Farm

Women in agriculture play as many different roles as their male counterparts. For more of Episode 319 visit: http://tinyurl.com/5r5unp. The Monsanto Company – http://www.monsanto.com and the American Farm Bureau Federation – http://www.fb.org make presentation of America’s Heartland possible.

Duration : 0:4:17

Read the rest of this entry »

The question says it all. Agricultural Biotechnology can help so many people. Why are there people against it?

The real problem is we solved a problem but rise another ! Bio-tech will eventually helps better yield in agriculture but what are we gonna face in the future. GM food proves to be very efficient but health concern are questionable. We are facing a shortage of food supply for the growing demand of population. Problems got to be solved, may be de-population is the solution.

Dale Peterson, Alabama Agriculture Commission, ICAUCUS endorsed candidate fighting the fight to save our country. Some people recognize the enemies from within & without. We need fighters today, people that are not afraid to stand & tell the Government NO!!! Help Dale Stand & Defend our Country, it starts 1 state at a time. http://www.dalepeterson2010.com/donatehere.html

Duration : 0:1:11

Read the rest of this entry »

I ran out of space…. So here is the full question

how might improved agricultural practices in a developing nation affect that nation’s human population?

Thanks

I’ve lived and worked in several developing countries, and visited others. The one thing they all have in common is almost unlimited reproduction. Therefore it may be hard to see how improved agriculture would increase the population. The facts are, however, that it would greatly the reduce infant death, and death due to starvation and disease, mainly through the children. The result of improved agriculture would be improved nutrition and an increase in the population of the nation.

Between the time of the nomadic society to the agricultural revolution, society made a significant technological transition. The lives of the two societies revolved around their need for food. The weather conditions affected their ability to get food, and often the weather was hot and desiccated. When the nomadic inhabitants discovered the agricultural way of life, they knew they could have more offspring, because they were confident there would be enough food to feed their families. Although this was not a smooth transition from the nomadic .way of life to an agricultural existence, history would prove the scale of differences is closer than they know. Additionally, that small difference is what they need to help each other to survive.
To be an agricultural member means you live in one place and you uphold yourself by growing your own food and for meat growing your own livestock. The nomads traveled with their food and had no stable residence in one place for thousands of years. Where they hunted and gathered depended on the nature of weather in specific areas. Some animals or plants only like warmer or colder weather so they had to adjust where they went according to that. Both societies felt a strong abhor for each other, but had a need for each other’s support.
The nomadic civilization originated in the Middle East. They lived in this manner for thousands of years. This was including Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. The men hunted for their food and the women gathered natural things like vegetables, plants, herbs, and fruit. The agricultural society obtained their food by growing it themselves from animals to berries. The nomads felt that the agricultural society was pampered and had to do little work, but this can easily be proved as something fallacious.
To be part of the agricultural society required diligence and urgency. Their strong work ethics proved this factual. They ran their farms, managed their crops, and took care of their house, and many children. All of these things were important for our interminable need for food. Nomads were often on the move and the agricultural society did not feel this was correct and their way to feed their families was more productive. Neither nomads nor the agricultural revolution liked each other but most of their accusations were maliciously false.
The agricultural revolution grew their food and lived in one place they felt this practice was best and did not like the way of roving with your food source. Without thinking, we impose our ideas as being right on other people, the nomads and agricultural revolution did just that. Their lives were hard worked. They felt this conflict towards each other but without them, the whole trading industry would crash.
As a human population, they were pretty much the same. They both had a need for each other in business. The two cultures traded items and received gifts for help. They both have a struggle for their natural necessities of life. Moreover, both have the same ideas for survival. The agricultural populace and the nomadic society needed to come to an agreement that without each other their existence is devastated.
if there is anything changeable let me know
sry i could not fit that in before

My first thought is that this essay uses vocabulary not normally used in a 7th grade essay. Many words would not be used by people much older, yet there are no sources cited. I am basing my impression on having taught 6th-8th grade history for over 30 years.

You may want to reconsider some of the words used especially if they are not familar ones to you. On the other hand, this may be your own writing style and your teacher would recognize this and applaud you for your effort.

“The government is bailing out the banks…but who’s going to bail out the government?” asks Texas cotton farmer Ken Gallaway, a vocal critic of agricultural subsidies that cost U.S. taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars a year in direct payments and higher prices for farm goods.

