Chesapeake Semester Final Paper
As travelers roam about the Chesapeake Bay region, they traverse many types of terrain, from the Appalachian Mountains to salt marshes, from big cities to rural farms, and it is this composition that makes the landscape and waterscape of the Chesapeake Bay so special. Yet, there is much more taking place along the land and water than what is immediately obvious, though it does have immediately pertinent impacts on the landscape and waterscape we are so accustomed to. Indeed, eutrophication, or the over enrichment of nutrients into the Bay, has lead to algae blooms which not only coat the waterways with a green sheet, but also kill fish and other aquatic organisms through toxins and oxygen depletion. This massive impact on the area’s waterscape is driven by many factors, but a very prominent factor in this process is also one of the area’s largest landscape features, and that is agriculture. Agriculture plays a huge role in the culture of the Chesapeake Bay and serves as a critical component of the landscape, taking up twenty three percent of the land in the watershed. Nutrient runoff from animal operations and fields, mostly nitrogen and phosphorus, is a major contributor to the eutrophication of the Bay, and therefore regulations have been put in place to help turn things around. Of course, there is more at work than just the eutrophication, as eutrophication is simply one of many examples of excess around the Bay which all have heavy consequences. Yet, all of this should not be taken at face value; there are many factors taking place behind the scenes which should be investigated before condemning agriculture as the cause of the excess and the death of the landscape and waterscape of the Chesapeake Bay.
Our group’s museum display looks closely at causes and effects of eutrophication and other excess in the landscape and waterscape of the Chesapeake region by examining agriculture, business, impacts on oysters, and even waterfowl. All of these angles are presented in our final display, but my main focus is on the agricultural portion. I choose to focus on agriculture because I see it as a major component in the region, both physically as it is represents twenty three percent of the landscape in the watershed, but also economically as so many jobs rely on or are impacted by agriculture. This is not to mention that such a large quantity of the nutrients which cause the eutrophication come from agricultural runoff. In fact, the EPA states that forty five percent of the nitrogen and forty four percent of the phosphorus dumped into the Bay each year come from agriculture (Water Quality 1). With this in mind, as I started planning my exhibit I chose to look at not only the source of the nutrients, and how they were reaching the Bay, but to also look at the impact of environmental regulations on the farmers and their investments in the land. For me, this issue of regulation and results is the key issue facing agriculture and excess in the Bay today, and I feel that it is best examined through the lens of the total maximum daily load or TMDL legislation.
Since the beginning of the full display explains the process eutrophication, along with its connection to the larger term of excess, and why it is important, my portion of the display is able to jump directly into how agriculture is involved. The first part of my exhibit looks at how we got where we are today with the current regulations, as I discuss where the pollution comes from, and how it is handled. In this portion I examine the application of fertilizers, especially chicken manure, and the role of runoff, leaching, and soil erosion. In this I intend to discuss the current debacle over chicken litter, attempting to display its high value in areas where it can be utilized along with the risk it poses, and the integral role the chicken industry has in the viability of local grain farming. To highlight this text I display a diorama which showcases runoff, leaching, and atmospheric deposition as forms of nutrients and pesticides reaching the waterway. I also have a map showing the main land uses of the Bay watershed so that visitors can better visualize the true importance of agriculture to the region, as just saying 23% does not do it justice.
The second portion of my display focuses on the TMDL legislation and highlights the lawsuit between the EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and how this resulted in a federal mandate to implement a TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Interestingly enough the whole TMDL regulations and resulting watershed implementation plans are a direct result of an initiative by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which felt that the EPA was disregarding the Clean Water Act by not enforcing the standards it set forth. In this portion of the display I have a video composition of several interviews which follows the progression of the TMDL regulations and notes the concerns of involved parties with the consequences of the regulation. In this video I specifically highlight the economic concerns of the agricultural community. An important message which I heard many times in the field, and which is focused on in the interviews presented here, is that many of the farmers want to help the environment and do what is right, and many of them understand the need for regulation. Yet, even with this attitude they are afraid of the pace with which change is occurring, and many are afraid to be left behind. It is also in this portion of the exhibit that I place a large panel box where visitors can flip a panel to answer a series of questions about agriculture and excess. This helps to enforce some of the ideas presented in the display. It is also through this panel box that I implement the idea of an excess of people which rely on agriculture to feed them.
