Blog 5

Towards Sustainable Development
The article begins by defining sustainable development; ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ A diagram of the factors that influence sustainability is shown below. Need specifically refers to the requirements of the world’s poor, who should be given priority to resources. The main objective of development is to satisfy human needs and aspirations. This objective is not being met properly because the needs of many people in developing countries are not being fulfilled. Sustainable development values consumption standards that are within ecological bounds and requires economic growth in areas in which it currently is not being met. Sustainable development requires non-exploitation of others and productive activity. Productive activity and poverty can coexist but will endanger the environment. Societies must meet human needs by increasing productivity and ensuring opportunity for all. The issue is caused by the distribution of resources. By exploiting resources a society may be compromising the ability to provide essential needs into the future. With technological development sometimes even larger issues can be created in the future. It is important to not endanger the natural system: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils and living beings. Knowledge and technology will help to increase the carrying capacity of our resource base. Renewable resources should not be depleted; this requires their use within limits of natural growth and regeneration. Non-renewable resources must be preserved so their stock is available for future generations. People must be critical of this resource use and aware of the technologies to minimize depletion and of likely substitutes. Species are non-renewable and their loss would greatly affect future generations. Free goods, such as air and water, are also resources which are converted into useful products. Sustainable development strives to change exploitation of resources, direction of investments, orientation of technological development and institutional change.
Education, institutional development, and law enforcement are used to persuade people to act in the common interest. There are many problems with economic and political power and sustainability. Ecological interactions are not contained within boundaries of individual ownership of politics. For example, water bodies are affected by large water sheds, irrigation practices may affect a farmer downstream, and industrial practices have many effects of people through the environment. All people would be much better if people took into account the effects of their acts on others. Often areas of political jurisdiction and areas of impact are not the same, this causes difficulty in enforcing common interest goods. These issues must be resolved through international cooperation. Achieving common interest would be much easier if situations left everyone better off but unfortunately there are both winners and losers. The losers are those who suffer more than their share of health, property and ecosystem damage. Also a hindrance to developing nations is the fact that wealthier nations are more prepared to cope with effects of climate change. The capacity for technological innovation of developing countries must be greatly increased and the development of technology must be more concerned with the environment. Generally, environmental risks are most notable in areas in which the inhabitants have little or no influence over the decisions that cause the risk.
Economic and environmental considerations must both be considered for sustainable development, requiring governmental changes. Environmental damage is often worst from groups who aim for individual gain and do not consider the impacts on others. Society’s belief that technology will continue to solve any issues we create is unrealistic. Industries and sectors must be looked at together for environmental concerns due to their interconnected links, agriculture and energy for example. Often, no sector is willing to take the responsibility for negative impacts but claims that the other sector is the one that causes the problem. Sustainable development requires this fragmentation must be overcome and that we must think of the damages being caused and who can reduce them. Sustainability requires increased responsibility for the impacts of decisions and must be changed at the institutional level. The environment must be allowed to provide adequately for health and well being of all human beings, including future generations. Communities must be given some input on the use of their resources. Public inquiries would aid in increasing the importance of public opinion. Free access to relevant information and information regarding alternative sources should be provided publicly. If risk of a project is high the decisions should be subject to public approval. Attitudes of the public and private sectors must adjust. Sustainable development must combine aspects of economics and ecology to be successfully achieved.
I agree very much with this article. I feel especially strongly about allowing communities to have more input on what happens nearby their community or with resources that are near them. This is especially important in developing countries as they currently are given very little power to make such decisions. I also feel that it is important that many industries unite to decide how to fix environmental problems that they collectively cause, rather than continue to blame each other and allow environmental damage to continue. I think that generally society does not pay enough attention to the importance of sustainable development. Everyone wants to ‘save the world’ but few are willing to give up their standard of living regarding the amount of energy they use on a daily basis.

