Adds, Requests, Long Documents
Redistributed Approaches to Agriculture and land management.
Brainstorming and Philosophical ideas in the realm of Agriculture, Land etc etc.
Redistributing Agriculture: Why’s How’s and What’s
Agriculture has been shown to be a driving force of climate change. Not only does agriculture drive climate change, agriculture also Drives Economic Inefficiency and saps Budgets of Governing Nations everywhere. Agriculture also drives water shed degradements and shortfalls. Chemical Run-offs also taint and pollute drinking water, recreational swimming and fishing areas. Not to mention transportation networks, fuels, and infrastructure burdens. The old saying “Teach them to fish…” comes to mind. With a new system of Redistributed Agriculture, fishing stocks could replenish in great quantities (not the main point, but a good one; though my humor is dry and cynical). Now to the main points of this brief paper.
I would suggest first and foremost, to use the Data of plant zones according to the USDA map appearing here on the first page. This map is a suggestive map according to data. It will also be important to consider That Hardiness Zones relate to temperature and not water access. The other Three things to consider are;
1. current agriculture hearth locations
2. current disused agricultural locations
3. vested interests of Businesses located in the current hearths would understandably argue against redistribution. I argue that their objections ought to be heard as very much similar to companies who have reached monopoly standings. They will argue for their self interest and the preservation of their market control and domination.
I will also be focusing on a couple of specific crops as a lead in to the Redistributed Methodology. I am focusing on them for their “Utility in Parallel”. Utility in Parallel ought to be understood as solving more than one issue through their relocation. The issues I will focus on will be; Environmental, Economic, Logistical.. these terms mean something to many, however their meanings are a little overlapping in my understanding.
Focus Crop 1: Nut Crops
Focus Crop 2: Cotton
Focus Crop 3: Forests
A California Monopoly.
Nuts have a hardiness zone of anywhere in between zones 5 and 9. Spreading nut crops through out those zones, especially if more land is needed to meet current production, is a win. Nut trees will help mitigate floods. That would be a great boon for the floodplains of the American Midwest. How many fallow farms are there in the Midwest due to Flooding and associated economic burdens? More Trees are also good in terms of creating carbon sinks. The U.S. has lost 80% of its natural forested areas since the post Columbian era. The loss has been primarily due to Agriculture, Grazelands and Sprawling Settlements. This redistribution will help “Re-Plant the U.S.”
California holds a blatant monopoly in Nut Crops. So according to U.S. Systems, this monopoly ought to be broken up. I am told; “The Market of Choice is to be championed without a doubt”, however when choice patterns lead to Monopolies, which then sap Environments of needed resources AND the people of outside regions of competitive employability, then monopolies must be broken and redistributed.
The redistribution would mark the success of individuals and the products concerned. The redistribution, creates more producers and in turn, provides livelihoods to a more diverse labor market. In turn, it can also lead to market price drops, which can lead to greater usage of the product.
This creates a more available product. Gives consumers greater access. These two aspects would also create less transportation costs and less associated carbon burdens.
Nuts are tree crops. Therefore, they are very resilient to flooding. These crops are therefore better suited to the River regions that are prone to flood. Tree crops are also heavy consumers of water, which puts them very out of place in the California region where drought is Always near normal. Freeing the California region of such a water intensive crop will invigorate their remaining Natural Forests and Habitats.
Another Glance Towards Monopoly.
Cotton Has a Hardiness level of anywhere between 8-11. While Cotton would seem well suited to growing in Texas, it is only apparent when consider the water needs of Cotton, that Texas would be understood as not a prime location. Then one may research about aquifer management in the region to find the upcoming water strife for the entire mid Continent of the U.S.
In the case of cotton, Texas uses the more land to produce cotton than every other State indicated.
As Before, this could be seen as a bid to break up a Monopoly and all of the benefits gained through creating more jobs by redistributing production into other suitable regions. In the case of Cotton, the apparent water need would lead, again, to areas with rainfall abundance. i.e. back to the Warmer Atlantic Regions of the U.S. Another move could also be to work in tandem with the redistribution of the Nut trees previously mentioned as a method of counteracting floods. The intense water needs of Cotton, might be of the same beneficial use in that region. There is also evidence that field monoculture of crop type increases both pests and the usage of pesticides. Under the Redistributed methodology, mono-cultures could be limited and blendings of crop; i.e. tree grove and cotton patches may be able to limit larger infestations and crop loses thereby decreasing pesticide usages. Also soil quality would possibly increase as a result by gaining nutrients through poly-culture planting.
The same basic logistical answers are solved. Location of product to markets, less emissions in transportation costs. Again, even if more land is needed to cultivate the current yield, the benefits would be greater in context of employing more people not just in the farming, but in the manufacturing. By creating processing jobs and manufacturing jobs directly in the regions of Redistribution.
Freeing the Ogalala Aquifer of the water strains of cotton, would greatly increase its replenishment rate. This Aquifer is the main groundwater reserve for the entire Mid Continent. It would help create a more vibrant system that would sustain many more habitats and wildlife reserves.
Forests and Products,
A U.S. Deficiency
A couple of thoughts, as this is a first draft or a brainstorming of possible changes… forests themselves were never stagnate ecosystems.. and fields were never the only places that humans found food. this is important to consider. Nuts and many fruits are Tree Crops… Therefore Reforesting is not something limitted to only stock trees… food bearing trees are also trees. these must also be considered part of reforestation. Converting unused farmland back to forest does not mean disabling food productability… nut crops, tree crops, berry shrubs, flowering shrubs and trees are all forestable in varying ratios and could be intermingled to relieve our forested lands of mono-culture and used as bullworks and distractions for current crop invasive pests.