In the final stage of my exhibit I look at what is being done to try and improve the nutrient problem, along with other excess in the agricultural sector. This part of my exhibit features outreach such as is being done through the Chester River Association and the Agro-Ecology Center, and highlights progress which has enabled steps in the right direction. Specific attention is paid to innovative technologies such as the Green Seeker fertilizer application system, the batch reactor for phosphorus removal, and the Perdue Agro-Recycle Facility, as all of these demonstrate ways that farmers can implement technology to increase or maintain profit while still doing their part to save the Bay. It is in this final portion of the display that I have a second interview video which demonstrates not only real people making an effort to be environmentally friendly, but also shows that farmers have been making such efforts for a long time.
This display showcases the role of agriculture as part of the eutrophication problem in the Chesapeake Bay, but it also demonstrates the good things that the industry is doing to lessen its impact, as well as to provide insight into the deep impact agriculture has on the culture of the Chesapeake region. It is through these parts of the display that I feel I connect most strongly to the course material which we have learned throughout the semester. For example, my display connects to the humanities portion of the class by referencing Wendell Berry as I explain the role of the farmer as a steward of the land. A great example of this is seen in the following quote: “There is moral satisfaction in this, of which … [the farmer] … is fully aware. But he is also aware that the satisfaction is not purely moral, for the good results are also practical and economic…” (Berry 4). By using this quote when discussing the fears of farmers with regulations hovering over them, I demonstrate that farmers are not intentionally polluting the land, as this would hurt their livelihoods. A second Berry quote which I utilize in my display is, “… How much is enough? Industrial solutions have always rested on the assumption that enough is all you can get. But that destroys agriculture, as it destroys nature and culture”(Berry 1). I use this reference to help explain the concept of excess in agriculture. I feel that this quote displays that far too often we are striving for increased financial gain in the short term, even when it jeopardizes our sustainability in the long term. I feel that this is expressed extremely well in Berry’s statement. I also feel that this display focuses on promoting Aldo Leopold’s idea of the land ethic, as this is exactly the premise that the TMDL legislation is based on. It is derived from the idea that this resource has the right to exist, and we as humans must do what is necessary to ensure its survival for future generations.
I pull in the social science aspect of the course into my display on several different occasions. A key role of the social science portion in my exhibit is the documentation of the people’s livelihood. Farming in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is something with deeply rooted traditions, and this is part of the reason for such resentment towards change, but it is also this connection to the land that enables the residents to feel the sense of ownership and responsibility towards a shared resource which has been so vital in even making it this far in the effort to restore the Bay. For me, this was made real in an interview with Nancy Nunn and Sarah Taylor Rodgers at the Agro-Ecology Center, when it was plainly stated that everyone wants the same thing, and that is a clean Bay; the hard part is getting everyone to recognize their role in helping this happen. Ironically, this connection to the land was most explored while at Machu Pichu when Dr. Sidel explained the connection the Maya had to the land, and then compared this through the connection of people who have lived on a farm for generations in comparison to those who just moved there (Sidel). In this example there is a whole different level of understanding for the environment and this is something I clearly saw this semester while working with different agriculturalists. I also employ the social science portion of the course as I look at the economic impacts of farming on the Chesapeake region, both in terms of how many jobs are provided directly and indirectly, but also the products which are produced and the consumer culture which has grown up around cheap chicken. This was explained to me during many of our trips during agriculture week, but the ideas that stuck with me most and are presented in the museum display, are that according to the Delmarva Poultry Industry one in twelve jobs in Delmarva is affected by the poultry industry, and if it were not for the grain demand in chicken feed, area grain farmers would be economically unable to compete with the Midwest. On top of the economic benefit to the region agriculture provides, economics is also a key concern with farmers over the upcoming regulations, as many fear the costs of change will be too high for them to continue to operate, or that regulations will push the chicken industry to other states where it can be more profitable. I feel that documenting these issues directly relates to the social science issues which we have been examining all semester.
