Module 1.2: Food Systems Combine Natural and Human Systems

Module 1.2: Food Systems Combine Natural and Human Systems ksc17

Introduction

Module 1.2 continues the goal of the introductory module, which is to introduce the course themes of integrated perspectives on the environmental and human systems that are related to food production and consumption. In the case of the first (environmental systems), the course places emphasis on the Geosystems and agroecology of soil, nutrients, crops, water, and climate that form the fundamental basics of food-growing environmental systems. In the case of the second (human systems) the course emphasizes factors such as population and the roles of culture, social interactions, economics, and politics. Module 1.2 builds on the concepts of multidisciplinarity introduced in Module 1.1 by introducing the Coupled Natural-Human systems framework as a conceptual tool where multiple natural and social disciplines are used to understand food systems. Building from simple examples of home gardens and hunting/fishing considered as natural/human systems, Module 1.2 provides an introductory description of food systems both as integrated production/transport/production chains and as interacting natural and human subsystems. Both of these themes will be deepened in Module 8, but the purpose here is to introduce them in basic form so that the subsequent modules on domestication, water, soils, and agroecology can utilize the framework and place even emphasis on both human and natural factors. Module 1.2 also advances the thesis (and key geosciences concept) that the global food system is a major area in which humans are transforming earth surface properties and processes during the Anthropocene. In Module 1.2 students are asked to complete a formative assessment in identifying introductory concepts in real examples of food systems which span local to global scales, and which take place both within and outside of the United States. The module concludes with a summative assessment that applies systems thinking and asks students to map a food system example and explore how relationships between parts of a food system are as important as knowledge about each part.

The Systems Concept

The Systems Concept sjv13

What defines a system?

In this course, we will refer to the term "system" repeatedly, so it is worthwhile to think about how systems are defined. A basic definition of a system is "a set of components and their relationships". Rather than dwelling on this definition in the abstract, it's probably best to immediately think of how the definition applies to real examples from this course. An ecosystem is a type of system you may have heard of, in which the components are living things like plants, animals, and microbes plus a habitat formed of natural, urban, and agricultural environments, and all the relationships among these component parts, with an emphasis on the interactions between the living parts of the system and their interactions, for example, food webs in which plants feed herbivores and herbivores feed carnivores. A food system, as we have just begun to see so far, consists of food production components like farms, farm fields, and orchards, along with livestock; food distribution chains including shipping companies and supermarkets, and consumers like you and your classmates, with myriad other components like regulatory agencies, weather and climate, and soils. In the case of food systems we have already pointed out how these can be considered as human-natural (alternatively, human-environment) systems, where it can help to see the system as composed of interacting human components (societies, companies, households, farm families) and natural components like water, soils, crop varieties, livestock, and agricultural ecosystems.

A simplified diagram of a typical ecosystem explained in caption and text description in link
Fig. 1.2.1. A simplified diagram of a typical ecosystem. Ecosystems are a common system type analyzed by geoscientists, ecologists, and agroecologists. The black rectangular outline is one way to define a boundary for the ecosystem, where climate and sunlight fall outside the system but provide resources and define the conditions under which the ecosystem develops. This diagram can also be considered a type of concept map where for example 'sun', 'plants', and 'climate' are components, and the arrows connecting the components are relationships in the system. These relationships are now labeled as either flows (of energy, food, nutrients) or causal links, like the way that dead plants and animals end up feeding soil microbes, or the ecosystem affects the climate over time. You may be able to see how this simplified diagram could represent a far more complex system containing hundreds of plant and animal species and thousands of types of microbes, interacting in complex ways with each other and the environment. Keep this diagram in mind as a possible example when you think about completing your preliminary concept map of a regional food system at the end of unit 1.
A diagram of a typical ecosystem. Soil resources is on the bottom. The sun is at the top. There is a black line (ecosystem boundary) drawn around four boxes and the soil. The four boxes are carnivores (including humans), herbivores (including humans), plants, and microbes. Lines from carnivores, herbivores, and plants go to microbes and say "feed". There are "feed" lines from plants to herbivores and herbivores to carnivores. A line from the sun to inside the ecosystem boundary says, "sunlight energy for plants". A line from soil resources to microbes says, "supply nutrients, water, habitat. A line from microbes to soil resources says, "replenish and cycle nutrients". A line from soil resources to plants says, "supply nutrients and water stored in soils". Lines from plants to microbes and plants to soil resources say, "replenish organic matter". Outside the ecosystem boundary is "climatic conditions". A line from climatic conditions to the ecosystem says, "provides basic conditions, rainwater". A line from the ecosystem to climatic conditions says, "impacts on climate change".
Credit: Steven Vanek

Behavior of Complex Systems

Systems that contain a large number of components interacting in multiple ways (like an ecosystem, above, or the human-natural food systems elsewhere in this text) are often said to be complex. The word "complex" may have an obvious and general meaning from daily use (you may be thinking "of course it is complex! there are lots of components and relationships!") but geoscientists, ecologists, and social scientists mean something specific here: they are referring to ways that different complex systems, from ocean food webs to the global climate system, to the ecosystem of a dairy farm, display common types of behavior related to their complexity. Here are some of these types of behaviors:

