Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Self Watering Containers

So, there's this new-ish thing I learned about: a self-watering garden pot. Now I'm sure there have been this type of thing available for quite some time. But these are a well-designed system, and I first heard of them in respect to a rural farming improvement project that caught my attention.

They're called Earth Pots and they have a water reservior in the bottom, a reversable cover to reduce pests and maintain maximum moisture and avoid over-heating in extremely hot areas. The idea is that people living in places with no real access to fertile soil can grow vegetables to feed their families in a pot! It takes little effort and minimizes destructive factors without pesticides in the air or water.

This seems like a great idea to me. The idea behind the rural farming part of it is to donate these pots to families in poor countries. It was on Rick Bayless' show on PBS. And, try though I might (because I'm a skeptic at heart) I haven't been able to find anything terrible about it....they seem to be made responsibly, and given away to people in need. If it's a good as it sounds, it sound good to me! Follow the link below to see a video about how it works. ~M.J. Spring

YouTube - Self Watering Containers

YouTube - Self Watering Containers

Urban Gardening

So, I've been learning about P-Patches as a way to delve into slow food and un-learn some of the instant gratification practices I've picked up living in the City. Here's some of the data:

There are 7 to 10 tons of fresh organic produce grown in Pea-Patches in Seattle that are donated to local food banks.

For a plot of land 100 square feet, it costs $34 annually.
For a plot 400 square feet, $67 annually.

There are 23 acres, utilized by over 6,000 gardeners in the greater Seattle area.

At first, I was curious about the availability of these garden spaces in lower income areas where access to organic gardening and a means to provide fresh food sustainably. It turns out that, although garden plots are more numerous in higher income areas (due, in part, to greater access to open spaces) they are distributed throughout diverse areas of the Seattle area. Unfortunately, many of these P-Patches have waiting lists 50 names long. It can take up to two years to get a plot of land but, once you're in, you can upgrade each year and stay as long as you continue to pay the annual dues.

I struggle with m container garden on the little concrete patio outside my apartment. It's hard to grow vegetables that way, and with the weather uncertain it makes the variables vast and complicated. The Pea-Patch idea is encouraging, along with the hope of more spaces opening up in the near future. ~M.J. Spring

Genetically modified food

For a lot of farmers genetically modified foods crops have become more popular. But is it right or even necessary to even use them? The video above is regards a debate on rice farming in Asia. Whether the use of GMO’s or organic farming practices are better for the people or not. I think it’s great that we have the technology to create new modified crops that won’t need pesticides, but there are a lot of potential problems with these crops. A few problems are, the possibility of cross pollenation between the natural and modified crops, another is the fact that the people that develop these technologies put patents on the seeds and fertilizers making them very expensive for the farmers that would like to use them. And as you see in this video sometimes GMO’s don’t bring more profits to the farmers. I found the video really interesting what do you think?

Acequia Importance


This is the first part of a documentary I found on the importance of the Acequia for the people who use it. when reading the Piece by Pena in class I understood how Acequias work but I think that the video helps paint the picture of how detrimental it is for the farmers who use it. A lot of work goes into the maintaining of their water resources in this manner.Yes people can abuse the water but it seems that I doesn't happen that often due to water being so important for these people. one of the main problems is that the people are being pushed out of their areas due to the exploitations of the land and resources needed for this way of life. and example of this is the urbanization of land to bring about higher profits for the area. but these people don't see any of the profits. a major concern is the fact that in America it seems that this practice is dying out due to lack of participation through the generations. this is primarily a passed down process and with the pursue of the so called American dream Acequias are being literally left in the dust because no one wants to put the effort into it anymore and would rather pursue other careers

biodiversity agriculture


This video is has to do with how important it is to use the heirloom crops in our environment. People in certain parts of the world have become too dependent on crops from other areas such as corn and many others. The use of the native plants help the biodiversity of the land in which we live in. The people in this video are starting to do something about it. As we can see that it is much cheaper for the people, better for their diets and helps the people of Kenya to become less dependent on outsourced crops. It also talks briefly about the potential problem in 2050 with the carrying capacity of resources for human populations. I agree that it is important to know how to become self sufficient when it comes to nutrition even though it is very hard to do so in a metropolitan setting but with the help of people like this in the video it could be possible.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

My Thanksgiving Was Different, Too.