Finally, I use the natural science portion of the class most distinctly as I address the actual science behind the policy and the pollution. For example, in my display I make clear that phosphorus and nitrogen enter the water in different manners. This is because phosphorus binds to the soil whereas nitrogen runs directly off. This makes phosphorus the limiting nutrient in the soils around the watershed (Sherman). I also explain the differences in erosion, leaching, and runoff so that the viewer can gain a more thorough appreciation for how the nutrient pollution occurs, and how certain measures can be used as preventatives. I feel that it is through the natural science portion of the display that I tie the entire exhibit together. In my exhibit I see the social science aspect as the people and their reactions and motives, I see the humanities portion as reasoning for the actions which are taking place pushing towards an ideal goal, and I see the natural science portion as the part which helps the two of these meet.
Of course, this exhibit has been deeply impacted by my personal experiences throughout my time in Chesapeake Semester, but most specifically by my experiences during the agricultural week. The first of these was my time at the Agro-Ecology Center where I first learned about the meaning behind the TMDL regulations, and the many politically motivated items within it. This meeting showed me many of the flaws within the policy and opened the door for me to examine how the eutrophication problem and all problems concerning excess were being addressed. A second field experience which played a large role in the development of my display was my visit to both the chicken farm operated by the Davis brothers and the Agro-Recycle facility operated by Perdue. At these facilities I was able to see the issue of chicken litter, and the role it plays in the eutrophication of the Bay, as well as having the opportunity to see firsthand some of the fears which farmers already have concerning the regulations coming their way. This also gave me the chance to start comparing corporate and personal responsibilities over the cleanup of agriculture in the Bay region. A final field experience which I feel had a dramatic impact on my project was the time spent on the Jones Farm and comparing it with the time spent on the St. Bridgid’s Farm. The St. Bridgid’s Farm was a much more environmentally friendly facility in that it was a grass feed operation with much fewer numbers, but it also showed me the reliance of such operations on niche markets. It was clear that this type of operation could never feed America, whereas the less environmentally friendly Jones Farm was more economically viable. This experience also started my exposure to the many ways in which farmers are starting to try and reduce their impacts through methods such as batch reactors. All of these experiences were vital in shaping the way I approached my exhibit, and play a role in the display, as many of them are represented in interviews so as to highlight the practices and beliefs that I found so important at each location. Looking back on all of these opportunities I must say that the one thing which struck me the most, and that has inspired me to attempt to maintain the most neutrality in this presentation that I can, is the fact that after meeting with so many stakeholders I found that everyone involved is doing something good and something not so good, and there is no one person who is committing the whole crime. If I learned anything from all of this, it is that there is no good guy and no bad guy. There are only people who disagree and misunderstand each other, because in the end we all will need to make adjustments if we are to live up to the goals of the TMDLs and save the Bay.
Works Cited
Berry, Wendell, The Gift of the Good Land: Further Essays Cultural & Agricultural. North Point Press, 1981.
Sherman, Leslie. “What is Environmental Chemistry?” Chesapeake Semester of Washington College. William Smith Hall, Chestertown, Maryland. 21 Oct 2011.
Sidel, John. “Connection to the Land” Chesapeake Semester of Washington College. Machu Pichu, Peru. 16 Nov 2011.
“Water Quality: Agriculture”. EPA, 2010. http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/130&quicktabs_10=1
Resources Used in Display
Agro-Ecology Center Publications on TMDL’s
Assorted Lectures by Leslie Sherman
Assorted works of Wendell Berry
Delaware Department of Natural Resources Report: Socioeconomic Value of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Delaware
EPA Data from- http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.html
EPA Report: Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Interviews From:
Jen de Mooy
Nancy Nunn
Pat Langenfelder
Paul Spies
Sarah Taylor Rodgers
Maryland Farm Bureau Statistics
Maryland’s Wildlife Diversity Conservation Plan
PEW Report on Sustainability of the Poultry Industry
Poultry Industry Statistics from www.dpichicken.org
Pictures From:
The Center for Environment and Society: http://www.washcoll.edu/wc/news/events/2011/10/farmvisits/
Invenia:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpJUklw9zdqSifvcVHl-msppi5G-gE6Dp3uj6bRu11Z0FEIoG523V64e_1
Final Paper Explanation and Draft
As a traveler roams about the Chesapeake Bay region they traverse many types of terrain, from the Appalachian Mountains to salt marshes, from big cities to rural farms, and it is this composition that makes the landscape and waterscape of the Chesapeake Bay so special. Yet, there is much more taking place along the land and water than what is immediately obvious, though it does have immediately pertinent impacts on the landscape and waterscape we are so accustomed to. Indeed, eutrophication, or the over enrichment of nutrients into the Bay, has lead to algae blooms which not only coat the waterways with a green sheet, but also kill fish and other aquatic organisms through toxins and oxygen depletion. This massive impact on the areas waterscape is driven by many factors, but a very prominent factor in this process is also one of the area’s largest landscape features, and that is agriculture. Agriculture plays a huge role in the culture of the Chesapeake Bay, and serves as a critical component of the landscape taking up twenty three percent of the land in the watershed. Nutrient runoff from animal operations and fields, mostly nitrogen and phosphorus, is a major contributor to the eutrophication of the Bay, and therefore regulations have been put in place to help turn things around. Yet, all of this should not be taken at face value, there are many factors taking place behind the scenes which should be investigated before condemning agriculture as the cause of the eutrophication, and the death of the landscape and waterscape of the Chesapeake Bay.
