U.s. Agriculture And Agricultural Productivity

Through the period of 1865-1900, America’s agriculture underwent a series of changes .Changes that were a product of influential role that technology, government policy and economic conditions played. To extend on this idea, changes included the increase on exported goods, do the availability of products as well as the improved traveling system of rail roads. In the primate stages of these developing changes, farmers were able to benefit from the product, yet as time passed by, dissatisfaction grew within them. They no longer benefited from the changes (economy went bad), and therefore they no longer supported railroads. Moreover they were discontented with the approach that the government had taken towards the situation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers food assistance programs that help provide food for low to no income families. It is their goal to increase food security and reduce hunger by increasing access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education for low-income Americans (Caswell, 2013, para. 1). Some of the current nutrition assistance programs include “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)”(Caswell, 2013, para. 1). SNAP will be the primary nutrition assistance program of the paper at hand. No matter how morally good it is to try to help reduce hunger and increase food security within the United States, there are still many questions regarding issues with SNAP. This paper will be discussing why there is such a strong support for the program, how it helps the United States as a whole, problems with the program, and why some people are against SNAP.

Over the years agriculture has nearly diminished from the workforce. Why is this happening? In fact, ever since the Industrial Revolution’s promises of “big city success” agriculture has taken a hit. Agriculture has been a foundation for the infrastructure of the United States since it’s creation. Agricultural careers are a necessity for the nation. It is important through the history, from whom it affects, the effects on the environment and people, and to find a solution to the loss of this core element.

Monsanto positions itself as a relatively new agricultural company having formed in 2002, and focused on supporting local farmers around the world. They also promote themselves as a guardian of the environment with a mission “to produce more food while conserving more” (Monsanto.com). Today’s Monsanto conglomerate also promotes itself as the “New Merchants,” a leading research company in the field of agriculture-crop production, as well as a strong supporter of public and private research through its grant, donations and University scholarship programs.

It is a known fact that the way humans produce food is not sustainable for a bright future. Here in America we discard almost half the amount of food we produce, which could be used to feed the enormous amount of starving people in the world. Not only are we being wasteful, but we are also greatly contributing to the amount of pollution and greenhouse gases because of our practices. After reading “What’s for supper?” my eyes were further opened to how damaging our agricultural system is and inspired me to take on a “greener” lifestyle.

In the time period between 1865 and 1900 technology,government policy,and economic conditions really changed American agriculture. The technology made farming more efficient,and more profitable. Government policies both helped and hindered farmers with helping them transport their products,but they also “stole” from the farmers to help make the government more money. The economic conditions helped farmers with selling more products,and helping cities grow;along with starving families almost to death. All of these coming together really changed American agriculture.

Genetic engineering is already providing a more stable solution for agricultural production in the economy to stand on. In nine years (i.e. 1996-2005), profits from genetically modified crops were twenty-seven billion dollars. Those twenty-seven billion dollars were not just in the United States or countries like it, but the profits almost split half and half between first and third world countries (O'Neill 19). In India, for example, cotton yields have jumped to one hundred-fifty percent from the use of genetically modified crops, vastly increasing the farmers’ profits (19). The planting of these crops can really help farmers know what they are going to make every year and plan accordingly. Also, helping the farmers’ expenses is the lack of chemical pesticides needed on the crops and reducing time spent using the pricey traditional breeding methods (Mannion and Morse 749-751). Even if genetically modified crops are not planted in every field, adjoining fields can benefit due to the “halo effect.” The “halo effect” is the ability of pest protection on the genetically modified crops to affect the non-genetically modified crops due to the lack of insects in the genetically modified field (754). Genetically modified crops affect the economy in a positive way and should be seen as a smart

A discourse community follows Swales’ six characteristics: members share common goals, has a form of communication, a form of feedback, genres, a specific lexis, and has a level of expertise all within the group (Swales 25). I believe the Future Farmers of America is a great candidate for this topic for that it falls in to the categories listed by Swales. The start of Future Farmers of America came in 1900s in the state of Virginia. Adolescent to teenage males were not interested in farming and did not want to take over the family farms. This led to a homegrown farmer becoming the supervisor of Agriculture Education and set out to fix this problem, Walter Newman. With the help of Edmund C, Magill, Harry W. Sanders and the most influential Henry

The farmers then give their products to the manufacturers, who represent the bottleneck of the food system (21). “The ten largest companies control half of the world’s seed supply. …Ten firms control 90% of the nearly $38.6 billion pesticide markets (111-112).” Monsanto, being one of the ten companies that controls the world’s seed supply, is a company that has patents on all of its seeds and products. It produces genetically modified crops that are resistant to its own pesticides and herbicides, so that when a pesticide or herbicide is sprayed and it destroys all plants, the Monsanto seed survives because of its resistance. The reason that Monsanto is able to stay in business is because of the economic benefit it poses for the farmers. They are able to produce their crops at a much higher yield because they are losing less of their crops to pests. This higher yield results in lower costs for the consumers as well (Planes). As discussed

The Labor Unions protect their workers in many different ways people do not know. The Unions make it possible for their members to receive adequate pay better benefits, have left of absences, and have vacation time when you ask and not take the punishment for it. Once you are in the union books it is hard to be fired from it. There is a downside of it, you can be laid off which is not being fired.

Farmers across the country build their lives around the crops that they produce. The crops support their family and their lifestyle. Today, farmers are very concerned about outsiders that are invading their territory. The outsiders are taking away their livelihood. Certainly, the financial impact is very devastating and might lead to thousands of farms losing money and farmers abandoning their farms. You've probably heard the news that farmers filed a lawsuit against Syngenta because they are marketing a new strain of corn that caused the price for corn to drop dramatically. Let's take a closer look.

The words to the famous old children’s song “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” are due for a revision. The new lines should read “Old MacDonald had a farm . . . with a lawyer here, and an accountant there, and everywhere a new federal program and regulation.” Not quite as poetic, but definitely more appropriate. The current state of agribusiness consists of an incredibly complex mix of subsidies, price supports, and bureaucratic regulations that could confound the most knowledgeable business minds. Underlying this tangled web of rules and regulations are political battles that pit normally allied groups against each other, and bring normally adversarial groups into allegiance. One bizarre

Additionally, big business controls the farmers by capitalizing on widely used commodities. For example, the company Monsanto which is based in St. Louis, Missouri protects its dominance over the genetically modified crops such as the soy bean with the use of a patent law. Because of this, Monsanto’s patented genes “account for 95 percent of all soy beans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S.,” (Associated Press). Although genetically modifying the soy bean crop has made it more readily available and more sustainable, this comes at a high price to farmers. Monsanto continues to raise their prices, which forces farmers to accrue even more debt, and there is no sign of the rise in the seed prices stopping. Since a lot of the farmers are under contract with Monsanto, there is nothing they can do about this unethical policy in fear of losing their job.

Agriculture was the most important economic activity in America from the founding of Virginia in 1607 to about 1890. Although farming declined rapidly in relative economic importance in the twentieth century, U.S. agriculture continued to be the most efficient and productive in the world. Its success rested on abundant fertile soil, a moderate climate, the ease of private land ownership, growing markets for farm produce at home and abroad, and the application of science and technology to farm operations.

Conventional wisdom dictates that improving agricultural productivity, either through irrigation projects or the introduction of genetically modified crops, is the key step in ending rural poverty in sub-Saharan poverty. Our research overturns this assumption. By using a global poverty map and standard soil productivity measures, we find that the regions in sub-Saharan Africa with better soil quality actually experience higher rates of poverty.