• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 3059 0

1969:162–69; Drake 1969:54–66, 73–75, 157 (Norway). The idea is not new: Alexander von Humboldt said (1822:vol. 2, 440, 449) the potato “has had the greatest influence on the progress of population in Europe.… [N]o plant since the discovery of cerealia, that is to say, from time immemorial, has had so decided an influence on the prosperity of mankind as the potato.” Livi-Bacci (1997:77–78) argues that this view is “countered by a number of considerations,” mainly a decline in grain consumption and real wages. But these declines occurred because farmers were growing more potatoes, which provide better nutrition, and because there were more farmers, which drove down wages. Fogel (2004:3–11) summarizes the debate.

28 Potato examples: Cinnirella 2008:esp. 253–54 (Saxony); Viazzo 2006:182–92, 212–15, 289–92 (Alps); Pfister 1983:esp. 292 (Alps); Brandes 1975:180 (Spain). See also, Reader 2009: 94–95.

29 Agricultural revolution: A summary history is Overton 1996.

30 Clover: Kjærgaard 2003. Turnips, too, were important as a fallow crop, because their broad leaves smothered weeds.

31 One-eighth of increase: Nunn and Qian 2010 (“conservative,” 37).

32 Chincha Islands and birds: Cushman 2003:56–59; Hutchinson 1950:9–26; Peck 1854a:150–225 (150 feet, 198).

33 Need for nitrogen: Smil 2001:chap. 1. A fine summary in Standage 2009:199–214.

34 Guano on Chinchas: Hutchinson 1950: 14–43 (147 islands, birds, thirty-five pounds), 79–83 (chemical composition).

35 Pre-European use of guano: Julien 1985; Garcilaso de la Vega 1966:vol. 1, 246–47 (pt. 1, bk. 5, chap. 3). Julien and Gade (1975:44) say guano was brought to the highlands; Denevan (2001:35) believes its use was “limited and localized,” because of the difficulty in transporting it.

36 Von Humboldt and guano: Fourcroy and Vauquelin 1806 (“they approached,” 370).

37 Bone market: Walton 1845:167–68 (lack of interest in guano); Anon. 1822 (“daily bread”), 1829, 1832.

38 Guano mania and Liebig: Cushman 2003:60–62, appendix 1 (export figures); Mathew 1970:112–14; House of Commons 1846:377–78 (“Account of the Number and Tonnage of Vessels … engaged in the Guano Trade”); Anon. 1842a (role of Liebig); 1842b:esp. 118, 138–40, 142–44, 146–47 (view of Science); Johnson 1843; Liebig 1840 (“of maize,” 81–82). See also, Smil 2001:42. Other sources give somewhat different figures for British guano imports, but there is no dispute about their rapid rise. I have seen four editions of Liebig’s book.

39 Beginning of input-intensive agriculture: Melillo 2011; Cushman 2003:37. I have adapted one of Cushman’s sentences.

40 Working conditions: Skaggs 1994:chap. 2; Mathew 1977:44–51; Peck 1854a:205–13; Anon. 1853 (“coated with guano,” 555).

41 Elías’s life: Blanchard 1996.

42 Importing Chinese to Peru: Meagher 2009:94–100 (warehouses), 176–77 (mutinies), 221–24 (more than 100,000, 222); Wu 2009 (“were killed,” 47); Skaggs 1994:162–63; Schwendinger 1988:23–26; Mathew 1977:36–43 (eight years, 43); Stewart 1970:82–98. Melillo (2011) sets the context.

43 Mistreatment of Chinese: Meagher 2009:224–29 (cemetery, 226); Wu 2009; Mathew 1977:44–51 (five tons); Stewart 1970 (see, e.g., 21–23, 90–97); Anon. 1856 (torture); Peck 1854a:170, 207–08, 214–16; 1854b (“were digging”).

44 Guano monopoly and protest: Skaggs 1994:10–15, 21–30; Mathew 1968:569–74; Markham 1862:308–09 (scorn for Peru); Anon. 1854 (“lower price,” 117). Typical U.S. editorials included “The Guano War” (NYT, 14 Aug. 1853), “The Guano Question” (NYT, 12 Aug. 1852), and “The Guano Question in England” (NYT, 29 Sep. 1852).

45 “economic success”: Miller 2007:149. I have borrowed Miller’s comparison to OPEC, too.

46 Guano Islands Act: Skaggs 1994:172–97 (Navassa), 213, 230–36; Letter, R. S. Bowler to S. Wike, 16 Sep. 1893. In Magoon 1900:15–16 (official list of islands).

47 Industrial monoculture: Pollan (2006:41–48) evocatively describes this transformation.

48 First Green Revolution: Melillo 2011.

49 Comparison of Europe to African nations: Clark 2007:40–50. I am violently simplifying a complex comparison, but the point is valid. Komlos