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
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
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
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
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
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
- Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 33, No. 39 (Sep. 26 - Oct. 2, 1998), pp. A137-A141+A144-A151
- Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
- Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4407211
- Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 41 (Oct. 11-17, 1997), pp. 2582-2585
- Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
- Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405943
- Feminist Review, No. 70, Globalization (2002), pp. 105-122
- Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
- Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395973
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)