Category: Green Revolution

Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) is AN approach for reworking and reorienting agricultural systems to support food security beneath the new realities of global climate change. As reiterated by Taylor (2018), it comprises a unified governance framework designed to defuse agricultural methods and technologies that increase the productivity of a given crop while simultaneously building resilience to global climate change and reducing gas emissions.

The revolution, or Third Agricultural Revolution, is a set of research technology transfer initiatives occurring between 1950 and the late 1960s, that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, starting most markedly within the late Sixties. The initiatives resulted at intervals the adoption of recent technologies, still as high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, particularly dwarf wheat and rice, in association with chemical fertilizers and agro-chemicals, and with controlled water supply and new methods of cultivation. All of those along were seen as a ‘package of practices’ to succeed ‘traditional’ technology and to be adopted as an entire.

This document seeks to draw on Nigen et al. (2009) and Taylor (2018) as well as class activities and discussions to discuss whether Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) could serve as a technological model to reduce global food insecurity by addressing the shortcomings of the Green Revolution. I will also throw light on some likely opportunities and challenges of CSA given the experience of the Green Revolution.

According to Taylor (2018), Climate-smart agriculture was projected by the international institutions from the world bank to respond to the projected Malthusian crisis.

Green Revolution is criticized to have resulted in environmental degradation and increased income inequality, inequitable asset distribution, and worsened absolute poverty. Also, owners of large farms were the main adopters of the new technologies because of their better access to irrigation water, fertilizers, seeds, and credit. Small farmers were either unaffected or injured as a result of the revolution resulted in lower product costs, higher input costs, and efforts by landlords to increase rents or force tenants off the land. Again, the Green Revolution encouraged unnecessary mechanization, thereby pushing down rural wages and employment. Another defect of the revolution was that it unfold alone in irrigated and high-potential rainfed areas, and lots of villages or regions while not access to spare water were overlooked.

These challenges can be improved by: a scale-neutral technology package that can be profitably adopted on farms of all sizes; an equitable distribution of land with secure ownership or tenancy rights; efficient input, credit, and product markets so that farms of all sizes have access to modern farm inputs and information and are able to receive similar prices for their products; and policies that do not discriminate against small farms and landless laborers.

The revolution was a serious accomplishment for several developing countries ANd gave them an unprecedented level of national food security. It delineates the eminent adaptation and transfer of constant scientific revolution in agriculture that the commercial countries had already condemned for themselves. The revolution additionally raised massive numbers of poor folks out of economic condition and helped several nonpoor folks avoid the economic condition and hunger they’d have knowledgeable had the Green Revolution not occurred. The largest advantages to the poor were largely indirect, in the form of lower food prices, increased migration opportunities, and greater employment in the rural nonfarm economy.

Making progress, with sustainable funding of food-based nutrition programs, specific nutrition interventions could be rolled out with agricultural-focused Green Revolution projects. Such initiatives include promotion of homestead gardens to increase dietary diversity of non-cereal food sources, which are micronutrient-rich, in conjunction with small animal rearing. These have a fair bigger impact on the menage consumption of animal and better quality plant merchandise thanks to the direct availableness of these merchandise within the menage and their potential to provide additional income.

In order to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, ensuring that drought-resistant crops are integrated into Green Revolution initiatives is essential. Building in weather-related crop and livestock insurance can protect farmers from the increasing likelihood of adverse weather effects. Focusing on agroforestry and tree crops can also help to mitigate the effects of climate change through carbon sequestration. Current communication and information systems, including mobile phones and the internet, offer great opportunities for improving farmers’ access to updated information on climate conditions. Women play a major role in the management of natural resources in rural communities and should be included in these environmental responses.

Climate Smart Agriculture is noted to be challenged by the need for mechanized monitoring, pruning, thinning, and even picking produce. As various to declining variety of human manpower, novel approach is to utilize available information technologies through the use of more intelligent machines to reduce and target energy. Such approach is capable to enhance potency for climate sensible agriculture. The advent of autonomous system architectures offers United States of America the chance to develop a totally new vary of agricultural instrumentation-supported little sensible machines which will do the correct thing, within the right place, at the right time in the right way. Robotic agriculture is offered by smart machines. Smarter machines that ar intelligent to figure in AN unmodified or semi-natural atmosphere ar needed.

Also, GPS technology, already available in smartphones may be utilized to determine when users should water their crops by estimating how much water the plants are using each day and factoring in space precipitation totals, via connection with the closest weather station. The use of remote sensing and GIS facilitate contribute in generating policy, providing information, and ensuring participation by all stakeholders.

Lastly, Drones for Climate-Smart Agriculture. Relatively low-cost agricultural drones with advanced sensors and imaging capabilities ar giving farmers new ways to extend yields and cut back crop injury.

Overall, Climate Smart Agriculture, if implemented well, could help end if not reduce global hunger and food insecurity.

The delivery of food aid to the global South, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), masquerades as a noble and generous policy that stimulates development. Such aid is inextricably bound to the legacy of colonialism, perpetuating an entrenched system of poverty and dependency on donor nations. It is crucial to recognize that the global South’s position in the global market has always been one of inferiority, which is inflamed by forms of aid, most notably food aid. Food aid is effectively the inverse of development as it undercuts local production, depresses prices, and exacerbates inequality. While aid has worsened conditions in the South, the global North enjoys economic security and continued hegemony. The intertwined web of politics, economics, and social structure further perpetuates Sub-Saharan Africa’s food insecurity which maintains its disadvantaged position in the world.

One of the most problematic elements of food aid is the underlying sense that the global North must act as a savior and therefore have the power to subdue and “develop” nations. Unfortunately, development is only viewed through a western lens thus, “what development means depends on how the rich nations feel (SACHS ENVIRONMENT week 12). It posits the North and specifically the United States as the most desirable society for which the world must live in. This idea reeks of neocolonialism, which can be seen as “a situation of infringed national sovereignty and intrusive influence by external elements” (neo-colonialism and the poverty of development in Africa).

