"There is a lot more juice in grapefruit than meets the eye." - Author Unknown
I apologize for my lackadaisical approach to the blog recently. I'm sure you all understand what it is like to be swamped with stuff to do.
Last week we viewed a portion of the documentary about Michael Pollan's book "The Botany of Desire." I found it fascinating the stories about potatoes and how the potato culture is crucial for existence. Whether they are grown for McDonald's restaurants all over the world or simply for survival in indigenous environments in the Andes, potatoes are a necessity.
Here is your question:
Early Peruvians adapted to nature in their attempts to domesticate potatoes. More recently, cultivators have sought to control nature, rather than allowing it to control them. What are the long-term implications for the two approaches to farming? Is one way inherently better than another? How about in the short-term? For the poor? For local communities? For global food systems? Overall?
Have fun!
If we try to control the crops too much, disease could come and wipe out a whole crop such as the Irish Potato Famine. That causes famine for a large group of people. However, if plants are not under control, we will not predict the yield and the issue of inadequate food sources still surfaces. In the long-term, famine could occur whether the crop is controlled by humans or nature. In the short-term, if nature controls the crop, the variety of potatoes will be much wider. The variety is good for our diet as well as creating biodiversity among the potatoes. Once again, we will not know how much this will yield, let alone, how the environment will affect the crop. If we don't water or fertilize or weed, those factors could kill the crop. However, if we control in the short-term, we can guarantee plants will receive proper amounts of water, fertilizer, or weeding, thus predicting an approximate yield. I think humans should control the crop only if different varieties of one plant are raised. I don't think a single variety should be raised because it is cheaper or easier to deal with. Concerning economic statuses, obviously some plant varieties are going to be cheaper to raise, so the poor should be allowed to raise those types, but then farmers with more resources should try to raise the rarer or expensive varieties because they can afford to. Local communities should test and find which types grow best in their area and grow those types. This prevents transport in and out of their community. Globally, if every area grew and used the plants that grow optimally in its region, variety would stay diverse and food needs would be met. Overall, I think each region should grow their own food- whatever grows best in their area. This includes controlling nature to an extent- providing proper amounts of water, fertilizer, weeding, etc.
ReplyDeleteBoth techniques of potato farming have their ups and downs, which makes it hard to really tell which way is the best. The Peruvian's way of farming would result in a healthier crop, since they don't use pesticides or any other chemicals, but it also will be a lot more work for them to keep bugs off the crops and it will take up a lot of time. This way doesn't need tons of money to produce, so people with lower incomes would benefit from this way of farming. As for the modern-day way of manipulating nature, the crops will not be bothered by bugs and they could get harvested faster. But all the chemicals probably aren't good for us, and if bugs are exposed to them, their bodies adapt and defeats the purpose of the chemicals in the first place; this way is expensive. So people that are producing this way are most likely from higher income families. Since more potatoes can be produced faster this way, it will be a good way to produce food for the global food system.
ReplyDeleteIf farmers keep trying to control nature it won't end in our favor. I think this because like stated in the video nature will always win. If monoculture is kept in our food then there could be some infectious disease that would wipe out the whole crop. To be able to stop diseases farmers need to spray crops intensely or have a GMO created for them and nature will overcome both of these factors eventually. In the long run crops will be ruined at some point in time somehow and we can't change it so diversity in crops would be the better change for me. Our bodies need diversity and that includes diversity in the same crops when they can be produced that way. I think that diversity would be better because if some event happened that ruined some round of crops then there would be other kinds of that crop to substitute for it. I think in the short run that having a diverse array is better also. Now there is one crop that is monoculture and cheep price but if there was diversity there would be some type of that crop at a cheeper price than others. This would allow for the poorer to be able to buy crops. In the short run also if a crop was ruined it would raise the price to buy that crop from who knows where and that wouldn't work for the people who can't afford it. Local farmers wouldn't be so hurt by a disease or something if they had diversity rather than monoculture because they would have other crops that survived to supply. If they had supplies also people may be more likely to come buy from them. I think that diversity would be the best way to change our crops. Nature can change diseases and control bugs and we need to stop changing these things.