Controversy at Love Canal
This article is about Love Canal, illustrated map of area shown below, which was a canal in Niagara Falls that was filled with toxic chemicals by Hooker Chemical Corporation. The canal was filled and sold to the Niagara Falls Board of Education in 1953. Hooker claims there was a cause in deed transferring the property to the Board of Education that releases the company form any future liabilities. An elementary school and a community were built over and surrounding the canal. About 25 years later a thick black oily mixture began to seep through the topsoil. Three children suffered from chemical burn from wastes on the surface of the canal and the Niagara Falls Heath Department took no action. Chemicals were found in the homes of residents and a high rate of miscarriages was recorded. In August of 1978 the area was declared a health emergency. In the fall of the same year the residents were assured it was safe beyond what had already been evacuated and that there were no increased health risks but the community remained sceptical.
Paigen chose to do more research on the area and found a geographical clustering of health issues. She divided the community into wet homes, which bordered streams, swales and swamps, and dry homes. In wet homes the number of miscarriages was three times higher than in the dry homes. Eight percent of the women who became pregnant had over three miscarriages; the probability of this happening in ‘normal’ areas is less than 0.1%. Birth defects were increased in wet homes, some minor and some very serious. Data indicated that chemicals likely had migrated beyond the previous fence indicating a high health risk in the Love Canal neighbourhood. But, the health commissioner had publicly stated that the chemicals had not migrated beyond the fence. In November of 1978, Paigen suggested to the Department of Health that adverse pregnancy outcomes were more frequent in wet homes than in dry homes and that there were other adverse effects. The Health Department then evacuated all families with pregnant women or children under two years old.
Regarding the Love Canal controversy there were two opposing sides: the community and the New York State Department of Health. The goal of the Health Department is to protect the health of communities and the community felt that the department was not acting in a manner consistent with these goals and responsibilities. During the controversy there were many factors that impeded resolution of the issue. They include:
1. The failure to resolve any controversy may be advantageous to one side
2. Opponents may not agree on the question that needs to be answered
3. In any controversy, since the type and quality of information gathered will influence the outcome, no one group should be in complete control of the information gathering process.
4. Beyond questions of money and expertise is the issue of full expression for dissident and minority opinions.
5. Scientists, who are no strangers to controversy, should follow the social controls on behaviour that they have developed for the advancement of knowledge and the detection of error.
6. In any attempt at controversy resolution, all parties to the conflict should agree on precisely what facts need resolving; all parties should agree on the composition of the body chosen to resolve the controversy; all parties should agree on the procedures by which that body will operate; and all parties must agree to abide by the decisions.

Scientists should adhere to the standards of their profession, including the openness of data, peer review, peer criticism, and publication of evidence. Community involvement should be widely encouraged. The community should be provided with money to hire its own experts. The main problem behind Love Canal was that it was mainly a political issue. Standards should be created to aid in conflict resolution, including guidelines for selecting an independent group of fact-finders, rules for procedure for the group, agreement of both parities to adhere to the agreement, and protection for whistleblowers.
Regarding this article I am extremely disappointed with the Health Department who should be looking out for the well being of the residents of the community but was actually found to be subjecting them to further harm. It is very upsetting that the lives of so many people were negatively affected due to the lack of cooperation from the Health Department to actually find out if there was a problem and how to solve it. It is very unfortunate that the residents of this area were not properly educated about the concerns regarding area in which they lived. I cannot help but hope that current Canadian standards far exceed the standards as well as the treatment of the issue in Love Canal.

Restoring Rivers
Rivers were getting cleaner between the years of 1973 and 1998, but ever since then they have actually been getting increasingly polluted. A polluted river in China is shown below. In some areas of the United States, surface and ground water is being depleted so much that some rivers do not even run to the ocean year round. Water shortages for many communities are becoming an increasing reality. Over one third of the rivers in the U.S. are either impaired or polluted. The ability of rivers to store flood water is lower than it has ever been, meaning that events such as hurricanes and flash floods are increasingly devastating. Aquatic wildlife is going extinct at a rate much higher than the rate of organisms of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Water related issues include; high nitrates in drinking water, increasing sediments in tributaries, dead zones, and floods. These issues can be related to the degradation of rivers and streams, which could have been prevented by ecological restoration.
River restoration refers to repairing waterways that cannot perform essential ecological and social functions. These functions include mitigating floods, providing safe drinking water, filtering nutrients and sediments before they effect coastal zones, and supporting fisheries and wildlife populations. Rivers are also widely used for recreational purposes. Some restoration projects include land acquisition, bank or channel reshaping, and keeping livestock out of rivers and streams.
People tend to live and work near water bodies and historically wastes were disposed of by dumping them into rivers to carry away these wastes. In the past forests were cut down and wetlands were tilled in to facilitate transportation and building, with little understanding that these resources played ecologically. Dams were built to supply power and prevent floods but negative effects were seen in other areas. Cities and industries have continued to dump wastes into rivers and have also lined these rivers with concrete so they can convey water more rapidly. This is an issue because rivers are not allowed to filter out contaminants. In the 1960’s two thirds of U.S. water ways were polluted, in 1972 the Clean Water Act was passed which helped to decrease pollution until recently. The main reason for degradation of rivers and streams is poor land stewardship. Urbanization and farming cause the addition of sediments into waterways, suffocating aquatic life and harming drinking water. The CWA has begun minimizing point source inputs of pollutants into rivers but the non-point source inputs are also important. Ways that farmers are able to reduce their impact include planting riparian buffer zones near rivers and avoiding production near rivers.
Controls have not been able to keep up to development and the increasing watershed damage. The main goals of river restoration are to improve water quality, manage riparian vegetation, and stabilize aquatic habitats. The U.S. has been spending over one billion dollars each year on river restoration but is not getting its money’s worth. Restoration projects must include an assessment of ecological effectiveness to increase the efficiency of the money spent on restoration. There is currently no system to evaluate the effectiveness of a project. There is also no tracking system regarding what is done and where. Policies must be adjusted to find a solution to pollution. Federal agencies must adopt and abide by standards for successful river and stream restoration. Five standards are recommended by scientists and engineers:
1. Design of a river restoration project should be based on a specific guiding image of a more dynamic, healthy river
2. The river’s ecological condition must show measureable improvement
3. The river system must be more self-sustaining and resilient to external perturbations, so that only minimal follow up maintenance is needed
4. During the construction, no lasting harm should be inflicted on the ecosystem
5. Both pre- and post-assessments must be completed and data made publicly available