  • Positive and negative feedback: the change in a property of the system results in an amplification (positive feedback) or dampening (negative feedback) of that change. A recently considered example of positive feedback would be that as the arctic ocean loses sea ice with global warming, the ocean begins to absorb more sunlight due to its darker color, which accelerates the rate of sea ice melting.
  • Many strongly interdependent variables: this property results in multiple causes leading to observed outputs, with unobserved properties of the system sometimes having larger impacts than we might expect.
  • Resilience: Resilience will be discussed later in the course, but you can think of it here as a sort of self-regulation of complex systems in which they often tend to resist changes in a self-organized way, like the way your body attempts to always maintain a temperature of 37 C. Sometimes complex systems maintain themselves until they are pushed beyond a breaking point, after which they may change rapidly to another type of behavior.
  • Unexpected and "emergent" behavior: one consequence of the above three properties is that complex systems can display unexpected outcomes, driven by positive feedbacks and unexpected relationships or unobserved variables. Sometimes this is referred to as "emergent" behavior when we sense that it would have been impossible to predict the behavior of the system even if we knew the "rules" that govern each component part.

To these more formal definitions of complex systems, we should add one more feature that we will reinforce throughout the course in describing food systems that combine human and natural systems, which is that drivers and impacts often cross the boundary between human or social systems and environmental or natural systems (recall Fig. 1.1.2). Our policies, traditions, and culture have impacts on earth's natural systems, and the earth's natural systems affect the types of human systems that develop, while changes in natural systems can cause changes in policies, traditions, and culture.

For more information on complex systems properties with further examples, see Developing Student Understanding of Complex Systems in Geosciences, from the On the Cutting Edge program.

On the next page, we'll see an interesting example of complex system behavior related to the food system in India.

Complex Systems Behavior: An Example from India

Complex Systems Behavior: An Example from India azs2

The Indian Vulture Crisis: An Example of Complex Systems Behavior

The "Indian Vulture Crisis" may or not be a familiar term to you, but it is important enough to the history of modern India that it has involved dozens of research experts as well as major changes in wildlife, human health, and government policies, and now has its own Wikipedia page (Indian vulture crisis) that you can browse. It is also an interesting example of complex systems behavior that involves food systems and unintended consequences of veterinary care for animals. The main causal links are outlined below in figure 1.2.2, and the narrative of the crisis goes as follows:

Beef cattle are hugely important to Indian food systems even though they are usually not consumed by adherents of the majority Hindu religion (however, Indian Christians and Muslims, for example, do consume beef). Cattle are also widely used as dairy animals (think: yogurt and clarified butter as important parts of Indian cuisine) and are even more important as traction animals (oxen) to till soil for all-important food crops by small-scale farmers across India. Because of their importance and to treat inflammation and fevers in cattle, in the 1990s the drug diclofenac was put into widespread use across India. However, timed with the release of this medication, a precipitous drop in the population of Indian vultures began, which became the fastest collapse of a bird population ever recorded. Vultures are not valued in many parts of the world, but scavenging by vultures was the main way that dead animal carcasses were cleared from Indian communities, especially in the case of beef cattle where the meat is not consumed. It was not until the 2000s that the cause of vulture population collapse was discovered to be the diclofenac medicine administered to cattle, which is extremely toxic to vultures eating dead carcasses. However, the consequences of this population collapse did not end with the solving of the mystery of the vulture population collapse, which was already a tragic and unforeseen consequence. Rather, the fact that vultures are a key part of a complex system resulted in further unforeseen consequences in both human and natural parts of the Indian food system. A few of these are shown in figure 1.2.2 below: first, since vultures are in fact an ideal scavenger that creates a "dead end" for human pathogens in rotting carcasses, and since they were no longer present, water supplies suffered greater contamination from carcasses that took months instead of weeks to rot, leading to greater human illness. Second, populations of rats and dogs, which are less effective carcass scavengers, expanded in response to these carcasses and the lack of competition from vultures, which resulted in dramatic increases in rabies (and other diseases) due to larger dog and rat populations and human contact with wild dogs. This is significant since more than half of the world's human rabies deaths occur in India. Finally, the vulture crisis even had implications for religious rituals in India: people of the Parsi faith, who practice an open-air "sky burial" of their dead where the body is consumed by vultures, were forced to abandon the practice because of hygiene concerns when human bodies took months instead of weeks to decompose. A final consequence of these problems was that the drug diclofenac was banned from use in India, Nepal, and Pakistan in hopes of helping vulture populations to revive. This final turn of events is an example of the human system responding to the unforeseen consequences. Additionally, alternatives to these drugs have been developed for veterinary use that have no toxicity to vultures.

