Reading Test 09

The Impact of the Potato

A. The potato was first cultivated in South America between three and seven thousand years ago, though scientists believe they may have grown wild in the region as long as 13,000 years ago. The genetic patterns of potato distribution indicate that the potato probably originated in the mountainous west-central region of the continent.

B. Early Spanish chroniclers who misused the Indian word batata (sweet potato) as the name for the potato noted the importance of the tuber to the Incan Empire. The Incas had learned to preserve the potato for storage by dehydrating and mashing potatoes into a substance called Chuchu that could be stored in a room for up to 10 years, providing excellent insurance against possible crop failures. As well as using the food as a staple crop, the Incas thought potatoes made childbirth easier and used it to treat injuries.

C. The Spanish conquistadors first encountered the potato when they arrived in Peru in 1532 in search of gold, and noted Inca miners eating chuchu. At the time the Spaniards failed to realize that the potato represented a far more important treasure than either silver or gold, but they did gradually begin to use potatoes as basic rations aboard their ships. After the arrival of the potato in Spain in 1570, a few Spanish farmers began to cultivate them on a small scale, mostly as food for livestock.

D. Throughout Europe, potatoes were regarded with suspicion, distaste, and fear. Generally considered to be unfit for human consumption, they were used only as animal fodder and sustenance for the starving. In northern Europe, potatoes were primarily grown in botanical gardens as an exotic novelty. Even peasants refused to eat from a plant that produced ugly, misshapen tubers and that had come from a heathen civilization. Some felt that the potato plant’s resemblance to plants in the nightshade family hinted that it was the creation of witches or devils.

E. In meat-loving England, farmers and urban workers regarded potatoes with extreme distaste. In 1662, the Royal Society recommended the cultivation of the tuber to the English government and the nation, but this recommendation had little impact. Potatoes did not become a staple until, during the food shortages associated with the Revolutionary Wars, the English government began to officially encourage potato cultivation. In 1795, the Board of Agriculture issued a pamphlet entitled “Hints Respecting the Culture and Use of Potatoes”; this was followed shortly by pro-potato editorials and potato recipes in The Times. Gradually, the lower classes began to follow the lead of the upper classes.

F. A similar pattern emerged across the English Channel in the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. While the potato slowly gained ground in eastern France (where it was often the only crop remaining after marauding soldiers plundered wheat fields and vineyards), it did not achieve widespread acceptance until the late 1700s. The peasants remained suspicious, in spite of a 1771 paper from the Faculté de Paris testifying that the potato was not harmful but beneficial. The people began to overcome their distaste when the plant received the royal seal of approval: Louis XVI began to sport a potato flower in his buttonhole, and Marie-Antoinette wore the purple potato blossom in her hair.

G. Frederick the Great of Prussia saw the potato’s potential to help feed his nation and lower the price of bread, but faced the challenge of overcoming the people’s prejudice against the plant. When he issued a 1774 order for his subjects to grow potatoes as protection against famine, the town of Kolberg replied: “The things have neither smell nor taste, not even the dogs will eat them, so what use are they to us?” Trying a less direct approach to encourage his subjects to begin planting potatoes, Frederick used a bit of reverse psychology: he planted a royal field of potato plants and stationed a heavy guard to protect this field from thieves. Nearby peasants naturally assumed that anything worth guarding was worth stealing, and so snuck into the field and snatched the plants for their home gardens. Of course, this was entirely in line with Frederick’s wishes.

H. Historians debate whether the potato was primarily a cause or an effect of the huge population boom in industrial-era England and Wales. Prior to 1800, the English diet had consisted primarily of meat, supplemented by bread, butter and cheese. Few vegetables were consumed, most vegetables being regarded as nutritionally worthless and potentially harmful. This view began to change gradually in the late 1700s. The Industrial Revolution was drawing an ever increasing percentage of the populace into crowded cities, where only the richest could afford homes with ovens or coal storage rooms, and people were working 12–16 hour days which left them with little time or energy to prepare food. High-yielding, easily prepared potato crops were the obvious solution to England’s food problems.

I. Whereas most of their neighbors regarded the potato with suspicion and had to be persuaded to use it by the upper classes, the Irish peasantry embraced the tuber more passionately than anyone since the Incas. The potato was well suited to the Irish soil and climate, and its high yield suited the most important concern of most Irish farmers: to feed their families.

