Fewer Crops are Feeding More People Worldwide - And That's Not Good
Discussion Points
- What are the benefits of agrobiodiversity?
- The article shares why wealthy nations see less agrobiodiversity when compared to poorer countries. Why is this?
- Do you feel there can be a balance between "traditional crops" and "new crops" as discussed in the column? Explain your reasoning.
- In your opinion what is the future of agrobiodiversity around the world? Justify your thoughts.
21 comments:
It would be much better if people only ate what they needed to eat. that would be good
Some benefits of agrobioiversity are that you can produce large amounts of food at a much lower cost. That is very important to poorer countries because you can feed your people without spending as much money as you would need to.
1 agrobiodiversity is natural selection of certain crops
2 wealthy countries tend to look for crop uniformity
3 yes because if there crops are all the same then diseases or pests have an easier time destroying them rather than if they are all different varieties.
4 as more people look for non gmo products then famers will be "forced" to grow more natural crops in order to make a profit
benifit is you can produce large amounts of crops for cheap
Some places can't grow as many crops or different types of crops as other like Juliana and her daughter can grow alot of different types of corn and potatoes but another farm might not be able to grow as many different types of crops.
Like the article said, to protect and increase agrobiodiversity, we have to know how to value it in a rapidly changing world. If we keep protecting and increasing agrobiodiversity for the future we need to keep changing as time goes on. Urbanization, migration, markets and climate can affect agrobiodiversity. To do this, we need to produce foods at a lower cost, but with a higher yield in the field and a high quality food.
Agrobiodiversity is a "a genetic legacy created by natural selection interacting with cultural practices over thousands of years". An example that was talked about in the article is potatoes in the Andes, more than 4,000 types are grown there.
Wealthy countries have made less bio-diverse agriculture which increases the chance of disease in the plants while poorer countries have more biodiversity due to the lack of means to selectively breed plants.
Countries with that are less agrodiverse are more endagered by pest and disease due to the fact that all plants are alike and one thing can take us all down.
I think that it is dangerous to have only one kind of plant to farm because what if a diseases wiped out that years crop.
It really is dangerous to only farm one crop because if its wiped out that could cause a famine.
I didn't realize that there are over 4,000 varieties of potatoes grown in the Andes.
we should have a variety of crops in one farm
The less agrodiverse countries are more endangered by disease and pest because all of the plants in that country are similar
People in the United States need to eat more organic foods and not just processed food, because it will impact our world later on.
Its weird how the bigger, more wealthier countries have less agrobiodiversity, while the smaller countries like peru have more agrobiodiversity
agrobiodiversity is inportent to having a variety in are foods that we eat to combat parasites so if one type of crop gets infected there would be more to chose from.
The benefits of agricultural biodiversity is that there are more varieties of foods to choose from so people can have a more complete healthy diet.
More than 95 percent of known apple varieties that existed in the United States in 1900 are no longer cultivated.
Wealthy countries tend to lack biodiversity because they choose the crops that can be mass-grown very cheaply and effectively.
I'm appalled at the percent of food that isn't produced world wide because of biodiversity. 95% of known apple that were produced in America in 1900 are no longer cultivated. What? This is unbelievable to me, I'm shocked.
Post a Comment