#Monsanto it has what plants crave

[madamlaydebug]

WE ALL HAVE PARASITES – HELP! One in three Americans is infected with parasites. Continue reading to learn more about what parasites are, how to know if you are infected, and finally how to get rid of them. Parasites can rob you of energy, steal your oxygen, and leach off the food you eat, weakening your immune system and putting you at greater risk to get cancer. Parasites are worms living in your body, literally just hanging there in your digestive tract. They are tiny organisms that live in your body and feed at your expense. Parasites survive off our vitamins, proteins and other nutrients. They are alive and must also release bowel movements. Yup you guessed it, that happens inside of us. Parasites are often found in the colon but they are not limited to just that area. Parasites may also infest are like your: lungs, esophagus, muscles, joints, blood, brain, skin, and even your eyes. Symptoms of parasites: • Abdominal pain • Diarrhea • Nausea or vomiting • Gas or bloating • Dysentery (loose stools containing blood and mucus) • Rash or itching around the rectum or vulva • Stomach pain or tenderness • Feeling tired • Weight loss • Passing a worm in your stool • Gas/bloating • Cravings • Runny nose • Sleep disorders • Headaches • Loss of appetite • Dark areas under the eyes • Yeast/candida infection • Fever • Acne • Allergies • Cravings • Hyperactivity/anxiety • Nervousness • Skin conditions – hives, itching or irritation on the face • Bad taste in the mouth ** some woman have parasites in their uterus, and they are unaware – causing intense PMS symptoms. ALMOST EVERYONE HAS PARASITES. It is a part of life, just as bacteria is on everything we touch. The amount of people affected in their lifetime is astonishing and unfortunately most of do not know we are affected. We are unaware of the symptoms; we have trouble connecting the dots. We believe because we are in the western world we cannot be subject to such infections. This is just not true, and it’s not our fault either. We were never taught about parasites and natural health. We need to make people aware and we need to keep talking about the unspoken and what people are afraid of. How do you get parasites? Parasites are a part of life! • Poor sanitation of food and water • Contaminated food and water You can get parasites from literally anything, fruits, vegetables, meats, coming in contact with others person’s body fluid, and if you live around with pets… yup you have them. . Water pollution has brought these critical immune system depressants: PCBs (Monsanto), benzene, asbestos, azo dyes(synthetic colors in food and clothing), heavy metals, motor oil and radioactive elements. Food has brought the same depressants, through food processing that uses the same polluted water to accomplish it all. – So if you are eating processed food you are ingesting parasites.They are nearly unavoidable but with the correct information, cleansing your body, and eating the right food you will be on the path to wellness, naturally. Parasites thrive in unhealthy bodies. How long they survive depends on our health and how one chooses to take care of themselves. Poor eating choices and unhealthy habits will only make your immune system more susceptible to parasites. In addition even if you are making the correct eating choices, if you have an unhealthy gut you will be unable to absorb the nutrients you need. Does that piss you off? Well it should. But have no fear there are ways to restore your health. I hope this information will cause you to think about the wisdom of detoxing your body to create a more alkaline internal environment that is needed in order to kill parasites. You can complete various parasite cleanses using all natural herbal medicine. You can also increase your sulfur intake to kill off the parasites. I have also read research regarding seaweed and how the iodine and various plant compounds acted as a natural anti-parasitic. To prevent parasites we must eat – anti-parasitic food. The natural way. The way our ancestors did it, the only way before Fast Food and an Era of Misinformation and alternative facts. What did our ancestors eat? Garlic, herbs, fermented foods, ginger Native Americans knew we were supposed to cleanse our bodies to get rid of parasites. They would often induce diarrhea and vomiting to rid of these creatures. Similarity to animals in which we remove worms from every 6 months. This tells us we must look within and think about doing the same. We have lost touch with our ancestral knowledge through generations of miscommunicating information in order to manipulate us into living a certain life. Learn. Unlearn. And Relearn. Herbs used to cleanse parasites: Wormwood: (from the Artemisia shrub – artemisia absinthum) Known for its vermicidal properties and helps those with a weak and under-active digestion. It increases the acidity of the stomach and the production of bile. The wormwood capsules kill the larval stages of the parasites . COMMON CLOVES (from the clove tree – eugenia caryophyllata) Anti-parasitical, anti-fungal, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. It also removes pain. The clove capsules remove the parasite eggs. Others ways you can prevent parasites and live worm free: 1. EAT HEALTHY – Veggies, salads, leafy greens and cleansing foods. Avoid high sugar foods, and avoid all refined sugar/wheat/processed food. 2. EAT PARASITE KILLING FOOD – Raw garlic, pumpkin pineapples, papaya seeds, oregano essential oil in tea, dried figs, ginger, garlic 3. DRINK PLENTY OF WATER – Keep your system flushing out toxins. Water is so important for flushing and our health. Constantly be drinking water and hydrating your body. There is more to this story, parasites live in other parasites. They contain their own bacteria and viruses too. One round worm named Ascaris is extremely common in humans and bring on illness and diseases such as: herpes, chicken pox, mumps, and coxsackie viruses. We need to be cleansing our bodies and ensuring we put in the right foods in order to prevent parasites from taking over and destroying our health. Instead of vaccines we should begin parasite cleanses from birth. There are many cultures that practice this; it is just unheard of in western societies. Sometimes things that seem uncomfortable at first are actually what we need.