This Thanksgiving I, too, thought differently about the food my family ate, the reasons for our celebration and the origins of the customs we enact automatically. One of the elements I was particularly interested in researching was the origins of some of our favorite foods. As a lover of side dishes, I focused on a few of the things we always prepare for Thanksgiving dinner: green beans, corn, and baked squash. This brought to mind the Three Sisters of Iroquois deep history. The cultivation of beans, corn and squash in mounds together is an ancient and highly effective practice: the corn stalks grow tall and act as trellises for the beans while the squash vines spread over the ground keeping out weeds and hungry four-leggeds. These co-habitating plants also enriched the soil with the nutrients each needs and the other supplies: truly an example of an original symbiotic relationship.We have gone far from this type of relationship with the growth of our food....in fact, it seems almost everything about food sourcing in this industrial world is about distance from the source. As I researched these three important crops I had an "ah-ha" moment at the complexity of it all, so easily understood in the terms set forth by the original instructions of this land. And it seems to me that perhaps a reminent of this way of thinking still exists today, even if in the smallest of ways, in the foods we still pair together.~M.J. Spring

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

NGO's

Monday, December 1, 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319175847.htm

Two NGO's are joining forces in order to better assist brazil cacao productions that are losing biodiversity and sustainability of the systems. They wish to preserve the culture of the area, while also educating the farmers in better means of production.

It seems that these merging companies do have the best at heart for the Brazilian farmers, but as we have seen before, interfering with other cultures is risky at best. The invasion can be detrimental to the culture. Yet, this society has already been effected by westernized people, hence why they are creating so much cacao in the first place, to meet western demands I'm sure. So should we leave the country alone and let them try to function in the world we are making them live in, or try to help them more and possibly make matters worse?

-Niki Lesniak

Thanksgiving with a twist

Thanksgiving
This thanksgiving I did a first for my family and brought a guest to dinner. My guest was my roommate who couldn't afford to fly home for both thanksgiving and christmas. My roommate is Columbian and was raised by his bilingual and comlunbian raised mother.

Bryce was raised in America, but has had the luxury of being extremely aware of foreign practices and traditions. We were talking about what our parents do for us when we come home from school, and Bryce told me about how his mom always makes curry and fried rice for him. This made me start thinking. My parents were raised in California and Illinois, by grandparents from western first world countries. I didn't try curry until I was off away at college, my family dinners growing up were predominantly European and American food. I didn't even consider how this effected me, but I consider ethnic foods as special or different from European food. I would never consider curry as a comfort food, but my American raised roommate, with foreign parents, do. Its an interesting idea, how food is certainly a raised or nurtured characteristic. Upbringing goes beyond just personality and perspective, but also into food, and perhaps, even hygiene or who knows what other things.

-Niki Lesniak

can locally grown support a population

Locally Grown Rise
In an article in the New York Times titled Holiday Fixing, Locally Grown, apparently there is a large rise in the number of families desiring locally farmed turkeys in Connecticut. Due to state regulation though, there are no slaughter houses in the state, which means that the small farms cannot keep up with demand. The farms on average carry 75 turkeys, and these turkeys and reserved and sold out well ahead of time. One farm in particular has 200 turkeys already claimed by families.

This article shows to me that many people want to change where their foods come from, but not the kind of food they are eating. This means that small and organic farms will do better in business, which is fantastic, but they will not be able to meet the demands of consumers. This is an interesting perspective, as we all wish to promote the rise of small farmers, and organic methods, and less slaughtering, but we do not consider whether these small farms would be able to do this.

-Niki Lesniak

spud times

Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Potatoes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/world/26spuds.html

People are encouraging poor countries to grow potatoes to feed their growing populations and also boost their economy. It sounds like a relatively good idea, only since many countries may benefit from having the potato in their food collections. Yet they refer to the green revolution and the benefits that had on wheat production. We know though that the green revolution reduced the biodiversity of lands. So encouraging people to grow potatoes might be good for the feeding of people, and but bad for land. Especially since they are already saying that in warmer climates potatoes rot quickly. Shouldn't Food Aid take the time to figure out the individuals country equivalent to the potato? Something nutritious that they can increase the growth of, that could feed the poorer populations, and also provide self-sufficiency for the country rather than relying on the importation and assistance from food-aid.