Diagram of the causal chain leading to the Indian Vulture Crisis, see text description in link below
Figure 1.2.2. Diagram of the causal chain leading to the Indian Vulture Crisis. This crisis contains several examples of complex system behavior and unforeseen consequences.
A diagram using boxes to show the causal chain leading to the Indian Vulture Crisis. Box 1: Cattle as essential milk and traction animals in the food system. An arrow goes from box 1 to box 2: Veterinary use of diclofenac (diclofenac highly toxic to vultures). An arrow goes from Box 2 to Box 3: Collapse of vulture populations. From box 3 there are two arrows. One leads to a comment box that says, "Banning of diclofenac and alternative developed in India, Nepal, and Pakistan." The second arrow from box 3 leads to box 4: Crisis of unconsumed carcasses. A comment box that says, "vultures as honored, efficient, and most sanitary practical method of carcass disposal", also has an arrow to box 4. From box 4 there are three arrows pointing towards comment boxes as follows: dogs and rat populations expand; lack of vultures for ritual consumption of bodies in Parsi faith; contamination of drinking water in rural areas. There is also an arrow from, dogs and rat populations expand, to a comment box that says, greater incidence of rabies.
Credit: Steven Vanek

Note the properties of complex systems and human-natural systems exhibited by this example. Farmers sought mainly to protect their cattle from inflammation and speed healing in service of the food system, while pharmaceutical companies sought to profit from a widespread market for an effective medication. The additional, cascading effects of the human invention diclofenac, however, were dramatic, far-ranging, and in some cases unexpected, because of the many interacting parts in the food systems and ecosystems of Indian rural areas: cattle, groundwater, wild dogs, and human pathogens like rabies. The crisis eventually provoked responses from the human system, with impacts on human burial practices among the Parsi, laws banning diclofenac, and development of alternative medications. The search for sustainability in food systems, like those you will think about for your capstone regions, involves designing and choosing adequate human responses to complex system behavior.

Complex Systems and Interdisciplinarity

One final note on this example is to point out that to fully understand the Indian vulture crisis a large number of different disciplines were brought to bear: we need cultural knowledge about the beliefs and practical usefulness of both cattle and vultures in India. We also need biological knowledge about drug toxicity to wildlife, pathogens, groundwater contamination by microbes, and rat and dog populations. We also need policy expertise to think about transitioning food systems to less toxic alternatives to current practices. And all of these disciplines needed to be brought together in an integrated whole to assemble the diagram shown in figure 1.2.2. The purpose of this text and this course on food systems is to help you to develop some of the skills needed for this sort of interdisciplinary analysis of human-environment or human-natural systems.

Food Systems as Human-Natural Systems

Food Systems as Human-Natural Systems azs2

Food System Examples from Household Gardens to Communities and Global Food Systems

Some of you in this course, perhaps even many of you, have had the experience of growing herbs or vegetables (Fig. 1.2.3) or keeping chickens for eggs or animals for meat. Although dwarfed by the enormous dimensions of the global food system, home food production is still a significant part of the food consumed by billions of earth's inhabitants. In other cases, small-scale fishing and hunting provide highly nutrient-dense foods, and coexist with modernized and industrial food systems, as any fishers and hunters in the class may be able to attest. These experiences of food production for personal or family consumption show natural-human interactions in a very simple way. To grow vegetables or hunt or raise animals means bringing together natural factors (seed, animal breeds, soil, water, fishing and hunting ranges, etc.) and also human factors (e.g. knowledge of plants, livestock, or wild animals, government policies) to gain access to food, as well as food storage and preparation, markets for tools and seeds, or human-built infrastructures like a garden fence or a chicken coop. This same interaction between natural and human factors is evident at a larger scale in the photo in Figure 1.2.4, which shows a landscape that has been transformed by a human community for food production.

Garden of lettuce, kale, beans, sweet corn, peppers, squash, carrots, and garlic.
Figure 1.2.3. This diverse home garden includes lettuce, kale, beans, sweet corn, peppers, squash, carrots, and garlic, among other crops. During the growing season, it offsets food expenses in an urban setting and offers extremely fresh food as well as an excellent way to recycle kitchen wastes as compost.
Credit: Steven Vanek
Peruvian landscape of rolling hills
Fig. 1.2.4. Landscape near Acobamba, Huancavelica, Peru. This Peruvian landscape has been almost completely transformed for food (and firewood) production.
Credit: Steven Vanek

Beyond these experiences of auto-sufficient food production and consumption, however, most of humanity also currently depends on global and local versions of the food system which features a web of suppliers, producers, transporters, and marketers that supply all of us as food consumers. Compared to gardening, catching trout, or keeping chickens, these food systems together form a far more complex version of the interactions between natural and human factors that produce and transport the food that we then consume as part of global and local food systems.

One way of viewing these regional and global food systems is that they can be divided by the type of activity in relation to food, and dividing them into components of food production, food transport, and food consumption (Fig. 1.2.5). Like other diagrams we've seen so far, this diagram can be considered a concept map showing relationships between the different components of a food system. The main arrows show the flow of food through the system from the managed natural environments used to produce food and the end result of nutrition and health outcomes. There are some unseen or implicit relationships here as well, like the way that farming practices, technology, communication and education, and other attributes of human societies support the functioning of a food system, and are included in the outer system boundary.

