![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I should be eating some food and going to ceramics, but I have to write a few words first instead.
I'm reading an article that was passed along to me by Ms.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gfrancie, about the state of affairs of the sustainable agriculture industry in the US these days. Clearly, the perspective is biased, but it's also got some seemingly well-researched information about key players in the whole extravaganza, and their connections to Industrial Agriculture.
I've just read a section on some of the US goals to export crops, and it's making me think back to what I've learned about different native American groups who have resisted and protested against mining on their reservations. Reservations were established before anybody had any clue about the value and location of oil deposits, and as soon as those deposits were mapped out on reservation lands, people started getting greedy about them. I'm not sure of the particular native nations involved, but a lot of native groups don't want to have resources mined from their lands because they see this as a violation of the sacred nature of the land. In a way, they are right - once a precious resource is removed from the land, there's no going back. Mine tailings, the consequence of selective extraction of a resource, are a terrible sight.
So how does this tie in to food? Perhaps you are aware of worldwide problems with soil erosion. In some time, I think the public will become more aware of this problem, as the public has become aware of the problem of global warming. Those who pay attention to soil erosion issues have noted that it is becoming a much larger looming crisis than global warming.
For although plants gain some important nutrients from the air, such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they are also critically dependent on important nutrients that are non-gaseous, like phosphorus. In fact, my university (the one that makes me grit my teeth) has launched a Sustainable Phosphorus Initiative to foster discussion about this particular biologically important player. Where does this phosphorus come from? Well, it must come from young soils, or it must be mined. Old soils, such as the weathered soils that underpin tropical rainforests, are often very low on phosphorus, which affects the plants that are capable of growing there. The water cycle eventually pushes all phosphorus towards the ocean. Though the recent oil spill is causing massive problems in the Gulf of Mexico, you may be unaware that there has been a longstanding "dead zone" at the gulf of the Mississippi River, due to nutrient runoff from all of the agriculture along the river.
So, when this country decides to export agricultural goods en masse, I have to stop and think of it as sending off mined resources. It's such a different situation than what's faced in Australia, where the human population is relatively small compared to the mineral resources, and where mining can thus be more readily justified. I just don't think that, in the long run, the US will get enough bang for its buck if it continues to pursue the strategy of exporting food.
Many of the key players involved in structuring agricultural policy in the US have ties to biotechnology. The problem is, people who study biotechnology are typically not biogeochemists or ecologists. So they have a myopic view of the best way to grow food.
---
I don't know that my perspective has anything unique to offer - the original article is probably more informative. But I do know that Americans need to stand up and speak up about this issue if we are to have any hope to make real change to how our country's agricultural system operates. No one can pretend to have the right answers to this one, but there's certainly a lot that could be done to more effectively address the situation.
I'm reading an article that was passed along to me by Ms.
gfrancie, about the state of affairs of the sustainable agriculture industry in the US these days. Clearly, the perspective is biased, but it's also got some seemingly well-researched information about key players in the whole extravaganza, and their connections to Industrial Agriculture.I've just read a section on some of the US goals to export crops, and it's making me think back to what I've learned about different native American groups who have resisted and protested against mining on their reservations. Reservations were established before anybody had any clue about the value and location of oil deposits, and as soon as those deposits were mapped out on reservation lands, people started getting greedy about them. I'm not sure of the particular native nations involved, but a lot of native groups don't want to have resources mined from their lands because they see this as a violation of the sacred nature of the land. In a way, they are right - once a precious resource is removed from the land, there's no going back. Mine tailings, the consequence of selective extraction of a resource, are a terrible sight.
So how does this tie in to food? Perhaps you are aware of worldwide problems with soil erosion. In some time, I think the public will become more aware of this problem, as the public has become aware of the problem of global warming. Those who pay attention to soil erosion issues have noted that it is becoming a much larger looming crisis than global warming.
For although plants gain some important nutrients from the air, such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they are also critically dependent on important nutrients that are non-gaseous, like phosphorus. In fact, my university (the one that makes me grit my teeth) has launched a Sustainable Phosphorus Initiative to foster discussion about this particular biologically important player. Where does this phosphorus come from? Well, it must come from young soils, or it must be mined. Old soils, such as the weathered soils that underpin tropical rainforests, are often very low on phosphorus, which affects the plants that are capable of growing there. The water cycle eventually pushes all phosphorus towards the ocean. Though the recent oil spill is causing massive problems in the Gulf of Mexico, you may be unaware that there has been a longstanding "dead zone" at the gulf of the Mississippi River, due to nutrient runoff from all of the agriculture along the river.
So, when this country decides to export agricultural goods en masse, I have to stop and think of it as sending off mined resources. It's such a different situation than what's faced in Australia, where the human population is relatively small compared to the mineral resources, and where mining can thus be more readily justified. I just don't think that, in the long run, the US will get enough bang for its buck if it continues to pursue the strategy of exporting food.
Many of the key players involved in structuring agricultural policy in the US have ties to biotechnology. The problem is, people who study biotechnology are typically not biogeochemists or ecologists. So they have a myopic view of the best way to grow food.
---
I don't know that my perspective has anything unique to offer - the original article is probably more informative. But I do know that Americans need to stand up and speak up about this issue if we are to have any hope to make real change to how our country's agricultural system operates. No one can pretend to have the right answers to this one, but there's certainly a lot that could be done to more effectively address the situation.