Food aid is grounded historically in the Green Revolution and since the Cold War era, the United States has used a neocolonial framework in the name of preserving “national security”, which they accomplished through extending control over other nation-states. During this era, the United States used its influence to combat the threat of communist expansionism, using food and innovative agricultural methods as an important political instrument to promote democracy. During the sixties, “the United States sought to alleviate chronic malnourishment in the Global South and forestall communist revolutions by exporting not just food, but the industrial agricultural model, including new high-yielding seeds, fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers, machinery, irrigation, and monocropping … known as the Green Revolution.” (Gonzalez 409). While the revolution increased production, local methods of agriculture had now been penetrated by external influence, ruining longstanding practices. The North had effectively injected our problematic agricultural system into the Global South, one that relies on corporations for inputs. Markets for transnational corporations such as Shell Oil and Monsanto were launched in the agriculture was forever transformed, curtailing local production and creating dependence for the future (Shattering Fowler 131). In addition to destroying localized modes of production, the Green Revolution also fostered environmental degradation, such as biodiversity loss, that still plagues countries today. The United States trapped the South into these modes of production, leaving them vulnerable to environmental issues. Additionally, The shift away from indigenous crops to the ones offered by the Green Revolution left the South with an agricultural system controlled by transnational agribusiness (Violence of green revolution). Extending the Green Revolution to the global South had little to do with increasing food yield, ending hunger, and reducing inequality. Instead, it was just another avenue to achieve foreign policy goals, most notably promoting democracy over communism. The Green Revolution elucidates how food became, “the weapon of choice to ensure that the balance of power remained in America’s favor ”(where hunger goes Rieff).

Instead of helping the impoverished, aid has transformed into a global industry that provides value to various agencies and corporations, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Such institutions wield incredible amounts of power on the global south, therefore shaping the way they wish to develop and live. One of the most poignant examples of food aid’s failure and damage is due to the Food For Peace Program. In 1954, after two world wars, President Eisenhower established Public Law 480, which came to be known as Food For Peace. The law established the United States as the primary donor of food aid to developing countries and was underpinned with the goal of creating future markets (food for peace SORENSON). The Law’s compassionate name framed it as one that had the sole objective of helping the global South. Yet, the decision to sign Public Law 480 into law was underpinned by strategic political and economic goals to increase future markets and can be traced as the first incidence of creating aid dependency. A report from 1988 explains that PL480 “depressed local food production, making it harder for poor countries to feed themselves in the long run” (How American food aid keeps the world hungry). Eisenhower understood that “food can be a powerful instrument for all the free world in building durable peace” (the spirit of the marshall plan 20). Therefore, it is clear that food is seen as a political tool that is critical in allowing the United States to promote its agenda, which in this case was to create markets of the future. Dambisa Moyo, a prominent economist from Zambia and former consultant of the World Bank, explains that “it is clear that however good their hand may seem when trading with the West, the cards are stacked against Africa, and will always be” (dead aid 119). Food is directly tied to power dynamics, allowing those who allocate food to dominate developing countries.

Moreover, Food For Peace offers disproportionate benefits to American farmers. Food for Peace provides a perfect distribution site for surplus grain that farmers in the U.S produce. Under the program, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchases farmers’ surpluses, subsidizes crops such as wheat, and stabilizes prices, offering U.S farmers significant financial security. Cheryl Christensen, former chief of Food Security Development for the USDA, explains that “food aid played an important role in increasing US agricultural trade, as countries which were once food aid recipients went on to become commercial partners” (The New Policy Environment for Food Aid: The Challenge of Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 25(3): 255–268). The program effectively dumps American agricultural surpluses on developing nations, overriding local agricultural systems. It is illuminated that Food for Peace is an exceedingly selfish program that insulates U.S farmers from price fluctuation, yet burdens Sub-Saharan Africa and other receivers of aid.

Traditional (past), present, and future approaches to control pesticide residue in fresh produce

Introduction:

The major challenge that agriculture faces in the twenty-first century is the need to give food to the world’s quickly growing population. The selection of a high-yielding variety of crops has greatly helped mankind in reducing poverty and hunger. Reducing crop losses due to pests and diseases has mainly been dealt with by the use of synthetic pesticides. Modern agricultural practices partially indebted its success to the discovery and use of these chemicals. Over the past few decades, on the other hand, concerns have been developed over the environmental consequences and long-term sustainability. Indiscriminate use of synthetic pesticides has given rise to a number of problems, including the extensive development of resistance to pesticides, issues of pesticide residues, non-target activity, environmental pollution, and public concerns about the possible health risks.

The above information demands the need for safer, environmentally friendly management practices which, if possible, also be exhibiting new biochemical modes of action to reduce the development of pesticide resistance. Therefore, natural compounds have increasingly become the focal point among those who were interested in unearthing sustainable crop protection strategies. This paper focuses initially on the traditional and then on the present crop protection strategies followed by farmers in cultivation. It discusses the perspectives and challenges of sustainable alternatives in pest management approaches. The sustainable and ecofriendly management practices selected from the past as well as the present scenario has to be improved and refined further in the future along with new management strategies too. The present scenario demands the urge for developing innovative future strategies in crop protection with low residue problems and higher safety.

Traditional (past) approaches

There are four schools of thought to control pesticide residue according to Peshin and Zhang (2014). These include pesticide-free management, integrated management (IM), Integrated Management with chemical control as last measure, and the development of transgenic crops. The traditional crop protection strategies were more associated with the first school of thought i.e., pesticide-free management.

Traditional crop protection strategies

According to an African Proverb “When a knowledgeable old person dies, a whole library disappears.” Human communities have always generated, refined, and passed on knowledge from generation to generation. Traditional methods form basis of management of plant diseases in low input situations. The ancient Indian literature documents the use of plant products, animal products, and wastes for curing the diseases of human beings and plants. Early references to plant protection are found in the following literature:

• Vedas – Atharvaveda (c.1000 BC)
• Kautilya’s Arthashastra (c.300 BC)
• Krishi Parashara (c.400 BC)
• Brihat Samhita of Varahamira (c.600 AD)
• Surapala’s Vrikshayurveda (c.1000AD)
• Lokopakara by Chavundaraya (c.1108 AD)
• Sarangadhara’s Upavanavinoda (c.1300 AD)
• Viswavallabh of Chakrapani Mishra (c.1577AD)

Among these, Surapala’s Vrikshayurveda elaborates plant protection practices in a very systemic manner. He has mentioned from seed treatment to storage of grains. Traditional methods of plant protection are well explained in it including disease avoidance, seed treatment, and disease treatment.

Identified Indigenous Technical Knowledge in crop protection

Fresh cow dung suspension is sprayed to control the Bacterial Leave Blight (BLB). The cow dung suspension will have enormous amount of bacteriophages (bacteria scavenger viruses). The crop is even protected from cattle because they do not like to graze on cow-dung-treated crops. Another technique is the Application of suspension of neem leaves and grinded neem seeds with soap or surf and raw turmeric. The suspension produces a disagreeable odor and reduces the chances of occurrence of diseases (fungal and bacterial) wherein it acts as a precautionary measure.

Some of the local practices adopted in past for crop protection include planting across the wind direction to overcome the problem of some airborne disease, Tieing of areca nut seedlings with coconut and areca nut fronds to protect them from western sun scorching, Pasting of lime on areca trees to avoid ill effect due to sun scorching, Kotte tying for areca bunches to overcome problem of koleroga (fruit rot) of areca nut and watering of nursery beds during early morning for higher seedlings vigour and stand particularly followed in chilli and brinjal. Mixed cropping is practiced in Jowar with tur to prevent movement of mites which transmits sterility mosaic, a viral disease of pigeon pea. Moreover, it also helps to minimize the tur wilt.