Simplified diagram of food system, see text description in link below
Figure 1.2.5. A simplified diagram of food system components, depicting a linear progression of production, transportation, and consumption of food. It’s helpful to think of this more linear version in conjunction with the interacting natural and human and systems in figure 1.2.6 to remember that food systems are not just linear conveyor belts delivering outcomes.
Simplified diagram of food system components. The diagram is within a circle. At the top, is the heading, Natural Resources, and Environments. From here is an arrow pointing directly below to an oval with the word, Production. From Production, there is an arrow pointing directly below to another oval with the word, Transport. From Transport, there is an arrow pointing directly below to a final oval with the word, Consumption. From the consumption oval, an arrow leads direction below it to Nutrition and Health Outcomes. On the left side of the circle are the following items listed from top to bottom: Farming Practices and Agroecology; Food Processing; Policy support; and Food Preparation. On the right side of the circle are the following items listed from top to bottom: Technology and Infrastructure; Crop and Livestock Breeding and Biodiversity and Communication and Education.
Credit: Figure adapted from Combs et al., 1996.

In addition to this more linear or "conveyer belt" portrayal of food systems delivering nutrition from natural resources, we may also be interested in thinking about the dramatic impacts humans have made on earth systems during the Anthropocene, discussed in module 1.1. In that light, we know that these natural systems may either be sustained or degraded by management, an important response that either maintains or undermines the entire food system. For this purpose, we may be interested in a food system diagram that makes the interactions among human and natural systems very explicit. Below in figure 1.2.6 is a version of a Coupled Human-Natural Systems diagram -- again, a concept map of sorts -- developed by an interdisciplinary group of social and environmental scientists (Liu et al. 2007) to represent the human-environment interactions in food systems.

Schematic of a food system as a Coupled Human-Natural System, see text description in link below
Figure 1.2.6. A food system as a Coupled Human-Natural System, a way of considering food systems that will be explored throughout the course. This more detailed presentation compared to that in module 1.1 shows that both human systems (communities, regions, food supply chains) and natural systems (agroecosystems, landscapes, water bodies) have internal interactions. Human systems also organize and modify natural systems to produce food, and natural systems respond via feedbacks (food provision, aggradation or degradation depending on the human modification and management of the natural systems.
A coupled human-natural system. Heading at the top says, Human to natural coupling: Human systems reorganize natural systems to produce food: e.g. gardens, farms, fisheries, managed forests. Below this heading are two boxes, side by side. On the left is a box with the heading, Human System. Outside of the box is a descriptor that says, human system internal interactions. There are two lists inside the box on the left. The first list is Farms, farming households; food policies; food distribution companies, consumers. The second list is management knowledge for farming, herding, hunting, fishing, etc.; local and national governments; agriculture input companies. Inside this box are arrows indicating a continuous relationship among the listed items. On the right side is a box with the heading, Natural System. Outside the box is a descriptor that says, natural system internal interactions. There are two lists inside the box. The first list is plants and animals (crops, livestock, pests, wild species); soils. The second list is the climate system and water. Below the two boxes is the heading Natural to Human Coupling: Altered ecosystems respond with food production, degradation, sustained production. There are arrows around the entire diagram indicating the continuous relationship among all items.
Credit: Steven Vanek and Karl Zimmerer; modified from the National Science Foundation.

This diagram highlights internal interactions within both the natural and human components of the food system. The natural components of food systems shown here are those we will tackle first in the first part of the course, while the latter half of the course will address the human system aspects of food systems and human-environment interactions shown as the large arrows connecting these two major components. As we saw in comparing home garden production, smallholder production landscapes and global food production chains above, food systems and their components are highly varied. However many similarities apply across the different components, actors, and environments of the food system:

  • Food systems modify the natural environment and capture the productivity of the earth’s natural systems to supply food to human populations. Globally they create huge changes in the earth’s surface and its natural populations and processes.
  • As portrayed in Figure 1.2.6, despite their complexity, food systems often involve coupling between human management and the response of natural systems. As pointed out by author Colin Sage in Module 1.1, the response of natural systems to human management can create sustainability challenges in food systems.
  • Food systems involve the production, transportation, distribution, and consumption of food (Figure 1.2.5). The scale of these three processes can differ among food systems, which can be local, regional, and global.
  • Food systems are examples of complex systems: they involve many interacting human and natural components, as well as important variability, for example, droughts, soil erosion, population changes, and migration, and changing policies. All of these affect the natural and human systems and can disrupt simple cause and effect relationships, in spite of the large-scale drivers and feedbacks shown in figure 1.2.6.

Knowledge Check

Module 1 Summative Assessment Overview

Module 1 Summative Assessment Overview azs2

Summative Assessment: Concept Mapping and Assessment of Food Systems

First, download the worksheet to understand and complete the assessment. This assignment will require you to draw on your reading of this online text from module one, as well as several options for case studies where we have provided brief descriptions and audiovisual resources (radio clips, videos, photos) that describe these systems. You will accomplish two parts of an assignment that will not only evaluate the learning objectives for module one but will also give you practice in skills you will need to complete your capstone project. These two parts are:

  1. Draw a concept map of the system that distinguishes between human and natural components or sections of the system (an example is given below)
  2. Fill in a table that identifies some key components, relationships, and sustainability concerns for this system.

You will complete this assignment for your choice of two food system examples, as described in the detailed instructions below. You will first read, then draw a concept map, and then fill in a table with short responses.