Agricultural subsidies were put in place in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when 25 percent of Americans lived on farms. At the time, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace called them “a temporary solution to deal with an emergency.” Those programs are still in place today, even though less than 1 percent of Americans currently live on farms that are larger, more efficient, and more productive than ever before.

Consider these facts. Ninety percent of all subsidies go to just five crops: corn, rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans. Two thirds of all farm products—including perishable fruits and vegetables—receive almost no subsidies. And just 10 percent of recipients receive 75 percent of all subsidies. A program intended to be a temporary solution has become one of our governments most glaring examples of corporate welfare.

U.S. taxpayers arent the only ones who pay the price. Cotton subsidies, for example, encourage overproduction which lowers the world price of cotton. Thats great for people who buy cotton, but its disastrous for already impoverished cotton farmers in places such as West Africa.

U.S. farm programs cost taxpayers billions each year, significantly raise the price of commodities such as sugar (which is protected from competition from other producers in other countries), undermine world trade agreements, and contribute to the suffering of poor farmers around the world. Its bad public policy, especially in these troubled economic times.

“Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers” is hosted by Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie and is approximately 8.30 minutes long. The producer-writer is Paul Feine and the producer-editor is Roger Richards.

Duration : 0:8:24

Read the rest of this entry »

My mom has 35 acres of hilltop land about 12 miles north of a ski resort town in western Colorado. We aren’t able to build there yet but the property taxes are eating her up. If she could have it zoned agricultural, as many area places are, she could reduce her taxes. I don’t know that much about it, but I wondered: Could she maybe put honey bees there during the summer, or grow christmas trees, or have an area with elk or deer fenced in? Any ideas are appreciated.

You get land classified as agricultural by actually working the land. In nearly all states if you allow the land to lay fallow, you lose your ag classification.

Contract farming – can grow soya, wheat,sunflower, peanut, beans and pulses, sugarcane, jatropha and take output to india in raw or processed forms
Food processing – setup/acquire oilseed crushing, fruit/vegetable processing facilities
Think Agricultural Outsourcing – just like India in software, China in hardware – South America in agriculture
Contact: Marcos or Dave at info@alliedventure.com
www.alliedventure.com

Latin America farmland investment highlights:
Prices have fallen due to the global crisis; good entry point in 2009 for long-term investors.
Farmland Prices are even lower than those in punjab and tamilnadu
Productivity in Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay is three times compared to that in India, in the case of some crops like soy.
No unskilled labour problem since everything is mechanised and outsourced; 1000 hectare farm can be managed by 3 to 4 subcontracted workmen.
Use of latest agricultural machines and equipment; skilled agronomists and farm managers available.
No water problem.. South America has 20% of world freshwater reserves.
Logistics, warehouse and transportation world class
Clear land titles; low population density means no land squatters.
No limits on size of foreign land holdings.

Context:
India has been importing more than billion dollar worth soy oil and sunflower oil from south america every yr
India also buys wheat and sugar from time to time
India needs to invest in farmland overseas as it is doing in the case of petroleum fields. Issue of food security.
In India, population increases by 15-18 million every year, adding a new Argentina every 32 months, new Brazil every 10 years. Farmland area is diminishing due to expanding industry, commerce and residences

For more info contact:
Treinta y Tres 1334, Of. 401
Montevideo 11000 – Uruguay
Tel.: +598 (2) 916.2600
From USA:  +1 (305)  722 1275
From UK:    +44 (20) 3026 0037

Duration : 0:9:58

Read the rest of this entry »

Primary fertilizers are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). These elements are needed to build amino acids. Fertilizers sharply improve agricultural yields.

The plants ultimately produce carbo-hydrates by utilizing the energy of visible light by photosynthesis. The more light, the more carbo-hydrates. Hydrate means water. The more water, the more carbo-hydrates.

What other substance supplied in larger quantities will improve agricultural yields?

Agricultural output has steadily increased, virtually throught all human history – yet hunger has never been eliminated, because population increases to consume the available production.

You can’t eliminate ‘hunger’ by increasing agricultural production, the only way to eliminate hunger is to eliminate enough people.

How did the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic Age affect lifestyle?

population boom…