paper as an idea looks greatly efficient in an economic sense. In this sense, each country should produce what they can do so the most efficiently, and then trade for the rest, meaning they should stick to those products which they have a comparative advantage producing. This in theory is correct, but as Vandana pointed out, homogenizing cultures, and attempting countries to take on practices which do not serve them is hardly worth what is being lost to some. I like to look at it like investing, would you put all of your money in one high risk stock portfolio? You could, but you'd have a lot to lose, it would be smarter to invest in a variety of ways, bonds, stocks, mutual funds. In this comparison, small and large commercial farms across the globe could be the answer. Certainly I feel that leaders of the world need to unite in that we are all of the same human species, and have similar needs when it comes to nutrients. Working together to achieve some amount of economic efficiency while preserving the cultural diversity would be a great goal, one that is likely already being sought after.

Food Safety

Food safety should be both shared by producers and consumers. Producers have the initial responsibility to follow through with safe growing, handling and packaging processes. It would also be in the best interests of consumers if the producers were to report themselves in the event of a concern regarding their food products being exposed to unsafe practices or introduced to disease causing pathogens. The governments role in responsibility is to regulate the industry and make sure that producers are following the rules in employee training, labeling and food safety procedures. Sampling, testing, and investigating claims all help to keep the industry operating safely to the benefit of consumers.

Organic Food Production

As a large supporter of organic products, the topic greatly interests me. Because there the great possibility for misunderstanding, and misusing the term "organic" I appreciate the government regulating what is and is not "organic". This at least creates a base level of understanding, and rules about what organic means. One could easily get all of their essential caloric needs from non-organic foods without potential detriment to their life span. Is it possible to correlate disease, cancer, and other body ailments to long term chemical exposure including pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers? Not entirely. This is why I feel that there is potential wellness to be gained by eating more pure whole foods, less, if not untouched by these said chemicals. Because organic foods should not contain anything altered by biotechnology, eaters of organic foods would need to attain nutrients through eating a broad spectrum of foods in order to meet caloric, mineral, and vitamin needs. The drawbacks to organic food production are mainly that organic farms tend to be smaller and less efficient in terms of yield as compared to traditional farms. There would also tend to be more loss of crops to disease and bugs as less chemicals are used to control this loss. I tend to think and buy locally, and so would rather shop at a whole foods store which stocked organic food from nearby farms, or at least nearby states. Whole Foods the store is likely to carry products as far away as Chile and beyond. Obviously the whole world right now cannot be sustained on organic produce alone. My hope however would be that it would be on the forefront of the future to limit the exposure humans have to chemicals which could have far reaching effects that are currently unknown. For me, that means stopping in at Briar Patch on my way to class to get some organic soup, which feels good to the body and the mind.

Biotechnology Quiz Replacement

Should foods produced using biotechnology be labeled for consumers? What are the impacts of labeling (good and bad to society, the environment and the whole food production chain...farmers, distributers, wholesalers, resalers and consumers...)?

It is my personal desire to have access to information about whether the foods I am eating have been produced using biotechnology. I understand that because the term biotechnology means many different things, that it would be an enormous task to label all products with this information. Foremost there would be a large cost associated with this undertaking, due to labeling standards and policies. Currently the practice is that you need not label the food if produced using biotechnology, but some companies do, in order to appeal to those who do not want to eat altered foods. Fortunately I attempt to eat mainly organic foods, and in doing so I know that at least in theory the foods I'm consuming are not altered by biotechnology. If it turns out that more food than not will be produced using biotechnology then it makes sense that those NOT using it should be labeled as to save time and money. Labeling will cause an increase in costs all the way down the line. I personally would like those who implement the technology to be charged, but judging by the way economics work, everyone would feel that cost in the long run.

Topic #9 Biotechnology

Topic #8 Biotechnology

Over half of the world's 2004 soybean crop (56%) was genetically modified, a higher percentage than for any other crop. Each year, the EU Member States import approximately 40 million tons of soy material, primarily destined for use as cattle, swine, and chicken feed. Soybeans are also used to produce many food additives.

Soybeans originated in Asia, and now 55% of the world’s production is in the U.S. We export 1/3 of that back to other countries for consumption. In the U.S. soy has gained recent attention for its high protein content and other beneficial nutrient makeup, and has become a new staple in the American diet. They are still consumed mostly in China, Japan and Korea, but many other countries in Europe and now the U.S. are also consuming soybeans, their byproducts.

Soybeans are an annual legume that are very tolerant of many different growing conditions. They are self-pollinating, but need to be re-sown from seed every year. Soybeans grow best in warm temperate climates with moderate amounts of rainfall (Levetin and McMahon, 2006). Little if any fertilizer is needed due to the fact that the Soybean is a legume, although it is often planted with certain microorganisms that are preferable for nitrogen fixing. Soybeans are typically grown as a monoculture crop in rows, and then picked at the end of their growing season to become many different products. Tofu, soymilk, forage hay, cloth and oil are all possible end products of soybeans.

It definately seems that we would not be able to produce as much soy if biotechnology were not used, which would greatly affect many aspects of this food source. This fact doesnt stop me from buying it organically however.

