#monocrops

[balkanradfem]

So, I've been reading 'Seeds of Hope' by Jane Goodall, because I am curious to what other people are saying about plants, and this book truly delivered. I've been introduced to some past plant drama in the world and that was incredible lore that should have been taught in history.

Apparently, when people first discovered tulips, they were so intensely valuable and popular, that people would trade huge amounts of money, diamonds, or even acres of land, for just one bulb. People were pre-paying for bulbs that didn't even exist yet, they would pre-order bulbs that are not yet even made. One servant ate a bulb thinking it was an onion and he got jail time for it. And I mean they're all correct, tulips just are that good.

There was also a lot of, much sadder drama about orchids; I didn't know this, but they originally grow very high up in the trees, and people were competing for discovering new and rare species. These rare and exotic species would then be displayed in rich people's gardens. Because they became so valuable, poachers would go trough the forests and take almost all of the orchids in there, making them near extinct in nature. This was resolved by orchid gardeners carefully growing them, multiplying and sharing to the point where they were sold commercially, which lessened their value on the black market, so there was no need to pillage them from the forests anymore. Growing rare plants is protection of them!

The book goes on to talk about botanic gardens, herbariums, and the value of collecting and archiving plant material, which is then showing us the effects of climate change, and stores valuable information about what is happening to the plants. It made me want to start a herbarium for sure, I'm always stressed about the loss of local plants, and it's happening more and more as green areas are cleared out.

The book touches upon plants that people have found harmful, such as plants that people make drugs out of; she clears it out to us that these plants are sacred to the native people who grew up with them, and creating drugs from them is in fact, abuse of these plants, and offensive to the communities who hold them sacred, and use them in appropriate doses as medicine. The book talks a lot about plant medicine! Apparently the pharmacy companies have been learning the knowledge about medicinal plants from native people who knew how to use plant medicine, and then the pharmacy would make medicine from those same plants, and profit off of it, without giving any credit or profit to the communities they got this knowledge from, which is not great. But then the demand for this medicine would go so high, they would go and gather all, or almost all medicinal plants from the areas where native people lived, devastating their medical supplies and natural habitats. Book goes on to question the ethics of acquiring medicine in this way, and never informing people where it came from, or what was sacrifices in order for the world to have it.

Similar things happened with valuable crops that are grown in native areas; once the demand for these crops grew, big monocrop fields were established, damaging the land and the local ecosystem, killing millions of animals who lived there, and sometimes forcing people or children into modern slavery, in order to grow them. Coffee, cocoa beans, vanilla beans, palm oil; they've been described as specifically devastating for the communities and the environment. But the book doesn't condemn these foods at all, instead the author goes on to describe, what has been done to improve this. Instead of monocrops, which are devastating for the environment, people are now taught to grow fruit trees in the same fields as coffee, which makes the coffee plants healthier and stronger, and creates and environment where some plants and animals can thrive. I personally don't believe you should have only 2 or 3 plants in a big area, I think you need about 3 millions, but it's a progress from monocrops.

The author describes finding and helping the local farmers who found ways to healthy, natural and non-damaging growing of these plants, and she helped them sell it! She also encourages buying organic food because it helps if the demand for non-monocrop food is growing.

Now there's a section of the book standing strongly against GMO foods, and for some reason I never heard any arguments against gmo, I didn't understand much about the harm coming from them, so I was very curious to hear this. The author explained how 47 million dollars was spent just for lobbying for GMO, which explains why all my information on gmo was positive, and I remember hearing it was 'the best way to reduce world hunger', but the world hunger is still a problem, so it obviously did not succeed. But now I have a better understanding of what it is.

GMO foods were specifically developed to have pesticides inside of them, so they'd be poisonous to pests, but not to people eating them. The research on whether they're poisonous to animals showed that the animals who ate them long term, had their inner organs irritated, enlarged, stomach infections, and had higher risk of cancer. So it was not proven to be safe, but it ended up in the stores anyway; the author says that about 70% of food in american supermarkets has unlabelled gmo, which is scary to think about. She also explains that this is the reason so many people in america are now trying to grow food at home, they don't want to be poisoned by pesticides.

GMO foods were specifically designed to support monocrops, and to protect them pests; this worked out in creating more and more bugs that are resistant to the pesticides, and farmers have reported the appearance of 'superbugs', which are resistant to any kind of pesticide. There's now also 'superweeds', which are resistant to herbicide. The industry is trying to develop new pesticides and new herbicides, in order to counter these new problems, but it is obvious that they're only sinking deeper and deeper; monocrops are unsustainable. Poisoning the earth and the plants, and even the seeds, is not going to lead to the end of world hunger. Farmers are often ending up losing their entire farms due to new bugs that are now thriving because all of their competition has been eliminated by pesticides, they're now the only bug and they can eat up the entire crop easily.