A tracking system for restoration projects must be implements so that restorers can learn from past efforts. Implementation monitoring is not used routinely, this includes; determining whether a project was built as designed, and in compliance with regulations. There should be a way to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects so that the most appropriate methods of improvement can be found for specific types of sites. Few projects are actually monitored and the level of success of projects is usually unknown. Existing restoration funding should be used more efficiently so that it is wisely allocated to successful projects.
A potential organization, such as a Water Resources Restoration Act, could authorize and fund river restoration projects. This organization would ensure funds are spent efficiently to provide benefits such as flood control, infrastructure protection, and maintenance of water quality. This would also create jobs and save taxpayers money in the end. Additional funding would allow tracking projects and more monitoring of projects. There is also a need for upgrades to stormwater and sewer infrastructure. The services of healthy rivers and streams are essential to the well being of people who demand cleaner, restored waterways. The expense of replacing services that a healthy river can provide is very expensive.

David Suzuki - Sustainability within a Generation: A New Vision for Canada

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/podcasts/DSF_podcast_04.mp3

A podcast by David Suzuki, shown at left, mentions issues regarding the costs of protecting the environment and costs of not protecting the environment. Suzuki mentions that the cost to fix the environment will cost Canada 1% of its GDP. The cost of not decreasing Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions will cost more than the costs of World War I and World War II combined. Suzuki states that he feels we cannot afford to not fix the problem. Lorne Taylor, the Minister of the Environment for Alberta, has stated that he feels it will be too expensive to repair the environment. Taylor states that without a thriving economy we cannot afford to protect the environment. Oppositely, Suzuki states that we cannot have a thriving economy without protecting our environment. If the environment is not protected we will lose approximately 20% of the GDP.

Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economic Service in the United Kingdom, speaks about the potential devastating effects of climate change. He concludes that the costs of inaction far exceeds the costs of action, approximately 1% of Canada's GDP. This is millions of dollars so politicians immediately claim the country cannot afford this. If the world moves over 800ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere the climate could be increased by about 5 degrees Celsius compared pre-industrial climates. To reduce climate change the world must move to a low carbon economy. Worldwide changed must be made to adapt to the expected climate change. Agriculture will be made very difficult with changing environmental conditions. A reduction in CO2 emissions of at least 30% is recommend by Stern. If this is not done the atmosphere will continue to build up CO2. Much of the world would become inhabitable, causing the movement of people form many areas of the world. Canada is seen as a influential country and if we were to take action to decrease CO2 emissions it is expected that many countries will follow suit.

An environmental student from University of Toronto was interviewed. She stated that she enjoyed the presentation by Suzuki as he combined environmental effects and the economy. I think this podcast states a lot of very important facts and is very educational. Someone with as much respect as Suzuki is very benefical to be speaking about this issue and to be incouraging Canada to make a change in its energy use patterns. I think that decreasing carbon emissions by 30% is a very attainable goal. Locally, one way that could significantly decrease carbon emissions would be to provide more affordable public transport. If half of the students who drive to University each day took the bus instead they would have a significant decrease in their personal emissions. The buses run regardless of how many people there are so taking the bus would not increase emissions, fewer people driving would decrease emissions significantly.

Reflections

There were no assigned reflections for this week but I would like to take the chance to reflect on my opionion of the Waste Audit Assignment. I feel this assignment was extremely informative for me. It showed me that such a large amount of household waste can be recycled or composted, and that doing so will significantly reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills. My household does not currently compost but we do recyle. For my environmental action plan I am working with my household to implement a composting system, as this will significantly reduce the amount of waste that left at our curb weekly. This should be an interesting project for myself and my five other roomates.