[myflowerfriends]

Blog 9 First Draft: Fight the System by Appreciating Soil and Supporting Local Farmers !

Symphonies of the Soil

Figure 1: Cover Artwork, 2012, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229397/

When I began watching this documentary, I braced myself for what I thought was going to be a long, boring hour-and-a-half. But by the end of it, I think it may have changed the trajectory of my summer plans.

The first half of the documentary is an almost meditative description of different types of soils found across planet earth, backed by an orchestral score. Ironically, one of the first phrases of the narrator is: “most of the planet is non-living.”[1]And it is. As my sister pointed out, even humans are mostly CHON: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Yet plots of land are not 100% soil; half of it is the compounds that make up soil, and half of it consists of spaces for air, water, and microorganisms which use soil to survive.

Figure 2: Andy Foraging for Mushrooms in Washington, 2019, photo by author.

This point leads to another: you cannot grow good produce in a void. If you were to strip a type of soil down to its purest form and attempt at planting anything in it, it likely would not be successful. This seems to be the thesis of the second half of the documentary: farmers need to feed soil the natural ingredients it needs to be nutritional.

As I don’t have a very strong science background, some of this went over my head, such as the part about the lupines and nitrogen fixation. This summer, as long as the pandemic settles down, I hope to get an internship or job working in permaculture or vertical harvesting. It’s very odd to me that I can talk so much about the environment but know so little about it in a physical way. Although I try to shop mostly locally or from farmers markets, the development I grew up in didn’t allow gardens aside from flower beds, so I have had very little connection to soil or the ground I live on.

A critique I have of this film is that they paid very little attention to indigenous practices of cultivating soil, or hunter-gatherer ideas. They looked at how the harmful processes began, with civilizations in Europe flattening out the hillsides and beginning monocrop farming during the agricultural revolution, and they did discuss the Law of Return, but I thought there might be more references with how the soil had been used in previous human populations, and perhaps a discussion on primitivism. The discussion that was had in the film was more focused on finding a structured form of rewilding agriculturally, which I support, but still I thought the film could show the other side, and give more credit to the indigenous groups that have been pushing for this rewinding for centuries.

Figure 3: Stone Age Reenactment Group, http://www.jutulskinn.no/stone-age-gathering.

No matter how far you think society should dive into with a return to primitivism, the message of this video is clear: we can do a better job at how we farm, in order to produce healthier more sustainable products. It feels as though this shouldn’t be too difficult—but with the rigid constraints set forth by the corporations involved in the agricultural industry, farmers have very little say in how their crops get produced, and animals have become far removed from from the agricultural process, removing a great source of natural fertilizer as well. The next film explains that a bit more.

Food, Inc.

Figure 4: Food, Inc. Cover Image, 2008, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/mediaviewer/rm3514966016.

Food, Inc. uses various segments to explain the systems put in place to produce food, and how rigid those constraints are within the law-and-order system of the United States of America. These segments range from showing statistics, interviews, and video clips of what the world of agriculture is really like.

I found the Polyface Farms clips to be fascinating, because it was so difficult to watch and listen to, but was still the best possible scenario for meat farming. The cattle fertilize and mow the variety of greens they eat; there are no shipments of corn that have to be made. As Joel says, “it’s all real solar dollars….we’re every bit as efficient, especially if you plug in all of the inefficiencies of the industrial system.” [2]

Figure 5: Joel at Polyface Farms, http://www.temeats.com/polyface-farms/.

I think this will be the hardest connection for people to make, especially because we need food to sustain ourselves. Someone can be addicted to nicotine and cut it out of their lives, or can choose to avoid it altogether. But they cannot simply ignore food. People can ignore bad food, but the temptation is always lingering as a possibility, and if you grew up like I did—eating processed foods for breakfast, lunch, and dinner until I was about sixteen and realized I needed to be healthier—breaking away from those habits can feel like the single most challenging thing to accomplish. And when fast food is the only option due to income levels, the cycle gets even more challenging to break.

Figure 6: Elk in Wyoming, https://content.osgnetworks.tv/petersenshunting/content/photos/bull-elk-bugling.jpg

I am reminded of an argument that put me on bad terms with my boss at my summer job as a waitress at a guest ranch near Jackson, Wyoming. Elk lived in the meadows just outside the property and were hunted and sold locally. One of our most popular items on the menu was elk tenderloin, and once I had a guest ask how local the elk we served was, a reasonable assumption as our website says that our kitchen sources locally and is as sustainable as possible, even though the menu does not specify what is or is not local. Upon speaking with the head chef I learned that the elk was actually shipped in, frozen, from Austria. The more getting-into-everybody-else’s-business that I did, the more I realized that the only ingredients we used that weren’t shipped in from Sysco were a weak amount of herbs from the farmers market. That guest was from Philadelphia and could have had fresher elk had he shipped it from Austria to Pennsylvania rather than Austria to Utah to Wyoming.

Along with that, our menu was incredibly meat-and-potatoes based, following exactly the prediction that humans are hard-wired to crave salt, fat, and sugar.

Something my mom makes fun of me for saying all the time is “it’s supply and demand!” as if all the problems in the world could be that simple. But in truth, they can be. And I hope that just as my generation has severely damaged the tobacco industry, the next generation can put an end to big corporations controlling the food industry, so that 30% of the United States’ land base will not be corn, and the choice between medication or buying vegetables will be unfathomable, and local food companies will overrule the 4 major meat companies in charge now.

