Origin: African Violets or Saintpaulia were first discovered by Baron Walter von Saint Paul-Illaire who came upon the plant in Tanzania, Africa. Saintpaulia was named after him. They are called African Violets because when first discovered they were noticed to look similar to average violets. This plant is most commonly found in Tanzania and Kenya.
Nutrition: The flowers are edible and the petals and leaves of this plant are non toxic yet they may cause mild allergic reactions. The flowers can be candied or crystallized to be put on cakes as decoration.
Interesting Facts: Cats love to eat these plants and are not harmed by them but it is always a good idea to watch your cat eat them just in case!
Through seemly random images and a creepy soundtrack, we will attempt to get the viewer to feel empathy for the destruction of our environment.. All of the scenes symbolize something different that has to do with deforestation and how the world will is affected. Our project relates to environmental science because trees are a big part of the environment and as people are tearing them down for raw goods and to make farmland, we as a planet are losing habitats and oxygen. We wanted to show that humans are doing damage to the planet and to themselves through a video with no dialogue. This topic is so powerful it doesn’t even need dialogue. Through different images we will show that younger generations are affected by a problem they didn’t create, and that people will ultimately suffer from their destructive behavior.
Our visual shots include: a. Girl in white (younger generation) running through forest to symbolize the younger generations wanting to reverse time and run away from their problems. There will be a man in a business suit (corporations) running past the younger girl trying to run away from the crisis at hand. b. Show light coming through the leaves of the trees which symbolizes there is hope left if people could see it and stop cutting down trees. c. A woman (Mother Nature) sitting in front of a projector where images of burning trees are projected on her crying face. This symbolizes that Mother Nature is unhappy that her trees are dying. d. Overlooking 163 on bridge to show the trees in the middle of the moving car lights. This symbolizes the merging of industrial urban life and the forest.
Our audio includes: a. Breathing symbolizing that trees give us oxygen b. Leaves moving c. Falling Trees d. Fire e. In the forest noises f. Strange deep synth beats to give an eerie vibe g. Discordant melody
Sources
Fearnside, Philip, M. "Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: The Effect of Population and Land Tenure." JSTOR Dec. 1993: 9. JSTOR. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
Joanne, Burgess. "Timber Production, Timber Trade and Tropical Deforestation." JSTOR May 1993: 8. JSTOR. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
Houghton, R.A.."Tropical Deforestation as a source for greenhouse gas emissions." Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change 11 Nov. 2009: 13. Tropical Deforestation as a souce for greenhouse gas emissions. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
Nelson, Gerald. "Deforestation, Land Use, and Property Rights: Empirical Evidence from Darién, Panama." Land Economics 1 Jan. 2001: 2. Land Economics. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.
Moran, Emilio. "Deforestation and land use in the Brazilian Amazon." SpringerLink 21.1 (2009): 21. Springerlink. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
Borade, Gaynor. "Facts about Deforestation." Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. Buzzle.com, 21 Apr. 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. .
Rogge, Daniel. "Deforestation and Landslides in Southwestern Washington." University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. University of Wisconsin, n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. .
Taylor, Leslie. "Rainforest Facts." Wealth of the Rainforest - Pharmacy to the World from Raintree Nutrition, Inc.. Raintree, n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. .
Wilson, E.O.. "The Future of Life." World Book Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. .
Most of my sources had only their abstracts to display. In order to access more amounts of information, I am considering creating accounts on these different sites.
Fearnside, Philip, M. "Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: The Effect of Population and Land Tenure." JSTOR Dec. 1993: 9. JSTOR. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
This is an article about the forestland lost in Brazil. Lots of Brazil is made up of the Amazon rainforest. The actual site wasn’t able to give enough useful information, but I took down its information in order to later access it through other means. Its abstract mentioned interesting statistics that got way deeper into how Amazonion land is deforested. I learned that about 70% of deforested land is attributed to medium sized and large ranches.
Joanne, Burgess. "Timber Production, Timber Trade and Tropical Deforestation." JSTOR May 1993: 8. JSTOR. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
I found this article at the same website as the previous citation. I think it would be an investment to create an account with JSTOR, so that I would have easier access to these articles. This piece specially talked about the cause of deforestation, like the timber industry, and what the deforested land is used for.
