Sustainable Agriculture

In my opinion, sustainable agriculture is farming that does not harm the soil, water, or air and provides food for society. It means farming in harmony with the environment. According to the article Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, the primary goals of sustainable agriculture are, "Providing a more profitable farm income, promoting environmental stewardship, including: protecting and improving soil quality, reducing dependence on non-renewable resources, ... and minimizing adverse impacts on safety, wildlife, water quality and other environmental resources ..." (2).
Sustainable agriculture is very important because these strategies will help to sustain food production for society in an environmentally friendly manner. These strategies will help to reduce soil erosion and replace nutrients to the soil. They will cut the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower fossil fuel and water usage, and increase farm profits. Some strategies of sustainable agriculture are crop rotation, pasture rotation, organic agriculture, conservation tillage and no-tillage, growing cover crops, integrated pest management, and compost and manure usage.
The consumer can contribute to the sustainability of agriculture by choosing to purchase products that have been produced using sustainable agriculture methods. Produce can be purchased at farmers' markets, pick-your-own farms and roadside stands. Consumers can participate in community and school gardens and buy organic produce. Consumers can also seek alternative sources for buying meat, join food co-ops, and patronize restaurants that serve food that has been produced using sustainable methods. The consumer has a wide variety of ways to make their choice known and has the final say in how their food is produced. I believe sustainable agriculture strategies should be practiced by everyone that produces food for themselves and society.

Food & the Environment: Extra Credit Blog

I predict that global warming will have many impacts on global food production in the future. Some of the
impacts will be the push for reduced-tillage or no-tillage agriculture, the need for improved irrigation systems, the growth of heat and drought tolerant crops, and an increase in organic agriculture. I believe that some areas will need to use greenhouses to grow their produce and some areas will lose production all together. There will also be a push for more energy efficient machinery and renewable energy for agricultural production. The food produced from the oceans could be lost or severely altered and climate variations will change the way of meat production. There are many aspects that are yet to be seen, but global food production will be changed in many ways and quite dramatically.

Globalization Blog

The only positive aspects of globalization I can think of might be free trade and being able to buy foods that are out of season or that can't be grown in the United States. Globalization impacts my life by allowing me to purchase foods that are out of season and foods and spices that are not grown in the U.S. Globalization also impacts my life because my family and I own a small farm and the cost of running the farm far exceeds the profits. We have recently downsized and we are farming only to produce our own food and food for our neighbors in our small mountain community.

Food Safety

Food safety is everyone's responsibility. It is the governments responsibility to ensure that the producers and handlers comply with safety regulations. It is the producers and handlers responsibility to provide safe products to the consumer and it is the consumers responsibility to safely store and handle food after it is in their possession. Food safety must be a fore thought not an after thought. It should be given the utmost attention from the beginning of production all the way down the line to consumption. In my opinion, every effort should be made to educate consumers on the importance of safe food handling and ways to ensure food safety in their homes.

Organic Food Production

When talking about organic agriculture, it is important to define the term "organic". Let's start with the definition provided by the USDA. according to the USDA, "Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation" (1). I feel that it is good for the food industry that the term organic was legally defined because it allows organic food producers to sell their produce for higher prices and to grow higher-value crops. It is also good for the consumer because it assures them of safer produce, meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products that have not antibiotics or growth hormones. I believe that organic food is better for people and the environment because it is grown, produced, and handled in a safer manner and is a sustainable agriculture that is environmentally friendly. Organic agriculture, as defined by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is, "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance ecological harmony" (2). The only drawback I can see of organic agriculture is that it is more labor intensive. I feel that the "big business" of organics should take over and become the norm in the food markets. We need to have more whole foods and safer produce and other food products. Organic agriculture can produce enough food to sustain society in a healthier and more environmentally sustainable manner.

Biotech Quiz Replacement

I strongly believe that foods produced using biotechnology should be labeled fo consumers. The consumer should have the right to know what they are eating and the right to decide if they want to buy biotech products. The good side of labeling foods produced using biotechnology arr that consumers would know what was in their food, for the most part. They might also know how the crop was altered. The bad impactsd of labeling food produced using biotechnology would be the cost for the whold food production chain, the new regulations that would need to be implemented, and the possibility of needing separate facilities to process and package biotech food products. The cost is the major negative impact because there would need to be separate trucks, storage bins, processing plants, and packaging facilities just to avoid commingling of biotech food products. Then, there would be the problem of not being able to export those products to some other countries and some consumers would not buy biotech food products either. The higher cost would be passed down the line and ultimately end up at the consumer. The environmental impact would be an increase in transport (ie., pollution and fuel usage), more packaging and labeling and an overall use of more resources. Even though it would create many negative impacts, I still belive that if food produced using biotechnology is going to be put out there for human consumption, consumers should know what items are made with biotech produce and have the right to choose rather to eat it or not.