For managing soil-borne pathogens including Pythium, Phytophthora, etc. several management practices were adopted which include burning nursery with leaf litter and farm waste, collection and burning of stubbles in the field, preparation of raised beds, fields, and ridges (‘Chinampas / floating garden’), earthing up to overcome Pythium damping off in nursery in brinjal and tomato, flooding with water to overcome the problem of soil-borne pathogens by creating anaerobic conditions. eg: Fusarium oxysporum fsp. cubense causing Panama disease of banana, fallowing which is generally more effective in combination with rotations and summer plowing exposes the survival structures to hot sun and destroy them thereby reducing the problem of nematode infestation and soil-borne pathogens.

ITKs

• Diseases managed
• Cow dung suspension
• Bacterial Leaf Blight in rice
• Suspension of neem leaves and grinded seed with soap / surf & raw turmeric
• Fungal & bacterial diseases
• Dusting wood ashes
• Brown-spot disease in rice
• Shade regulation
• Coffee leaf rust & blister blight of tea
• Planting across wind direction
• Airborne disease
• Kotte tying for aareca nutches
• Rotting of arecanut
• Salt water treatment
• Seed-borne diseases
• Earthing up
• Pythium damping off
• Flooding with water
• Soil borne pathogens, nematodes
• Crop rotation
• Fallowing, Mulching
• Summer plowing

Application of organic amendments

In addition, organic amendments like oilcake were applied liberally in different crops to manage soil-borne diseases. It enhances the soil temperature and kill pathogens but enhances the population of beneficial organisms by serving as source of nutrients. Mulching is also done with green manure in paddy to overcome the problem of soil-borne disease. For example, Chromolaena odorata was used as mulching material to manage soft rot, bacterial wilt, and Fusarium dry rot in Ginger.

Organic preparations like Panchagavya, Dashagavya, etc were used in crop protection and crop production since time immemorial. In general, it provides nutrients to plants and resistance to diseases and pests. Panchagavya: ‘Panch’ means five and ‘gavya’ means related to cow- in Hindi. It is a preparation made out of five products of cow including – milk, ghee, curd, dung, and urine along with 4 other products like jaggery, banana, Tender coconut, and water. Used as source of nutrients as well as for crop protection. It is used even today. The rate of application is 5%. Dashagavya: ‘Dasha’ means Ten and ‘gavya’ – cow. It is yet another preparation with panchagavya and extracts of 9 plants having therapeutic and nutraceutical properties (IARD 6020 filed trip in Kerala).

Traditional crop protection measures have an important place for the use of botanicals. This includes use of botanicals like tulsi, onion, ginger, chromolaena, etc for crop protection. Tulsi was and still used in some preparations to control blast of rice and insects in sapota and guava. Onion was used for pest and disease control in maize and sugarcane. Similarly ginger is also having effect against pathogens as well as pests. It is used against some viral and bacterial diseases. The preparation of ginger in the cows’ urine was used to spray in tomato against Tomato mosaic.

In addition to these botanicals, salt, milk, etc also have beneficial effects on crops. Salt sprays helped to control wilt in Pigeon pea. It was also used against Khaira disease in Paddy. A diluted solution (10 times) of fermented cow’s urine was used against bacterial wilt in tomato, potato, and chilies (Ralstonia solanacearum). Turmeric powder (100 gm) in indigenous cow urine (1.5 L) and water (100 L) is used to manage powdery mildew in vegetables and fruit crops.

The dissemination of ITK has faced many constraints. It has to be passed orally and held in the heads of practitioner. There is a non-availability of material input, and non-availability of labor and the ITK’s are usually known to uneducated, aged people in villages. Moreover, it is found in remote villages and tribal tracts. There is a need for awareness creation. Travelling to remote places, staying there, documenting the details, and publication require funds. Translation from local language into English and other regional languages is needed, which is a tedious process. Traditional practices have been developed through practical experience of the local population of the particular region. The methods have been designed with great ingenuity.

Since, ITKs are eco-friendly and organic in nature, so proper documentation, scientific validation, and refinement with modern technical knowledge is essential to conserve this knowledge and use effectively for sustainable crop cultivation. ITKs are cheap, easy to adopt, locally available, and reduce the input of chemical pesticides in our food chain and the environment.

Introduction of Pesticides In Crop Protection

The terminology originated from two ‘Latin’ words namely ‘pestis’ meaning plague or pest and ‘caedo’ means to kill. In agriculture, it means any chemicals that are used to eliminate organisms which are harmful and undesirable in field conditions as well as during the storage of crops or agricultural produces.

History of pesticide use

The oldest and most differentiated group of plant protection chemicals are insecticides. The application of insecticides can be even traced in the very distant past. First record documented dates back to 2500 BC where in the Sumerians used Sulphur compounds against insects by rubbing it on the skin. Even in 1200 BC, the Chinese used lime, sawdust, etc., and insecticides of plant origin to ward off pests especially the storage pests from seeds.

Pesticides in Agriculture- Pre-Green Revolution

Till 1940s inorganic substances like sodium chlorate, sulphuric acid, organic chemicals derived from natural sources were used extensively in pest management strategies. Some of the pesticides were derived out of the by-products of coal gas production and other industrial processes. The organ chemicals such as nitrophenols, naphthalene, chlorophenols and petroleum oils were then used for fungal as well as insect pests management, at the same time the chemicals such as sodium arsenate, ammonium sulphate, etc.were used against weeds asherbicides. The main drawback of these chemicals were the high rates of application, lack of proper selectivity and phytotoxicity to host plants.

The use and manufacturing of synthetic pesticides accelerated during 1940s. Many efficient pesticides appeared during this period including captan, DDT, BHC, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, parathion, and 2,4-D. These products were effective and at the same time inexpensive also, with DDT being the most popular chemical owing to its broad spectrum of activity (K.S. Delaplane, 2000). The insecticidal properties of DDT was invented by Paul Muller in 1939. DDT initially appeared to be low in toxicity to mammals and reduced pests and insect-borne diseases. Synthetic pesticides began to develop after this period. In 1946 first case of resistance to DDT was reported in house flies (Ankersmit GW, 1953). The indiscriminate use of pesticides leads to the pesticide residue problem which in-turn resulted in harm to nontarget plants and animals. Even though the use of synthetic organ chemical pesticides helped in reduction of pest and disease incidence it also paved the route for serious issues like pesticide resistance, pest resurgence, and pesticide residue problems.

