DOCSLIB.ORG

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan NON-FARM AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES and TRAINING NEEDS in OHIO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan NON-FARM AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES and TRAINING NEEDS in OHIO This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 6-6236 BRUM, Herbert Duane, 1 9 2 4 - NON-FARM AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND TRAINING NEEDS IN OHIO. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1965 Agriculture, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan NON-FARM AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND TRAINING NEEDS IN OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University Herbert Duane Brum, B.S., M.S. ********** The Ohio State University 1965 Approved by '*-£{/ jr. C (J Adviser Department of Agricultural Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation and thanks to those persons whose assistance has contributed to this study: To Dr. Ralph E. Bender, his major adviser, for his personal interest in the writer's graduate program and his interest, advice and counsel in the conduct of this study. To Dr. Robert E. Taylor, Dr. Earl W. Anderson, Dr. William Fred Staub, and Dr. Ralph J. Woodin who have served on the writer's graduation committee and have given generously of their time in helping the writer's graduate program to be of maximum benefit to him. To Dr. Francis B. McCormick, Dr. D. Ransome Whitney, Dr. Francis E. Walker, Dr. David I. Padberg, and Mr. James R. Kendall for their counsel concerning the design and treatment of the data for this study. To the Directors of the Ohio Department of Taxation, Ohio Department of Industrial Relations, Ohio Department of Personnel, to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ohio Department of Education, and to the members of the Advisory Committee for pro­ viding information and also encouragement to the writer. To Dr. Byrl R. Shoemaker and Mr. Warren G. Weiler for their assistance and guidance. To the writer's secretary, Mrs. Zena Deamer, who gave encourage­ ment to the writer and also much time in preparation of the manuscript. And finally, to his wife, Genevieve, who worked hard and made many personal sacrifices during the period covered in this graduate program in addition to giving encouragement, assistance and sympathy to the writer, and to his sons, Roger, Mark and Michael, and his daughter, Karla, for their cooperation. iii VITA April 30, 1924 Born - Marietta, Ohio 19^-2-19^5 . United States Army 19^7 .... B.S., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 19^7-1957 .... Teacher of Vocational Agriculture Frankfort, Ohio i960 .... M.S., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1957-1965 .... Assistant Supervisor Vocational Agriculture Ohio Department of Education Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Agricultural Education Studies in Agricultural Education. Professors Ralph E. Bender, Ralph J. Woodin, Robert E. Taylor Studies in Educational Administration. Professor William Frederick Staub Studies in Higher Education. Professor Earl W. Anderson Studies in Research and Evaluation. Professor Ralph J. Woodin iv CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS o . ii VITA . iv TABLES viii Chapter I. NATURE OF THE STUDY ......................... 1 Need for the Study Purpose of the Study General Procedure More Specific Procedures Identifying the universe Selecting the sample The final sample and projection procedure Basic Assumptions Scope of the Study Limitations of the Study Definitions of Terms II. AN OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS COMPARED BY AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRIAL, AND BUSINESS COMPETENCY GROUPS . , 18 Overview of Findings in Ail Major Competency Areas Number of New Employees Needed Annually Workers by Occupational Categories Comparison of Wages for Occupational Categories Years of Schooling Necessary Kind of Background Preferred Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level Horticultural service firms Meat packing plants Sausage and prepared meat products firms Fluid milk firms Canned fruit, preserves, vegetable firms Cereal preparation firms Manufacturers of prepared animal feed Manufacturers of food preparations Grease and tallow manufacturing firms v Chapter Page Publishing and printing firms Wood preserving firms Veneer and plywood plants Pharmaceutical preparations firms Manufacturers of farm machinery and equipment Manufacturers of metal stampings Natural gas and electricity transmission firms Wholesale fresh fruit and vegetable firms Retail hay, grain, and feed stores Hardware stores Farm equipment dealers Florist shops Grocery stores Eating places Dairy products stores Farm and garden supply stores Lumber yards Fruit stores and vegetable markets Miscellaneous retail stores Health and allied services Summary of Chapter II III. AN ANALYSIS OF NON-FARM AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING NEEDS ............................. 