A critique I have of Food, Inc. is that there is very little said about the dairy and fishing industries. I felt that there could have been an additional segment on those in the film—perhaps they aren’t as bad as the meat and corn industries, but I do not feel as though they are righteous enough to be counted out of this conversation.

I also am a bit confused by the Monsanto segment and hope to discuss that in our class time.

Question: Food, Inc. is very focused on the United States of America. What are food systems like in other parts of the world? Is there a correlation between colonized places having more fast-food?

WC: 1257

[1] Garcia, Deborah Koons, director. Symphony of the Soil. YouTube, 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDZVKMe2FTg.

[2] Kenner, Robert, et al. Food, Inc. 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smk2xq2l3Ig

[kassassq]

Genetically Modified Food - The Benefits and the Risks

Genetically Modified Food - The Benefits and the Risks

Genetically Modified Food - The Benefits and the Risks

Genetically Modified Food - The Benefits and the Risks

Foundation Genetically altered nourishments or GM food sources for short, likewise go under a wide range of names, including transgenic nourishment, hereditarily designed nourishment or biotech nourishment. So what are GM nourishments? Albeit various individuals and gatherings have various definitions, GM nourishments can extensively characterize as nourishments that "are created from crops whose hereditary cosmetics has been adjusted through a procedure called recombinant DNA, or quality grafting, to give the plant an alluring attribute." The change is generally done in the lab utilizing atomic systems or hereditary building even though other people might contend that yields delivered through customary rearing can likewise be considered as GM nourishment. The main GM nourishment crop, a tomato created by Monsanto was submitted for endorsement to the US FDA in August 1994 and came into advertising around the same time. As of September 9, 2008, a sum of 111 bioengineered nourishment items has finished the US FDA "interview techniques" on bioengineered food sources. Notwithstanding the tomato, the scope of items incorporates soybean, corn, cotton, potato, flax, canola, squash, papaya, radicchio, sugar beet, rice, melon, and wheat. As per appraises by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, "between 70 percent and 75 percent of every single handled nourishment accessible in U.S. markets may contain fixings from hereditarily designed plants. Breads, oat, solidified pizzas, franks and soft drink are only a couple of them." The advantages of GM nourishments. Backing for GM nourishments originate from various segments: researchers, business analysts, and naturally from the rural and nourishment enterprises. GM nourishments can battle world yearning. The total populace has arrived at a record-breaking high of more than 6 and a half billion. Over 20% of these are experiencing destitution and craving. That GM nourishments can stop hunger is probably the noblest inspiration driving the advancement of GM nourishments. GM nourishments probably are simpler to develop and bring more significant returns. In destitution stricken pieces of the world, better returns can spare a huge number of lives and bring truly necessary monetary advantages. In a survey, Terri Raney of the United Nations says "...the monetary outcomes so far propose that ranchers in creating nations can profit by transgenic crops..." GM crops are better. GM crops are intended to be sturdier and more hearty than their non-changed cousins. They are intended to be impervious to dry season, sicknesses, and nuisances. The Hawaiian papaya industry, for instance, just figured out how to endure an infection scourge after the presentation of progressively safe transgenic assortments. GM nourishments have been with us for many years. The wide assortment of numerous plants that we see today came to fruition through common just as customary man-made plant cross-rearing that took a large number of years. That is peppers come in various shapes, hues, and tastes, from the exceptionally hot to the sweet sorts. That is the reason we have more than 1000 unique sorts of tomatoes. GM nourishments can battle the lack of healthy sustenance. In a world experiencing hunger, GM nourishments can answer the requirement for increasingly nutritious nourishment. To refer to a model, Swiss research endeavored to make rice strains that contain a lot of beta-carotene and iron to neutralize nutrient An and iron insufficiency. Lack of healthy sustenance can allude to both undernutrition and wrong nourishment. Individuals in rich and created nations may have all that could possibly be needed nourishment however not the correct sustenance important to keep them sound. Hence, analysts at the European-subsidized FLORA venture have created strains of products of the soil with the upgraded substance of cancer prevention agents. Through hereditary designing, FLORA oranges have higher than ordinary flavonoids and phenolics. The FLORA purple tomatoes have multiple times the measure of the cancer prevention agent anthocyanins contrasted with ordinary tomatoes. GM nourishments are useful for nature. The harm to the condition that bug sprays, for example, DDT realizes is outstanding. The utilization of engineered composts in the farmlands prompted the eutrophication of streams and lakes everywhere throughout the world. GM nourishments convert into less utilization of pesticides, herbicides, and composts, and in this way less contamination. GM nourishments can help prescription. GM nourishments can be utilized in delivering pharmacological items in the supposed "therapeutic atomic cultivating: the creation of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and eatable immunizations in plants." FLORA means "flavonoids and related phenolics for solid living utilizing orally prescribed cancer prevention agents" and it considers it to be "a player later on for medication." As ahead of schedule as 2005, Indian scientists announced the potential utilization of transgenic bananas in conveying immunizations against hepatitis B. Around the same time, the biotech organization GTC Biotherapeutics situated in Framingham, Massachusetts has built up a crowd of hereditarily changed goats that produce milk which contains a human anticoagulant called against thrombin. GM nourishments are sheltered. The makers of GM crops rush to guarantee that GM nourishments are protected and represent no risk to human wellbeing. GM crops are managed by three offices: the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US FDA. "The FDA guarantees that nourishments produced using these plants are alright for people and creatures to eat, the USDA ensures the plants are sheltered to develop, and the EPA guarantees that pesticides brought into the plants are ok for humans and creatures utilization and for the earth. While these organizations demonstrate freely." As indicated by the US FDA, "bioengineered nourishments don't represent any dangers for customers that are not the same as regular nourishments ... We ensure there are no perils, for example, a sudden allergen or noxious substance in the nourishment, or that the nourishment isn't changed somehow or another that would influence its health benefit." The issues against GM nourishments. The rivals of GM nourishments might be researchers, earthy people, and obviously shopper gatherings. Moreover, numerous big names are transparently hostile to GM, accordingly setting good examples for general society. Among the most outstanding and frank GM doubter is Charles, England's Prince of Wales. GM nourishments are for benefit. As indicated by its rivals, GM nourishments were made for the benefit and that's it. They refer to the global goliath Monsanto, a pioneer in GM explore and possesses the scandalous Roundup crops. Organizations like Monsanto are improbable in the GM business for simply respectable reasons. GM nourishments are unregulated. The utilization of GM nourishments on the planet is right around an unregulated free-for-all movement. Experiencing the US FDA discussion systems is essentially deliberate. Hostile to GM support gatherings and concerned researchers are requesting more controls and guidelines. There are likewise reports of GM plants getting away from field preliminaries and finding their way to the regular habitat, a large number of miles away. In 2006, rice which contained qualities from the microorganisms Bacillus thuringiensis (the famous Bt) discovered its approach to European markets, causing a major objection. The bacterial quality rendered the rice impervious to creepy crawlies and the transgenic rice was a test plant that has not yet been affirmed for human utilization. GM nourishments can hurt the earth. GM nourishments are influencing their condition and a portion of these impacts may really be hurtful. The impacts are particularly obvious in other living life forms inside the region. There are worries, for models, how cross-fertilization with dust from GM plants can influence non-GM plants. Opposition advancement is another significant issue. In China, for instance, analysts utilized anti-microbial opposition marker qualities to infer safe transgenic rice strains. There are worries that the marker qualities will be taken up by normally happening gut microorganisms and lead to safe, increasingly pathogenic strains. Different examinations additionally point to potential impacts on creature life, for example, creepy crawlies which are intently connected with the GM plants. One of the most outstanding rates was the cases that dust from transgenic corn plants with Bt insecticidal quality markers are unfavorably influencing ruler butterflies in North America. Even though specialists state that the butterflies were protected from Bt, hippies were not fulfilled. GM nourishments can be impeding to human wellbeing. The primary worries about the antagonistic impacts of GM nourishments on wellbeing are the exchange of anti-toxin obstruction, poisonous quality, and allergenicity. With hereditary changes come new mixes in the yields which we for all intents and purposes think nothing about. These mixes might be as allergens and little-known proteins whose impacts on human wellbeing are hard to foresee. In the natural way of life, this can even influence creatures sustained by GM crops and butchered for human use. GM nourishments are worse. Western Europe is a fortress of hostile to GM development. A European report a year ago proclaimed that natural nourishments - which are solely non-GM-, are certainly preferred and progressively nutritious over their non-natural partners. What direction do we go? The dangers versus advantages of GM nourishment are not a simple issue to settle. There is a critical requirement for expanding nourishment generation and GM nourishments appear to be in the best situation to address this need. For the time being, GM nourishments are presumably the answer for nourishment lack. As of now, there isn't sufficient logical proof to help the potential dangers of GM nourishments. Be that as it may, as in many things new and inventive, the long haul benefits and antagonistic impacts must be theorized upon. Duty ought to be on the researchers, the wellbeing specialists, and the ventures to act dependably and to be as straightforward as could be expected under the circumstances.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/36ryGB5