A glance into the past provides numerous examples of the adverse impact of human activities conducted in injudicious or rude manner became a danger to human survival in a short span.

Pesticides in Agriculture – Post Green Revolution

Till the end of 1950s, the consumers, as well as the policymakers, were not very anxious about the possible health risks (Bill Ganzel, 2007). The concern has budded when some cases of harm from misuse of the chemicals aroused. But comparatively the new pesticides in the market seemed rather safe, particularly compared to the metallic insecticides like arsenic which killed many people in 1920s and 1930s. Nevertheless, the problems can take place due to the unsystematic and indiscriminate use. Pesticide use increased nationally as well as globally during 1960s (CropLife Canada, 2002).

Green revolution commenced in the early 1960s. Modern technology and agricultural practices gradually replaced the traditional agricultural practices followed in India. The Green Revolution was initiated in India to raise the food production and supply food to the millions of half-starved people all over the nation. Although the dependence on chemicals in Green Revolution agriculture has contributed to the incredible gains in the food grains production in the world, particularly in developing countries, the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides has caused severe public health and environmental problems (Pimentel, 1996; WRI, 1992).

In 1962, Rachel Carson in her book ‘Silent Spring’ addressed the problems linked to the indiscriminate use of pesticides and lined the way for safer and more environment-friendly pesticides (Rachel Carson,1962). Research in developing safer pesticides continued and in 1970s and 1980s new pesticides were introduced in the market. In the class of Herbicides, glyphosate, sulfonylurea, imidazolinone, dinitroanilines, aryloxyphenoxy propionate, and cyclohexane- diones families were the new introduction. In the case of Insecticides synthesis of a 3rd generation of pyrethroids, avermectins, benzoylureas and Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) took place. Fungicides like triazole, morpholine, imidazole, pyrimidine, and dicarboxamide families also made their appearance in this period. Agrochemicals introduced at this time had peculiarities like single mode of action, more selectivity, and less resistance to pesticides (Smith and Secoy,1976).

The researches in pesticides during 1990s concentrated more on finding new chemicals with better selectivity and improved environmental and toxicological status. The then released chemicals include triazolopyrimidine, triketone isoxazole, etc. in the category of herbicides, fungicides including strobilurins, azolone, etc., and insectides like chloronicotinyl, spinosyn, fiprole, and diacylhydrazin. The highlighted feature of these chemicals was the low rate of application (used at grams rather than a kg per hectare). Hence this period showcased the introduction of newer, more user-friendly, and environmentally safe formulations (Abhilash and Singh,2009).

Integrated pest management systems, which make use of all accessible and available pest management measures in order to discourage the increase of pest populations and reduce the use of pesticides to levels that are safer and economically acceptable, have also contributed to dropping pesticide use. There is growing public worry that no one is aware of the extent of pesticide contamination on local, fresh produces like fruits and vegetables purchased daily which may lead to possible, lasting, undesirable health effects on consumers.

Positive Impacts of Green Revolution

The benefits of green revolution includes increase in agricultural production, economic upliftment of farmers, Import of food grains reduced, generation of rural employment, capitalistic farming, and Growth of industries. Along with these benefits, there are obvious and at times hidden issues which show the negative side of the green revolution.

Toxic Consequences of the Green Revolution in India

The benefits of the Green Revolution were attached with unexpected detrimental consequences from chemical pollution. The rise in bad health along with other ailments such as renal failure, stillborn babies, and birth defects are attributed to the overuse and exploitation of pesticides. In several cases, rural farmers were unaware of the proper usage, handling, and disposal methods, without using protective outfits or equipment when using extremely toxic chemicals. In some cases, even the pesticide containers are sometimes reused as household containers. The majority of the farmers think that applying more pesticides and herbicides is better, without understanding the fact that the heavy use is progressively poisoning the soil and water supplies (Pimentel, 1996).

Prof. R. K. Mahajan, an agricultural economist at Punjabi University once quoted that “The Green Revolution is not as green as it was earlier; it has now become brown and pale”. Pesticides used during the cultivation often lead to the occurrence of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables even after harvest. The presence of pesticide residues on fresh produce is a distress for consumers.

Conclusion

Today the pest management toolbox has expanded to include use of genetically engineered crops designed to produce their own insecticides or exhibit resistance. These include herbicide tolerant crops like soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton and varieties of corn and cotton resistant to corn borer and bollworm. In addition, the use of Integrated Management (IM) systems and biological control discouraged the development of pest populations and reduce the use of pesticides. Combining the best of traditional agricultural methods with the best of modern agriculture should go a long way toward sustaining agriculture (Thurston, 1990).

References

1. A.E. Smith and D.M. Secoy, J. 1976. A Compendium of Inorganic Substances Used in European Pest Control before; 1850. Ag. Food Chem. 24 (6) 1180.
2. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture31/r_31-1.html
3. A History of Crop Protection and Pest Control in our Society; CropLife Canada (2002).
4. http://www.croplife.ca/english/pdf/Analyzing2003/T1History.pdf
5. Ankersmit GW (1953). DDT-resistance in Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lep.) in Java. Bulletin of entomological research. 44(3): 421-25.
6. Abhilash P.C. and Singh, N. 2009. Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 165 (1–3). pp. 1-12.
7. A Short History of Fungicides, V. Morton and T. Staub, APSnet, March 2008 http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/fungi/
8. Cooper, J; Dobson, H. The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot 2007, 26, 1337–1348.
9. Damalas, CA. Understanding benefits and risks of pesticide use. Sci. Res. Essays 2009, 4, 945–949.
10. Fenske, RA; Day, EW, Jr. Assessment of exposure for pesticide handlers in agricultural, residential and institutional environments. In Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Pesticides; Franklin, CA, Worgan, JP, Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2005; pp. 13–43.
11. J. Janek, History of Horticulture, Roman Agricultural History. Purdue University http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Hort_306/text/lec18.pdf
12. Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated Pest Management: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. Annual Review of Entomology. 43(1), 243-270
13. Matthews, GA. Pesticides: Health, Safety and the Environment; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2006
14. Oerke, EC; Dehne, HW. 2004. Safeguarding production-losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Prot 23, 275–285.
15. Pimentel, D.1996. Green revolution agriculture and chemical hazards. Science of the Total Environment. 188: S86-S98.
16. The History of Pesticides, Organic Pesticides, September 19th 2008 http://blog.ecosmart.com/index.php/2008/09/19/the-history-of-pesticides/
17. Thurston, H. D. 1990. Plant disease management practices of traditional farmers. Plant Disease. 74 (2 ) :96-102.

