Adventures in Agriculture: Week 20 Distribution
by Eric Richard
Note: This was the last distribution. As part of this distribution, we also got one “make up” distribution since we missed week 9. So, this list contains the normal week 20 distribution plus the make up distribution.
- 2 bunches bok choi
- 2 heads cabbage
- 1 lb. parsnips
- 2 lb. carrots
- 3 butternut squash
- 1 lb. turnip
- 2 celery roots (celeriac)
- 1/2 lb. tomatillos
- 3 leeks
- 1/4 lb. brussel sprouts
- 1 1/2 lb. potatoes
- 3 heads garlic
- 1 pie pumpkin
That’s all folks! That’s the end of the CSA season. We’ll be posting some “wrap up” posts on the season next.
on November 14th, 2007 at 1:33 am
One interesting point–to me at least–not brought up in this discussion so far is how the trade of between labor intensity and capital intensity of farming affects the use of pesticides. You were abloe to harvest all summer because the far was diversified, with a lot of different crops. That requires a lot of labor, which is why you had to pitch in some. Modern farming is mostly monoculture which is less labor intense–but requires more captial investment in terms of land and machinery to be proftiable–and also less diverse. Monoculture makes insect pests worse-a single bug can rip through an entire crop. And so pesticides are necessary.
Diversity protects aginst the problem to a large extent. Even if one crop is attacked, there are others, meaning that the need for pesticides is much reduced, if not zeroed.
on November 14th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Josh, I do think that is a valid point. As far as I know, all of the crops from this particular farm were meant for direct human consumption. I have not been able to figure out what the usage breakdown is for monoculture crops in the US. For example, how much of that corn ends up directly on someone’s plate vs. being processed first and used in human food (e.g. high fructose corn syrup in soda) vs processed for animal feed vs processed to create other chemicals.
We seem to be fighting a losing battle trying to outpace the evolution rate for various pests (be they insects, bacteria, or viruses). So, I question the long-term viability of monoculture crops even before we talk about the environmental factors involved in trying to sustain those crops. On the other hand, crop rotation has existed basically since the beginnings of man’s attempts at agriculture.
Largely my question is, what is the cost of moving away from monoculture crops? If we are feeding the world on those crops, we are in trouble. If we are creating biodiesel, well, I already had questions about the viability of that industry.
on November 14th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Monoculture and crop rotation are different. Monoculture refers to the planting of huge tracts of land with the same plant, often the same cultivar. Even in intensely monoculture systems, crop rotation is sometimes used, either by leaving some fields fallow or alternating the crops, although the use of chemical fertilizers has reduced the need for rotation. The opposite of monoculture is polycultture–though as you can probably guess, the exact definitions of these terms depend on the scale we’re talking about.
As the Union of Concerned Scientists notes, currently all of America’s commodity crops are planted in monoculture–corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton. But lots and lots of other crops are, too: tomatoes and rice and peaches and strawberries and lettuce and on and on.
While I agree with you that “we seem to be losing the battle trying to outpace the evolution rate of various pests,” I don’t think that necessarilly means monoculture will collpase under its own weight. Its been practiced int he MidWest for about 150 years, in the West for about 100 years, and in the SOuth for about 60 years, during which time it has weathered insect resistance and the Great Depression. And its done so because of continued technical advances and an agricultural public policy that subsidizes the system and encourages reliance on ever newer technologies. As we speak, the makers of Round Up are genetically engineering crop plants to be resistant to their herbicide so that Round Up can be sprayed over millions of acres. It won’t work, of course–someday there’ll be a horixzontal transfer of the resistance genes to soem weed species, then watch out!–but it only has to work a little while, given that the government will continue to pump money into the system to sustain it. It’s wildly iniefficient, but it will continue to work.
Unless, as a country, we decide on somethign different. There’s been a lot of research on your final question–aboutt hte cost of switching–and in general it seems that given all the externalities created by the current system, America could have a agriculture that was just about as productive as the current one for about the same price–but, again, you’re swapping a lot of capital investment in terms of machinery, etc., for a mor elabor intensive one. It’s my understanding that such an agricultural system is dominant in Europe, which should indicate that the world could still be fed.
on November 17th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Josh, you’re right; I shouldn’t have conflated polyculture crops with crop rotation. With that said, even as a technologist, I think we are playing with danger to think we are going to out invent the pests. Even 100 years of monoculture crops isn’t very long when you consider that we’ve spent half that time relying on one chemical pesticide or another.
I do think your point about the capital investment needed to switch is dead on. I am coming to this problem wondering how best to get dinner on my plate and everyone else’s plates. Businesses like ADM are wondering how to make the most money and get the greatest ROI for their investors. ADM’s motivation and mine aren’t necessarily in sync, particularly in the short-term.