[ntrending]

Can industrial farming be a force for good?

New Post has been published on https://nexcraft.co/can-industrial-farming-be-a-force-for-good/

Can industrial farming be a force for good?

Big Ag to the rescue. (The Voorhes/)

Large-scale farming has a well-earned rep as America’s top eco-villain. But what if the industry could change to be more sustainable? Unthinkable? Turns out, shifting to accommodate our planet is the entire history of agriculture in the United States. Below, how industrial agriculture transformed in the face of environmental disaster in the 1930s—and how it can change to accommodate Earth’s uncertain future.

Look to agriculture’s past…

An essay by Ted Genoways

Amid the faded photographs and yellowed clippings in the attic box that holds the sum record of my ancestors, one item stands out. It’s a short article from The Wichita Weekly Eagle, boldly headlined: “Sam Genoway’s Farm Tractor.” Sam, a distant cousin of mine, was apparently so happy to see his name in the paper that he didn’t bother to make sure the writer got the spelling correct. But the story wasn’t really about him anyway. As the title would suggest, the focus was Sam’s tractor. “People have found out how many different kinds of work he can do,” his wife, Carrie Mae, told the reporter, “and they come from miles around.”

It was May 1917. America had declared war on Germany, and President Woodrow Wilson classified wheat, what Sam grew, as a “material of war.” The Department of Agriculture made the grain’s production a national priority, and Henry Ford announced he would mass-produce tractors in time for harvest. That season, Sam and his Caterpillar 45 plowed hundreds of acres. “I don’t expect this to last such a great while,” Carrie Mae said, “as the people who hire him soon decide they need a tractor of their own.”