Our group’s museum display looks closely at causes and effects of eutrophication in the landscape and waterscape of the Chesapeake region, by examining agriculture, business, impacts on oysters, and even waterfowl. All of these angles are presented in our final display, but my main focus is on the agricultural portion. I choose to focus on agriculture because I see it as a major component in the region, both physically as it is represents twenty three percent of the landscape in the watershed, but also economically as so many jobs rely on or are impacted by agriculture. This is not to mention that such a large quantity of the nutrients which cause the eutrophication come from agricultural runoff. In fact, the EPA states that forty five percent of the nitrogen, and forty four percent of the phosphorus dumped into the Bay each year come from agriculture (Water Quality 1). With this in mind, as I started planning my exhibit I choose to look at not only the source of the nutrients, and how they were reaching the Bay, but to also look at the impact of environmental regulations on the farmers and their investments in the land. For me, this issue of regulation and results is the key issue facing agriculture and eutrophication in the Bay today, and I feel that it is best examined through the lens of the total maximum daily load or TMDL legislation.
Since the beginning of the full display explains the process eutrophication and why it is important, my portion of the display is able to jump directly into how agriculture is involved. The first part of my exhibit looks at how we got where we are today with the current regulations. It highlights the lawsuit between the EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and how this resulted in a federal mandate to implement a TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Interestingly enough the whole TMDL regulations and resulting watershed implementation plans are a direct result of an initiative by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which felt that the EPA was disregarding the Clean Water Act by not enforcing the standards it set forth. In this portion of the display I have an interview with someone from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to explain what the groups intentions were going into the lawsuit, how they feel the resulting regulations will impact the Bay and the watershed as a whole, and if the resulting impacts are what they had initially intended. I also highlight the actual requirements of the legislation itself, such as the required decreases in certain nutrients and that this is requiring drastic cuts from all sectors of life.
Moving forward in the display I next look at where the pollution comes from, and how it is handled. In this portion I examine the application of fertilizers, especially chicken manure, and the role of runoff, leaching, and soil erosion. In this I intend to discuss the current debacle over chicken litter, attempting to display its high value in areas where it can be utilized along with the risk it poses, and the integral role the chicken industry has in the viability of local grain farming. During this portion of the display viewers can see interviews with farmers highlighting their concerns over the impacts regulations will have on them. In these interviews there is also discussion concerning the many problems which currently plague the model being used to calculate the daily load allowances. An important message which I heard many times in the field, and is focused on in the interviews presented here, is that many of the farmers want to help the environment and do what is right, and many of them understand the need for regulation. Yet, even with this attitude they are afraid of the pace with which change is occurring, and many are afraid to be left behind.
In the final stage of my exhibit I will look at what is being done to try and improve the nutrient problem in the agricultural sector. This part of my exhibit features outreach such as is being done through the Chester River Association and the Agro-Ecology Center, and highlights progress which has enabled steps in the right direction. Specific attention is paid to innovative technologies such as the Green Seeker fertilizer application system, the batch reactor for phosphorus removal, and the Perdue Agro-Recycle Facility, as all of these demonstrate ways that farmers can implement technology to increase or maintain profit while still doing their part to save the Bay.