Houghton, R.A.."Tropical Deforestation as a source for greenhouse gas emissions." Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change 11 Nov. 2009: 13. Tropical Deforestation as a souce for greenhouse gas emissions. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
This site actually took me to a 137 page pdf of different articles. Each article focused on a negative impact of deforestation. Just scanning through the article, I could see lots of statistics, which will provide some nice concrete resources.
Nelson, Gerald. "Deforestation, Land Use, and Property Rights: Empirical Evidence from Darién, Panama." Land Economics 1 Jan. 2001: 2. Land Economics. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.
This article suggested an interesting point, in the rights of indigenous population of deforested land. How can land in the Amazon and other areas of South America be purchased, when there have been people living on that land for years?
Moran, Emilio. "Deforestation and land use in the Brazilian Amazon." SpringerLink 21.1 (2009): 21. Springerlink. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
It is nice to collect data of a similar subject on a geographical variance. Earlier, I researched deforestation in the Panama, and here I found some great information on the Brazilian Amazon.
Monocultures and seasonal crop rotation are two very different agricultural practices. One advocates production and the gross output, while the other argues for sustainability. Since before the 1950s, America has been “better living through chemicals,” an idea that is the backbone of modern monocultures. Now however, there is a calling for change about where we get our food from, and how it is produced. Monocultures and seasonal crop rotation represent a major issue in agriculture today: the argument over sustainability and environmental impact: capitalists vs. environmentalists. Monocultures can be useful, but their effect on the environment is gradually outweighing their benefits.
To understand why the use of monocultures must be better executed, one must first understand what a monoculture is. Growing monocultures means harvesting only one specific crop from a significant amount of space (Cook; Dweller, 2009). Industrial farms often use monocultures so that they can plant “more efficiently” on a large scale (Deneen, 2008). On larger industrial farms, monocultures are often the more convenient option as opposed to planting with a lot of species diversity. The care and cultivation of just one type of crop means only one type of machinery will need to be used (Garret, 2002). Farmers and laborers can use the same equipment over vast acres, saving time and energy. Monocultures also give farmers the highest crop yield. By planting a crop that is a staple in the American diet, over a large expanse of land (corn, wheat, ect.), a farmer is sure to have a sizeable surplus, that will still be in demand (Cook; Dweller, 2009). This surplus can be sold easily, making more money for the farmer.
Despite being convenient, monocultures have quite a few cons. Industrial farmers believe using chemistry to their advantage. Pesticides, herbicides, and genetic modification are all fair game. The use of pesticides actually has an interesting background. During World War II, German scientists tinkered with biological weapons and chemicals to use against their enemies on the front. After the war was over, the United States along with Germany was left with a vast stockpile of deadly chemicals without a purpose. Upon experimenting with a few of the chemicals, scientist found that formulas once used to kill humans could be engineered to kill insects and other pests. Thus, the idea of “better living through chemicals” was born (Science Encyclopedia, 2009).
Unfortunately, great technology also has its downsides. In recent years, pesticides and herbicides developed to kill weeds have been used in staggering quantities (Science Encyclopedia, 2009). Advocates of organic agriculture worry about the health effects of eating produce that holds qualities of a poison apple.Excessive use of artificially enhanced fertilizers has added to the list of problems. Ground water from same areas of industrial farms has shown appalling health standards. The excess fertilizers and pest killers have led to horrible water contamination and wildlife destruction, through ground water and runoffs into rivers streams (Science Encyclopedia, 2009). Such offenses have led to a movement for more purely produced produce, better known as organic agriculture.
Organic agriculture is another way of saying the opposite of industrialized farming. Organic farmers use no pesticides or artificially enhanced soil. Instead, they strategize over the placement of each crop. This may sound trivial, but the layout of an organic farm will most likely determine its survival. Companion planting is one major idea behind crop placement (Heiniger, 2009). In gardening and agriculture, there is a belief that certain crops grow better with others. Some claims are a little farfetched, but companion planting holds a fair amount of legitimacy.