She was exactly right. The number of tractors on U.S. farms went from about 50,000 at the start of 1917 to nearly a million by the end of the 1920s. With the additional horsepower and savings in man-hours, tens of millions of rocky acres became fresh farmland. Farmers ripped up trees and brush, pulled out boulders, dug irrigation canals, and built miles of new roads. Most important, tractors broke up dense topsoil to yield wide furrows and soft seedbeds. American farming surged.

But when European grain producers reentered the global market, U.S. agriculture found itself perilously overproductive. Crop prices fell to record lows, and people who had bought tractors and equipment struggled to keep up with the interest on their debts. Farmers abandoned or fallowed 33 million acres of newly opened ground just as the drought of the 1930s arrived. Unprotected and unplanted, topsoil dried up and blew away, forming “black blizzards.” From the Texas Panhandle to southern Nebraska, from the foothills of the Colorado Rockies to the rolling prairie near Garden Plain, Kansas, where Sam lived, tens of thousands of families lost their farms in what came to be known as the Dust Bowl.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the White House in 1933, he appointed Henry A. Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture to tackle the problem. Historians often argue that Wallace, founder of Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Company, pulled farms out of the Dust Bowl with corn that resists drought. But FDR went much further. To reduce dust storms and soil loss, he paid foresters to plant more than 200 million trees around fields. He signed the Soil Conservation Act, establishing subsidies for landowners to restore native plant life. What really rescued agriculture was policy that protected resources and rewarded those who revised wasteful practices.

That clipping about Sam’s tractor reminds us that American ingenuity has solved countless crises, but it has created many as well. Our history, like how the Dust Bowl formed in part thanks to technology outpacing stewardship, should guide our decision-making. Large-scale conventional agriculture, or what we often call “Big Ag,” can make massive investments in research to improve yields and reduce its impact on Earth’s resources. Present-day farmers have access to more data, more research, and more support than any previous generation. But without considering the unintended consequences of getting bigger and growing more, we risk creating the next generation’s problems.

Examples of this go well beyond the Dust Bowl. New irrigation systems helped farmers survive the next drought in the 1950s, but it also depleted aquifers. Genetically modified seeds made it possible to plant more crops on fewer acres, but it also led to declining soil health and food with lower nutrient value. Feedlots and enormous hog and chicken barns, often referred to as “concentrated animal-feeding operations,” expedited meat production and freed up farmland, but they’ve also driven the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and contaminated communities’ drinking water. Now, as engineers move toward self-­triggered irrigation, self-driving combine harvesters, and animal confinements with self-feeding systems, there’s a great opportunity to improve ­profits—but also the risk that production will once again pose unforeseen threats to precious natural resources.

Sam, bolstered by federal policy, weathered a decade of hardship and privation. Stories like his are a reminder that Americans can chart a better course through trying times ahead, but only if we learn from past mistakes. Big Ag is a powerful force. We must ensure it is a positive one, for farmers and for the uncertain future of our planet.

…to fix its future.

Practical solutions to industrial agriculture’s biggest problems, by Nick Stockton.

Water

Overconsumption, pollution, climate change, and the increasing demands of a swelling population are drying out key agricultural regions like California, the Mediterranean, and Central America.

Mind the overspray. (Richard Ellis / Alamy stock photo/)

Problem: Regular droughts

Solution: Early-rising plants

Since the 1940s, farmers from Texas to South Dakota have relied on the Ogallala aquifer during sporadic dry spells. Now parts of the reserve are getting dangerously low. Agriculture giants Monsanto, Syngenta, and DuPont have engineered plants ­capable of muscling through drought, but those seeds cost more, and farmers don’t always get the yield they need to justify the price. The problem is these dry-spell survivors often can’t turn off their drought mode fast enough once the weather shifts. The longer it takes for the crops to reopen the pores in their leaves, which close to prevent precious fluid from evaporating­, the less likely they are to take advantage of ­growth-​­boosting moisture. But some plants, like an alfalfa relative biologist Roger Deal at Emory University studies, boast genetic material that helps them become fully functional mere hours after rainfall. Future plants modified with this type of super­power won’t be dinner anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t someday end up on your plate. Research into the genomic goods that help plants “remember” to go in and out of drought-​​­survival mode could help en­gineers design seeds that make faster transitions, thus increasing yield and making them smarter purchases for farmers.

problem: H₂O overuse

Solution: Probes to test the waters

You can’t ask vegetables or grains when they’re thirsty, but you might be able to decipher how many drinks your soil’s serving up. Beginning in 2013, a group of Kansas farmers took on a five-year challenge to reduce their ground­water consumption by 20 percent. By stabbing electronic probes into their combined 170 fields, the experimental growers were able to check on the moisture content of their soils and turn on the sprinklers only when the terra firma was truly too dry to sustain their crops. In the end, the thirst-​by-​proxy method paid dividends: Water-­watchers grew 98 percent of the corn yield their neighbors did, but used 23 percent less liquid. That’s good news for both our water stores and our farmers: Easing up on the pumps helped probe-users end the season with 4 percent more cash.

Soil

The U.N. estimates intensive agriculture has seriously degraded one-third of Earth’s ­productive land—and continues to ruin about 24 billion tons of dirt each year. With ­innovative soil supplements, our food system can tread more lightly.