69 Non-farm Agricultural Workers by Occupational Groups Non-farm Agricultural Workers Compared by Areas of Agricultural Competency Distribution of Workers by Occupational Level and Area of Competency Animal science Insects, diseases, and controls Crop production Food processing Soil science Forestry Horticulture Agricultural engineering Agricultural economics Kinds of Firms Employing Agricultural Workers Agricultural Competencies Needed by Workers in Various Firms Animal science Insects, diseases, and controls Crop production Food processing Soil science Forestry Agricultural engineering Horticulture Agricultural economics Chapter Page Competency Patterns Weeded by Workers in Selected Types of Firms Horticultural service firms Hay, grain and feed stores Florist shops Hardware stores Food preparations manufacturers Farm and garden supply stores Retail farm equipment stores Competency pattern in horticultural service firms for technician level Level of Education Weeded Educational Level by Groups of Firms Agricultural produce processing group Agricultural supply Horticultural service Agricultural service Wages Earned by Agricultural Workers Professional Technical Proprietors and managers Clerical Skilled Semi-skilled Service Background Preferred for Workers Number of Wew Employees Weeded Annually Including Replacements Summary of Chapter III IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 125 Specific Objectives Procedures of the Study Assumptions of the Study Limitations of the Study Summary of Findings Number of new employees needed annually Wages earned Level of education needed Kind of background preferred Comparison of workers by major competency groups Non-farm agricultural workers by occupational groups Agricultural workers compared by areas of competency Distribution of agricultural workers by occupational level and area of competency Agricultural competencies needed by workers in various types of firms Competency patterns of workers in selected types of firms Conclusions Re c omme ndat i ons Implications for program development APPENDIXES ................. ibb BIBLIOGRAPHY 162 TABLES Table Page 1. Number and Percent of Ohio Non-farm Employees by Competency Group ..................... 21 2. Comparison of Percent of Workers by Occupational Categories in Competency Groups..... .......... 22 3. Yearly Number of Employees Needed by Competency Groups 23 1+. Annual New Employees Needed by Percent . 25 5. Percent of Workers in Occupational Categories by Competency Groups ..................... 26 6 . Comparison of Workers Earning One Hundred or more Dollars per Week ................:. 28 7. Comparison of Workers Earning $79-^0 per Week . 29 8. Average Number of Years of Schooling Necessary for Non-farm Agricultural Workers by Occupational Category ............... 32 9. Schooling Necessary by Competency Group and Occupational Category ....................... 33 10. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group in Terms of Background Preferred ........... 36 11. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Horticultural Service Firms .................. 33 12. A comparison of .Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Meat Packing Plants . 39 13. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Sausage and Other Prepared Meat Product Firms ................ ^+0 1^. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Fluid Milk Firms. ^1 viii Table Page 15. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Canned Fruit, Vegetable, Preserve, Jam and Jelly Firms ........ 42 16 . A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Cereal Preparation Firms 43 17. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Manufacturers of Prepared Feeds for Animals ............................. 44 18. A Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level for the Food Preparation Firms • 45 19. A Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level for Grease and Tallow Manufacturing Firms .................... .......... 46 20. A Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level for Newspaper, Publishing, and Printing Firms ....................... 47 21. A Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level for Wood Preserving Firms . 48 22. A Comparison of Workers by Major Competency Group and Occupational Level for Veneer and Plywood Plants 49 2 3 . A Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level for Pharmaceutical Preparations Firms ............................. 50 24,. A Comparison of Workers by Competency Group and Occupational Level for Manufacturers of Farm Machinery and Equipment..... .............. 51 2 5 . A Comparison of Workers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE and the SOIL CARBON SOLUTION SEPTEMBER 2020
    REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE and the SOIL CARBON SOLUTION SEPTEMBER 2020 AUTHORED BY: Jeff Moyer, Andrew Smith, PhD, Yichao Rui, PhD, Jennifer Hayden, PhD REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE IS A WIN-WIN-WIN CLIMATE SOLUTION that is ready for widescale implementation now. WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? Table of Contents 3 Executive Summary 5 Introduction 9 A Potent Corrective 11 Regenerative Principles for Soil Health and Carbon Sequestration 13 Biodiversity Below Ground 17 Biodiversity Above Ground 25 Locking Carbon Underground 26 The Question of Yields 28 Taking Action ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 30 Soil Health for a Livable Future Many thanks to the Paloma Blanca Foundation and Tom and Terry Newmark, owners of Finca Luna Nueva Lodge and regenerative farm in 31 References Costa Rica, for providing funding for this paper. Tom is also the co-founder and chairman of The Carbon Underground. Thank you to Roland Bunch, Francesca Cotrufo, PhD, David Johnson, PhD, Chellie Pingree, and Richard Teague, PhD for providing interviews to help inform the paper. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The environmental impacts of agricultural practices This introduction is co-authored by representatives of two The way we manage agricultural land 140 billion new tons of CO2 contamination to the blanket of and translocation of carbon from terrestrial pools to formative organizations in the regenerative movement. matters. It matters to people, it matters to greenhouse gases already overheating our planet. There is atmospheric pools can be seen and felt across a broad This white paper reflects the Rodale Institute’s unique our society, and it matters to the climate. no quarreling with this simple but deadly math: the data are unassailable.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Guide For: Newly Adopted Course of Study Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources Cluster, and Argiscience Middle School
    2020-2021 PROGRAM GUIDE FOR: NEWLY ADOPTED COURSE OF STUDY AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NATURAL RESOURCES CLUSTER, AND ARGISCIENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL NOVEMBER 20, 2020 ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION ANDY CHAMNESS, EDUCATION ADMINISTRATOR COLLIN ADCOCK, EDUCATION SPECIALIST JERAD DYESS, EDUCATION SPECIALIST MAGGIN EDWARDS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (334) 694-4746 Revised 2/23/2021 Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources Cluster This cluster prepares students for employment in career pathways that relate to the $70 billion plus industry of agriculture. The mission of agriscience education is to prepare students for successful careers and a lifetime of informed choices in the global agriculture, food, fiber and natural resource industries. There are six program areas in this cluster: General Agriculture, Animal Science, Plant Science, Environmental and Natural Resources, Industrial Agriculture and Middle School. Extended learning experiences to enrich and enhance instruction are reinforced through learner participation in the career and technical student organization related to agriculture education. The National FFA organization (FFA) serves as the CTSO for this cluster. Additionally, project-based learning experiences, otherwise known as a Supervised Agriculture Experience (SAE) are an integral part of agriculture education. General Agriculture Program Pathway Career (Must teach three courses from this program list within two years) Pathway This program is designed to deliver a variety of agricultural disciplines
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 3.1: Looking at Industrial Agriculture and Agricultural Innovation
    Handout 3.1: Looking at Industrial Agriculture and Agricultural Innovation Agricultural Innovation:1 “A form of modern farming that refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, fish and crops. The methods it employs include innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods, genetic technology, techniques for achieving economies of scale in production, the creation of new markets for consumption, the application of patent protection to genetic information, and global trade.” Benefits Downsides + Cheap and plentiful food ‐ Environmental and social costs + Consumer convenience ‐ Damage to fisheries + Contribution to the economy on many levels, ‐ Animal waste causing surface and groundwater from growers to harvesters to sellers pollution ‐ Increased health risks from pesticides ‐ Heavy use of fossil fuels leading to increased ozone pollution and global warming Factors that influence agricultural innovation • Incentive or regulatory government policies • Different abilities and potentials in agriculture and food sectors • Macro economic conditions (i.e. quantity and quality of public and private infrastructure and services, human capital, and the existing industrial mix) • The knowledge economy (access to agricultural knowledge and expertise) • Regulations at the production and institution levels The Challenge: Current industrial agriculture practices are temporarily increasing the Earth’s carrying capacity of humans while slowly destroying its long‐term carrying capacity. There is, therefore, a need to shift to more sustainable forms of industrial agriculture, which maximize its benefits while minimizing the downsides. Innovation in food Example (Real or hypothetical) processing Cost reduction / productivity improvement Quality enhancement / sensory performance Consumer convenience / new varieties Nutritional delivery / “healthier” Food safety 1 www.wikipedia.org .
