Biotechnology on Agriculture

Biotechnology is a subfield of Science, under the branch of Biology involving the study and refining of living organisms genetically with the use of technology. It is used to conserve the use of bio - resources. Some of its objectives are to strengthen the agricultural economy so as to prick cheaper and more efficient agricultural production; to administer a solution to the world food shortages, and further improvement on the medicine and veterinary services. Through biotechnology, diseases and their treatments are learned and unstated.

The role of biotechnology in our agriculture has benefited the society with safer food supply and environment. This is accomplished by adding a new gene to a crop plant with the use of advanced technology. Doing such produces crops which are less vulnerable to insect attacks and diseases. The limited availability of agricultural lands imposes another problem on the agriculture that biotechnology has managed to resolve. Because of such advancement, area needed for cultivation of food is now reduced and can be utilized to other purposes. Though the land area required on the cultivation for crops has decreased, production has conversely increased. Among other benefits taken from biotechnology are improved taste and appearance of plant ' s fruits, harvests can be stored for longer period and a broader variety of new plants. s.

Using this however, may not be viable to countries that lack knowledge and flexibility in the processes and technologies being utilized. Developing and employing scientists knowledgeable enough on the matter may be costly and such costs might not be compensated by the benefits that they can derive from biotechnology.

Automation is in demand these days. To learn more about IC610MDL129 and IC610MDL135, check online and be informed about it.

Biodynamic Vs Organic In Farming, Agriculture, And Food Production Yield And Resilience

This article explores the distinction between organic and biodynamic agriculture. Most people are more familiar with the term " organic ", when practicable to food or farming, as this term has entered the mainstream. The term " biodynamic " is less familiar, although it is most familiar in the area of wine. Both of these systems of farming aim to nurture sustainability by reducing the use of synthetic, chemical inputs which can potentially be harmful to the environment and to human health. However, as this article explains below, biodynamic agriculture goes a lot likewise than organics towards achieving this objective.

Both organic and biodynamic have certification systems:

Biodynamic certification is carried out primarily through a single disposal, called Demeter International, an umbrella management that has part organizations in the individual countries where certification is carried out. Through the certification is spring by a single system, biodynamic certification is more standardized globally than organic certification.

Organic certification is run by a variety of different agencies. In most industrialized countries, including the U. S., Canada, the European Union, and Japan, the organic label is defined and regulated by the government. In other countries, organic certification can be carried out by non - profit organizations. Because there are different certifying agencies in different countries, the standards for organic certification differ. However, there are still some basic similarities in common between these different systems.

Biodynamic goes above and beyond organic certification:

The core idea of organic certification boils down to one idea: avoiding the use of synthetic chemical inputs, which can include herbicides, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers like ammonia - or nitrate - based fertilizers. In this respect, organic agriculture is defined more in the negative than the positive sense: organic certification specifies what a farmer cannot do, but does less in terms of specifying good or healthy approaches to agriculture. Because organic certification does not specify much more than some restrictions on what farmers cannot do, there are many different ways of realizing organic farming.

Some organic farms stick to the letter of organic certification, following all the requirements and rules, but while maintaining the same fundamental approach of industrialized agriculture, using mass - production of crops in large monocultures, and applying fertilizers and herbicides or pesticides as one does in modern industrial farming, with the only change being the use of mixtures allowed under the organic certification systems. The gains of this sort of approach, from a sustainability standpoint, are minimal.

Biodynamic agriculture, on the other hand, takes a more holistic approach. In biodynamic agriculture, the farm is viewed as an ecosystem. Biodynamics, like organics, avoids chemical treatments, but goes even farther, promoting decentralization of production, using cover crops, crop rotation, livestock manure, composting, and open pollination combined with seed saving Each of these practices provides benefits in terms of sustainability, both creating a more positive environmental impact, and increasing the resilience of the farming operation.

The effects and yield of biodynamic agriculture vs conventional organic farming:

There are not many studies comparing biodynamic agriculture to organic - certified factory farming. However, there is a lot of research comparing biodynamic farming to conventional ( non - organic ) farming, and this research seems to find a common trend, which is that biodynamic farming results in slightly lower crop yields, but greatly increased soil quality and lessened environmental impact. Furthermore, biodynamic operations tend to be much more resilient to disturbances, such as changing environmental conditions or unusual weather or climate fluctuations. This is likely due to the use of ecological principles such as diversification and use of open - pollination and seed saving. And in the case of biodynamic wine, a specific topic that has been studied more, there is some evidence that the biodynamic practices result in greater quality of the grapes.

In summary:

Biodynamic agriculture goes above and beyond organic agriculture in embracing ecological principles. Biodynamic certification is more standardized than organic certification. Biodynamic farming results in lower crop yields, but greater resilience in the face of changing conditions, and a more positive impact on the environment.

Back to Basics - Agriculture is Still in a Bull Market

Those that result my work will know I have been bullish on merchandise since 2002. In 2003 I at fault a seminar in London well-organized with serviceable global banker Jim Rogers where I explained why I was allocating a great part of my treasure to produce.