ReplyDeleteI think that the way some farmers farm is to benefit themselves financially. This process increases the amount of crop they are growing and producing while decreasing the quality of the food we eat. Back when potatoe farming started, farmers were only farming for themselves and a small market of people. This allowed them to allow nature to do its job with some assistance of their own. They didn't use many pesticides or other products to help the crop grow. This process was cheaper and would benefit the poor more. The crops were grown for the local community. On the other hand, now potatoes are grown for the global food system and this causes problems with the quality of the potatoes. Farmers focus on one kind of potatoe and want as many as they can produce to sell. The long term effects of using one kind of potatoes and using pesticides is not good for humans. Over time if we don't start letting nature control the way the crop grows, then their will be problems. Controling crops and not letting nature control have worse concequences than it is worth.
ReplyDeleteThe Peruvian farmers have adapted to nature with their potatoe crops. American cultivators have adapted nature to their needs. In the long run the Peruvian farmers crop will be more varied. This can reduce famine as diffrent types of potatoes are grown, rather than one kind over and over. A famine could occur, but the natural plant variation helps reduce the risk. In the long run for the cultivators, they are able to get a set amount of prodcut but the genetically modified plants could have a negative effect on consumers. Eventullay the product will also need to be varied to prevent famine.
ReplyDeleteBoth types of farming have pros and cons. With the Purevian method, natural plant variation helps the soil and gives the people variety in their diet. However, they are not able to control if their plants will die because of pests. With the cultivating method, the farmer is able to better predict his yield and defend his plants with the genticly modified plants against the potatoe beetle. However, these plants can also lead to a famine if planted over and over because of no varity. They also could have an effect on the consumer due to the genetic modification.
In the short run, the Purevian method would be better. This would be if a family grows thier own potatoes. The cultivating method seems to be more for mass production. This method would also work better for the poor. It is cost effect for them as the gentically modified plants cost more money than regualr seeds. I also think this method would work best for local communites. In a local community, chances are the product will be sold at a farmers market where people want organic food.
For global food systems, the cultivating method would best fullfill the quantities needed. It may use more pestisides, but we do have a large population we are trying to feed. Overall I don't think we should interfer with natures crops. They were made a ceratin way and should be kept that way. If farmers used variation in seeds, maybe it would help solve the problems they are facing such as pests and famine. It would also be benefical to the consumer as they would be forced to incorporate variety into their diet even if it as simple as a potatoe.
I think that no matter what farming techniques are used, nature will always win. We cannot control nature but we can learn how to adapt to it. The Peruvian farmers in the long run will have more of a variety and their crops won't be subject to a famine because of their methods of farming. Whereas in monocultural farms we are more affected by disease and a big outbreak.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that one method is better than the other. They have different pros and cons. The way the Peruvians farm is sufficient for a small population and their main goal isn't to make as much money as possible. Whereas in monoculture farming the main goal is to be as productive in making money. The fast food resturaunts want a certain potato and they demand it so for a farmer needs to make a lot of that one type of potato to make a good amount of money. They use pesticides to make sure all of their crops are good.
In the short term I would say Peruvian farming is more productive and the process would be better for the poor because the Peruvians offer a wides variety of their crops and it would be local. It is also better in the short term and for the poor because it is cheaper because they don't buy pesticides or chemicals for their crops.
Monocultural farming is more productive for global systems because they can make large amounts of food without it going bad with the use of peesticides.
Overall I would say the Peruvians method of farming is better because it is natural and all their crops wouldn't be destroyed if their was an outbreak or famine. There is also more of a variety and diversity of their crop and they are grown in the areas in which they flourish.
In my opinion I don't think that it is wise to mess with the nature of things and like it said in the video that history has a way of repeating itself. The Peruvian farmers plant many different kinds of potatoes. This way there if there is a disease that wipes out a certain kind of potato then they will still have other kinds of potato's to eat. Monoculture farming does not have that advantage,since they only plant one type of potato. One disadvantage that the peruvian farmers have is that since they do not use pesticides and other chemicals the potatoes take longer to grow and it is more work. One advantage that Monoculture has is that since they use chemicals they can produce more crops in a small amount of time. I would have to say that in the long run the Peruvian farmers have the right idea because there crop is not as likely to become wiped out as easily from disease as the Monoculture farming is. Monoculture farming is good for feeding a larger population because it is faster but in the long run if the crop gets wiped out then there wont be any crop to feed so many people. So overall i think that it would be wise if we planted different types of crop rather then relying on one species of crop.