-Niki Lesniak

London Agriculture

Thursday, October 30, 2008
London Agriculture

* The effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity in arable systems of western Europe have received a great deal of attention. However, the recent transformation of grassland systems has been just as profound. In Britain, the management of grassland has changed substantially in the second half of the 20th century. A high proportion of lowland grassland is managed intensively. The major changes include a doubling in the use of inorganic nitrogen, a switch from hay to silage, and increased stocking densities, particularly of sheep. Structurally diverse and species-rich swards have been largely replaced by relatively dense, fast-growing and structurally uniform swards, dominated by competitive species. Most of these changes have reduced the suitability of grassland as feeding and breeding habitat for birds. The most important direct effects have been deterioration of the sward as nesting and wintering habitat, and loss of seed resources as food. Short uniform swards afford poor shelter and camouflage from predators, whereas increased mowing intensities and trampling by stock will destroy nests and young. Increased frequency of sward defoliation reduces flowering and seed set, and hence food availability for seed-eating birds. The indirect effects of intensification of management on birds relate largely to changes in the abundance and availability of invertebrate prey. The effects of management vary with its type, timing and intensity, and with invertebrate ecology and phenology, but, in general, the abundance and diversity of invertebrates declines with reductions in sward diversity and structural complexity. Low input livestock systems are likely to be central to any future management strategies designed to maintain and restore the ecological diversity of semi-natural lowland grasslands. Low additions of organic fertilizer benefit some invertebrate prey species, and moderate levels of grazing encourage sward heterogeneity. There is now a need to improve understanding of how grassland management affects bird population dynamics. Particularly important areas of research include: (i) the interaction between changes in food abundance, due to changes in fertilizer inputs, and food accessibility, due to changes in sward structure; (ii) the interaction between predation rates and management-related changes in habitat; and (iii) the impact of alternative anti-helminithic treatments for livestock on invertebrates and birds.


Here is an example of how human tampering with the environment for the reasoning of making our food situation better is effecting and harming other life forms. By reducing the biodiversity of the area it is deteriorating the soil and the habitat for animals and the food source for birds. Increasing the number of sheep on the land is also a benefit for humans (more meat) but is harmful to the environment and for the sheep themselves since this is most likely not an ideal situation.

I am not sure what the solution would be though. We could raise less sheep, and put less chemicals into the ground, but would we be able to produce a comparable amount of food? Is it cost effective to change our agricultural practices to something that is more natural to the environment? Having less food for the population is not an answer, or at least would not be a practical one, so I believe London did the best they could in trying to help the people and a lack of food for the birds is an unfortunate consequence. I am not trying to say that the birds are not important and we all know most people can afford to have less food, but the people who are going to have less food and the poor, and they are not the ones deciding to pour chemicals into the ground. So it would either be unfair to the birdies, or unfair to the people.

-Niki Lesniak

Resources

Saturday, November 29, 2008


This is a provocative thought: The spread of western cultures can be compared to the spread of monocultures in agriculture where imported, hybridized fertilizer dependent seeds, produced at a profit for multinational corporations, crowd out indigenous local varieties.

This is an idea that I have run into in Environmental Anthropology and would like to explore further in the context of Globalization and its effects on identity [and food].

Globalization, the global spread of Anglo-American knowledge, values, and practices, rather than indigenous knowledge and wisdom, drastically influences our ideas about food and health. Globalization like colonization is disempowering most to those removed from western knowledges causing UNESCO to warn that the mass export of the cultural practices of the industrialized world including languages, entertainment, food, and unsustainable consumerism contributes to a sense of dispossession and loss of identity among those who are exposed to it.

Monday, November 24, 2008

I wanted to begin by writing a bit to the importance of deep ecology or biocentrism in our world and practices of growing food. The belief that nature does not exist to serve humans and biodiversity is a value in itself is essential to human and non human life. We need to think critically as a society about the oppression of farmers and what is happening to the food that they produce within a capitalist patriarchy. Patriarchy is one of the oldest forms of oppression in the world. It is so deep that we are discouraged from naming it and seeing the connectedness of oppression of women and the degradation of the earth. This intersectionality needs to be addressed. Ecofeminism points to the parallel between the way that patriarchy treats nature and the way it treats women.Vandana Shiva is most famous for her work on the effects of Globalization and degradation of agricultural communities and how women bear the burden of corprotization of food production.

I found this article by Shiva informative and insightful:

  • Geopolitics of Food: America's Use of Food as a Weapon

  • Vandana Shiva
  • Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 18 (Apr. 30, 1988), pp. 881-882
http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/pdfplus/4378423.pdf

“Starting from the very reasonable but unfortunately revolutionary concept that social practices which threaten the continuation of life on Earth must be changed, we need a theory of revolutionary ecology that will encompass social and biological issues, class struggle, and recognition of the role of global corporate capitalism in the oppression of peoples and the destructions of nature.” Judi Bari