Instructions

  1. Choose ONE national to global food system example and ONE local to regional food system example from the options that follow this assignment page in the text (see links in outline view at right, or the link to the next page at the bottom of this page). National to global food system examples are Pennsylvania Dairy, Colorado Beef Production, and Peruvian Asparagus, while local to regional examples are the Peruvian smallholder production and New York City greenmarkets examples. Read the descriptions of the system, which may include photos, videos, audio clips, or visiting other websites. Completely read through the description of the two systems you have chosen (one national/global and one local/regional), including these external links before continuing on to the following steps (though you may certainly return to the descriptions as needed). You are welcome to consult other resources online regarding the system you have chosen since that is a skill that will be helpful when embarking on data gathering for your capstone project.
  2. Using a sheet of paper, or composing in PowerPoint, develop a concept map of only ONE of the systems you chose, subject to the following guidelines:
    1. Title your concept map with the name of the system you are describing (among the five described on the following pages) and put your name on the diagram.
    2. Before you begin your concept map, draw a vertical line in your diagram to distinguish between Human and Natural components of the system to right and left, drawing on Fig. 1.2.6, 1.2.7 below, and 1.1.3 (the last one is the concept map example from the guided introductory reading by Colin Sage). However, you do not need to make your diagram look like the highly schematic diagrams in the text of the previous pages (see rather Fig. 1.2.7 below) -- you should include components that are discussed in the examples on the following pages, and connect them in the way that makes sense to you.
    3. Your concept map should be legible, but it does not need to be extremely neat since it reflects a first attempt to characterize a system. Additional components and relationships will occur to you as you draw, and you may need to squeeze them in. Therefore, leave space as you begin your diagram. If you feel your map becoming too hard to understand, please do compose a second "clean" copy.
    4. Remember that systems are defined as components and the relationships between them. If you are having trouble thinking of what to draw, think what the components are in the system (these can be boxes or ovals), and then how they are related (these may be labeled arrows)
    5. Below in Fig. 1.2.7 is an example of a concept map drawn from a food production system producing field crops (wheat, oats, barley, soybeans) and hogs for pork in Western France. Material for this concept map is drawn from Billen et al., 2012, "Localising the nitrogen footprint of the Paris food supply"1
Food systems diagram. More details in text description below.
Fig 1.2.7. Example concept map of a food production system, divided into human and natural components.
Text description of the Figure 1.2.7 image.

The image is a hand-drawn concept map illustrating the interaction between human systems and natural systems in global food production and distribution. The diagram is divided into two sections: Human (labeled in red on the left) and Natural (labeled in green on the right). On the human side, key elements include European consumers, global shipping, farm management knowledge, and food processing and distribution companies, which are linked to products such as meat products and baked goods. Arrows show relationships such as government regulation for food safety and the role of companies in supplying consumers. On the natural side, components include soybean farms (Brazil), good climate for farming, pigs and pig farms, crops and crop farms (wheat, oats, barley), and good soils and flat land. Environmental concerns are noted, such as overuse of manure and fertilizer pollution, and the impact on rivers, estuaries, and coastlines, with an emphasis on regulation of water pollution. The map uses arrows to demonstrate how natural resources and farming conditions support agricultural production, which then connects to human systems through shipping, processing, and consumption. This visual emphasizes the complex interdependence between environmental factors and human activities in sustaining global food systems.

Credit: Steven Vanek
  1. Fill in the table on the worksheet with short answer responses regarding the two food systems you have chosen. The worksheet asks for responses in the following areas:
    1. Identify two natural components of the food system.
    2. Identify three human components of the food system.
    3. Tell how products from the system are transported to markets or to households for consumption.
    4. Name one sustainability challenge for the system, and state whether it represents a challenge in the area of environmental, social, or economic sustainability.

Once complete, use the worksheet as a guide to complete the Summative Assessment quiz. 

National to Global Scale Option 1: Pennsylvania Dairy Sector

National to Global Scale Option 1: Pennsylvania Dairy Sector azs2

Overview

Pennsylvania is the fourth largest state in the nation for milk production, after California, Wisconsin, and New York. Cows produce about 1.3 billion gallons of milk every year in Pennsylvania. Interestingly, 99% of Pennsylvania’s dairy farms are family-owned, which is in contrast to states such as California where large industrial dairies dominate production. On most conventional Pennsylvania dairy farms cows are fed forage crops that are grown on farms such as fermented chopped maize plants (silage) and alfalfa. These on-farm forages are mixed with other feed components that are imported to the farm to optimize milk production. There is also an expanding organic dairy sector in Pennsylvania that uses grazing whenever possible to satisfy the U.S. National Organic Program's regulations and organic philosophies of animal management (e.g. Fig. 1.2.8). Pennsylvania’s relatively good soils, temperate climate, and proximity to Eastern U.S. markets have helped to make dairy farms a dominant presence in Pennsylvania agriculture. Farms generally are on flat to hilly topography in what was originally forest, and patches of forest are still very common on steeper terrain throughout Pennsylvania. Manure produced by dairy cows is recycled into the soil to provide crops with nutrients. Farmers have to manage the application of manure and other fertilizers so that nutrients are best used by the crop and do not pollute waterways, which has been a major issue for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay downstream of Pennsylvania farms. Milk produced on these dairy farms is gathered into central processing plants and is then distributed to stores for purchase for consumers, or bought by other dairy industry manufacturers such as yogurt and cheese plants.