Legumes like alfalfa and clover are able to ensure more prosperous growth for plants in close proximity, without the aid of chemicals. Legumes undergo a phenomenon known as nitrogen fixation (Heiniger, 2009). The roots of these plants are able to gather nitrogen, an important element in plant growth, and spread it among neighboring crops. Through nitrogen fixation, plants are able to grow more quickly with a greener look.Organic farming is also a more healthy practice for the environment. No use of artificial chemicals for expanses of monocultures means limited if any ground water contamination. It also means naturally healthy soil. In organic farming, farmers rotate crops throughout the year. Instead of planting just one crop in one area for the whole year, an intricate system is implanted to transition the soil from each type of plant. Switching crops in an area of land gives a chance for soil to recuperate after maybe a particularly difficult season (Aanand, 2005). Healthier soil also means that artificial fertilizers aren’t necessary, because the soil is already in great shape.
When livestock aids organic farming, new potentials are available. In Argentina, famers have created an 8-year system that requires no harsh chemicals and has no environmental consequences. For the first 2 years on a plot of land, livestock like cows and sheep graze on the fields, consuming weeds and other annoyances. After the 2 years are over, undesirable plants have long been extinct from the land, taking away the need for any sort of herbicides (Pollan, 2008).
Switching out crops not only is good for the land, but good for biodiversity of all kinds. Having different plants together means more types of life can be supported.If a gardener is planting multiple crops in a plot of land, endless possibilities exist with what each plant can contribute to the garden. Cilantro for example, attracts ladybugs, and the flowers attract honeybees. Ladybugs are often known as “gardeners’ best friend,” for their efficiency in pest control (Ellison, 2005).Honeybees help pollinate flowers and spread genetic traits. Other plants like spearmint naturally repel ants, and the list of useful organisms available in a garden goes on (Golden Harvest Organics, 2009). To put it simple, more types of plants means more advantages for the gardener.
Aside from personal gain and advantage, biodiversity means everything to the environment (Merck, 2008). Every plant or animal that is unnaturally removed from a location means a loss of a niche. Niches are the roles of each organism, plant or animal. An easy way to think of a niche is a job, like the ladybugs’ job to take away aphids (Ellison, 2005). If certain jobs are removed from an environment, certain cycles or processes will not be able to be completed. Therefore, more varied organisms within a community mean more roles are being filled.
Rotating crops and having ample biodiversity is not without much added trouble. More human labor is required, and specialized farm equipment cannot work for all crop types. While pesticides are not used, there is no complete guarantee that insects and weeds won’t pose a problem. Unfortunately, America is at time where the food industry needs to be reformed, starting with the way people grow their food. While monocultures aren’t environmentally sound enough to call sustainable, their innovation and new technology are practices people should be able to be put to use in a way that is not so detrimental to the environment.
Works Cited
Aanand. "Crop Rotations- Benefit of Crop Rotations." Dairy Nutrient. 2005. University of Wisconsin. 9 October. 2009.
Cook, R.J; Dweller, D.M. “In Defense of Monoculture.” 4th International Crop Science Congress. The Regional Institute, Ltd. N.d. 13 October. 2009. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/1128_cookrj.htm
“Crop Rotation and Intercropping.” Farm Radio International. 2004. Farm Radio International. 9 October. 2009. http://www.farmradio.org/english/radio-scripts/72-6script_en.asp.
Deneen, Patrick. “Against Monoculture.” The Political Theory of Daily Life. 2008. Blogger.com. 13 October. 2009. http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2008/04/against-monoculture.html
Ellison, James. "Lady Bugs Are Your #1 Natural Pest Control." Home and Gardening Forums & Blogs - Garden Stew. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Nov. 2009. .
Garret, Jared. “The Pros and Cons of Specialized Agriculture.” Helium.com. Helium. 2002. Web. October 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/276368-the-pros-and-cons-of-specialized-agriculture
Heiniger, Ron. “Crop Rotation” Organic Field Crop Production and Marketing in North Carolina. 2005. North Carolina State University. 9 October. 2009. http://www.organicgrains.ncsu.edu/production/croprotation.htm.