Orignially for my Environmental Action Assignment I wanted to volunteer with the Prairie Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, which a non-profit organization that treats injured and orphaned animals and releases them back into the wild. Unfortunately, when I contacted them they told me that this time of the year they do not do much work with animals, and they are not doing in-school presentations until the new year. I would like to volunteer with them this coming summer. There website is: http://www.pwildlife.ca/

Blog 4

Food Scarcity: An Environmental Wakeup Call
This article begins by discussing the many negative impacts humans have caused to the earth; overfishing, deforestation, climate change, soil erosion, and the list goes on. It is agreed that something must be done to prevent these activities before our earth can no longer support us. It is mentioned that agriculture is the link between environmental deterioration and economic decline and has been for many years.
Rising grain prices are expected to be the first sign of the world’s unsustainable environment. It is expected that grain prices will rise, due to increased demand, caused by an increasing population. This will cause grain and related products, including bread, meat, milk, etc., to be more expensive. This is troublesome as many people around the world already cannot afford to pay for their food needs. Such an increase of food prices would cause riots world wide and undoubtedly impact the world economy. As food demand increases food supply follows behind it, this means that producers must find ways to either farm more land or to produce higher yields from the land they currently farm.
Many current practices must be adjusted to decrease environmental damage, these include; decreased fishing, avoiding aquifer depletion, and land abandonment. This is difficult to decrease damages when the population continues to grow and food requirements follow this growth trend. It is estimated that 800 million people are hungry because they cannot afford food.
Population is growing but there is relatively little more land that can be converted into farm land as well as a decreasing supply of irrigation water causing food security to be threatened. Over the years farmers have used technology to increase food production including; terracing, irrigation, land reclamation, and many more methods. Grain production grew slower than population growth causing the amount of farmland area per person to shrink, this trend is expected to continue as population growth is rapid and the growth of grain production is slowing. Another main impediment for producers is the decreasing amount of freshwater available for irrigating crops. This has also caused drainage of aquifers and rivers. Demand is increasing by sectors including industrial, residential and agricultural, causing increased competition between these sectors. The article claims that most of the world’s rice and much of it’s wheat is grown on irrigated land, I disagree with this as I have learned in another class that 20% of world agricultural land is irrigated, which is a significant amount, but certainly not ‘most’. Perhaps most of the world’s rice is irrigated, but to say the ‘much’ of the world’s grain is irrigated I feel is an exaggeration. For example, Manitoba produces a significant amount of grain and only 2% of Manitoba agricultural acres are irrigated, much of those being in the Carman and Carberry areas in which potatoes, which are not considered a grain crop, are grown. I do agree that much of the land that is irrigated would likely not be productive without irrigation. Decreasing irrigation in these areas would cause them to be forced out of agricultural production, therefore decreasing total agricultural land. The article also states that a large amount of water is contained in food, so by importing grain, a country is also importing water.
An important issue faced by the world is the fact that food production rose constantly by about 2% each year until 1990 when it began to increase by only 2% each year. This is detrimental as the world’s population keeps growing at a relatively steady rate. This caused an increase in the crop land as in the United States where farmers were subsidised for land that they didn’t seed because there was previously a food surplus. The carryover grain stocks were decreased to just 52 days of consumption in 1996, this short supply unable feed very many people in the case of a single year’s poor crop yield. Food scarcity and food prices should be an indicator of a need for environmental change.
I was relieved to see that the article mentioned the importance of family planning for maintaining satisfactory food supply. The current generations must be able to adjust their reproductive behaviour as well as energy consumption to make a positive environmental change. Some governments should consider limiting the number of children a couple can have. Also, there must be large change to the type of energy the world uses, for example changing to a hydrogen or solar energy dominated economy has many potential benefits. The importance of sustainable farming is also noted, mentioning the importance of topsoil conservation by converting cultivated land to pasture land. This I disagree with as yield from pasture is insignificant compared to the yield that can be produced on cultivated land, but it must be managed properly for the given location.
Previously, the ‘back-up’ plan for food shortages relied on three things; idle cropland, surplus stored grain, and feed for livestock. The first two of these options have already decreased so significantly we can hardly rely on them in a time of disaster. The third would be very difficult to implement, mentioned methods include taxing livestock products. The food security depends on environmentally sustainable agriculture as well as the rest of the economy.
I was extremely disappointed that this article didn’t mention genetically modified foods as an important source of increasing food production. In the past this has been one of the main methods of increasing food supply and I believe that more research must be done to modify crops so that they can yield higher, be grown on varied soil types and in various climates. I believe that continued research and development of crops will play a very important role in keeping up to growing food demand.
I also feel that expecting farmers to change the world’s sustainability is an unreasonable and unattainable expectation. The reason I feel this way is because there are so many factors in farming that cause increased input costs, this means they must produce more and sell for higher prices, they cannot afford to cut yields and prices if they expect their farm to be economically sustainable. For example, to look at the price of land; as food demand increases so do land or rent costs. As rent prices increase a farmer must produce more to pay for this expense. As fuel prices rise a farmer must again produce more yield per acre. As scrap metal prices increase implement manufactures must pay more to produce machinery, this cost is passed on to the producer, who unsurprisingly can only combat this cost by increasing yield. As demand for yield increasing technology increases, companies charge more for their inputs; seed, pesticides, fertilizer, etc. So as a farmer pays more for his inputs he must charge more for his produce. My personal opinion is that farmers cannot be expected to lose money by producing food to feed the world. Someone can claim that environmental damage has increased as farming practices have intensified, but a person must think of the cause of intensified agriculture; population increase. I feel that this is where preventative action needs to begin.

Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems
Increased pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use is stated to negatively impact human health and the environment. Environmental and health care costs of pesticide use are estimated at $12 billion each year in the United States. Nutrient leaching causes dead zones and deterioration of fisheries. Over use of fertilizer (application beyond the amount a crop can take up) causes $2.5 billion dollars of damage per year. Soil erosion damage is estimated at over $45 billion each year. Better pest and nutrient management can reduce the reliance of agricultural chemical inputs as well as decrease impacts on the environment and the economy. Organic systems eliminate pesticide and other external input use. Organic cropping is growing in popularity significantly.
An experiment in Pennsylvania comparing the environmental impacts, economic feasibility, energetic efficiency, and soil quality is described. The treatments include conventional, manure and legume, and legume only cropping systems. The conventional system relies highly on external, synthetic inputs. The manure/legume system relies on manure and legumes as a nitrogen source. The legume system used green manure crops to provide soil nitrogen. For the first five years of the experiment corn yields were significantly higher for the conventional system. After this transitional period conventional corn yields were still higher, but not as significantly. During drought animal manure/legumes produced highest yield, then conventional, then legume only with the lowest yield for corn.
Soil organic matter is higher in the manure/legume and legume systems, this is because organic matter is added to the system yearly in the form or manure waste or green manure crops. Increased organic matter is expected to cause an increase in soil biodiversity. The organic systems were also found to consume less fossil fuel energy. Overall, throughout the study, it was found that generally yields were similar throughout the sites.
Organic good prices range from 20-140% higher than conventionally produced goods. Two problems mentioned in organic food production are nitrogen supply and pest management. Many organic practices could be beneficially adopted into conventional farming; use of cover crops, extensive rotations, increasing soil organic matter, use of natural biodiversity as a form of integrated pest management. Organic cropping systems have been beneficial in increasing soil organic matter and nitrogen, decreasing fossil fuel energy, yields can be equally high as long as environmental conditions are appropriate, labour costs are high but are evenly distributed, higher market prices, decreased soil erosion, pests, and pesticide use, increased biodiversity and increased sustainability.
I strongly disagree with many of the points made in this article. First of all, yes, we can put a price on the damages that pesticides cause yearly, but can we realistically put a price on the number of lives that would be lost yearly due to increased food shortages caused by decreased yields due to not using these inputs? Next, the article states that contamination of ground and surface water is amplified because more fertilizer is used than what a plant can actually take up. This is true, but nutrients are applied at a rate that is needed for plant growth, which is more than plant growth due to factors that make nutrients unavailable, such as leaching, immobilization and binding to soil particles. This means that due to inefficiency of fertilizers over application is required for plant growth. Next, soil erosion is actually more prevalent on organic cropping systems due to the fact that tillage is one of the main means of weed control in these systems. Reduced tillage systems are usually complemented by pesticide use, this means that actually organic cropping systems cause equivalent or more damage do to soil erosion.
It is true that integrated pest management does control pests; weeds, insects, and diseases, better. This method is highly utilized in conventional farming and pesticides are included in integrated pest management. It is coincidental that the site of the study, Rodale Institute, is mentioned. Today during a soil fertility class my professor mentioned that organic farming actually removes nutrients from soil that are not allowed to be returned organically in sustainable amounts. He very coincidentally mentioned the Rodale Institute, saying that studies done there are actually biased as the higher soil pH actually facilitates the breakdown of the only organically allowable phosphorous source. Here in Manitoba, where we have low pH, acidic soils, this rock form of phosphorous will almost never be broken down. Phosphorous is a very essential nutrient, also one plants have extreme difficulty in absorbing; to deplete it would have extremely negative, irreversible effects.
The next paragraph states that prices of organic goods have large premiums. After reading the last article which discusses the importance of affordable food I can’t help but question this contradiction. I feel that affordable food is very important but also important is an economically sustainable living for producers. This premium is great for producers who currently have a large market to sell products in, but if people are already having difficulty paying for conventional food is organic cropping really a good idea? My own personal assumption is that organic demand will continue to grow but in the next ten years will drop off as the ‘organic fad’ ends. Most importantly I feel it is an inefficient way to feed the people. I do agree that many methods; cover crops, decreased pesticide use, green manure, and others, are good ideas that could be and have been implemented in conventional agriculture.
I have a very strong belief in producing the most yield from the land if it can be done in a sustainable way. Like stated previously I do agree there are benefits to organic agriculture, including a niche market, but I feel overall that conventional farming is more efficient.