Food security is defined by The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a “situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” Within the past year, there have been several reports released by a multitude of organizations regarding the devastating effects that climate change will have. It’s scientifically proven that the recent drastic change in climate has brought on harsher weather, droughts, heat waves, intensified hurricanes, and a multitude of other environmentally detrimental events. Climate change heightens the risk and intensity of weather events, and not just regular weather events, the extreme weather events. Weather-related disasters can destroy agricultural and community infrastructure, increasing the risk of food insecurity. As an example, in 2016 hurricane season, Japan was hit with several hurricanes, most going to the northern region of Hokkaido, which is a very vital region for production of crops; potato, carrot, sweet corn, and other various vegetables. More than 4 hurricanes struck this region of Japan, damaging farmland and infrastructure, and causing supermarket vegetable prices to spike. This event affected many Japanese households, including my own, who had to budget for these price spikes, decreasing the intake of vegetables. These types of events are only a foreshadowing of what is to come during the next few years. Global Food Security is directly tied to climate change, and if Global Food Security is not assured, Japan’s Food Security is also at risk. Japanese Food Security is only achievable when Global Food Security is also achieved. However, it is important that these achievements for Japan’s food security is attained through environmentally sustainable ways. In this essay, I would like to outline the question “Why climate change can directly affect global food security as well as Japanese food security.”

In research, there was a movement to genetically change the construct of the seeds planted to produce a higher yield. One of the solutions to food security attainability was a movement to introduce “high yielding variety” seeds, otherwise known as miracle seeds. The introduction of miracle seeds to start the green revolution was anything but a miracle. These HYV seeds were simply “aimed at increasing the output of a single component of a farm, at the cost of decreasing other components increasing external inputs” (Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, p. 40). What the green revolution and the scientists behind the HYV seed failed to consider was the potential awful outcomes of these seeds and HYV replaced the already existent organic inputs with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and dams for intensive irrigation with those ecological costs being atmospheric pollution, destruction of soil fertility, micronutrient deficiency, soil toxicity, water logging, and salinization, desertification and water scarcity, genetic erosion biomass reduction for fodder and organic manure, nutritional imbalances with the reduction of pulses, oilseeds, millets, and pesticide contamination of food, soil, water human and animal life. (Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, p. 44) The key for HYV lies in the mass consumption of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and without the use of these chemicals, the HYV seed was unable to produce high quantities. It was simply chemical farming and “Chemical farming … contributed to the erosion of food security through the pollution of land, water, and the atmosphere.” (Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, p. 68) In India, the HYV seeds were introduced as a solution to famine and to increase the quantity of crops to help push it towards its goal of being an export-oriented country, changing them to a market economy. The increase in production was achieved, but “multiple uses of plant biomass (were) consciously sacrificed for a single use, with non-sustainable consumption of fertilizer and water.” (Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, p. 45) “The ‘miracle’ varieties displaced the traditionally grown crops and through the erosion of diversity, the new seeds became a mechanism for introducing and fostering pests…” (Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, p. 56) further proving that the cropping system that was originally in place was already sustainable on its own. “The only miracle that seems to have been achieved with the breeding strategy of the Green Revolution is the creation of new pest and diseases… with the ever-increasing demand for pesticides” (Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, p. 56) creating an unsustainable vicious cycle that is in consistent demand and dependence on chemicals to supply its community with crops. The Green Revolution started a vicious unsustainable cycle perpetuating the need for pesticides and fertilizers to continue to produce a single crop, only to have the soil exhausted of its nutrients. This attempt at trying to increase the yield of one crop to cure the hunger issues destroyed the agricultural system that was in place. Taking this example, it’s important to understand that in this instance, in trying to food security and decrease hunger, the effect on the environment was drastic, and the food security of India was undeniably decreased because of the soil’s degradation to dust.

Currently, Japan’s self-sufficiency rate is at a startling 38%, and Japan’s agricultural production of its own food is at a similar 40%. This makes Japan extremely vulnerable to any changes in the global sector regarding food production and exports. These charts below map out the current situation of food security in Japan. In the first figure, we look at the current state of Japanese food security, and the challenges facing Japan. What is most notable in this chart is the 3rd point which is the “potential emergency scenarios and changes in the environment.” McKinsey points out the risks that come with the changes in the environment, which could be due to climate change. There are many times that the climate directly affects the food sources available, as I mentioned in the introduction paragraph about Hokkaido and how it affected Japan that year. According to a recent climate report, the types of extreme weather incidents are only going to increase, intensifying the rate at which there may be food shortages. These extreme weather incidents are said to increase, exceptionally so in the regions that are the giant producers of our main diet, such as wheat grains and rice. It’s important that Japan can respond to these types of situations accurately.

1. Figure 1 The current status and desired end state of food security in Japan
2. Figure 2 Summary of directions for Japan’s food security strategy

According to McKinsey (2015), there are 7 potential scenarios that could take place in the coming future should no policies be implemented into Japan’s Food Security Strategy. McKinsey states the following situations.

1. Risk of water shortages and droughts in major agricultural countries
2. Lack of quality materials in less-developed agricultural countries
3. Production shortfalls from climate change
4. Lack of quality to satisfy Japanese demand
5. Lack of export infrastructure in less developed agricultural countries
6. Inability to purchase due to a decline in Japan’s purchasing power
7. Political risks via global food shortfalls

Of these 7 scenarios, more than half directly involve the potential effects of climate change. No matter how you look at it, climate change is directly tied to global food security, and global food security is directly tied to Japanese food security. To hammer out concrete safety on Japan’s food security, Japan must incorporate food security as a national security policy into its own government policies, as well as build bridges within the international community to solve issues such as climate change and global warming. Should the global food security crisis only continue to worsen, Japan and the Japanese people could experience several of the potential scenarios indicated by the McKinsey analysis. Global Food Security is something that is directly tied to the pitfalls of climate change and is only achievable when that solution is something that is environmentally sustainable. Japanese food security will only be achieved when global food security is achieved, therefore, it is vital that Japan come up onto the international stage to

Global Food Security is directly tied to climate change, and if Global Food Security is not assured, Japan’s Food Security is also at risk. Japanese Food Security is only achievable when Global Food Security is also achieved. However, it is important that these achievements for Japan’s food security is attained through environmentally sustainable ways. There are many risks to the international community that have started to occur within the global region today. Terrorism is on the rise, natural disasters continue to plague the earth, but the biggest risk that poses to the well-being of people is food security. Food Security must be included into the national security strategy of Japan, and the movements to deter the horrible side effects of climate change must be incorporated as well. Only then, can Japan rest easy in knowing that the food for its people are secure?