The other problem of GMO crops is that they're spreading their seeds and mixing with the natural crops, making them into GMO crops as well. According to the author the canola crops has already been lost, now all canola existing is genetically modified.

I'm dissatisfied with this knowledge, but it's better to know and be aware rather than to be in the dark. The author suggests designing living spaces that have gardens in them, and encouraging local community to garden, as well as planting city gardens, where food would grow for everyone. She goes on to describe the efforts of universities and cities who already had built their own living gardens in order to support the community, and how it worked to create a more beautiful, life-sustaining, happier place. She even explained how having local gardens makes the crime rate lower.

I loved this book, it had the environment awareness that can only be compared to Greta Thunberg's book, it described trees and plants so lovingly, and the connection people have with them. It showed me there's so many people fighting to save the forests and grasslands and native plants, and it's an effort that will make a big difference to how we get to live on this planet in the future.

[aeolianblues]

good god girl, maybe some of us are not vegan because we eat chicken like once in three months?? Would reduction not be a more productive goal of vegan activism than outright banning? Like if your arguments are that animals are being eaten, then you’re being unrealistic about the entire actual concept of the food chain. Humans are omnivores, you do not need to change that to achieve your goals.

A vegan lifestyle is also entirely the product of your geographical location. If you live somewhere that shit does not grow, what are you going to do?? I just think about the difference between food options in India and Canada, for example. India: between the tropics (tropics and equator even, in fact). All-year-round sun, there’s pretty much always stuff growing. Different kinds of land will mean you can grow everything from staples like rice and wheat to vegetables, fruits and plantation crops. It’s reflected in the cuisines: Indian food has a much, much wider offering of vegetarian food, and many more Indians have restricted diets that more or less overlap with vegetarianism. Because crops grows. Locally.

Canada. Harvest in the fall, from November to March, your fields are practically unusable. Compare the prices of fresh produce in (and now I’m being generous to give you a highly populated, non-remote province here for an example) Ontario. Ontario has farms where in the fall you get fresh autumn vegetables and fruits. You’ll also get them in larger quantities. It is way cheaper, fresher and also uses less energy and fuel to transport the vegetables like 50 km from farm to market.

Come the winter and nothing grows. If you look at most vegetables you’ll find on store shelves in December or February, and most of it is either imported from warmer regions of the US (often the case for chains that are in both countries) or from South American countries (sometimes SA -> USA -> Canada). The importing has to go through cross-country customs, had to be driven for days, is less fresh or rich in nutrients by the time you get it, and is more expensive. Of course. And we all come out of it poorer. Is it any wonder why people will eat meat? We’re even talking here about a place like Ontario, very well connected on North American trade routes. Can you justify someone in Yukon deciding to eat meat over a $17/lb. green veg? Be for fucking real…

There simply cannot be a blanket-global solution to animal products. You’ve got to work with what your geography has to offer. It’s the same thing we say when we say that avocados have an environmental cost when you expect them to be available year-round in places they don’t grow. We encourage people to go for more local produce there, and I think the same should go for all parts of your diet too. If your animals are local, then their footprint is lower than importing kiwis from New Zealand to the US. I don’t see how that’s hard to understand.

[inkandguns]

Nature finds a way

[rotzaprachim]

I’ve been reading grist by abra berens which is kind of a bible on how to cook whole grams and legumes - very useful - but actually has a ton of interesting info on agricultural policy and interviews with various stripes of midwestern farmer, and it’s quite eye opening. It’s from a more progressive leaning but midwestern perspective, and I don’t think I agree with berens on everything but it really highlights how complex and messy a lot of food system reform issues are from the people actually trying to make those changes

[sliceofdyke]

i wonder if my ap environmental science teacher would like dungeon meshi

[jbfly46]

Besides monocropping itself making a society susceptible to famine, wheat also attracts pests and mold.

[princehendir]

Based permaculturist Senshi

[cuz-reasons]

Finally started watching dungeon meshi and the amount of excitement I felt when they were talking about gardening on the golems was immeasurable

[seth-the-giggle-fish]

hey, quick question to the void, do you think bananas are native to the geographical locations that are now part of the United States? The original question for a class was:

"Think about a world in which there were no international trade.  What would be different in your life? Your career?"