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Agriculture, Livestock Farming and Climate Change
    Industrial Agriculture, Livestock Farming and Climate Change Global Social, Cultural, Ecological, and Ethical Impacts of an Unsustainable Industry Prepared by Brighter Green and the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) with inputs from Biofuelwatch Photo: Brighter Green 1. Modern Livestock Production: Factory Farming and Climate Change For many, the image of a farmer tending his or her crops and cattle, with a backdrop of rolling fields and a weathered but sturdy barn in the distance, is still what comes to mind when considering a question that is not asked nearly as often as it should be: Where does our food come from? However, this picture can no longer be relied upon to depict the modern, industrial food system, which has already dominated food production in the Global North, and is expanding in the Global South as well. Due to the corporate take-over of food production, the small farmer running a family farm is rapidly giving way to the large-scale, factory farm model. This is particularly prevalent in the livestock industry, where thousands, sometimes millions, of animals are raised in inhumane, unsanitary conditions. These operations, along with the resources needed to grow the grain and oil meals (principally soybeans and 1 corn) to feed these animals place intense pressure on the environment. This is affecting some of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems and human communities. The burdens created by the spread of industrialized animal agriculture are wide and varied—crossing ecological, social, and ethical spheres. These are compounded by a lack of public awareness and policy makers’ resistance to seek sustainable solutions, particularly given the influence of the global corporations that are steadily exerting greater control over the world’s food systems and what ends up on people’s plates.
    [Show full text]
  • Opting out of Industrial Meat
    OPTING OUT OF INDUSTRIAL MEAT HOW TO STAND AGAINST CRUELTY, SECRECY, AND CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY IN FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION JULY 2018 www.centerforfoodsafety.org TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: CRUELTY, SECRECY, & CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY 1 II. WHAT IS “INDUSTRIAL MEAT”? 7 III. TEN REASONS TO OUT OPT OF INDUSTRIAL MEAT 11 For Our Health 11 For Food Workers 13 For Pollinators 14 For Water Conservation 15 For Animals 17 For Climate 18 For Healthy Communities 19 For Food Safety 19 For Farmers 21 For Local Economies 22 IV. HOW TO OPT OUT OF INDUSTRIAL MEAT 23 1. Eat Less Meat Less Often 24 2. Choose Organic, Humane, and Pasture-Based Meat Products 26 3. Eat More Organic and Non-GMO Plant Proteins 28 V. CONCLUSION & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS CHARTS Plant-Based Sources of Protein 30 Fish 31 ENDNOTES 32 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY OPTING OUT OF INDUSTRIAL MEAT INTRODUCTION: CRUELTY, SECRECY, & CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY hat came first—the chicken or the egg? ible toll on our climate, water, soils, wildlife, and WIt’s difficult to know whether increasing health. What’s more, massive production of animals consumer demand for meat and poultry in these conditions requires intensive production products has driven drastic increases in production of grains for feed, which contributes to high pes - levels, or vice versa. What we do know with cer - ticide use and threatens wildlife. 1 tainty, though, is that demand for and production of meat and poultry products has increased dra - Nevertheless, demand for meat and poultry con - matically in the U.S. and globally in the last 70 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction the Idea That Industrial Agriculture Is Successful In
    Introduction The idea that industrial agriculture is successful in providing food security during a time of climate change and increasing world hunger is grounded in the ontology and episteme of neoliberal economics. However, neoliberal economics offers a very specific worldview and is guided by a particular set of concepts and indicators. Other fields have been expanding their scope and measures by working across disciplines, with the environmental sciences, for example, attracting chemists, geneticists, botanists, astronomers and more (Davis & Ruddle, 2010; Martin, Roy, Diemont, & Ferguson, 2010). Similarly, ecology brings together natural scientists with those who know traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), for the former have found indigenous knowledge useful in perceiving dynamic interdependencies (Brook & McLachlan, 2008; Terer, Muasya, Dahdouh-Guebas, Ndiritu, & Triest, 2012). The study of agriculture recently expanded to include the field of agroecology, which also incorporates TEK, for measurement and understanding (Altieri, 2004; Björklund et al., 2012). Yet, neoliberal economics remains dominant and often directs global policy assessment of food production. The episteme of neoliberal economics 1 is central to approaches to agriculture by the G8 (and their Davos World Economic Forum conferences), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank (WB), but it is also endorsed by most G20 economies (or members). Their policies affirm the industrial farming system, with economies of scale for increasing yields and efficiency, linked to a single global market. They believe this approach is the answer to feeding growing populations in the face of climate change threats to food production. However, assumptions behind neoliberal economic theories, both the centralizing concepts and their measures, devalue the attributes of smallholder food production.