Big agriculture. (The Voorhes/)

Problem: Fertilizer fallout

Solution: Basalt of the earth

Industrial fertilizers help us grow lots of food for humans and livestock. A 2015 study from the University of California at Berkeley showed that conventional yields were, on average, 20 percent higher than those of organic farming. On the flip side, relying on these chemical boosters degrades soil quality and food’s nutrient content. ­Organic field dressing is better but works slowly. Maybe there’s a third way: rocks. Basalt’s got what plants crave, like calcium, iron, and magnesium. Adding broken bits of the volcanic stone to the soil also sucks up carbon and helps with moisture re­tention. Sound like snake oil? California’s Strategic Growth Council, a committee that directs grant dollars toward sustainability projects, doesn’t think so. In 2018, it spent $4.7 million to test basalt fertilization on acreage across the state. One of the biggest challenges is pulverizing the material to just the right size: Big chunks don’t break down quickly enough, and small grains cost too much to make.

Problem: CO₂ emissions

Solution: Coral reefs on land

Agriculture expels roughly 15 percent of the world’s annual greenhouse gases; even tilling soil releases troublesome amounts of CO₂. “Cutting down on emissions is fine, but it’s too late to rely on simply reducing fossil fuel use,” says Mark Rasmussen, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State. Rasmussen’s proposal is coral-like carbon capture, which means essentially growing “reefs” underground. At sea, these ecosystems consist of the exoskeletons of tiny marine creatures, which harvest carbon dioxide from the ocean to build their shells. Rasmussen’s team wants to leverage soil’s naturally occurring microbes, which can process carbon dioxide in the same way. Researchers would seed these ­microbes in the soil, where they’d turn emissions into calcium. The faux reefs could even sit under nonarable land, sucking up atmospheric CO₂ without the risk of denting any farm equipment.

Problem: toxic runoff

Solution: Helpful germs

The Gulf of Mexico has a corn problem: Growers across middle America fertilize crops with gobs of synthetic nitrogen. The runoff drains into the Mississippi River, which eventually flushes into the Gulf, hundreds of miles away. Here, ­nitrogen-​­hungry algae bloom into massive “dead zones” that suffocate other marine life. Mexico might have a corn solution: Plant biologists from the University of California at Davis and the University of Wisconsin at Madison found several wild strains of Mexican corn that produce their own nitrogen. The plants form above-​ground roots that secrete a gel containing symbiotic bacteria. These microbes convert atmospheric nitrogen into necessary nutrients. The scientists have cultivated the self-​­nourishing varietal in both Wisconsin and California, observing similar results. They are currently investigating whether we can engineer high-​yield commercial corn with similar talents, thereby reducing America’s need to fertilize its No. 1 agricultural product.

Animals

Americans get nearly two-thirds of their protein from meat, milk, and eggs, but raising billions of beings creates a feast of unsavory problems. Algebra and algae are here to help.

A menu tweak could quell cows’ methane burps. (Daniel Acker / Bloomberg via Getty Images/)

Problem: Poop lagoons

Solution: The other brown energy

It’s common for livestock farmers to dump animal feces into open-air “lagoons,” a practice that’s especially dangerous when heavy rains overfill these pools, adding dung to the flood waters. During 2018’s Hurricane Florence, for example, manure from dozens of North Carolina hog operations spilled out of such basins. Even without the help of natural disasters, lagoons can leak or overflow into local water supplies. Good thing poop ponds aren’t our only option. Large ­bacteria-​­filled tanks known as anaerobic digesters can transform waste into methane gas. Agriculturalists can then convert the fumes into electricity they can either sell back to the grid or use to power their operations. In 2018, the EPA’s AgStar Financial Services cut more than 4 million tons of greenhouse-gas emissions by offering cheaper micro­digesters to smaller farms. That reduction was the work of just 248 digester projects, a tiny fragment of the country’s more than 2 million farms.

Problem: Destroyed soil

Solution: Moo math

Many cattle ranchers pack their land with as many cows as it can hold. This is a losing strategy. Crowds graze so quickly that pastures can’t regrow their best grasses. This exposes bare soil to the elements, causing it to lose nutrients and volume. Overstocked areas also worsen the landscape’s overall ecology by leaving little room for other plants and animals. The answer might be as simple as determining exactly how many cows can graze on a piece of land without doing damage. Texas A&M; ­University researcher Monte Rouquette raises cattle on experimental plots, calculating how rainfall, soil composition, and other factors impact a landscape’s ability to support a number of livestock. He also catalogs biodiversity and how herd numbers impact the quality and quantity of the meat. While his models are specific to East Texas (his home, and home to millions of cows), his algebraic approach could work elsewhere, and he shares his models with the USDA.

Problem: Cows’ greenhouse gases Solution: Kelp help

When cows eat, they burp. A lot. In fact, for all the talk of farts, bovine belching is responsible for around 70 percent of cattle methane issuance. What’s more, the combined burps of Earth’s ­billion-​head herd constitute roughly 14.5 percent of the planet’s total ­greenhouse-​gas emissions in a given year. ­University of California at ­Davis animal scientist ­Ermias ­Kebreab and his team found that mixing red macro­algae into their dairy cows’ feed resulted in a 60 percent drop in ­methane-​loaded…​emissions. The desiccated seaweed addition seems to inhibit enzymes produced by gut microbes in the mammals’ first of four stomachs, and at least one of these enzymes appears to be instrumental in the formation of methane. At first the ruminants ate slightly less of the fishy feed compared with their usual supper, but a smidge of molasses to cover up the unfamiliar smell helped ease them into their new ­better-​burp diets.