To which I responded about the most important things, food, computers, transportation. My instructor responded with some comments and additional questions including why would we want to trade with other countries when the united states has a wide span of climates to grow all kinds of crops and specifically asked how the united states could create and grow banana groves.

[foe-of-fate]

Sitting here thinking about the old type of banana that isn’t around anymore because it got a disease that spread to all the other banana crops. More specifically I’m thinking about how agribusiness learned absolutely nothing about that and continues to grow monocrops which degenerate the soil, decrease variety within the species, and increase the likelihood of that happening again.

Thinking about bananas being clones of each other and how dystopian that is but God forbid we get a banana that isn’t shaped perfectly well or doesn’t appear to be vibrantly yellow and plastic looking.

Thinking about how the attempt to grow produce for aesthetics will inevitably result in an even narrower market of products than what is currently available.

The market is cornered and we’re going to either lose more species to disease because they aren’t allowed to evolve disease resistance, or farmers are going to sacrifice flavor for appearance and profit.

Honesty just fuck big agriculture. Fuck ag-gag laws, fuck the disappointment that is the current red delicious apple, fuck profit over planet, and God bless the Gros Michel banana.

[female-malice]

The Treaty of reciprocity between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom (Hawaiian: Kuʻikahi Pānaʻi Like) was a free trade agreement signed and ratified in 1875 that is generally known as the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. The treaty gave free access to the United States market for sugar and other products grown in the Kingdom of Hawaii starting in September 1876. In return, the US gained lands in the area known as Puʻu Loa for what became known as the Pearl Harbor naval base. The treaty led to large investment by Americans in sugarcane plantations in Hawaii.

The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a coup d'état against Queen Liliʻuokalani, which took place on January 17, 1893, on the island of Oahu and led by the Committee of Safety, composed of seven foreign residents and six Hawaiian Kingdom subjects of American descent in Honolulu. The Committee prevailed upon American minister John L. Stevens to call in the U.S. Marines to protect the national interest of the United States of America. The insurgents established the Republic of Hawaii, but their ultimate goal was the annexation of the islands to the United States, which occurred in 1898.

The Big Five (Hawaiian: Nā Hui Nui ʻElima) was the name given to a group of what started as sugarcane processing corporations that wielded considerable political power in the Territory of Hawaii during the early 20th century, and leaned heavily towards the Hawaii Republican Party. The Big Five were Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., American Factors (now Amfac), and Theo H. Davies & Co. The extent of the power that the Big Five had was considered by some as equivalent to an oligarchy. Attorney General of Hawaii Edmund Pearson Dole, referring to the Big Five, said in 1903: "There is a government in this Territory which is centralized to an extent unknown in the United States, and probably almost as centralized as it was in France under Louis XIV."

[mayra-quijotescx]

[Image description: the Trolley Problem diagram, with one person tied to the alternate track and five people tied to the default track. Alternate track is labeled "kill some animals for a decades lasting, biodegradable material that insulates and breathes very well." Default track is labeled "poison the entire earth with plastic garments that fall apart in 2 years and get dumped in a Ghanaian or Chilean landfill." End description.]

[eso-studies]

me: why do readings always take so long

also me: author has referred to Agamemnon as “overlord” of the other Homeric kings in the context of developing Macedonian kingship. time for a margin essay and 20min research hole ab the intricacies of Agamemnon’s power as “anax” vs “basileus”

[trinketization]

Tally me bananas (for research ot only breakfast)

From: https://www.mekongeye.com/2025/02/17/banana-soil-bust-2 This article from Mekong Eye I want to read later, so since evernote is not working I am putting this here for now: “OUDOMXAY & BOKEO, LAOS – Northern Laos is experiencing soil degradation after years of monocropping and widespread chemical use on banana farms operated by Chinese entrepreneurs. Thiep doesn’t remember the name of…

[decodingbiosphere]

The Environmental Impact of Monocropping: Challenges and Solutions

Monocropping, the agricultural practice of growing a single crop species on the same land year after year, has become a dominant farming strategy in many parts of the world. While it offers certain economic advantages, such as simplified farming techniques and increased efficiency, monocropping also poses significant environmental risks. This article explores the various ways monocropping impacts…

[finsterhund]

God stupid fucking neighbor completely derailed how happy and successful I felt seeing that the little neglected and dying oak tree in the McDonald's parking lot that I've been maintaining and taking care of under cover of night has now gotten tiny baby acorns starting. I didn't even think oaks that small could produce acorns.

If I take and take and am destructive then why baby acorns from my hand?

Fuck you.