J. The most dramatic example of the potato’s potential to alter population patterns occurred in Ireland, where the potato had become a staple by 1800. The Irish population doubled to eight million between 1780 and 1841, this without any significant expansion of industry or reform of agricultural techniques beyond the widespread cultivation of the potato. Though Irish landholding practices were primitive in comparison with those of England, the potato’s high yields allowed even the poorest farmers to produce more healthy food than they needed with scarcely any investment or hard labor. Even children could easily plant, harvest and cook potatoes, which of course required no threshing, curing or grinding. The abundance provided by potatoes greatly decreased infant mortality and encouraged early marriage.

This quiz is for logged in users only.


The Changing Face of Farming in the Canterbury Region of New Zealand

A
The landscape of the rural Canterbury plains in the South Island of New Zealand has been changing since Europeans first arrived in the country some 200 years ago, but in recent decades the speed of change has increased dramatically. Today it is terms such as ‘mechanisation’ ‘intensification’ and ‘conversion’ that you’ll hear on a typical farm. Modern agriculture’s rhythms are urgent, its scale corporate. Driving across the Canterbury plains today, there are futuristic grain research stations and slick billboards promoting harvest-boosting technologies.

 

B
Local farmer Graham Robertson has both observed and participated in the reinvention of Canterbury agriculture. ‘The list of changes is as long as your arm,’ says Robertson. ‘We used to grow one crop, but today we’ve got a huge variety including grass seeds, clover seeds, seeds for American golf courses, legumes … One reason is that the big seed companies located in areas of the Northern Hemisphere want to diversify, and because Canterbury is in the Southern Hemisphere, we can grow crops out of season, and have proved ourselves at producing the quality they demand.’ He does not lament the vanishing rural world, however. ‘I admire the technology,’ says Robertson. ‘One complaint was that this new approach would likely result in a dust bowl. But good management practices have meant the soil isn’t blowing away after all.’

 

C
Today, it’s not plant pests and disease that are the problem, but shortage of water caused by the new popularity of dairy farming. Mid-Canterbury farmer Richard Johnson is a case in point. He converted from growing crops to dairy farming five years ago, because he could see himself getting left behind by neighbours who’d made the switch. He says, ‘We thought, if we don’t go through this process, eventually we are going to get taken over.’ Water, which they found by boring 60 metres below the ground, is essential for the green grass needed by dairy cows. The crucial piece of equipment on the farm has become the high-tech mechanical irrigation system. Soil moisture monitors in the earth beneath each irrigation station signal exactly when they need to turn the water pumps on. Public perception is that water is being wasted,’ says Johnson. ‘But farmers think long and hard before they turn the irrigation on, because it’s expensive.’

 

D
Murray Rogers, who heads the South Canterbury Water Trust, says that the unrestricted taking of water from local rivers has to be reconsidered. ‘Reduced flow in the rivers means less dilution of pollutants and so we’ve been getting more toxic algal blooms,’ says Rogers. He insists that the only long-term solution is for local government to take control of how much water farmers may take. Another critic is ecologist Colin Meurk, who argues that dairying has caused serious damage to Canterbury’s biodiversity, waterways and indigenous ecosystems. He conducted a survey and found that precious little native habitat has survived – in terms of biodiversity Canterbury is ‘one of the most diminished parts of the country. However, Keith Woodford, professor of farm management at Lincoln University, doesn’t accept that dairying is responsible for this problem with biodiversity. ‘Much of the degradation you see in lowland areas is actually the result of practices going back to the 1960s,’ he says, emphasising that modern farming techniques are not at fault.

 

E
What is not in dispute is the extent to which the region has been transformed. In the 1980s, the rural Canterbury town of Ashburton was often deserted but today you will find a bustling community. Whereas the surrounding land was once known as ‘sheep country’, today there’s no question that the increasing popularity of dairy production has been the single greatest contributor to the region’s newfound prosperity. However, the reversal of fortunes for rural Canterbury has other causes as well. In recent decades a significant portion of land has been given over to a relatively new industry: the production of wine, which has taken off in Canterbury and many other parts of the country. In addition, Canterbury’s natural beauty has meant tourism has contributed to its prosperity for decades; and visitor numbers today are so high that the region’s once quiet rural roads have never been so congested. Another important change is that more than 100,000 hectares of rural Canterbury are now divided into small blocks of land, tended by the so-called lifestylers – people who once lived in urban areas but have come to enjoy the rural culture and keep a few animals, though they usually have another source of income to support themselves.