Pennsylvania dairy, grazing cows
Figure 1.2.8. Cows grazing in a pasture on a Pennsylvania Dairy farm.
Credit: Heather Karsten

Be sure to also explore the following website to gain more insight on Pennsylvania’s dairy sector as part of the food system in order to successfully build your concept map and fill in the table items in the assignment:

Center for Dairy Excellence: PA Diary Overview

National to Global Scale Option 2: Colorado Feedlot Beef Production

National to Global Scale Option 2: Colorado Feedlot Beef Production azs2

Overview

Colorado Beef Production: A Tale of Two Feedlots

Beef production on Colorado’s high plains. Few topics arouse as much debate in conversations around the current trends, sustainability, and alternatives in food systems as meat consumption, and especially feedlot beef consumption which requires relatively large amounts of water and energy to grow the feed necessary for cattle production using feedlots. This remarkable if somewhat older video presents in a matter-of-fact way the practices, infrastructure, and modification of nature involved in beef production at small and very large scales on the high plains of Colorado (Warning: this video shows brief scenes from a slaughterhouse, e.g. cutting of carcasses). Watch for details about the use of water in a dryland environment, how feed is acquired in both systems to fatten animals, the use of technology to maximize the weight gain of animals, and the details of transport to market.

Video: Colorado Beef Production 1990 (FWU) - English(14:53)

Colorado Beef Production video.

Auctioneer voice.

Narrator: An auction in Greeley, a small town north of Denver, and the cattle raising center of Colorado.

Auctioneer voice.

Narrator: The calves have been bred in the pastures of the surrounding ranches. Now they come to be fattened up in the feedlots. This is Jim Park, the owner of a small family farm near Greeley, who raises cattle. And Carl Montega, a buyer for Monfort, the biggest meat producer in the area. Monfort of Colorado, a beef producing company with its own feedlots, slaughterhouses, and car parks. 85,000 animals can be fattened at the same time, 200,000 per year in this feedlot alone. And Monfort operates another two facilities of the same size in this region. Located on a high plateau, the climate on the plains is ideal for the animals. It is dry in summer and cold and dry in winter. This makes the cattle resistant to germs and infection. Monfort buys calves from all over the United States and sends them to Greeley to be fattened. They will be fed here for about 110 days until they have reached a suitable weight for slaughter. The new arrivals are sorted by age and size and then vaccinated. They are given a sedative against the stress of this new unfamiliar environment. Each animal is given a computer number and a hormone capsule is implanted. The hormones cause the animals to gain weight more quickly. Then an antiseptic bath to kill off bacteria. Cattle owners fear nothing more than an outbreak of infection in feedlots. Nevertheless, 1% of the livestock, that's about 2,000 cattle a year, will die from dust and stress before they reach the slaughterhouse. Jim Park’s family farm is only about a five-minute drive from Montfort. Jim Park owns about 250 acres of irrigated land; on which he grows fodder for his beef stock. He fattens 1,100 animals per year in a feedlot. Only two men run the farm, Jim himself and another farmhand. The business is fully mechanized with its own feed mill and all necessary equipment. Jim Park sells his cattle to the highest bidder among the US meat producers, including Monfort of Colorado.

Jim Park: Oh, we've been in the business of feeding cattle probably about 20 years. Before that, we used to milk cows here. The old red barn behind us here, that's where we used to milk cows. But we've kind of got out of that business and basically just feedlot, feeding cattle right now. We raise most of our own alfalfa and corn, silage (the roughage part of it). I do have to buy some shelled corn, but the biggest majority of the feed we raise right here on the place and feed it to the cattle. I don't sell any corn or alfalfa off the place it all goes through the cattle.

Male voice (not visible): When Monfort is big business and is so close to you, is a family farm able to survive?

Jim Park: Well I think so. Big, of course, is maybe more efficient. But I think I think one of the disadvantages of being so big is everything is hired labor. At least here I own the cattle myself and I do have one man that's here year-round that works with me. And we just take more of a caring role, I think. If you're working for a big company, a lot of times you maybe don't care so much whether one sick or whether they're eating the way they should be or things like this. So I think we can probably compete just about as well.

Male voice (not visible): How did this farm start here?

Jim Park: Well my great granddad, fella by the name of Frederick Niemeyer, and Fritz was kind of his nickname. Fritz came to this country in the mid-1800s and he came from Germany over here to the United States and he homesteaded this place. It's been in the family since about 1888, so we've been here a little over 100 years.

Narrator: Like Fritz Niemeyer, many Germans settled in Colorado at that time. The land was well suited for growing sugar beets, something they were very good at. But the water shortage in Colorado meant hardship for the farmers. The drought of 1927-35, worse than any before, turned fertile land into desert. The farms were buried by sandstorms. The land could no longer feed the people and most of the farmers had to leave their homes. In 1935 the Colorado government started work on a gigantic irrigation project. The Rocky Mountains formal watershed, the farms and arable land on the Great Plains, seventy miles to the east, are only sparingly supplied with meltwater from the mountains. This is because most of the snow falls on the western side of the Rockies. Large water reservoirs were built west of the mountain range. From there a tunnel was drilled straight through the mountain and a pipeline was laid. When the rivers begin to dry up in summer, the stored water is pumped from west to east. It flows through pipelines down the slopes of the Rocky Mountains to the plains below, and can also be used to generate hydroelectric power. The water then flows through two canal systems north into the Cache la Poudre and south into the South Platte River. Many ditches carry it from the river to the fields and farms. In addition to wheat, corn, and alfalfa, corn for silage has become the main crop in Colorado. Under contract from Montfort, many farmers plant crops which are then harvested by Monfort using its own equipment and workforce. The corn is chopped right in the fields to form silage. It is then stored in silos in Monfort’s feedlot. Montfort buys corn wherever the price is right. In the feed mill, the grain is heated and ground in flakers, to form corn flakes. The fodder is mixed by compute. Cornflakes, silage, proteins, and vitamins are blended together for each group of cattle according to their age and weight. They are fed twice a day. The fodder is heated so that the animals waste no energy bringing it to body temperature. The aim - a weight gain of three pounds per day.