Agriculture in India has been persistent even before the advent of the East India Company to India in the 18th century. But, only the weavers of India were famous for their fine and intricate craftmanship on cotton and silk. Little did the world know of the Indian farmers until they were made to grow Indigo forcefully on the Indian soils for world export. This, in many parts of India, like Bihar, reduced the fertility of the soil. The colonial system of zamindari, where the Indian landowners were made to collect land rents, which had been leased out by the British to Indian peasants to cultivate the desired crops of the government, irrespective of the plights suffered by the farmers, contributed to the degradation of Indian agriculture further. Furthermore, the traditional manual agrarian practices, the dependency on rain as the sole source of irrigation, lack of storage facilities, low market prices, continuous cultivation of crops which suck soil nutrients- all these unfavorable practices prevented the farmers from gaining yields proportional to their all-round-the-clock sweat shed in the fields. In 1947, the situation was no better with 51 million tons of food grain production. Wheat was the greatest yielding crop before the commencing of the Green Revolution in India, in 1949-50, wheat yielded 6.3 quintals per hectare as per the ICAR reports from the Institute of Maize Research. But, the scene of Indian agriculture changed post the Green Revolution. This research paper aims at answering how the character of Indian agriculture has changed post 1966, the problems of the Indian farmer and how Government tries to combat the same.

The Green Revolution

Norman Borlaug, a scientist, is attributed to be the beginner of the Global Green Revolution at Mexico but, the term ‘Green Revolution’ was given by William S. Gaud in 1968. The purpose was to bring advanced farming methodologies into nations like India with the aid of developed nations like US to outgrow problems of malnutrition and low productivity. This revolution is mainly remembered for the high yielding varieties of wheat, maize and rice bringing in fertilizers for nourishing soil and consolidating scattered owned land pieces.

The HYV seeds bore the quality of sensitivity to light (photosensitivity) and as they absorbed nitrogen at a quicker pace than other crops, their photo periods were relatively shorter; which meant, these would take shorter time to yield results than the naturally growing rice, maize or wheat varieties. Norin 10, a wheat variant which grew half its height, cultivated in Japan, proved a game changer in the wheat production. IR8, a blend of Indonesian and Chinese rice varieties helped combat food production problems.

The Green Revolution proved to be an efficient parent not just for enhancement of food grains around the globe but also for the ‘Gene Revolution’ involving creation of ‘Genetically Modified Organisms’, by modifying the natural genes to produce organisms which did not naturally exist.

Apart from this, the Green Revolution struck as a surprise to other parts of the world like Brazil, China and India. But the way it revolutionized the Indian agriculture is quite noteworthy.

The Green Revolution: A Divine Entry in India

Dr M. S Swaminathan is regarded as the ‘father of Indian Green Revolution’ having helped Norman Borlaug’s idea step into India in 1960s, with Punjab becoming the first Indian State to reap its benefits and become the ‘rice bowl of India’ along with UP and Haryana. This Indian form of the revolution came into being by the collaboration of Ford Foundation and Lal Bahadur Shastri led the government to import wheat due to shortage of food grains in Indian economy. It is hence remembered for the rust resistant and high yielding variants of wheat introduction, reducing dependency on rain as sole irrigator and bringing in of chemical fertilizers.

With regards to producing food grains, the experimentation of Norin 10 wheat variant was successful in India and the adoption of IR8 variant of rice in India, with reliance on the positive findings of S.K De Datta, which showed that it yielded 9,477 kg per hectare compared to 60kg per hectare produced by the tall varieties and took 130 days to mature proving lucky. Usage of machinery was quite unknown before the advent of the Green Revolution in India. Fertilizers like synthetic nitrogen fertilizer along with pesticides and insecticides have helped increase the crop yields too.

After the Green Revolution in India

The Green Revolution enhanced the food production in India and also helped solve the problem of malnutrition and food shortage in the country to a large extent. The grain production increased from 80 million tons in 1960 to 150 million tons in 1967 along with the decline in imports. In 1966-67, in an area of 5.07 million ha, there was 9.6 quintal per hectare of productivity in wheat production.

The Green Revolution: Is It ‘Progressively Green’ After All?

Though the Green Revolution enhanced the production of food grains like wheat and rice in India, the production of crops like millets have declined drastically due to lack of attention. The HYV seeds yielded more but as there was no such variant for millet, to give higher yield as the HYV varieties of wheat and rice, hence many farmers drifted to the other end. Studies reveal that Punjab will become water scarce in a few years due to excessive production of rice and wheat. Also, the HYV responded better in the North eastern states of India due to proper water supply. Also, due to inability to survive the new chemical fertilizers in use, India has lost 1 lakh varieties of rice. In the initial stages, it was seen that crops responded well to fertilizers but now a days, the resistance to fertilizers has been seen. Furthermore, the adaptation of monocropping pattern has also reduced the time span for which the ancient Indian farmer left the cultivated and reaped land vacant for replenishment of nutrients in the soil. According to Dr Swaminathan, the Bt cotton introduced in India as a continuation of the Green Revolution was not that great a success in India because it did not provide small and marginal farmers with livelihood security.

Farmer’s Unsung Problems

Farmer is considered the backbone of the economy, but unfortunately the small farmer got badly injured post the Green Revolution: did not wear protective gear while using the chemical pesticides and chemicals; small farmers were indebted under loans and had to sell their lands just so as to afford the costly green technology. The above two reasons resulted in numerous farmer deaths along with the pressure to take loans from the local moneylender at high interest rate due to lack of formal money lending institutions. According to Vandana Shiva, this fall in economic conditions of the farmers effected their social relationships as well because earlier they used to depend on neighboring villages for inputs before and now it all changed as the dependence on the government for the inputs increased.

Apart from these immediate problems of the Green Revolution, there are many other problems which an Indian farmer faces. Agriculture provides just seasonal employment due to which farmers are forced to work elsewhere off season to feed their families. There are no proper storage facilities due to which tons of food grains get destroyed without even reaching even the markets nor children for midday meals. Also, the middleman, the link between the poor farmer and the market, sells the produce procured from the farmer for a higher price and pays him the bare minimum. Also, in one of the articles, it has been clearly depicted how, by the 2000s, despite farmers from areas like Punjab producing surplus yield were forced to sell them at low MSP as food corporations refused to purchase them stating they believed in ‘quality than quantity’.

Government’s Measures to Combat Troubles

The Ministry of Agriculture has come up with many schemes and policies to help the Indian farmer outgrow his plight like, the Agriculture Act of 1947, the various schemes under the Umbrella Scheme of the Green Revolution and the 2020 Agriculture Policy.

As of 2015, the Soil Health Card scheme enables the farmer to know the exact soil nutrition levels of the soil on which he cultivates and use the fertilizers in appropriate levels to maintain soil fertility.