ReplyDeleteThere are pros and cons to both ways. One way you are more assured of having potatoes that will survive whatever conditions they have to withstand, and the other ensures that our potatoes will be uniform in size, color, and taste.
ReplyDeleteThe danger of wanting to have potatoes all be the same is that all the crops are the same, and once disease or pests get into them, the crop is lost for that year or several as the Potato Famine showed. People and corporations tend to lean to this because of the convenience they provide. They are all the same size and take the same time to cook, as well as products can be the same over the scale of many stores across the nation.
The drawback to having so many varieties is the amount of work it takes to actually grow that many kinds, the different types of soil, watering, and planting techniques. This seems to be a better option than planting all the same kind of potato, because the survival potential is so much greater, and the variety is a nice change as well.
In the long term, planting many varieties is the better option because they don't all use the same nutrients that are in the soil, and have the propensity to survive. This option, if used, would probably be more expensive than the less variety system, but I think the benefits would outweigh this, and in the long term the price will decrease.
In the short term, it is easy to say that cheaper and easier is the much better way to go! And while I can see why, this is not a good option...even if it is cheaper in the short run. If the crops fail, then it will become more expensive.
The Peruvian farmers have adapted to the natural environment of the potatoe crop. The farmers have found a natural way to place the potatoes in different areas of their land, to produce different kinds of potatoes. They not only do this to get different kinds, but do this so if one crop of potatoes do not make it, they will not be out of food because they have other types of potatoes to eat. By planting more than one type of potatoe could help in a famine crisis because there would be potatoes to eat. The short term of naturally growing potatoes will produce less, but over time this process will pass the genetically modified because they will not have to move their fields.
ReplyDeleteThen the other type of growing potatoes is to control the environment that the potatoes grow in. Not only do they plant one type of potatoe in the same field over and over again, the farmers place chemicals on the potatoes to protect them from insects. The long term affects of a genetically modified potatoe could have negative effects on consumers. In the short term goals the genetically modified potatoes will produce more potatoes.
Concerning economic states, the genetically modified plants will be cheaper, so the poor would be less likely to raise them. For those farmers that are better off in the community that can afford raising plants naturally should, because they are more healthy for consumers. Globally, if every area in a country would grow a plant that is accustomed to that specific area, a large amount of natural food would be produced and reduce hunger in many areas. I believe that they should not have genetically modified potatoes, but we should have more people grow crops that are best produced in that area.
My project for the class is sort of simpler to this. It says to be skeptical of nontraditional foods. So why are we making altered potatoes when there have been people who have eaten them in the natural state for many years. Yes the world always feels the need to improve. By making things easier and faster.
ReplyDeleteBut the Peruvians were smart to make so many different types of potatoes for variety, and if disease hits one, they had another for back-up. And now today when we choose which potatoes to plant things can happen the nature always will win in the end. In the long term we should be doing what the Peruvians did they lived that long on that you would think we could also. But on the short term and the up side there is a great demand for potatoes and certain types. I mean many of the one the Peruvians grew I have never heard of. This is probably bad I should have more variety.
But ultimately Mother Nature always wins. Stay with what is traditional and meant for us to eat. Not just some scientist idea according to Michael Pollan.
I think the long term implications of what american farmers are doing are going to be much like the Irish Potato famin. It can not be good for the soil and will be much more likely to get a disease. The Peruvians are farming a much better way, they are not trying to control nature which can only be seen as positive. This could have serious effects on everyone, if the potatoes grown in the US become diseased potatoes will become less available for the poor, and the McDonalds coorporation.
ReplyDeleteThe Peruvians way of farming has better long-term outcome because they are letting nature take its course and grow the healthiest all natural potatoes. On the other hand, cultivators try to control nature with pesticides and other chemicals which makes matter worse because bugs adapt to the pesticide and then they have to try something different in order to control bugs.