This display showcases the role of agriculture as part of the eutrophication problem in the Chesapeake Bay, but it also demonstrates the good things that the industry is doing to lessen its impact, as well as to provide insight into the deep impact agriculture has on the culture of the Chesapeake region. It is through these parts of the display that I feel I connect most strongly to the course material which we have learned throughout the semester. For example, my display connects to the humanities portion of the class by referencing Wendell Berry as I explain the role of the farmer as a steward of the land. A great example of this is seen in the quote “There is moral satisfaction in this, of which … [the farmer] … is fully aware. But he is also aware that the satisfaction is not purely moral, for the good results are also practical and economic…” (Berry 4). By using this quote when discussing the fears of farmers with regulations hovering overhead I will be demonstrating that farmers are not intentionally polluting the land, as this would hurt their livelihoods. I also feel that this display focuses on promoting Aldo Leopold’s idea of the land ethic, as this is exactly the premise that the TMDL legislation is based on. It is derived from the idea that this resource has the right to exist, and we as humans must do what is necessary to ensure this.
I pull in the social science aspect of the course into my display on several different occasions. A key role of the social science portion in my exhibit is the documentation of the people’s livelihood. Farming in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is something with deeply rooted traditions, and this is part of the reason for such resentment towards change, but it is also this connection to the land that enables the residents to feel the sense of ownership and responsibility towards a shared resource which has been so vital in even making it this far in the effort to restore the Bay. I also employ the social science portion of the course as I look at the economic impacts of farming on the region, both in terms of how many jobs are provided directly and indirectly, but also the products which are produced and the consumer culture which has grown up around cheap chicken. This was explained to me during many of our trips during agriculture week, but the ideas that stuck with me most, and are presented in the museum display are that according to the Delmarva Poultry Industry one in twelve jobs in Delmarva is affected by the poultry industry, and if it were not for the grain demand in chicken feed area grain farmers would be economically unable to compete with the Midwest. On top of the economic benefit to the region agriculture provides, economics is also a key concern with farmers over the upcoming regulations, as many fear the costs of change will be too high for them to continue to operate, or that regulations will push the chicken industry away to where it can be more profitable. I feel that documenting these issues directly relates to the social science issues which we have been examining all semester.
Finally, I use the natural science portion of the class most distinctively as I address the actual science behind the policy and the pollution. For example, in my display I make clear that phosphorus and nitrogen enter the water in different manners. This is because phosphorus binds to the soil whereas nitrogen runs directly off. This makes phosphorus the limiting nutrient in the soils around the watershed (Sherman). I also explain the differences in erosion, leaching, and runoff so that the viewer can gain a more thorough appreciation for how the nutrient pollution occurs, and how certain measures can be used as preventatives. I feel that it is through the natural science portion the display that I tie the entire exhibit together. In my exhibit I see social science aspect as the people and their reactions and motives, I see the humanities portion as reasoning for the actions which are taking place pushing towards a ideal goal, and I see the natural science portion as the part which helps the two of these meet.
Of course, this exhibit has been deeply impacted by my personal experiences throughout my time in Chesapeake Semester, but most specifically by my experiences during the agricultural week. The first of these was my time at the Agro-Ecology Center where I first learned about the meaning behind the TMDL regulations, and the many politically motivated items within it. This meeting showed me many of the flaws within the policy and opened the door for me to examine how the eutrophication problem was being addressed. A second field experience which played a large role in the development of my display was my visit to both the chicken farm operated by the Davis brothers, and the Agro-Recycle facility operated by Perdue. At these facilities I was able to see the issue chicken litter, and the role it plays in the eutrophication of the Bay, as well as having the opportunity to see firsthand some of the fears which farmers already have concerning the regulations coming their way. This also gave me the chance to start comparing corporate and personal responsibilities over the cleanup of agriculture in the Bay region. A final field experience which I feel had a dramatic impact on my project was the time spent on the Jones Farm and comparing it with the time sent on the St. Bridgid’s Farm. The St. Bridgid’s Farm was a much more environmentally friendly facility in that it was a grass feed operation with much fewer numbers, but it also showed me the reliance of such operations on niche markets. It was clear that this type of operation could never feed America, whereas the less environmentally friendly Jones Farm was more economically viable. This experience also started my exposure to the many ways in which farmers are starting to try and reduce their impacts through methods such as batch reactors. All of these experiences were vital in shaping the way I approached my exhibit, and play a role in the display, as many of them are represented in interviews so as to highlight the practices and beliefs that I found so important at each location. Looking back on all of these opportunities I must say that the one thing which struck me the most, and that has inspired me to attempt to maintain the most neutrality in this presentation that I can, is the fact that after meeting with so many stakeholders I found that everyone involved is doing something good and something not so good, and there is no one person who is committing the whole crime. If I learned anything from all of this, it is that there is no good guy and no bad guy there is only people who disagree and misunderstand each other, because in the end we all will need to make adjustments if we are to live up to the goals of the TMDLs and save the Bay.