Woman’s voice (operator): Please feed pen 134 for 15 head, 604 for 20 head, and 542 for 1 head.

Narrator: Twenty farms are connected to this irrigation canal. The next-to-the-last is Jim's. A co-op, formed by the farmers, manages and supervises the just distribution of water. When water is short, some farmers even lock their gates to prevent water from being stolen. Some water rights date back to the previous century. These oldest rights are also the most valuable because they are the last to have their water restricted.

Male voice (not visible): What would your land be worth without the water right?

Jim Park: Oh a couple hundred dollars an acre and with the water probably two thousand. So it's about a tenfold increase by having the water and being able to raise the crops. Fifteen minutes away from the feedlot, on the outskirts of Greeley, lies Montfort’s slaughterhouse. 5,000 animals are killed here per day in two shifts. The Monfort slaughterhouse in Greeley is considered one of the most modern in the world. And Monfort operates five other slaughterhouses in the US, and itself is only a small part of the gigantic food corporation, Conagra. After being refrigerated for 24 hours the carcasses are halved and sorted according to cut. Except for the tip of the tail, every part of the animal is put to good use. 2,500 people work here. A major part of the meat is processed into ground beef and prepared as hamburgers right here in the slaughterhouse, for a large restaurant chain. Premium meat is then put in boxes for delivery. Boxed beef is a Monfort specialty. There are no butchers needed in supermarkets. In addition, the freezer trucks can carry four times as much box meat as carcasses. Montfort has thus become one of the three market leaders and supplies the entire United States, in particular, the big cities along the East Coast. It used to make no difference how large cattle grew to be. Nowadays, however, a uniform size is essential for modern meatpacking plants because, otherwise, the cattle won't fit into the box.

Credit: Gravensberger, Georg. "Colorado Beef Production 1990 (WFU) - English. YouTube. April 10, 2013.

National to Global Scale Option 3: Asparagus Production in Peru

National to Global Scale Option 3: Asparagus Production in Peru azs2

Overview

International Production of Asparagus in Peru for the Global Food System

Starting from modest beginnings and export of asparagus from Peru to Denmark in the 1950s, the industrial-scale asparagus sector in Peru’s dry coastal valleys (especially around the city of Ica, Peru) grew rapidly in the 1990s into one of the premier examples of a globalized export vegetable sector (Fig. 1.2.9), able to occupy a large percentage of the world’s off-season market in asparagus when producers in the northern hemisphere are not producing asparagus (FAO 2007). The asparagus sector in Peru takes advantage of the extremely dry climate to make asparagus plants go dormant in the same way that winters in the northern hemisphere make the perennial asparagus plants die back so that they create new edible shoots in the spring. When a field of Peruvian asparagus is ready to go into production, irrigation from rivers and river-fed water tables in coastal valleys is turned on, and a flush of asparagus shoots grows, is harvested using labor that is relatively cheap on a global scale, and immediately flown in refrigerated containers to markets in the rest of the world, chiefly Europe. Asparagus is also notable for being a delicacy among U.S. and European consumers, with a sort of star status among gourmet eaters (see e.g. Peruvian Asparagus) Industrial-scale asparagus producers in Peru were able to achieve this scale of production and access to the global market via support from the Peruvian government, the help of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and their own resources and investment, based on earlier successes in the production of cotton in irrigated valleys (FAO, 2007). Interestingly, Ica asparagus growers organized several international tours to learn industrial methods of production in Europe and the U.S. and adapt them to their own region. However, the large scale of production and amounts of water needed are straining water supplies in the Ica region and have prompted objections regarding water supplies for other uses and the environment. Further, expansion of irrigation in Ica has been based on dam-building in upriver sites which alters ecosystems and water rights for other farmers in these valleys. The abundant supply of migrant labor from the Peruvian highlands and the economic power of the growers has also led to labor relations that are often quite unfavorable to workers.

Farmers tending asparagus crops in dry coastal valley of Peru
Figure 1.2.9. Tending of asparagus crops in dry coastal valleys of Peru. Photo Credit: Nick Wiesner, used by permission.

Readings

Before drawing your concept map and filling in the table information for this assignment make sure to read the following news piece about Peruvian Asparagus from to learn more about the Peruvian asparagus industry and concerns about fresh water supply: Peru water wars threaten export boom

You may also want to consult this brief from an industry news site covering the global fresh fruit and vegetable trade, detailing how asparagus is the most common Peruvian product shipped by air: Peru: Asparagus is the most exported product by air

Optional Reading

Diaz, Luz Rios. 2007. Agro-industries characterization and appraisal: Asparagus in Peru. Rome: FAO, 56 p.