ReplyDeleteIn short-term the cultivators will probably make more money and produce more, but at what cost? Making the consumers sick with pesticides or spending money on research when nature wins either way.? Overall, we should consider the totaly aspect it takes to grow something. We always want the cheapest, and sometimes healthiest food, but we need to make sacrafices for one or the other.
I don't think it's a good idea to alter nature to benefit us. In the case of the potatoe farming I don't think it's good to breed potatoes to be bigger or the shape we want them. Even though it may not be harmful to the environment in most cases I just don't like how it's controlling nature. It seems so unatural. I think the way the Peruvians farmed was the best way because they let nature take it's course and let the potatoes do their own thing and they just went along with it. Nowadays when people are changing the genetic makeup of the potatoes to make them bigger and stuff just is so unatural.
ReplyDeleteGenetically changing the potatoes may be better for restaurants and farmers who are mass producing potatoes and other industries using potatoes, but letting nature do it's own thing and letting things grow naturally is overall better for everyone.
I think each approach to farming depends on who the farmer is, where they are growing their food, and the time span they need to grow it. Yes, it is safer and healthier to adapt to nature when growing food, however if there is a mass corporation such as McDonald's that needs a certain product by a certain time, changes to mother nature may need to be made. In the long run, health issues become relevant when a company or farmer tries to control mother nature to grow food. Unlike adapting to mother nature when growing food, it is healthier because the food is more organic and safer to eat because there are no chemicals or pesticides. Overall, I think that everyone who is focused on being healthy with the food they eat would agree that adapting to mother nature is the easiest, safest and healthiest way to eat food.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree that it depends upon the specific circumstances.It worked well for the Peruvians to adapt to nature because they were only working to feed their families and "small" communtities, where as with McDonald's, they have a desire/goal for all of their french fries to look the same whether it be at a Midwest McDonald's or a Tokyo McDonald's.However, I do not feel it is wise to control nature...you should never mess with her! Though every potato that came out of the ground in Peru looked different, they were all healthy in the sense that that was what nature allowed for and they were not altering the natural process. With McDonald's controling of nature to grow uniform potatoes, that is where problems arise...it wears the soil out, it's hard to continuously produce that specific breed in various regions where they are grown to meet the excessive demand, and as proven in Ireland-if you only work with one breed constantly...troubles are bound to arise. I think that if each global region was able to find a successful breed(s) to harvest there would be less unnecessary cost from forcing something to grow where it is not meant to grow.For those who are tuned into what they are truly putting into their bodies, they would seek to find things that are made/grown/harvested in the manner that nature intended. Though it may not be a convience to us, we are doing better for nature AND ourselves in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe two different techniques of potato farming have their own pros and cons. The Peruvian's way of farming results in a healthier crop. Since the farmers don't use pesticides or chemicals it is a lot harder for them to keep bugs off the crops and it will take up a lot of time and work. Because farmers do not have to buy pesticides the cost is cheaper however the upkeep with the crops is a lot of work. The chemicals put on our crops are not healthy. Although they make our crops grow faster and less work in the long run the bugs bodies adapt to the chemicals and eventually are no longer good. People who use pesticides when farming more than likely have a higher income because it is more exspensive to have that luxury. Because potatoes can be mass produced in a fast way by using pesticides farmers believe it is a good way to produce food for the global food system even though that is not true.
ReplyDeleteTaking one side or the other is extremely hard because of the pros and cons.
The long term implications wit husing pesticides on foods, say as commercial farmers do to instill that they will continue for the rest of the season, is not what should be happening. Eventually, either the plant itself will start to be affected by it, or the insects eating the plants will become immune to the pesticides and then they would have toa start all over again. IF we continue down on this path, eventually we are going to run into some serious problems if we havent atready. Implications for farmers who don't use a fertilizer risk the chance of having their crop eaten out by some form of insect. Either way, its not the most ideal situation. For short term, farmers reap more benefits if they use fertilizers or genetically mutated crops because then they can produce more faster, cheaper, and without so much time put into it, because we as americans now-a-days like to do things as fast as we can because we are constantly on the go. But it's better for the consumer if the crop was raised in an organic enviornment where the quality of the food is better than that of genetically formulated crops. I hate to put a sterio-type on the poor, but it's cheaper for them to buy, say, a bag of potatoes in a grocery store than to actually buy the seeds and spend so much time trying to grow their own. It takes a lot of time to have a garden because they are constantly having to go out and weed the thing, which who has time to do that anyway? Overall, it's beeter to raise our own crops because then we ca ncontrol what gets put on our food and into our mouths, but not everyone sees this. They want the best bang for their buck and would rather buy foods that have been genetically modified than foods that are certified organic because of the cost issue. We, as americans, are very stringent with our money, but instead of buying the seventy five dollar name brand jeans, buy the cheaper ones so you can ewat a better quality of food so you do'nt cause so much harm to your body.