My contour has not antithetic; this still is a machine bull market and those that don ' t have an exposure to goods are absent out. Before I label the current situation I was re declaiming Igneous Merchandise by Jim Rogers where he states " Warning There will be setbacks, I cannot promise a stairway to heaven. No bull market in ration asset has ever gone straight up " Many dial out that all Bull markets have set backs, the stockmarket did not go up in a straight line between 1982 to 2000 it had many set backs, but it was a bull market. If we say this bull market started in 2000 and a typical bull market lasts 18 to 20 years then we still have some time to go.

Most investors based in Europe and the USA forget how small a part of the world we are, and the true growth is coming from China, India and other developing economies. Lets face it the UK, Europe and the USA have had their best years, they have had their years of growth and consumption, its now time for other countries to lead. Regardless of what your nationality is and where you live everyone consumes agricultural and soft commodities and will continue to do so. As the global population continues to grow and living standards increase in developing economies so does calories consumed. Forget about all they hype about more cars, TVs, fridges I am talking about the developing economies trading up from just rice to maybe rice and pork or rice and chicken.

I would guess that 95 % of those reading this do not own any agricultural commodities, I see 1000 ' s of financial advisors and fund managers investing their clients money in the stockmarket, property, bonds but when it comes to commodities bar a few specialise funds, its unheard of to have a holding in commodities. I often hear commodities are " risky " these are the same people that invest in shares which may I remind you are far riskier than commodities, shares go to zero, no commodity has ever gone to zero. For the last 30 years or so those leaving colleges and universities have aspired to go and work in the service sector and the financial sector as these areas have boomed and provided the best working conditions and salaries. Not many people have left to go in to farming but that could now change. I see the service sector declining for the next 10 to 15 years, we don ' t need so many banks, insurance companies, travel companies, restaurants or retailers. These businesses certainly in Europe and USA will have a decade of contraction where as farming will be in expansion mode.

So how do you get an exposure? The easiest way is still exchange traded funds, you can buy these via a stockbroker and they can be placed in a pension / SIPP or held in a normal account. Owning the ETFS outright means your no subject to margin calls or leverage. If you ' re willing take a little more risk then investing in agricultural based companies is another angle.

Animal rightists foster image of animal cruelty in Texas and other states

Those of us attentive in preventing cruelty to animals in the Texas livestock industry have watched with interest as the theatre in Ohio has played out in recent days. Apparently, an agreement has been struck that may eventually hamstring the livestock industry in the Buckeye State, instance giving it some alive room for now. The effort for a restrictive animal rights choosing initiative will not come to a vote this fall, and livestock producers will make some concessions, most of which will come at a next time.

Consistent is the nature of poll initiatives, which accord activists all the advantages, a short time frame in which to gradient up emotional arguments with really cool sound bites, juncture science and reason wait to sort out something workable from the rubble.

We are told that livestock producers in Ohio can live with the agreement. I dont want to second guess that, but I worry about the tendency of the animal rights folks to reach an agreement and then begin planning their adversaries unconditional surrender on the very next day. Animal cruelty in Texas and other states is a perception they foster. Their goals are clear.

The Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other traveling partners intend for the United States to stop eating meat. They will take what they can get for now and keep working toward that goal. For them, this is a marathon, not a sprint, and the children or grandchildren of livestock producersif the animal rights folks get their waywill be selling their farms in a few decades.

Even without misguided ballot initiatives in Texaswhere we still believe in representative governmentwe are not without worries. Its possible that when HSUS has forced enough state initiatives, they can hoodwink Congress into passing a national law. Thats the beginning of the end for livestock production in the U. S. It would also signal the end for family livestock farms and many hundreds of thousand jobs.

To be clear, I make little distinction between the goals of HSUS and PETA. HSUS is PETA in a nicely tailored suit. The leadership of both is vegan and anthropomorphic, assigning human characteristics to animals. PETAs primary purpose is to make HSUS look moderate by comparison. Understanding that Americans will not willingly give up a diet of meat, they set out instead to make the production of it prohibitively expensive. Its a clever and effective strategy.

HSUS has enjoyed a skillfully deployed false front, using alleged cruelty to animals in Texas and other states as a weapon. Fundraising appeals are all cute puppies and kittens, sadly neglected. But the money raised for this alleged purpose is mostly spent to raise more money, lobby against animal agriculture and fund pensions. About 1 percent of the take will fund animal shelters. The watchdog group, Charity Navigator has noticed, downgrading HSUS to a point where they now rank below PETA.

HSUS will not suffer though. The budget is huge enough to support more than 30 lawyers, all of them working on ways to deal grief to livestock producers. They live in the gray area between scientifically developed agricultural practice and the senseless cruelty to animals that all agree should be aggressively punished in Texas and other states. They pretend these two things are the same. They are not.

When these questions are raised, animal rightists lash out at those who voice them. I and the family farmers I work for will be labeled " big ag, " as if that alone discredits the argument.

We will continue to fight this fight in the hope that Americans who love meatfrom hamburgers to steak, from bacon to pork ribs, from drumsticks to Thanksgiving turkey realize what the animal rights movement has in store for them.