The Green Revolution

I would love to say that new technology would not be needed to increase the world's food production, but after the readings we've done in this class, I'm not sure if that is possible. The world owes a lot of thanks to those that have done the research and spent many years, decades even, seeking out desirable traits in plants that make it possible to feed our hungry mouths. I understand the necessity of this science in the past, present, and future. I do however have a difficult time agreeing with the detrimental aspects behind the Green Revolution, in that increased fertilizers, pesticides/herbicides, and irrigation have caused more damage to our planet, damage that cannot be ignored in the long run. There does seem to be a trend in moving toward a more sustainable food production model by some, at least in areas that can sustain it. Perhaps in order to feed the mouths of the world, we as humans will have to move towards being able to share resources with each other instead of expecting developing countries to be mainly agricultural societies. As these countries become industrialized, they will build stronger economies and have more resources and better food options. Eventually it would make sense for food to be grown where food grows best, and not just where it is convenient at the time especially in terms of water availability and soil conditions.

Population Growth & Food

I think that only time will tell how accurate Malthus' claims were in terms of population growth being sustained by the slower expanding food production. It the past decades however, his claims were not fully actualized in that as economic stability grew and food production followed at its slower constant rate, population did not grow as exponentially as it had in earlier years. As we are finding out, the opportunity cost of having more children in developed countries is so high that birth rates are not rising as quickly as they were when income distribution was more equal. Basically the potential lost wages for a high earning family to have each child is enough for the family to choose to have less children. As for undeveloped countries, my thoughts are that they will follow the model that the now developed countries have shown: as technology, health and food production improves, their birth rate will continue to rise and their death rate will slow, meaning that they too will begin to have the same problems, at least until there is some sort of natural equilibrium point realized. Right now, the earth has limitations, even though we are constantly pushing the boundaries of how much we can grow with the amount of resources we have.
At this time I see little solutions for controlling the worlds population. I sense that in time, there will be catastrophic environmental events including global warming, bio warfare, etc. that will influence the population. Human rights are at the center of the dilemma. I do not believe that a child maximum has increased the quality of life enough to offset the psychological and sociological implications of that amount of control. Of course this is the opinion of a white, middle-class American, with plenty of opportunity, land, and resources at my disposal. I think that I lack the perspective to answer this question on the level that it needs to be addressed.

The Diversity of Food

1. In reading the chapter on grasses in our textbook, and doing a little research in cookbooks and online, I came across some alternative crops that could be consumed more regularly to lessen our reliance on the main 3 crops of wheat, rice and corn. Barley, Rye, Millet, Quinoa and Kamut are among some that I found. Also, in out text, it was mentioned that Oats and Alfalfa have mainly been used as fodder for livestock, but also contain nutritive properties for human consumption. In recent years Soy has become a much larger additive to our cumulative global diet, and although somewhat debated, it has shown to have many positive affects on our bodies. It seems that our reliance on the main 3 staples (wheat, rice corn) is due to how versatile they are in that they can be made into many different products for consumption. They are essentially incorporated into a meal and can be combined with many flavors. This is also true of soy. Tofu, miso, edamame and soy milk are just a few of the end products of soy. Also since they are a legume, they replenish the soil of much needed nutrients as opposed to grasses.
2. As we have seen through history, self-sustaining on minimal crops has proven problematic. The potato blight in Ireland as well as diseases and fungi affecting corn, the cereals, and other crops can leave an area, or even country starving, possibly even for years. Talking about this subject makes me think of financial investing, it is usually recommended to spread your assets over different accounts:stocks, bonds, real estate, mutual funds, etc. The reason being that if something happens to one market (or crop), its likely that the others will be unaffected, or perhaps even gain in value. I think there was something to the quote: "Never put all your eggs in one basket".
3. The main problem I see with the primary use of cover crops is that their use does not mimic that of a natural ecosystem. Also, soil quality lessens over time as the earth is literally stripped of nutrients, and ground water and the surrounding area is also defouled. It would benefit the earth more if the ideas of Permaculture and crop rotation were used, which are moving closer to the true model of how the earth sustains itself without "our help". One of the benefits however is the level of control it gives to the farmer as to when, where and how a crop will be grown. Nature hardly ever does just what you want it to on its own.

Worst Mistake

I found Jared's essay Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race entertaining. Its difficult to read a paper rooted deep in history and really feel the effects personally as if they were happening around you. I can see just how much of a change the human race actualized when there was a shift to agriculture. My wonder lies in the word "mistake". Can it really be a mistake when occuring over thousands of years and in such vast distances to where humans were evolving nearly at the same time unaware? In my opinion, what was lacking was a distinct choice in the matter: stay the same, or try to make it better.

Nutritional Extremes

I feel sad when I read the AGBlog topic for this week. Deep inside my consciousness I know the state that our fellow humans are in physically because of food. Why is this essential fuel to awkwardly distributed among us? My initial reaction is: eat less! Help more! But will I really do much? What can I do? How can I educate others of this inequality? A global change on this poverty issue has been attempted for years, and to what progress?

I felt this way after watching " Fast Food Nation". I was disgusted and appalled at the the Fast food industry and also the issues surrounding immigrant workers. I keep seeing the "what" part of the issue, but who knows the "how" part of the solution?.......