In order to promote organic farming, Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana was brought into force in 2007 as an additional support from the Centre to state to form agricultural plans. Under this scheme, farmers with land holding of 5o acres will be motivated to come together and do organic farming in cluster. Schemes like the National Saffron Mission was started in 2010 to enhance the area under production of saffron in Kashmir. The Accelerated Fodder Development Program and the National Mission for protein supplements were initiated as well under the same.

Also, the PMKSY (Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sichai Yojana) helps reduce farmer’s dependency on rainfall by granting proper irrigation. The National Agriculture Market, introduced in 2015, helped open up a digital platform for the farmer’s produce to reach the needed.

The Second Green Revolution

For a span of 3 years from 2017-2020, Krishiunati Scheme was introduced as an umbrella over 11 schemes and is popularly known as the ‘Second Green Revolution’.

• The Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture was started in 2oo6 under which the National Horticulture scheme (2014) and the National Bamboo Mission were started gradually. NHM is exclusive of medicinal and coconut plant produce along with the North Eastern States. The primary aim is to promote growth of fruits, vegetables, tubers, cocoa and others.
• The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture aims at sustainable agricultural practices for integrated farming.
• The Integrated Scheme on Agricultural Marketing seeks to enhance the quality of agricultural infrastructure and also quality check the produce.
• The National Food Security Mission was initially started in 2007 but later inclusive of NMOOP (National Mission on Oil Seeds and Oil Palm) was continued till 2017 with an aim to promote accelerated production and food security of rice, wheat, pulses and commercial crops.
• The Integrated Scheme on Agricultural Census and Economic Statistics (ISACE) aims at conducting productive agricultural research, analyze agricultural problems of the day and also financially assist conducting workshops for experts. There were 3 submissions pertaining to Plant protection and Quarantine (SMPPQ), agricultural mechanization (SMAM) with seeds and planting material (SMSP) aiming at making crops pest cum disease resistant, producing high quality seeds and agricultural mechanization.
• The Integrated Scheme on Agricultural Corporation (ISAC) aims at helping fetch remuneration for the cotton sold by the farmers and also enhance the economic conditions of those cooperatives actively involved in agriculture.

National e-governance planning was to mainly make agriculture related information and extension available to majority of the farmers.

The ‘Second Green Revolution’ aiming at sustainable, economically viable and eco-friendly agricultural practices in 2016 turned low, with the central government introducing the New Agricultural Policy in 2020, Indian farmers felt this went contrary to the need of the hour.

The New Agricultural Policy

The New Agricultural Policy is a blend of 3 Farming Bills.

• The Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill 2020 is to enable the reach of the farmer’s produce beyond the APMC yard and prevents the government from imposing charges for the same. This allows the farmer to sell at aggregations of farmers’ produce, warehouses and production places. As online portals have become quite prevalent these days, the bill also allows the farmer to sell his APMC registered produce online and also transact through the electronic means.
• The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020 enables the farmer to directly get into an agreement with the customer and sell his produce without the interference of a middleman. Apart from this, it will bring about the concept of contract farming where the agreement is to last for at least one growing season or livestock production and may go beyond 5 years along with the terms of pricing and the basis. For such fixation of price. In case of variation in pricing or paying of an additional amount to the farmer, the agreement must keep the farmer updated about the same. If dispute among such contracted parties arises, it will be dealt by the Board and then, if not still resolved, it will be handled by the Sub-Magistrate. The peculiarity of such proceedings is, the party may be asked to pay compensation for the breach of damages but the farmer cannot be asked to pay the previous dues.
• The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, enables the government to decide what goods shall fall under the essential commodities list and accordingly regulate the supply of such goods, pulses and cereals in the economy during undesirable situations like war and famine.

Current Scenario: A Boon or a Bane

With respect to the 2nd and 3rd Bills of the New Agricultural Policy, the farmers weren’t too satisfied which led to protests as they felt that these policies would only place them under the corporate companies for exploitation. Though there have been many rounds of negotiations, ultimately the Ministry of Agriculture refused to repeal the Bills in 2021, much to the farmer’s dismay.

The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has hit the small farmers of India due to shortage of helping hands and machinery caused by the lockdown. Though India had buffer stock of food 3 times the production, the supply chains were disrupted due to lack of transportation facilities. Furthermore, many farmers were forced to leave their crops unattended and the harvest of the bumper crops for delayed by months. The season of Rabi got disrupted due to the initial lockdown and Kharif season’s high hopes for the farmer were shattered due to the worsening situation and lack of demand. But Yatra International and ITC have helped the farmer reach out to customers.

Conclusion

The Green Revolution has indeed brought along profits and losses. But the visibility is that India is today the largest producer of wheat in the world and the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables. Also, the initiative taken up to help the Indian cotton farmers if implemented properly will surely help him walk in par with the rice and wheat producers of the country. As per the Ministry of Agriculture’s estimations, wheat production of India is likely to increase to 108.75 million tons and course cereals will increase to 49.66 million tons in 2021. Almost 22,000 new mandis will be linked by 2020-21. As per these reports, it can be said that the Indian farmer despite his troubles is sure to see bright days in future. Also, government’s sincere aid to help combat the current crisis will surely help the farmers regain their footing.

In conclusion, the government must ensure the sustainable growth of the agricultural sector so that it can contribute more to the GDP of India because farmer is the backbone of the country. And needless to say, if the backbone collapses, the entire economy will also collapse.

Bibliography

1. ‘India – ICAR-Indian Institute Of Maize Research’. 2021. Iimr.Icar.Gov.In. Accessed July 14. https://iimr.icar.gov.inmaize-statistics-india.
2. Team, Virginia Tech. 2021. ‘Revisiting The Impacts Of The Green Revolution In India’. Ipg.Vt.Edu. Accessed July 14. http://ipg.vt.eduDirectorsCornerre–reflections-and-explorationsReflections101520.html
3. Insight, Team. 2018. ‘Agriculture: Second Green Revolution And, Government Schemes And Missions – INSIGHTSIAS’. INSIGHTSIAS. https://www.insightsonindia.com20141201agriculture-second-green-revolution-government-schemes-missions.
4. De Datta, S. K., A. C. Tauro, and S. N. Balaoing. 1968. ‘Effect Of Plant Type And Nitrogen Level On The Growth Characteristics And Grain Yield Of Indica Rice In The Tropics’. Web.Archive.Org. https://web.archive.orgweb20081202142838http:agron.scijournals.orgcgicontentabstract606643.
5. ‘A Critical Review Of The Green Revolution In India – Geography And You’. 2018. Geographyandyou.Com. https://geographyandyou.coma-critical-review-of-the-green-revolution-in-india.
6. ‘India – ICAR-Indian Institute Of Maize Research’. 2021. Iimr.Icar.Gov.In. Accessed July 14. https://iimr.icar.gov.inmaize-statistics-india.
7. Counterview, Team. 2018. ‘Green Revolution ‘Not Sustainable’, Bt Cotton A Failure In India: MS Swaminathan’. Counterview.Net. https://www.counterview.net201812green-revolution-not-sustainable-bt.html#:~:text=In a recent paper in the journal “Current,security for mainly resource-poor, small and marginal farmers.
8. ‘India’s Foodgrain Output To Rise 2.66% To Record 305.43 MT In 2020-21, Says Government’. 2021. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.comnewseconomyagricultureindias-foodgrain-output-to-rise-2-66-to-record-305-43-mt-in-2020-21-says-governmentarticleshow82943988.cms.