Biotechnology Week 2

Biotechnology could be a good thing for food production, the environment, and society if the information, seeds, and food produced were available to everyone. There are bioengineered crops ranging from wheat to tomatoes, but since the private sector has most of the control this biotechnology isn't as useful as it could be because it is all about the money. I think the positive side is that biotechnology is addressing environmental issues and that we are able to produce more food using less land, water, and pesticides and that plants are being modified to grow in more saline soil, as well as other adverse conditions. The down side is that equal food distribution is still a problem and the information and seeds are not reaching the poor farmers in high enough quantities. I personally would rather not have my food produced from bioengineered plants, but I am a person who prefers truly organic and all natural foods.

Biotechnology

I choose to research cantaloupe crops that are produced using biotechnology. This seemed to be worthwhile research because I love cantaloupe. It is one of my favorite fruits. According to the agbios website on their GM Database, "Delayed ripening by introduction of a gene that results in degradation of a precursor of the plant hormone, ethylene". This seems to me to be a fairly simple and safe process. The trait that is introduced is Agrobacterium tumefacians and the method is by mediated plant transformation. The proposed use is for human consumption and the melon can be used either fresh or processed. The company responsible for this biotechnology is Agritope, Inc. By decreasing the ethylene hormone, the melon has a longer shelf life, better flavor, and a reduced spoilage time. This allows growers to increase their market and consumers more time to use the melons. Most American bio tech cantaloupe growers are in California. I see the use of biotechnology in the production of cantaloupes to have a positive impact because growers and distributors have more flexibility and consumers have more time to use the melons, which causes less food and money loss. By prolonging the shelf life of cantaloupe, it can be shipped to more people, which provides for better distribution, and their is more time to eat this crop that can only be grown once a year.

The Green Revolution

I believe that if we are going to keep up with population growth and not have to use every acre of land that could possibly be used to grow crops, new technology will be necessary. With the population growing and increasing environmental issues, there is a greater need for new technology to increase food production and reverse adverse environmental conditions. We must take care of land, air, and water issues, as well as providing a healthy food source for society and its growing numbers. I think a major focus of new technology should be better ways to sustain crop lands and decrease water usage. If society will take the initiative to slow or reduce population growth, then new technology will not be needed to increase food production and it will only be necessary to address environmental issues.

Population Growth & Food

I believe that Malthus may be right sometime in the future about population growth growing faster than our ability to produce food. There is only so much land for food production and at the rate of pollution and water usage, I believe we will eventually over populate and food production will not be able to keep up with population growth. When we increase food production, fragile Eco systems are damaged or destroyed. Some impacts are deforestation, desertification, pollution, soil erosion, and drainage of natural aquifers. I feel that China's one-child policy is a good way to help control population. The welfare system in the United States is trying to discourage parents on welfare from having more children by not covering the new baby. This is only a short term solution, but maybe it will help some. I think that pregnancy prevention methods should be free for all women and that education is the best solution. If a person has to be responsible for the care of their family or children, maybe they will think before binging more children into society. I think tubalizations and vasectomy's should be done free for any man or woman that wants it and the surgery to reverse it should be more expensive. I don't believe that society will change unless they are forced to change and I don't think that people will even change if their is widespread starvation and suffering.

Federal Lands Grazing

I believe that livestock grazing should be allowed on public lands if it is carefully managed. According to the Sierra Club website in their article titled Grazing on Public Lands, "Federal public lands belong to the American public and must be managed to maintain their long-term ecological integrity" (1). This is a statement that I whole heartily agree with, but I don't think that stopping livestock grazing completely is the answer. The Sierra Club states that, " ... grazing operators should manage livestock towards the goal of maximum restoration of native plant and animal communities, water quality, and other environmental goals" (1). When grazing livestock, it is critical that environmental issues are addressed and an ecological balance is retained. Grazing on public lands can reduce undergrowth or excessive growth when managed properly and grazing on public lands should be rotated so that damage is negligible. Manure from livestock can add nutrients to the soil and is beneficial as long as it does not accumulate in excess. I do not believe the fees should be the same as what is charged for private land leases because the public lands are owned by the American public. However, I do believe that the livestock grazing operator should be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining the land, if maintenance is necessary. It is my opinion that if land used for grazing purposes is rotated and grazing animals are not permitted to graze on the same land for extended periods of time, the land will naturally recover.