    [Show full text]
  • How Industrial Animal Agriculture Will Put
    INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE WILL PUT SEVERAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS OUT OF REACH Innovative approach to food & farming required “the view has emerged that humankind will not be able to feed itself unless current industrial modes of agriculture are expanded and intensified. This approach is wrong and counterproductive and will only serve to exacerbate the problems experienced by the current mode of agriculture ... there is a need to encourage a major shift from current industrial agriculture to transformative activities such as conservation agriculture (agroecology)” Hilal Elver, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food1 1 SDG 1: END POVERTY 1.4: Ensure the poor and the vulnerable have equal rights to economic resources, as well as ownership and control over land and natural resources and other basic services Industrial animal agriculture is associated with reduced employment and hence greater poverty which has cascading harmful effects on rural communities and contributes to rural abandonment “The social benefits of agriculture can be eroded as production becomes more concentrated and intensive. Intensive agricultural systems are associated with negative effects on employment, wealth distribution, ancillary economic activity in rural areas [and] service provision in rural areas (such as schools and health facilities).” The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security2 The FAO recognises that industrial livestock production “may occur at the expense of diminishing the market opportunities and competitiveness of small rural producers”.1 The World Bank has recognised that intensification of livestock production carries “a significant danger that the poor are being crowded out.”2 Industrial agriculture needs less labour than agro-ecological systems.
    [Show full text]
  • IPES-Food 2018 “Breaking Away from Industrial Food and Farming Systems
    OCTOBER 2018 BREAKING AWAY FROM INDUSTRIAL FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEMS Seven case studies of agroecological transition CASE STUDIES 02 LEAD AUTHOR: Steve Gliessman EDITORIAL & RESEARCH LEADS: Nick Jacobs, Chantal Clément and Janina Grabs WORKING GROUP: Bina Agarwal, Molly Anderson, Million Belay, Lim Li Ching, Emile Frison, Hans Herren, Maryam Rahmanian, Hairong Yan APPROVED BY THE IPES-FOOD PANEL, OCTOBER 2018. www.ipes-food.org Acknowledgements The lead author would like to thank the whole IPES-Food panel for their contribu- tions to this report over several years. Thanks in particular go to the panel working group for their intensive involvement in developing the analysis. External reviewers are also thanked for their valuable insights as the final analysis took shape: Markus Arbenz, Abram Bicksler, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Mark Holderness and Edith Van Walsum. The lead author would like to thank the IPES-Food coordinators, Nick Ja- cobs and Chantal Clément, for their research and editorial contributions through- out the process, and Janina Grabs, for her invaluable support in researching and drafting the case studies. Thanks to Véronique Geubelle for graphic design. The many essential contributions to developing individual case studies are acknowl- edged at the end of the respective case studies. It must be noted, however, that the case studies would not have been possible without the commitment, partnership, and participation of the farmers and their communities. Citation Citation: IPES-Food, 2018. Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: Seven case studies of agroecological transition. BREAKING AWAY FROM INDUSTRIAL FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEMS Seven case studies of agroecological transition CASE STUDIES 02 BREAKING AWAY FROM INDUSTRIAL FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEMS 3 Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation Through Tradition for Small Farm Successi
    Innovation through Tradition for Small Farm Successi John Ikerdii American agriculture seems almost obsessed with endless innovation. Technologies of the past have made it possible for fewer farmers to provide Americans with a vast array of high quality foods at affordable prices, we are told, and new biological and electronic technologies seem destined to revolutionize American agriculture in the future. Biotechnology is proclaimed as the solution to world hunger and the savior of the natural environment. New electronics will allow us to trace foods back to their farm and field of origin, leading to dramatic improvements in food safety and food quality. New management systems guided by electronics, will support new global food supply chains, ensuring the widest possible variety of foods for all at the lowest possible cost, so we are told. But, where is the farmer in all of this innovation? As the importance of off-farm technologies has grown, the importance of the farmer has been diminished. That's why U.S. agriculture today supports only a third as many farmers as in the 1930s. and why 90% of the income of farm families today comes from off-farm employment. Why should farmers expect make a living farming when the developers of technologies are doing the economically important things? Those who have done the thinking, meaning those who developed the technologies, have also received the benefits. And, if future advances in agriculture come from new off-farm technologies, rather than on-farm thinking, the role of the farmer will be diminished still further in the years ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Tomorrow: Inbreeding in Industrial Agriculture and Evolutionary Thought in Britain and the United States, 1859-1925
    The Nature of Tomorrow: Inbreeding in Industrial Agriculture and Evolutionary Thought in Britain and the United States, 1859-1925 By Theodore James Varno A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor John E. Lesch, Chair Professor Cathryn L. Carson Professor Stephen E. Glickman Fall 2011 The Nature of Tomorrow: Inbreeding in Industrial Agriculture and Evolutionary Thought in Britain and the United States, 1859-1925 © 2011 By Theodore James Varno 1 Abstract The Nature of Tomorrow: Inbreeding in Industrial Agriculture and Evolutionary Thought in Britain and the United States, 1859-1925 By Theodore James Varno Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor John E. Lesch, Chair Historians of science have long recognized that agricultural institutions helped shape the first generation of geneticists, but the importance of academic biology to scientific agriculture has remained largely unexplored. This dissertation charts the relationship between evolutionary thought and industrial agriculture from Charles Darwin’s research program of the nineteenth century through the development of professional genetics in the first quarter of the twentieth century. It does this by focusing on a single topic that was important simultaneously to evolutionary thinkers as a conceptual challenge and to agriculturalists as a technique for modifying organism populations: the intensive inbreeding of livestock and crops. Chapter One traces zoological inbreeding and botanical self-fertilization in Darwin’s research from his articles published in The gardeners’ chronicle in the 1840s and 1850s through his The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom of 1876.