Enduring issues are issues that have been around for various amounts of time. Different generations have attempted to address them with different outcomes. One of those enduring issues is scarcity. Scarcity is a significant enduring issue because this affects many people around the world today and has lasting effects on civilizations/societies as shown in the Paleolithic era, the Agricultural Revolution, and the Green Revolution.

Scarcity is an enduring issue as demonstrated by the Paleolithic era. The Paleolithic era was a time of struggle for those living in it. People had to survive on their skills and wit to find food and reduce hunger. As a result, they never traveled in groups since that would only slow them down. Hunting alone or with one other person was much faster and more efficient. According to T. Walter Wallbank, et al.: “Paleolithic men could not control their food supply. So long as they relied on foraging, hunting, fishing, and trapping, they were dependent on the natural food supply in a given area to keep from starving”. This shows how the Paleolithic people were completely dependent on natural resources to keep them alive. The problem with relying on natural resources is the weather and the climate. When both the weather and climate change for the worse, it can cause those natural resources to wither and die. “Paleolithic men could not control their food supply”. This sentence agrees with the previous sentences because of how the climate and weather constantly change. Therefore, changing the state of the natural food it provides. Scarcity still affects people to this very day.

Although scarcity is an enduring issue, the Paleolithic people tried to fix it by introducing the ways of agriculture. When agriculture was utilized more and more, the Paleolithic period ended and turned into the Neolithic period. The Neolithic period was the revolutionized version of the Paleolithic period. It involved settling down in one area, farming and domestication of animals. As well as reproducing and making families. This took time to get used to since people were nomads and were constantly on the move. So, the idea of settling down might have seemed out of place for them. According to T. Walter Wallbank, et al., “But while Paleolithic men continued their food-gathering pattern of existence in Europe, Africa, and Australia, groups of people in the Near East began to cultivate edible plants and to breed animals”. This is the first time when the idea of domestication came into existence. But it was incredibly helpful in the Neolithic era. To this very day, domestication is still used around the world. “Often described as the ‘first economic revolution’ in the history of man, this momentous change from a food-gathering to a food-producing economy initiated the Neolithic”. This is how the Neolithic Revolution came about as a solution to fix the scarcity of the food problem in the Paleolithic era.

Scarcity was not only present in the Paleolithic era but before the Agricultural Revolution as well. The Agricultural Revolution takes place in the 1700s of Great Britain where it had similar aftereffects to the Neolithic era. Before the Agricultural Revolution, farmers used a plow to create furrows (ditches) then scattered seeds into them and covered them back up with dirt. This method doesn’t seem very reliable for planting seeds. It’s putting seeds into furrows then simply covering them with one layer of dirt. There isn’t much accuracy of how the seeds are planted into the ground. However, this method is slightly easier than what the people of the Paleolithic era had to deal with. Although both share the same difficulty of different levels of reliance on the weather. This method was ineffective because birds and other animals could easily eat the seeds. If the birds and other animals ate the seeds, the farmers would lose business and precious seeds. The seeds are the foundation of the crops which provide people with food. Without food, people would starve and grow weaker. That’s one of the lighter effects of what scarcity can do to societies. Luckily for the people of Great Britain, change began to happen in 1701.

The Agricultural Revolution of Great Britain was introduced to help reduce if not completely prevent scarcity. Innovation began to happen during the Agricultural Revolution that greatly benefited the people of Great Britain. Jethro Tull invented his horse-drawn seed drill in 1701. The machine drilled holes for three rows of seed at a time to the correct depth, planted the seeds, and covered them in dirt in one action. Jethro Tull invented a machine that would increase the speed and accuracy of planting seeds. This machine not only utilized animals but also made use of metals. The drill greatly helped farmers with less work time and more crops planted. However, as a result, farmers could plant and grow more crops. The workers who were no longer needed on the farm had to find work elsewhere, usually in a nearby town or city where factories employed many people. This is where the first problem of using the drill arose. The drill helped immensely, but that meant more workers were not needed. Some workers had to find other work in nearby towns or cities. They could probably find work. But what happened if they couldn’t, they lost their jobs to a machine. The workers would be left with no job and no income to help them survive. The drill had varying degrees of success to fix the enduring issue of scarcity.

Scarcity is not only an enduring issue but as an enduring fear. Before the Green Revolution in India, there were many fears about scarcity. The prospect of having so many people but not enough resources for food can be scary. But it can be even scarier when it’s a reality.

According to James Killoran et al., “After World War II (1939-1945), population increased greatly around the world, especially in areas outside of Europe and North America”. Population overgrowth can also be a cause of scarcity. Too many people eating from the same food sources can make the food sources deplete rapidly and die. “There was concern that the agricultural techniques used in the regions with the greatest population increase would not produce enough crops to keep up with the demand” As the previous sentences said, the fear in India was that the food sources would not be able to keep up with the demands of the expanding population. Overpopulation still affects the current world.

The fear of scarcity was growing which was why the Green Revolution happened. As James Killoran et al. explained, “The Green Revolution was a period from the 1940s to the late 1960s when the production of crops increased drastically as a result of new technological advances such as mechanical equipment, new farming techniques, and chemical fertilizers”. India began to make more use of technology as well as new agricultural techniques to help increase the number of crops produced. It worked extremely well since the production rate of the crops shot up dramatically. This happened throughout the Green Revolution which helped subdue the fear of scarcity. But subduing the fear doesn’t mean scarcity isn’t a potential threat. Scarcity is an enduring issue because of how long and how badly it can affect societies or even generations.

The Paleolithic era, the Agricultural Revolution and the Green Revolution are just some examples of how scarcity is an enduring issue. The Paleolithic era happened over a million years ago. The Agricultural Revolution happened in the 1700s and the Green Revolution was a time period of the 1940s to the 1960s.

References

1. T. Walter Wallbank, et al., Civilization: Past and Present, Scott, Foresman and Company from the January, 2010 NYS Global History and Geography Regents Examination.
2. James Killoran et al., The Key to Understanding Global History, Jarrett Publishing Co. (adapted) from the NYS Global History and Geography Regents Exam.