Essay: Monocultures and Seasonal Rotation

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