The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture
This article begins by discussing the differences in agriculture today versus when the author, Wendell Berry, grew up. Many years ago farms would produce their so called ‘major’ farm products as well as minor products including surplus cream, eggs, old hens, etc. There were many good and bad qualities about farm practices many years ago.
Currently farmland is being abandoned and the farms that do exist are deteriorating. Current farms are at risk due to lack of interest in farming from the younger generations. Minor products, milk for example, have been reduced due to regulations and increasing costs to follow those regulations. Farming remains to be ruled by the theory “get big or get out”; causing farm sizes to either enlarge and specialize or sell their farms to someone who will do just that. The article claims that this leads to the destruction of communities and is caused by universities, bureaucrats and agribusinessmen who have promoted efficiency as well as quantity at the expense of quality. Bigger farms have caused ‘inefficient farms’ to go out of business, and also have caused people to lose their jobs. It is claimed that a producer cannot succeed in producing both a large quantity of a product and a high quality product.
This issue of compartmentalization is discussed regarding both agriculture and the rest of society; lawyers, philosophers, etc. It claims that universities as well as government cause this separation of societies. Society should aim to produce more well rounded people who understand a little bit of everything, rather than such specialized individuals.
Another issue regarding rural communities is the movement of people from rural communities to cities, leaving farmland in control of only 5% of the population. When farmers leave the farm and move to cities to take jobs they often lose the ability to be their own manager. They become dependent upon a boss and become specialized. Acquired agricultural experience is given up to learn a task that can be taught in just a short matter of time. Proper farming requires complexity in the producer’s character as well as the culture of the farm. Good farmers are made by generations of experience which must be continually passed along. Unfortunately if farm investments become too large a producer must compromise values to the use of finance and technology. His thoughts begin to rely on where his money will come from, not so much where it will go.
The importance of maintaining agricultural sustainability is mentioned. This means for example that a farmer must maintain his soil quality if he expects the soil to provide him with a crop. Agriculture cannot exist if the natural systems that it requires have been compromised. It is important to be careful what we consider as agricultural progress and be sure that we are not actually regressing.
It is true that there is no longer a market for minor products in agriculture, this is because things are now produced in large quantities as it is more efficient as well as more safe. Producing products in larger quantities is a way of specialization which is the current trend in agriculture. An example mentioned is the fact that milk production regulations have increased and have become too expensive to comply to if only producing milk as a minor good. This actually concerns me that people feel the regulations are too strong when I think that food safety is a huge concern presently. I feel that this allows producers to provide the lowest price to consumers.
A loss of agricultural population is seen as a very important issue. Currently, the number of children who plan to take over their parents’ farm is diminishing. Often it is even suggested by the parents that the child look for another living due to the instability and risks of farming. The ‘get big or get out’ philosophy has also forced a large amount of people off of their farms but I agree this is likely due to inefficiency and that they left out of their own free will. It is extremely upsetting that so many farmers with incredible skill are lost yearly as they give up their farms to take other jobs. This movement likely occurs due to the low profitability and high risks of agriculture. Also important with the decrease of rural population is the government support; fewer people leads to less representation which can be detrimental for farmers and rural communities.
Many changes have occurred to agriculture over the years but most, in my opinion, have been very beneficial in increasing food supply. With the increasing technology farmers are able to farm more land, this means that there are there is a higher labour force for other jobs. A hundred years ago the farming population was much larger, but there were fewer specialists of any kind; hair dressers, accountants, lawyers, etc. The increase in these skilled labourers has been beneficial to society. Imagine if people were forced to live on farms simply because there had to be as many farmers as were needed in the past, wouldn’t it be nice to have the option of doing something else.

Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation
This article relates that way that women are treated in society to the way that biodiversity is treated in society. Similarly, both women and diversity are disrespected due to their difference from the perceived ‘norm’ of society. In our current society there seems to be no allowance for diversity as hierarchy is the main concern. Capitalism is the cause of the destruction of diversity and the creation of monocultures. Progress is seen as the movement towards monoculture, uniformity and homogeneity. Agriculture ‘development’ is a movement towards erasing diversity and uniform production.
Monocultures have been proven to be unproductive compared to polycultures. The knowledge that encourages monocultures is seen as primitive and not sophisticated. Gender politics as well as eco-politics are both seen as a politics of difference.
Third world countries rely on biodiversity for production as well as consumption. The livelihood of people in these areas is extremely dependent upon the conservation and sustainable use of these biological resources. It is incorrectly assumed that diversity-based systems are low in productivity. Current crop uniformity dominated systems actually decrease the diversity of biological systems. Scarcity of labour is combated by increasing technology that is more productive and efficient. In areas where labour is not scarce this causes extreme negative effects as it leads to poverty and loss of jobs.
As farmers, women have had a great contribution but are not given enough respect for their work. The work of women is difficult to measure as they contribute largely both inside and outside of the house. Farm labour of women requires extreme skill and knowledge. For example, dairy production in India is much more logic the practices that are taught in dairy science institutions. In Europe and North America women in dairy still play an important, but different, role as they have important expertise in breeding and feeding of the farm animals. Forestry is also another aspect in which women play an important role.
There is currently a sectored, fragmented and reductionist approach to agriculture in which forests, livestock and crops are treated as independent from one another. The ‘green revolution’ is believed to increase grain yields using techniques such as dwarfing, monocultures, and multi-cropping.
Women have been seen as custodians of biodiversity as they produce, reproduce, consume and conserve the biodiversity of agriculture. Diversity is reproduced and conserved through reproduction and conservation of culture. The article states that “world women’s relationship to biodiversity differs from corporate men’s relationship to biodiversity. Women produce through biodiversity, whereas corporate scientists produce through uniformity.” I find this to be a sexist comment as men are assumed to be ‘scientists’. I have worked for a seed sales company so I am more on the ‘scientist’ side of the industry than the women who are stated to be seed custodians. This just reaffirms the misconception that women don’t have an important role in agriculture as they are not included as scientists.
The article goes on to discuss how large seed developing companies are harming the farmers by placing genes in plants then claiming them. I disagree. Farmers can grow seeds that are open-pollinated varieites not hybrids. This would allow them to use ‘bin-run’ seed that they have harvested for another years production. Farmer’s generally grow hybrid varieties because they are more profitable due to higher yields form the genes the company has researched, patented, and inserted. Companies invest billions of dollars each year in seed improvement. If farmers would allowed to only purchase these superior varieties once seed companies would not be able to afford to pay for the research and development and there would be no high yielding varieties. Also, nine of nine of the risks associated with genetically engineered foods have the word “may” in them, this is hardly secure evidence of significant risk. The photo at left displays a more positive view of genetically modified seeds.
I found this article negatively portrays both agriculture and women’s rights in a strange way. Even after re-reading the article I’m still not sure that I really understand the correlation between these two subjects. Also, I feel the article seems outdated as women’s role and respect in agriculture has grown significantly in the past ten years or so. As a female agriculture student I find it to be somewhat upsetting that they say women are not respected for their role in the industry. Over the past few years I have witnessed that it is hard work and knowledge that leads agriculture students and employees to success, not their gender.
I also found the end of the article strange when the green revolution is focuses on. I thought this didn’t really relate to the theme in the rest of the article.

Peaceable Kingdom

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4DACA_enCA311CA311&q=peaceable%20kingdom%20documentary&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv# video shown in small box in upper left.

This is a documentary film based on a farm that strives to ensure the rights of animals on the farm. Discussed are the many mistreatments that animals receive from humans due to large scale production. Included in this is rough handling, long distance transportation, and culling of animals due to sex or age. This documentary focuses on a group of people that save animals that have been harmed or culled. The animals live on a farm in which interaction with the public is allowed and education is provided to the public.
This video shows many horrifying images of the mistreatment animals go through on farm, and at slaughterhouses. This footage is very horrifying but I believe that it is not a normal thing to see this type of mistreatment. I grew up on a cattle farm and still currently take trips with my dad to market and I have never once seen anything so cruel as in this video. I agree that it is terrible that this has happened to any animals. I don’t think it is fair to portray these images to the uneducated public, leading them to believe that all farms and slaughter houses operate in this manner. Producers cannot afford to treat their animals in such a manner because there is no way they could possibly profit from animals that are under so much stress. This stress would cause death and would not allow them to develop into any economical produce.
Videos like this upset me because I grew up on a farm that raised commercial cattle and hogs. The photo to the left shows a cow and calf, as well as some other cattle at my families pasture. My dad, my siblings, any other farm labourers, and I had upmost respect for our livestock. It is very upsetting to see a video like this that displays all commercial farms as inhumane.
I do respect the people in the video for attempting to help these abandoned, sick animals. I think it is important that the public understand that this is a very exaggerated video in regards to the mistreatment of livestock. Overall, I found this video very upsetting for two reasons. Firstly, no animal should ever be treated in ways that the animals of the video were. Secondly, I’m upset because I know that this is a very gross exaggeration of how animals are actually treated. Just because animals are raised with the end goal of human consumption doesn’t mean that they were raised in an inhumane way.