Problem: Invincible bugs

Solution: Keep the uber-sects apart

Farmers of decades past could lose entire seasons of crops to insects like rootworms, whiteflies, and aphids, but early ­solutions brought their own problems, like the ­pesticide-​driven decimation of our bee populace. Researchers have explored other options, including modifying crops so they can help kill pests, but that backfired too. These engineered plants never slay all their targets because some invaders carry inborn resistance to the bug-harming proteins. Once the modified crop culls the rest of the swarm, those unpoisonable leftovers have only each other to make babies with. Presto: a new generation of better, badder ­creepy-­­crawlers. Researchers at the University of Arizona have gotten around this by planting unmodified seeds in genetically altered fields, which lets some nonresistant bugs survive and mix their susceptible DNA with their tougher buddies’. This method is labor intensive, though, so the Ari­zona group teamed up with some scientists in China to try crossbreeding. They bred altered cotton with an unmodified version, ­resulting in a variety that spawns a 75-25 mix of resistant to nonresistant plants.

Problem: chemical fertilizers

Solution: In living clover

Soil already contains lots of nitrogen, but it’s missing the few molecules that let plants turn it into nutrients. Many cattle ranchers spray pastures with waterway-polluting chemical fertilizers to ensure their herd has plenty of tall, lush grass to eat throughout the season. That’s good for the cows but damaging for our soil and marine life. Clover could provide a spray alternative. The roots of this cover crop house symbiotic bacteria that convert nitrogen into the chemically “fixed” variety plants can use. Researchers at Texas A&M; University figured out a way to put clover to work for their grasses: They seeded fields with the legume in late fall, before the grass sprouted. The cattle then noshed on the trefoil and pooped fixed nitrogen, helping the following season’s grass flourish. Not only did this method reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers, it also extended the grazing season as animals munched on the yummy new greenery.

This article was originally published in the Summer 2019 Make It Last issue of Popular Science.

Written By Ted Genoways, Nick Stockton

[bighaatus-blog]

India's natural rice example of overcoming adversity demonstrates that GMOs are superfluous

One of the greatest – yet most effortlessly exposed – lies we've been told about GM farming is that the innovation is important to encourage a consistently expanding total populace. Monsanto and other GM farming organizations might want for us to trust that their strategies increment trim yields and are in this way basic in battling world craving, yet it just isn't valid. Numerous individuals who may somehow or another be doubtful about GMOs have been directed to acknowledge the possibility that the alleged increment in yields legitimizes the far reaching planting of GM crops, so they will in general disregard the risks related with the innovation. GM horticulture regularly diminishes by and large territorial harvest yields Be that as it may, there has been no genuine increment in harvest yields because of GM horticulture – actually, the inverse is regularly valid, when all variables are thought about. Not exclusively are the yields from GM edits regularly just barely bigger than those from ordinary cultivating techniques, however the innovation really harms close-by harvests, along these lines diminishing provincial yields. The utilization of the herbicide glyphosate – a key segment in GM farming and a cancer-causing agent, to boot – is a risk to non-glyphosate-safe harvests, so by and large the innovation causes a negative by and large impact on potential product yields in a given zone. From Anonymous: "Indeed, even the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is regularly ruled by agrochemical interests, discharged a report that appeared there was no expansion in yield possibilities for GM edits in the course of recent years. Also, the lion's share of GMOs become aren't utilized to encourage hungry individuals." From the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): "As opposed to legends about the prevalence of GE edit yields, most yield gains as of late are because of conventional rearing or enhancement of other rural practices ... hereditary designing has neglected to fundamentally build U.S. edit yields." What's more, as opposed to GM horticulture purposeful publicity, the way to expanded yields may really lie in the refinement of natural cultivating methods, as Indian rice ranchers are presently demonstrating in that nation's rice fields. India's natural rice transformation In India, where GM agribusiness has ended up being a gigantic fiasco, driving numerous agriculturists to suicide over obligations to GM seed organizations after the innovation neglected to convey the guaranteed yields, numerous ranchers are swinging to natural techniques – and with bewildering results: "In Bihar, India, ranchers are breaking world records for rice generation without agrochemicals or GMOs. In 2013, Sumant Kumar and his family delivered an astonishing 22.4 huge amounts of rice on just a single hectare of land, substantially more than anything accomplished by GM seed organizations and their costly herbicides," Anonymous noted. The key to Kumar and other Indian rice agriculturists' prosperity is another natural rice developing technique called the System of Rice Intensification (SRI). This leap forward methodology utilizes unexpected procedures in comparison to those of regular rice cultivating, including the wide dispersing of youthful rice plants in a square example, and evasion of the customary technique for flooding rice fields.

[go-bodysolution1]