Works Cited
Berry, Wendell, The Gift of the Good Land: Further Essays Cultural & Agricultural. North Point Press, 1981.
Sherman, Leslie. “What is Environmental Chemistry?” Chesapeake Semester of Washington College. William Smith Hall, Chestertown, Maryland. 21 Oct 2011.
“Water Quality: Agriculture”. EPA, 2010. http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/130&quicktabs_10=1
Expected Resources
Sherman Lectures
Other Berry readings
Maryland Farm Bureau Data
EPA Data
Agro-Ecology Center Data
PEW and other Chicken Industry Reports
Interviews From:
Davis brothers
Nancy Nunn/Sarah Taylor Rodgers
Paul Spies
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Bob Tjaden
Bob Fry and Judy Gifford
Lima Soundscape
This soundscape took place at six fifty one at night on the roof of our hotel within the city of Lima. I was sitting towards the middle of the roof, away from the edges.
During this soundscape I found myself making the connection to the idea of an urban jungle, in that just as I was surrounded by sound in the Amazon, I was equally surrounded in Lima. Yet, in the Amazon the sounds were mostly biotic, where as in Lima they were mostly abiotic. For example, the variety of insects was replaced by an equally large array of car horns, with a mixture of engines, tools, and grinding metal all around. During this soundscape I felt a similar anxiety to my experience listening in the Machu Pichu market, but in this instance I felt a little disoriented in that it was basically the same sound coming from all directions. The waves in Punta San Juan dissolved the measure of distance, but this completely removed my sense of direction. I also found it interesting that there was never any moment where the commotion seemed to cease, there were times when the horns would move further away but they were always there. I was also intrigued by the different applications of the horns. Without being able to see the occasion for honking, I felt as though I could still interpret the meaning of the horn just from the intensity and duration.
Machu Pichu
Walking through Machu Pichu I was impressed by the size and complexity of the ancient construction, and felt that the sight was certainly worth the adventure to reach the top of the mountain. This is was first caused me to apply the bridge and barrier intersection to this location. Indeed, reaching Machu Pichu is quite the barrier as it is high in the mountains, luckily for tourists like myself there are busses which cart passengers up, but for the Incan’s this luxury would not have existed and they would have had to use what is now called the Inca Trail. Though reaching this place was a barrier in itself, Machu Pichu also served as a barrier in the capacity of the people it served. Machu Pichu is believed to have been a palace for the royal family, though other persons came through the city it was a representation of the rulers might, representing a economic and social barrier. Ironically, the most prominent view people have of Machu Pichu as a barrier is a misconception in that it was never actually a military facility like most wish to believe. Yet, just as Machu Pichu served as a barrier, it also served as a bridge for the people of he Incan Empire. For example, this sight showed examples of items and people’s from all over the empire, so it was a place where travelers went through carrying goods. This enabled a bridge between the many cultures which composed the empire. Machu Pichu also served as a bridge to the landscape, in that several structures in the citadel were made to look like the mountains around them, and pointing the way to other locations. I found this to be very intriguing as it was a physical manifestation or bridge of the peoples connection with their environment. The final way I interpreted Machu Pichu as a bridge was as a bridge to the heavens. There were rocks and windows which line up with the equinox, and an observatory for the milky way galaxy. Dr. Sidel even presented the idea that the little bowl shaped rocks in the one house structure may have been filled with water and used as a mirror to view the night sky. Though many of these are conjecture they are certainly still interesting examples of a bridge with the heavens that played such a heavy role in Andean culture.