 

F
But with the transformation have come new stresses. Farmers whose families have been here for generations, and who are focused on the production of crops, don’t necessarily relate well to these recent arrivals, with disputes arising over such issues as the intensification of farming and the heavy dependence on chemicals. The social mix is made even more complex because the modern rural workforce, once made up entirely of locals, is increasingly reliant on migrants who are brought in at harvest time, introducing a cosmopolitan element to Canterbury, at least for a few months of the year. With so many competing interests and so much disagreement about the best way forward, what happens next is anyone’s guess.
*dairy farming: keeping cows for the production of milk and milk products

This quiz is for logged in users only.


The Students Problem

Studies show that learning a musical instrument can bring about significant improvements in your brain.


Are music lessons the way to get smarter? That’s what a lot of parents and experts believe: studying an instrument gives children an advantage in the development of their intellectual, perceptual, and cognitive skills. This may, however, turn out to be wishful thinking. Two highly convincing trials carried out recently have found little to support this idea; the IQs of preschool children who attended several weeks of music classes as part of these studies did not differ significantly from the IQs of those who had not.

 

But that does not mean that the advantages of learning to play music are limited to expressing yourself, impressing friends, or just having fun. A growing number of studies show that learning an instrument in childhood can do something perhaps more valuable for the brain: it can provide benefits as we age, in the form of an added defense against memory loss, cognitive decline, and impaired hearing. Not only that, you may well get those benefits even if you haven’t picked up your instrument in years, or decide to take up music for the first time in mid-life or beyond.

According to neuropsychologist Brenda Hanna-Pladdy of Emory University in Atlanta, the time spent learning and practicing specific types of motor control and coordination—each finger on each hand doing something different, and for wind and brass instruments, also using your mouth and breathing—contributes to the brain boost that shows up later in life.

 

You can even map the impact of musical training on the brain itself. In one study, Harvard neurologist Gottfried Schlaug found that the brains of adult professional musicians had a larger volume of grey matter than the brains of non-musicians. Schlaug and colleagues also found that after 15 months of musical training in early childhood, structural brain changes associated with motor and auditory improvements begin to appear. “What’s unique about playing an instrument is that it requires a wide array of brain regions and cognitive functions to work together simultaneously, in both right and left hemispheres of the brain,” says Alison Balbag of the University of Southern California. “Playing music may be an efficient way to stimulate the brain,” she says; “cutting across a broad swath of its regions and cognitive functions and with ripple effects through the decades.”

 

More research is showing this might well be the case. In her first study on the subject, Hanna-Pladdy divided 70 healthy adults between the ages of 60 and 83 into three groups: musicians who had studied an instrument for at least ten years, those who had played between one and nine years, and a control group who had never learned an instrument. The group who had studied for at least ten years scored the highest when tested in such areas as nonverbal and visuo-spatial memory, naming objects, and taking in and adapting new information. Her follow-up study a year later confirmed those findings and further suggested that starting musical training before the age of nine and keeping at it for ten years or more may yield the greatest benefits. Interestingly, it was the group who had the lowest level of general education that showed the greatest gap in scores between those who had studied an instrument in childhood and those who had not. Hanna-Pladdy suspects that musical training could have made up for the lack of cognitive stimulation these people had.

 

Neuroscientist Nina Kraus of Northwestern University in Chicago has found still more positive effects of early musical training. She measured the electrical activity in the auditory brainstem of adults, aged 55 to 70, as they responded to the synthesized speech syllable “da.” Although none of the subjects had played a musical instrument in 40 years, those who had trained the longest—between four and fourteen years— responded the fastest. “That’s significant,” says Kraus, “because hearing tends to decline as we age, including the ability to quickly and accurately discern consonants, a skill crucial to understanding and participating in conversation. If your nervous system is not keeping up with the timing necessary for encoding consonants, you will lose out on the flow and meaning of the conversation, and that can potentially create a downward spiral leading to a sense of social isolation,” says Kraus. In addition, the fact that musical training appears to enhance auditory working memory might help reinforce in later life the memory capacity that facilitates verbal interaction.”

 

In another study at the University of South Florida, assistant professor of music education Jennifer Bugos studied the impact of elementary piano instruction on adults between the ages of 60 and 85. After six months, those who had received piano lessons showed more robust gains in memory, verbal fluency, the speed at which they processed information, planning ability, and other cognitive functions compared with those who had not received the lessons. Bugos believes that playing an instrument has beneficial effects, regardless of how old the person is when he or she begins. “Musical training contains all the components of a cognitive training program that sometimes are overlooked,” she says. “And just as we work out our bodies, we should work out our minds.”

This quiz is for logged in users only.


Scroll to Top