ReplyDeleteThere are good and bad sides to both. The farmers who adapted to the potato had to do a lot of costly trial and error to find out which ones killd them and which didn't. In the end however they have a better selection and they won't have anything like a potato famine beause of the variety. The farmers who adapted the potato to them however didn't have to find out the hard way as much but they also now have a product that's not really natural or real. I don't know if one is necessarily better, but I think in the long run the natural ones are best because of the variety, but on the other hand, the farmers here will make more profit in the short term. For the poor people probably the artificial potatos are better for them economically because they can grow a lot cheaply and sell it cheaply. As for communities, I think it depends on the culture. Obviously their way is better for their culture and our way is better for ours. Things like McDonald's are probably better for the global economy. I don't think either is better overall.
ReplyDeleteThere are both positives and negatives to controlling crops and letting them simply grow for themselves. On the side of controlling crops, it is good to have an idea of how many crops a farmer will be harvesting and seeing how many crops will be needed for the upcoming season. Also, having a good idea about the size of the crops is helpful when determining what the consumer will be using it for. On the side of not controlling the crops, it is good to let nature take its course when growing into food for consumers and not adding any additives or other agents. For people with less income they may resort to eating the controlled crops due to the "bang for the buck" you would get with the size of the crop. Globally, I think having altered crops would be a bad thing. Mother Nature always wins and by adding things to food it can alter the make-up of the crop which could, in turn, affect the human body when consumed. Overall, Mother Nature always wins and sticking to natural foods should always be the right way to go.
ReplyDeleteWe have created a very bad habit when it comes to potato farming. When we invest all of our money and effort into the one kind of potato any major scale crop famine could devastate our agricultural economy. Even though it appears to be an incredibly profitable potato business this is only for the short term. For now we will be blessed with all the long and crispy french fries we can stuff our faces with. In the long term we set ourselves up for some major problems. It amazes me how much sway one powerful company has over an entire industry. The sheer demand of the Mcdonalds company is enough to convince farmers to practice a farming technique that we realize is not intelligent. It is a proven practice that planting a variety of potatoes in a wide array of places yields a great harvest but due to supply and demand we continue our erroneous ways.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the local community this could be either very beneficial or incredibly frustrating. If your potato is not in demand your kind of out in the cold. Local potato farmers have to fend for themselves. Of course the global economy is doin alright as long as Mcdonalds continues to haul in the billions of dollars. It would be nice to say it is time to switch our agricultural practices but the reality is we will follow the money because with the money comes security and life. That will always win over "smart planting".
Trying to take control of something we shouldn’t have control over is a bad idea. By changing the makeup of potatoes in order to make things cheaper/easier for us we think we are “beating nature”. But really, nature will always win. Bugs eventually become immune to our new and improved plants. So long term, when this happens they could come back more powerful than before and wipe out the whole potato crop. If we don’t change the makeup of potatoes and let nature continue its course we risk losing crops as well and are forced to use pesticides. The pesticides could harm our bodies in the future. If you plant your own potatoes ad have many different varieties like the Peruvians you will avoid your crops getting wiped out by disease. This option may be a little more expensive and time consuming but in my opinion it is the best option if you have the resources. Mass production of potatoes is the best option for the poor because it is much cheaper as well as faster. It does not require as many resources and it doesn’t take as much time. This is also how potatoes are produced for chain restaurants because you get a lot more product for the time you put in. So as you can see, there are positives and negatives of both approaches.
ReplyDelete