Local to Regional Scale Option 1: New York City Green Markets

Local to Regional Scale Option 1: New York City Green Markets azs2

Overview

A Regional Food-shed Direct Marketing of Local and Small Scale Farm Production: The New York City Green Markets

Many in the class will be familiar with the recent growth of farmers' markets and other forms of direct marketing in which farmers sell more directly to consumers to capture a greater percentage of the final purchase price. This includes mail-order grass-fed beef from South Dakota, organic farms, and other small farms selling at open-air markets in any given small and medium city, and medium to large scale farms that produce for multiple restaurant accounts in large cities. The New York City greenmarkets (Fig. 1.2.10) are an excellent and long-standing example of this trend, starting with a few street corner vegetable markets and growing into an important hub of the Grow NYC sustainability movement in New York. The Grow NYC website Greenmarket Farmers Markets documents that over 30,000 acres of farmland as well as small fishing operations near New York City form a ‘foodshed (analogous to a watershed feeding to a larger water body) that has made important inroads towards greater access to locally or regionally produced food with more sustainable practices, including participation in food assistance programs that strive to provide greater access to lower-income New Yorkers. Greenmarkets thus provide a growing, if small, proportion of New York City’s food supply.

New York City green market
Fig. 1.2.10. A New York City Greenmarket, similar to food direct marketing examples across the United States, Europe, and other regions.
Credit: Mat McDermott (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Vegetable and livestock producers that participate in New York City greenmarkets are in many ways sustaining and building on the legacy of small truck farms that for generations utilized fertile farmland surrounding many eastern cities (think of the sometimes mysterious identity of New Jersey as the ‘Garden State’). Today these farms generally have land sizes of 5 to 50 acres, much smaller than the farm sizes of Midwestern grain farms or California industrial vegetable production. They are comparatively diverse farms in terms of combining many different products (including eggs and meat) that can be sold for relatively advantageous prices together in a farmers market. Farms like those in the Hudson Valley North of New York City utilize flat, deep soils adjacent to river floodplains that are excellent for long-term production of crops if they are well cared for. These farms are also able to recycle relatively abundant urban wastes from dense urban and suburban populations (e.g. green wastes, manure from neighboring small livestock farms, city and county composting programs) that are used to keep soils extremely productive by global terms. In fact, some of these farms may face some of the same problems of nutrient excesses presented in the case above on Pennsylvania dairy farming systems. They also are able to grow crops for the sole purpose of adding organic matter to the soil and covering the soil in the winter (cover crops) that help to keep soil quality high. Produce and animal products are trucked directly to green market sites in New York City or to pick-up points for subscription-based Community-supported agriculture programs.

Local to Regional Scale Option 2: Diversified Smallholder Production in the Peruvian Andes

Local to Regional Scale Option 2: Diversified Smallholder Production in the Peruvian Andes azs2

Overview

In contrast to the highly specialized and industrialized production of Peruvian asparagus for the global market (above), smallholders in the Andean Mountains of Peru integrate a wide variety of livestock and crop types on their farms, from llamas to sheep to dairy cattle, and from native potato varieties to maize as well as legume grains and forages and vegetables. They also place a high priority on self-sufficiency in many food crops, balanced with sales to local (e.g. within community barter and purchase on community market days) and regional (e.g. wholesale to regional intermediary buyers and markets, Fig. 1.2.11). The variety of crops, livestock, and production is partly explained by the varied elevation and soil types found in the mountainous Andean environment. A high diversity of products, production strategies, and market versus consumption destinations for agricultural production has thus emerged in modern Andean societies as a way to adapt to both the natural risks of a mountain environment (e.g. drought, frost, hail) and the opportunities and challenges of a complex and fluctuating market that very often does not favor the farmer’s interests.

Potatoes in market of Central Andes of PeruSquash in market of Central Andes of Peru
Figure 1.2.11. Two market scenes for regional distribution of local smallholder production in the Central Andes of Peru: Potatoes (top) and squash (bottom).
Credit: Steven Vanek

The integration of small livestock herds in these systems is very important and allows farmers higher value products such as wool and meat that can be used for short-term cash needs. Grazing livestock also allows them to “harvest” manure nutrients via grazing on high-altitude grasslands. When animals are penned into night-time corral areas they produce manure that is stored for use in fertilizing crop fields. Farmers also apply limited amounts of modern chemical fertilizers to their crops, especially those destined for regional markets. Increasingly, farm communities are banding together using strong and complex community government schemes to win government funding for and build community-wide irrigation schemes that are fed by mountain stream systems. These irrigation systems, some very extensive, are used for adaptation to drought years, expansion of cultivated land or irrigation of fodder crops to feed animals year-round in small intensified dairy schemes. The expansion of small dairy enterprises has been driven by increases in the price of milk in Andean countries from growing urban populations. Because of the preponderance of sloped land in these mountain systems, soil productivity for these Andean smallholders is very vulnerable to erosion during the intense rainy season of the Central Andes. Climate change has also tended to accentuate the severity of climate risks in these systems.