Food Blog
Over the past 48 hours I ate bagels for breakfast each morning, stir fry for lunch once, lettuce wraps for lunch once, lettuce wraps for supper, stir fry for supper, chicken wings, cheesecake, a Tim Horton’s Danish, and drank Tim Horton’s coffee on multiple occasions. This was not a very typical 48 hours for my meals as I ate leftovers multiple times and went out for meals more often than usual.
The bagels require wheat and other grain crops to be grown and processed. This requires nutrient inputs, possibly irrigation water, machinery, and labour. The stir fry contained either chicken or beef, noodles, and frozen vegetables. Most notable is the meat content of this meal, which requires grain as feed, labour, and transportation. Meat is a very important component in my diet but I do understand the value of meat and the possibility that the meat supply will decrease substantially in the future. Lettuce wraps are similar in ingredients to the stir fry, also functioned into this is the cost of preparation and mark up as they were prepared at a restaurant. Cheesecake was homemade and required ingredients such as eggs and cream cheese which are animal products, requiring large amounts of feed. The Tim’s Danish was produced from grain and processed fruit, this requires mainly energy usage during the plant’s production and the processing into ingredients. The Tim’s coffee I assume is not a fair trade coffee and requires intense farming practices, likely overseas, by people who are most likely underpaid.
I’m aware that my eating habits are not the most sustainable, mainly because I eat a fairly large amount of meat. The production of meat requires significantly more energy than the production of the same weight of plant products but this is a privilege that I have been lucky to be able to have, mainly due to where I was raised. Growing up on a beef farm I am sceptical of the idea of increasing the amount of grass fed beef to decrease energy expenses or grain being ‘wasted’. This would take significantly more time to raise these cattle to an acceptable slaughter weight. This is time that farmers simply cannot afford, if not because of cost than for sure because of time and space constraints.

Classroom Reflections
In class there was a discussion on the current hog barn moratorium in several municipalities of Manitoba. The main reason for this moratorium is to decrease the amount of phosphorous waste produced that will possibly leach into Lake Winnipeg. Phosphorous in Lake Winnipeg causes increasing algae, shown in wave photo below, and eutrophication of the lake. From my personal perspective, the most negative effect this will have on the hog industry is the fact that fewer and fewer young farmers will continue to stay in the industry. Without the ability to build new barns and grow hog farms the hog producing population will continue to get older and older, without younger farmers entering.
I agree that phosphorous concentration in the lake must be reduced but due to the fact that only 1.5% of the phosphorus that enters the lake is due to hog barns I wonder if the government is actually targeting the correct source. Maybe more steps should be taken such as banning the use of phosphorous in detergents for the entire province. After all, if farmers have to give up their well-being, maybe the public could go without phosphorous containing detergents.
Also in class we watched the video “The Meatrix”; again I was upset by the way livestock producers were portrayed. They were portrayed as people who just exploit livestock for their own profit. Producers that I know love what they do, and respect their livestock; otherwise they would not do what they do. The photo to the left shows more healthy cattle form my own farm. I also don’t like that in a university atmosphere videos are shown that promote the abandonment of meat products. I feel that’s a personal belief and that a fair representation of meat production should be portrayed.
Also I had some previous knowledge regarding the Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser (shown below) case. I feel that Monsanto has every right to protect the gene the insert into the canola plant. Monsanto would have had to invest billions of dollars in the production of that roundup tolerance gene and it is unfair that society thinks that Monsanto doesn’t deserve credit for that patent. My personal, educated opinion, is that Percy is someone who broke the law and got caught. I don’t think he is in any way a hero, more of a fraud. It is unfortunate that once the name Monsanto is mentioned the public immediately assumes something bad. Monsanto has been of key importance of the development of higher yielding crops which help to feed the less fortunate people of the world.
This has been a very personal blog for me as I am very educated in the agriculture industry. Some of my opinions were formed at a young age and many others I have been educated about. I do agree that there are many environmental risks of agriculture but it must also be understood by the public that farmers are trying hard to make changes and to make agriculture more sustainable. Farmers don’t take actions with the intent of harming the environmental sustainability of the world.