Farm Subsidies

In looking at the debate on farm subsidies, I would have to say that they are not a bad idea. The bad thing is that they are not being used as they were inteded to be used. They should be better regulated and help those in need not just those who are big and powerful. The problem does not lie with the subsidies themselves, it lies with the people who are put in control of regulating the subsidies. I feel that these subsidies should be there for the farmers when they need them. In my opinion they are necessary, when a crop is devastated by insects or other natural disasters. There are two farm subsidy acts that continue to increase subsidies, but they are given mainly to large farms and agribusinesses. These acts are the House's Farm Security Act of 2001 (H.R. 2646) and the Senate's Agriculture Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act (S. 1731). This abuse of what could be a good program, that does not need to cost tax payers the extreme amount it does, is a prime example of how a good thing can be turned bad.

The Diversity of Food

In my research, I have found a couple of plants that could be used for human food. These plants are the dandelion and the cattail. The leaves, roots and yellow parts of the flowers, of the dandelion, can all be used and are highly nutritious. The cattail is one of the most important wild foods that can be found almost anywhere there is water. The cattail can be identified by the brown furry tops that will be left from the year before and they are much taller than their look-alike's. They are very tasty, highly nutritious, and easy to harvest. The shoots and pollen can be used and a starch can be pounded from the washed and air dried rhizomes. There are also many medicinal uses for both of these plants. Cattails can also render organic pollution harmless and fix atmospheric nitrogen putting it back into the soil. To find out more about these and many other edible wild plants you can go to www.wildmanstevebrill.com .
Some implications of having minimal diversity in the human diet on the environment/society are that soil nutrients are depleted from growing crops in the same field, year after year and many people do not get the required nutrients they need without fortification of many of the foods we eat. With minimal diversity, society becomes reliant on the crops that are commonly grown for their food supply and when these crops fail, there can be devastation and starvation in many areas.
Some implications of relying on three primary annual crops are the need for food storage that can be lost due to insects, rot, and disease, which can cause famine and higher prices. With these crops being annuals, a number of natural disasters can wipe out the crops that are relied on for consumption by humans and for animal fodder. The recent production of fuel from corn is not only depleting the soil where these crops are grown, but is also causing the price of corn to skyrocket in some areas. To paraphrase a news broadcast by President Bush, it is great for the corn growers, but bad for the hog farmers because the corn growers receive more for their crops and hog farmers are having to pay more to feed their hogs.
I believe that we should expand our diversity of food crops because it is not safe or environmentally friendly to rely on 3 main crops to provide food for a growing economy.

"Worst Mistake"

When I first started reading "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race", I thought the author was out of his mind. After reading the entire opinion, I had to agree with him on many things he had said. I had never stopped to think about the way agriculture had changed our lives. I think many peoples lives would be better if they grew all of their own food and I imagine there would be less spreading of diseases. It is very important for people to have a varied and balanced diet and it has been proven that it is better for a persons health. I have to agree strongly with the part about gross social and sexual inequality. If you are a man of high social standing, you have the best food , clothes, and consumer goods that money can buy. However, if you are of a lower social class rather you are male or female you may not be able to afford the healthiest foods. Some of the people that live in poverty can't afford much food at all and they are lucky if they have clothes on their backs or a roof over their heads. Now that I have had a chance to think about all of this, I find it very disturbing. I don't believe that there is any way to go back and most of the people I know don't want to give up any of their creature comforts even if it is better for them. The only way I see to go back is to be forced to do so by a natural disaster or something of that nature. I do believe that the ones that survive a catastrophic event and have to hunt and gather their food will be better off.

Nutritional Extremes

I think what is needed here is education and balance. It seems to me that there are many people that need educated about nutrition and many that need to have balance in there diet. There is enough food in this world to feed everyone and keep them healthy, but it comes down to the haves and have nots. It seems that there are a lot of haves and many of them don't care about the have nots. I think that if communities would just come together and help each other then we could really help the undernurished and malnurished in our country. In my small isolated community in the Sierras, most of us help each other and if one household has a surplus of something it is passed on to those who need it or if someone needs something that one of us produces (like eggs, milk, veggies, etc.) all they have to do is ask and it is provided for them. As for those in other countries, I believe that they need to be educated about nutrition and maybe taught about the foods with the highest nutritional value that will grow in their climates. When they have this knowledge, then we need to get together and provide them with the seeds and tools to produce their own food. It seems to me that in America when everyone farmed there was not such a high level of obesity and although there were still diseases there were not as many and they were different from the ones most people suffer from today. I believe that technology and commercialized food production are major factors in the increase in obesity, as well as heart disease, stroke and cancer, just to name a few. My question is with all our advances, are we really making a better life for ourselves and the world in general?