Racism applied to food I Body Solutions. Find more at https://www.bodysolutionsinc.com/ Please SUBSCRIBE to our channel: https://goo.gl/VeScrm This video is for Racism applied to food. In this video Dr. Steve Young talks about suger addiction,food addiction,dieting,health,sugar craving,ssugar,Accusing Food Of Racism. To watch this video you can know about scienceapplied to food racism,body solutios food racism,food racism applied,food applied racism. FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/docsteveyoung/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/bodysolutionsnj Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/steveaspt/ 0:00.3 so sometimes when I see all this information online about food and nutrition it reminds me of racism right so it's like seeing one person from a specific ethnicity do something that's unfavorable maybe a blank person kill someone and all sudden saying all people of that race is bad for Humanity right and so you start to see that in nutrition and food as well so let's apply that to sugar right so sugar Ellen if you know there's many types of sugar 0:38.4 there's fruit toasts right which is fruit sugar there's dextrose which is the other half of fruit sugar then there's sucrose which is like table sugar refined sugar there's lactose which is milk sugar just galactose there's many different types of sugar and so not all of them will have the same chemical reaction within your body right sucrose for sure is not the healthiest choice even high amounts of fructose may not be the healthiest choice but we can make the argument that high amounts of any one single thing is 1:12.6 not healthy even water right water is essential for life too much of it plus there's too much sodium out and you get hyponatremia and you die right if you drink too much water right we can see this it's like saying proteins bad for you under protein we have like chicken fish plant proteins eggs right so there's many different sources and types of proteins so in fats right so it's like saying all fats are bad for remember that phase in nutrition right in the 80s well not all fats are equal we have your your mono saturated fats or 1:45.8 saturated fats your poly saturated fats your trans fats and you have fats that are burned I mean there's so many different kinds right so I won't get into there's like omega-3 omega-6 omega-9 depends upon how you want to name it frame it and all that stuff and so what's the takeaway message and what what's it Ashtyn Abul for you well don't let it marketers for these health experts brainwash and pre frame right pre frame you into thinking that this entire category of food is is awful for you right all we've done essentially is switched from the fat-free a decade or a 2:25.3 couple decades - now the carbohydrate free decade right it's swinging the other way everything swings and pendulums and so I will say this yes most grains are poisoned by Monsanto it has by phosphate in it sure most grains are toxic for you it's not the grain it's the we killer in the grain right and imagine this some people say rice is unhealthy for you well tell that you like a billion people in China for a long time has been eating rice like I grew up on rice - right and so there's no one single food or category that's quote-unquote bad for you you want to make sure that you eat a variety of 3:04.9 foods and look at what works and feel at what works for you it just doesn't make sense to eat no sugars which it essentially means you're cutting out let's say if you're doing keto that means you're not eating any fruits right there are that's like saying hey mother nature let's screw you and kick you in the nuts and we're not going to eat this entire food group you have provided for humans doesn't make sense to me right so be really careful what the internet marketing fitness experts are telling 3:37.5 you question all the experts right you can fake anything right now right like sure you cannot fake being a professional football you can't just like put on a helmet and football pads and run on a football field like I'm a professional football player you're gonna get crushed you can't fake professional sports because it takes decades to master however you can fake being a fitness guru very Some our most popular uploaded: anti cancer anti aging anti inflammation supplement mix https://goo.gl/gjPZps Knee Stability Exercises for Runners I 5 Best Knee Strengthening Exercise I I How To Fix Your Knees https://goo.gl/EQBPVb how to relife stress using tolerance versus acceptance & How stress affects your body https://goo.gl/AvRPX7 how to exercise when you have no time, motivation, and have a sugar addiction I Motivational video https://goo.gl/BkStrf Spartan Stretch I Spartan Post Workout I spartan dynamic warm up I how tight your hip flexors https://goo.gl/JCQbhz Please don't forget to LIKE,COMMENT,SHARE our video and SUBSCRIBE to our channel: https://goo.gl/VeScrm

[bighaatus-blog]

India's natural rice example of overcoming adversity demonstrates that GMOs are superfluous

One of the greatest – yet most effortlessly exposed – lies we've been told about GM farming is that the innovation is important to encourage a consistently expanding total populace. Monsanto and other GM farming organizations might want for us to trust that their strategies increment trim yields and are in this way basic in battling world craving, yet it just isn't valid. Numerous individuals who may somehow or another be doubtful about GMOs have been directed to acknowledge the possibility that the alleged increment in yields legitimizes the far reaching planting of GM crops, so they will in general disregard the risks related with the innovation. GM horticulture regularly diminishes by and large territorial harvest yields Be that as it may, there has been no genuine increment in harvest yields because of GM horticulture – actually, the inverse is regularly valid, when all variables are thought about. Not exclusively are the yields from GM edits regularly just barely bigger than those from ordinary cultivating techniques, however the innovation really harms close-by harvests, along these lines diminishing provincial yields. The utilization of the herbicide glyphosate – a key segment in GM farming and a cancer-causing agent, to boot – is a risk to non-glyphosate-safe harvests, so by and large the innovation causes a negative by and large impact on potential product yields in a given zone. From Anonymous: "Indeed, even the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is regularly ruled by agrochemical interests, discharged a report that appeared there was no expansion in yield possibilities for GM edits in the course of recent years. Also, the lion's share of GMOs become aren't utilized to encourage hungry individuals." From the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): "As opposed to legends about the prevalence of GE edit yields, most yield gains as of late are because of conventional rearing or enhancement of other rural practices ... hereditary designing has neglected to fundamentally build U.S. edit yields." What's more, as opposed to GM horticulture purposeful publicity, the way to expanded yields may really lie in the refinement of natural cultivating methods, as Indian rice ranchers are presently demonstrating in that nation's rice fields. India's natural rice transformation In India, where GM agribusiness has ended up being a gigantic fiasco, driving numerous agriculturists to suicide over obligations to GM seed organizations after the innovation neglected to convey the guaranteed yields, numerous ranchers are swinging to natural techniques – and with bewildering results: "In Bihar, India, ranchers are breaking world records for rice generation without agrochemicals or GMOs. In 2013, Sumant Kumar and his family delivered an astonishing 22.4 huge amounts of rice on just a single hectare of land, substantially more than anything accomplished by GM seed organizations and their costly herbicides,