Merck, John. “The Biodiversity Crisis, and Why it Matters.” 2008. 13 October. 2009. http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite/lectures/biodiversity.html
“Monoculture.” The University of Reading. ECIFM. N,d. 13 October. 2009. http://www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/monoculture.htm
Pollan, Michael. “The Food Issue.” 2008. The New York Times. 5 Nov. 3009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html>
How many acres in the wild are taken over every day?
"Rates of Deforestation." 2009. n.p. October 21 2009 http://www.adrian.edu/chemistry/th/Somelinks/Spages/spalik/rates.php
This site claimed that every minute 149 acres are deforested. That means that every day, 214,000 acres are lost. The site also contained several useful charts, in global terms how land is developed. It is helpful that the site gives examples. For example, 214,000 acres is an area larger than New York City. That statistic in particular to me was staggering.
Is deforestation even reversible?
"Defaunation like Deforestation threatens global biodiversity." Mongabay.com. 2009 n.p. 21 October 2009. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0520-interview_dirzo.html
This site was interesting because it addressed my question, but did not focus on it. It was a website explaining defaunation, which is the eradication of species diversity from ecosystems. It claims that all major climate changing issues are reversible (including deforestation), while defaunation is irreversible.
Scott Lindquist Monocultures and seasonal crop rotation are two very different agricultural practices. One advocates production and the gross output, while the other proclaims sustainability. Since at least the 1950s, America has been “better living through chemicals,” an idea that is the backbone of modern monocultures. Now however, there is a calling for change about where we get our food from, and how it is processed. Monocultures and seasonal crop rotation represent a major issue in agriculture today: the argument over sustainability and environmental impact. Monocultures today can be useful, but certain areas of their practice need to be reformed.
To understand why the use of monocultures must be better executed, one must first understand what a monoculture is. Growing monocultures means harvesting only one specific crop from a significant amount of space. Industrial farms often use monocultures so that they can plant “more efficiently” on a large scale. On larger industrial farms, monocultures are often the more convenient option as opposed to planting with a lot of species diversity. The care and cultivation of just one type of crop means only one type of machinery will need to be used. Farmers and laborers can use the same equipment over vast acres, saving time and energy. Monocultures also give farmers the highest crop yield. By planting a crop that is a staple in the American diet, over a large expanse of land (corn, wheat, ect.), a farmer is sure to have a sizeable surplus. This surplus can be sold easily, making more convenient money for the farmer.
Monocultures aren’t all good though unfortunately. The repeated use of such popular practice can and has had adverse effect on the health and economy of America. Industrial farmers believe in “better living through chemicals.” This means artificially enhanced fertilizers and pesticides and very important. The use of pesticides actually has an interesting background. During World War II, German scientists tinkered with biological weapons and chemicals to use against their enemies on the front. After the war was over, the United States along with Germany was left with a vast stockpile of deadly chemicals without a purpose. Upon tweaking with a few of the chemicals, scientist found that formulas once used to kill humans could be engineered to kill insects and other pests. Thus, the idea of “better living through chemicals” was born. Unfortunately, great technology also has its downsides. In recent years, pesticides and herbicides developed to kill weeds have been used in staggering quantities. Advocates of organic agriculture worry about the health effects of eating produce that once held qualities of a poison apple. Excessive use of artificially enhanced fertilizers has added to the list of problems. Ground water from same areas of industrial farms has shown appalling health standards. The excess fertilizers and pest killers have led to horrible contamination, making water undrinkable in some areas. Such offenses have led to a movement for more purely produced produce, better known as organic agriculture.
