Answer:
Explanation:
Around 1830, producing 100 bushels of wheat required 250 to 300 hours of labor. By 1890, the labor required had decreased to between 40 and 50 hours. Wheat production efficiency improved five to eight times in this period.
In 1850, it took 75 to 90 hours of labor to produce 100 bushels of corn. By 1890, the same amount of corn required only 35 to 40 hours of labor. The amount of corn produced per hour of labor approximately doubled between 1850 and 1890.
Production improvements are linked to innovations such as the use of chemical fertilizers, threshing and mowing machines, and better plows and harrows.
Hope this helps:D
<u><em>-Jazz</em></u>
Because people say the election vote was rigged and they didn’t. Want that president
Answer:
Churchill used the term "iron curtain" to describe the huge divide that had emerged between Eastern and Western Europe. The term "iron curtain" also referred to the military rule and total control exerted by the Soviet Union in the territories of Eastern Europe.
They wanted Texas back because at the time Texas was NOT ruled by anyone but they wanted to be annexed into the united states.America was like "hey if we let them join we get more land and expand as a country." and so they did, but when Mexico heard about this they were like "imma bout to start swinging" turns out they lost not only Texas but soldiers and money. America later buys the rest of the northern territories such as california,Arizona and new Mexico.
Answer and Explanation:
You should ask these questions before making a judgment about the findings that raising livestock is harmful to the environment and that the sale of meat should be banned:
<em>1. How many studies have shown the same results?</em>
This is an important question to ask since results from one researcher or (group of researcher) need to be tested for reliability and validity before it is accepted as scientific truth or fact. This is why you should check if other studies also show the same result about the harmful effects of raising livestock on the environment.
<em>2. Does the group conducting the study have anything to gain by interpreting their findings in this way?</em>
Unfortunately, at times, certain researchers or groups of researchers fabricate or exaggerate their research findings for their own gains or to further their agendas. In this instance, since the group conducting the research is the <em>Ethical Treatment for Animals</em> it is possible that the group interpreted and published the research findings to fit their own paradigm- that eating meat is unethical and should be stopped- when in fact such a claim needs further testing.
<em>3. Does the environmental damage matter as much as people's freedom to eat what they choose?</em>
This is a valid question to consider as it involves the matter of free will. Banning the sale of meat would take away the free will of individuals who would like to continue consuming meat despite evidence suggesting that it is harmful for the environment. Thus, it is important the consider whether environmental damage matters as much as people's freedom to eat what they choose when making a judgement about these research findings.
