Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
1. Perhaps crop rotation would cost a lot more?
2. Perhaps then we would have to pay a lot more for our Wheaties and our green beans?
3. Perhaps then the poor would suffer.
And all of the new mouths to feed that have immigrated in the last couple of years?
I don't know. Maybe it costs the same.
Farmers are real people.
4. I don't see anybody rotating their lawns.
|
1. You are quite perspicacious. Crop rotation would require a major investment by farmers whose equipment for planting and for harvesting crops is designed for a particular crop, like corn. This same equipment would probably not work for an alternative crop like wheat, barley or potatoes, which are the crops that trail corn and soybeans in Minnesota. (Minnesota run off of fertilizers is said to be part of the problem contributing to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.)
A possible solution is offered in the close of the article, where it suggests "regulations,
financial incentives for farmers to adopt conservation practices, and technical assistance to help farmers incorporate the changes."
2. Neither Wheaties nor green bean prices would be affected by crop rotation of corn and soybeans. Wheaties are a wheat crop and soy beans are quite different from green beans.
3. Studies show that many recipients of Food Stamps spend them on luxury foods, such as lobster, rather than on staples like corn and beans.
4. You have no option to "rotate" your lawn. Most Home Owner's Associations have severe restrictions on the grasses that are acceptable for lawns. In my area in Tampa they even specify what percentage of the overall lawn must be in turf grass as opposed to flower beds, etc. In The Villages I have noticed a few lawns that are Zoysia grass. (You were joking, right?)