Organic agriculture is another way of saying the opposite of industrialized farming. Organic farmers use no pesticides or artificially enhanced soil. Instead, they strategize over the placement of each crop. This may sound trivial, but the layout of an organic farm will most likely determine its survival. Companion planting is one major idea behind crop placement. In gardening and agriculture, there is a belief that certain crops grow better with others. Some claims are a little farfetched, but companion planting holds a fair amount of legitimacy. Legumes like alfalfa and clover are able to ensure more prosperous growth for plants in close proximity, without the aid of chemicals. Legumes undergo a phenomenon known as nitrogen fixation. The roots of these plants are able to gather nitrogen, an important element in plant growth, and spread it among neighboring crops. Through nitrogen fixation, plants are able to grow more quickly with a greener look. Organic farming is also a more healthy practice for the environment. No use of artificial chemicals for expanses of monocultures means limited if any ground water contamination. It also means more naturally healthy soil. In organic farming, farmers rotate crops throughout the year. This means that instead of planting just one crop in one area for the whole year, and intricate system is implanted to transition the soil from each type of plant. Switching crops in an area of land gives a chance for soil to recuperate after maybe a particularly difficult season. Healthier soil also means that artificial fertilizers aren’t necessary, because the soil is already in great shape. When livestock aids organic farming, new potentials are available. In Argentina, famers have created an 8-year system that requires no harsh chemicals or environmental consequences. For the first 2 years on a plot of land, livestock like cows and sheep graze on the fields, consuming weeds and other annoyances. After the 2 years are over, undesirable plants have long been extinct from the land, taking away the need for any sort of herbicides.
Seasonal crop rotation is not without much added trouble. More human labor is required, and specialized farm equipment cannot work for all crop types. While pesticides are not used, there is no complete guarantee that insects and weeds won’t pose a problem at all. Unfortunately, America specifically is at time where its food industry needs to be reformed, starting with the way people grow their food. While monocultures aren’t environmentally sound enough to call sustainable, their innovation and new technology are practices people should be able to use in a way not so detrimental to the environment.
Works Cited Cook, R.J; Dweller, D.M. “In Defense of Monoculture.” 4th International Crop Science Congress. The Regional Institute, Ltd. N.d. 13 October. 2009. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/1128_cookrj.htm "Crop Rotations- Benefit of Crop Rotations." Dairy Nutrient. 2005. University of Wisconsin. 9 October. 2009. http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/468/page.php?id=166. “Crop Rotation and Intercropping.” Farm Radio International. 2004. Farm Radio International. 9 October. 2009. http://www.farmradio.org/english/radio-scripts/72-6script_en.asp. “Crop Rotation” Organic Field Crop Production and Marketing in North Carolina. 2005. North Carolina State University. 9 October. 2009. http://www.organicgrains.ncsu.edu/production/croprotation.htm. Deneen, Patrick. “Against Monoculture.” The Political Theory of Daily Life. 2008. Blogger.com. 13 October. 2009. http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2008/04/against-monoculture.html Garret, Jared. “The Pros and Cons of Specialized Agriculture.” Helium.com. Helium. N.d. Web. http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2008/04/against-monoculture.html Merck, John. “The Biodiversity Crisis, and Why it Matters.” N.d. 13 October. 2009. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/1128_cookrj.htm “Monoculture.” The University of Reading. ECIFM. N,d. 13 October. 2009. http://www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/monoculture.htm
"Crop Rotations- Benefit of Crop Rotations." Dairy Nutrient. 2005. University of Wisconsin. 9 October. 2009. http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/468/page.php?id=166.
This website was helpful because it gives a list of benefits of crop rotation. These range from decreasing economic risks, to soil improvement. The site definitely advocates taking care of the environment, and suggests crop rotations as an environmental benefit.
“Crop Rotation and Intercropping.” Farm Radio International. 2004. Farm Radio International. 9 October. 2009. http://www.farmradio.org/english/radio-scripts/72-6script_en.asp.
I thought this was a great website for this assignment because it’s the actual script from a radio show done on crop rotation. It shows that people are interested in its applications and benefits. Apparently, crop rotations help take down certain types of weeds, and also prevent them from growing again. This proves that herbicides aren’t necessary as long as you switch up your crops and are taking care of the soil.
“Crop Rotation” Organic Field Crop Production and Marketing in North Carolina. 2005. North CarolinaStateUniversity. 9 October. 2009. http://www.organicgrains.ncsu.edu/production/croprotation.htm.
It’s great to know about crop rotation, and the benefits of it, but it’s also great to know what crops are used. This website showed planned out rotations, ranging from soybeans to corn, that actual farmers use to help sell and market their crops. The site goes into different rotation patterns, and the pros of con of each pattern.