    [Show full text]
  • California Oil Production Among the Dirtiest in the Country
    https://www.linktv.org/shows/earth-focus/thick-and-viscous-california-oil-production- among-the-dirtiest-in-the-country Thick and Viscous: California Oil Production Among the Dirtiest in the Country Share on F acebookShare on TwitterSend Em ailMoreC omm ent One hundred and forty-three years after the first gusher spewed forth in California, it still comes as a surprise to people that the state produces as much oil as Alaska — and in some years even more. Oil production in California has been hidden on high school campuses, tucked in behind housing developments, surrounded by almond orchards. It pushes up against neighborhoods in Los Angeles, where heat, time and tectonic forces turned the remains of Miocene marine life into vast reserves of oil. It occupies the flatlands of the Central Valley, where in some places pumpjacks spread out for as far as the eye can see. California oil has lifted people out of poverty and helped the nation win wars; it has built a $14 billion economy in the Central Valley that directly or indirectly provides more than 60,000 jobs. Though it accounts for only 3% of the state’s economy, it has defined California’s culture perhaps more than has any other industry. The Golden State’s true gold came not in the form of yellow rock, but from the pale-greenish shale and drab gray sandstone that oozed the liquid hydrocarbon we call petroleum. But now, in the spring of 2019, the future of California’s oil industry hangs in the balance — and not only because the public has become increasingly aware of petroleum’s role in altering the climate.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Agriculture Versus Agroecology: Which Is Better for the People and the Planet?
    Industrial Agriculture versus Agroecology: Which is Better for the People and the Planet? Ivette Perfecto George W. Pack Professor Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan Beef production supplies less than 5% of the protein and 2% of the calories for people in the world, but uses about 60% of the world’s agricultural land. 1 serving of beef > 20 servings of vegetables Tilman and Clark, 2014, Nature Ruminant meats (beef and lamb) have GHG emissions per gram of protein that are about 250 times those of legumes. Tilman and Clark, 2014, Nature From the book, "Hungry Planet: What the World Eats” by Peter Menzel and Faith D’Aluisio Agricultural production is responsible for about 22-25% of global greenhouse-gas emissions Annual GHG Emissions by Sector Source: Greenhouse Gas by Sector.png: Robert A. Rohde 1/3 of GHG emissions from the food system! Land use and biomass burning Deforestation for cattle in Brazil Oil palm plantation in Indonesia Soy bean plantation in Brazil Methane: about 10% from rice production enteric fermentation, rice production Methane: close to 30% from enteric fermentation Soil management in agriculture N Fertilizer applications Fertilizer applications and N2O emissions IPCC: Micro-organisms in the soil release one kilogram of N2O for every 100 kilograms of N fertilizer that is applied. Shcherback et al., 2014, Proceedings of the Naonal Academy of Science Overall picture of what goes on in the soil CO 2 CH4 N O Oxygen 2 penetrates the soil from the air Glucose from dead plant and animal material Soil bacteria Methanogenic and/or use oxygen for Denitrifying bacteria N supplied from bacteria take over respiration take over the outside It is not only what we eat (meat, versus chicken or beans), but also how we produce it.
    [Show full text]