Cusco and its environs
As we explored the city of Cusco during our brief time in the city one of the things that appeared to me over and over again was the mixture of old and new, or modern and traditional as we word it in the intersections. A primary example of this is found in the architecture of the city, where many current structures are built on top of old Incan foundations, and how even newly constructed buildings have been designed so as to fit in. The whole area embraces the culture which has made the area famous. On the opposite side of this is that at the historic site of Saqusawaman there was modern lighting along the outside to light up the monument during celebrations. Thus may seem small but it is an obvious intrusion of the modern world into traditional areas. The second major point of modern and traditional that I saw in Cusco was a mixture of the Incan beliefs and Catholic beliefs which were forced upon the native people by the Spanish colonizers. Several times we heard about how certain festivals were changed around so that they could still take place but not appear pagean, or how Incan’s would attend mass in their ceremonial clothes, and only when it was delivered in Quechua. Of course over time much of this has subsided to a mixture of both traditional and modern cultures with much less tension than in early times, but I was able to see signs of the early conflict throughout the city. For example in the central square there are two very large cathedrals built on top of the structure of Incan holy places, yet just outside the church is a fountain with an Incan warrior staring directly at the church. There were also signs of parts of other monuments around the city, which the Spanish had attempted to destroy. Still, just outside the city there are many people living in more traditional ways raising livestock and crops. How the two have mixed together into one culture is truly amazing, as even our guide said that you can not dissect the two, because that changes what we believe.
Connection to the Chesapeake 2
I found my second connection to the Chesapeake region in Parque de la Papa, or the potato park. This facility is a collaboration between communities and NGO’s to fund a biodiversity preserve for potato’s, so as to help provide both food supply and security for the changing future. The need for this was easily seen when people began noticing that over fifty species ad disappeared from one valley alone, and more and more reliance was being placed on fewer species which may not be able to survive climate change or disease. In fact, it was this statement that caused me to first connect this area with the Chesapeake. The Chesapeake region used to be home to many wild, semi domesticated, and even fully farmed species which have all been driven out by what is now just a few main crops. All one needs to do to see this change is to look at the drop in small fruit vegetable farms and peach orchards, or even small scale family dairy operations. Though we have not completely lost these species, it would be a difficult transition for the area if for example corn could no longer be grown. It was interesting to see first hand that this loss of food diversity is taking place al over the world, and that all over the world the motives were essentially the same. It was stated by our guide of the park that the crop supported the community but was not profitable and needed monitory support because doing it naturally produced dramatically less yield than concentrating on a few species and applying chemicals, the conundrum we have been faced with in the Chesapeake. It was also interesting to see that just as this is a global concern there are initiatives all over the world to help stop it such as the seed savers exchange or the potato park. A second connection I drew to the Chesapeake was through the techniques used to cultivate the crops. For example mound agriculture which we have heard was used by the native Americans, and plow under agriculture which can still be seen in practice with some cover crops even today though it has become very uncommon. The final connection I drew was the relation between the livestock and the harvest. In potato park the only fertilizer used comes from there animals, and in the Chesapeake chicken litter is a very utilized fertilizer for the crops. So though the two areas are separated by thousands of miles, there are still many similarities underneath the different appearances.
Parque de la Papa
Paque de la papa
Visiting the Potato Park was a really interesting experience, as the opportunity to explore not only the conservation efforts in place, but also the culture which enables the area to exist, and for me this location exemplifies our nature and culture intersection. As we drove through the mountains and valley which make up the park, I was amazed by the thick culture which surrounded the place. Livestock roamed freely as families worked their fields, with women along the road selling goods they wove from alpaca and llama. As we arrived at main building for the park we learned about the six communities that make up the project, and that they are growing 1344 types of potatoes. Tough the production of these products is not necessarily traditional for the high altitudes at which the park works, they are all native species and cultivated in relatively traditional ways, especially noting that they use no insecticides or fertilizers except that of their livestock. This surprised me since the crop, though being funded as a biodiversity reserve, must still support the entire community, and is thus worked as a community. I was also really intrigued by the fact that most of the people, even those in the fields, were wearing the bright cultural clothes which tourists view as exotic and pay hefty prices for. Yet, as I thought about this it began to make more sense. There were many alpaca and llama roaming around so this material is what was available to them, and therefore they made use of it, just as in the states we use cotton. So the peoples culture was an exemplification of there natural surroundings. This thought helped explain to me why in Incan civilization the spirit animal for the area was the condor, as it was a animal present in the high altitudes. Following this a little further I remembered that one of the professors pointed out that the population was short as a selective pressure in the gene pool to be calorically efficient in an area where food is less prevalent. Thus they themselves the base components of the culture have literally been shaped by the natural forces around them.
