Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Artist Statement
Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia
Chia (Salvia Hispanica)Origin: Chia seeds have been used for hundreds of years in drinks and food, and were popularized by Aztec cultures in South America. The seeds were so prized that they were even used as currency in some civilizations. The word chia comes from the Aztec word chian, meaning oily. Today, the plant is still used in traditional recipes, but has been popularized by the Chia Pet. This novelty ceramic planter created in the late 1970’s uses the chia sprouts to simulate an animal’s fur or a person’s hair.
Nutrition: Chia plants are capable of growing up to 1 meter tall and are typically capped by a small purple flower. While the plant itself does not yield any form of nutritious output, they are still grown commercially for their seeds. The seeds are teeming with omega-3 fatty acids and can be extracted for vitamin rich oils.
Interesting Fact: The first chia pet was in the shape of a ram, but to date, more than 100 varieties have been created. The newest of the bunch, is much-loved Chia Obama.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Annotated Sources
Invasive Red Foxes in California:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/publications/bm_research/docs/92_04.pdf
-I’m not sure if I will specifically focus on the Red Fox, but this article was one of the best I’ve seen, in the sense that it clearly addressed the species’ negative effects on our environment. It outlined where the fox came from originally, how it got here, how it has continued to grow in population, and many other very in depth facts that are really difficult to track down for other animals and plants.
Arundo in San Diego:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr110/psw_gtr110_e_rieger.pdf
-As recommended by John, I took the liberty of checking out San Diego’s huge problem with Arundo, a dominating, non-native marine plant. Because it is pretty unanimously considered to be the most prevalent invasive species in San Diego, it is definitely something that I will need to look into a bit more. “The aggressiveness of this exotic has enabled it to invade disturbed areas along many water-courses of Southern California. Giant Reed is also capable of invading mature woodlands, interrupting the cycle of regeneration normally experienced in river systems. Giant Reed stands can become climax communities, replacing natural riparian habitats. to include riparian vegetation of different known ages and habitat quality.”
Reduced Genetic Variation:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/11/5948.long
-Really focuses in on the large-scale effects that invasive species can cause. There was a large focus on non-native ant species, and how they tend to create “supercolonies” that can completely take over other creatures’ habitats. It is interesting how the introduction of non-native species is just as unnatural as the monocropping that I am researching in my Special Assignment group, and thus, has similar genetic results.
The Evolutionary Impact of Invasive Species:
http://www.barrierecheck.net/nocolor.php?url=http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5446.full
-Among many other things, this article mentions how, technically, the number of invasive species is ridiculously low. The writer states that only 1% of introduced species actually become established enough to be considered pests. I will definitely make sure to consider both sides of the story, in my Senior Project video.
Ecological Effects of Invasive Insects:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m5m518r262r23g61/fulltext.pdf
-I had originally planned on primarily focusing on invasive insects for my topic, so this article holds a lot of value for me. I wish that it had given more specific detail, but the information provided illustrates how the number of publications written about the concerns of insect invasions has grown in an incredible manner in just a few years. “
“Nearly 60% of the papers were published in the last 8 years, even though many of the alien insects were introduced several decades earlier...”
Friday, November 6, 2009
Efficiency = Sustainability
This is the final draft of my special assignment group essay.
After posting this, I deleted my previous drafts from this site.
For as long as man has occupied Earth, there has always been bounty and famine, rich and poor, strong and weak. If the only thing that set these opposites apart was a lack or excess of determination, a person or object’s worth would be based solely on their desire to flourish. However, there are other forces at work: the forces of nature. As long as fundamental components of the environment such as the sun, the wind, and the ground we stand on continue to share our planet with us, there will always be effects that are out of our control. For the most part, these effects are positive and beautifully intertwined, but as our population and demands grow higher, issues start to arise.
Not unlike most aspects of twenty-first century living, the agricultural industry is fueled primarily by a lust for a solid bottom line, as opposed to the pursuit of new innovations and technologies. With so much potential for a sustainable future but so many people still left hungry, the problem boils down to a matter of inefficient production. While there are many factors that must be taken into account before a freshly planted seed can become tomorrow night’s dinner, maintaining a more structured layout throughout farms, gardens, and fields is a simple but effective way to yield a greater amount of consumables. Even on a small scale, considering things like companion planting and seasonal rotation has been proven to greatly increase the quality of the output. For example, alfalfa is often planted in conjunction with other crops because of its natural tendency to break apart hard clay and enrich nearby soil with extra nitrogen1, which is essential for healthy plant growth. So why don’t big budget agricultural companies adopt these tactics? Because economically “monocropping” is a safer option. Monocropping is the process of allotting a large plot of land for the production of a single crop year after year. This appeals to industrial growers mainly because it allows for specialized equipment for each set area. For example, a farm that produces solely soybeans would only need to house tools necessary for harvesting that one product. There would only need to be one type of ideal climate, one growing schedule, one export, and one skill set for workers. A more diverse farm, however, would need to be equipped with a plethora of instruments and timelines to cater to the many needs of their crops. For monocropping to work to its fullest, the occupied land needs to be as large as possible, which typically results in the displacement of local farmers and even the destruction of native habitats. Also, growing the same crops year after year on the same land, often leads to nutrient depletion in the soil. This means that the fruits and vegetables produced through this process are less healthy than those grown on a traditional farm.
For some, paying a premium for food that had a more traditional upbringing may not be financially feasible, but when you delve a little bit deeper into the topic, the real costs start to become evident. Plants that are grown in nutrient deficient environments are typically drenched in pesticides and dependent on artificial fertilizers. These substances pollute the soil and air, and can cause severe harm to one’s health. Studies also show that plants with genetic similarity (such as the ones grown in large scale agriculture) are more susceptible to disease2. If you have thousands of acres of identical plants, if one of them becomes pest-ridden or diseased, there is not a lot of hope for its neighbors. Some reports even claim that this could have been the reason behind the infamous potato famine in nineteenth-century Ireland3. On a more current and national note, the government is currently subsidizing large groups of farmers to grow corn and soybeans in an effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. When this growth is done on monocrop plantations, however, the strategy is counterproductive, because the production of biofuels is ridiculously oil-intensive. More or less, what all of this means is that spending the additional money for an on organic apple versus an out-of-season, genetically modified apple from Haiti may end up saving you cash and headaches in the future.
As a complete contrast to these super farms, there are still a good amount of small, family-operated “polycrop” plots of land that act as an alternative for people who refuse to support industrial agriculture. The fact that these farms are being labeled as alternative is almost as backwards as the methods that they combat. Since when are ancient, tried-and-true techniques a fallback for mechanized mass production? They shouldn’t be, and in the near future, they physically cannot be. With an exponentially growing mass of mouths to feed, and an exponentially dwindling supply of usable land, alternative alternatives will need to come into play.
____________________________________________
1 “Companion Planting” <http://www.ghorganics.com/page2.html>
2 “Mono-Cropping and Large Scale Farming” <http://221.135.189.183/drupal/?q=node/567>
3 “The Blight Begins” <http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/begins.htm>