1) The case study of Indonsian rice analysed below can be found here: http://personal.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/ag-ind.html

From 1967, Indonesian agricultural development concentrated on becoming self-supporting in rice production. In 1984 domestic rice production exceeded domestic rice consumption, but it came unsustainably and resulted in external environmental and social costs.  Agricultural development policies goal was to offer subsidization to expand land, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation to increase farmer’s rice output. Once Indonesia’s government subsidized pesticides and irrigation, farmers began irresponsibly applying pesticides and overused water because they no longer had to pay for their inputs. Pesticide runoff polluted water for local communities. Pests evolved resistance to chemicals, and the overuse wiped out a natural predator that help control pests. The increase in unsustainable development due to subsidies culminated a loss of one million tons of rice and caused a decline in fishing production in from 1986-87. Unsustainable development makes resources scare, which imposes environmental and social costs on the ecosystem. From 1986, the government banned 57 brands of pesticides and established a pest management program. The result reduced pesticide use by 90% and increased rice yields by 1.3 tons per hectare.  

2) The case study of pest control and Andean potato farming analysed below can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/10-0393.1/full

Researchers studied four “modern” potato farming communities in the Peruvian Andes Mountains. Although indigenous, these farmers use modern pesticide treatment in their fields. In this case, the goal was to examine the negative response of Andean potato weevils (number one pest) to larger potato concentration. The case is particularly interesting because usually we assume that an increase in monocrop will lead to an increase in pests and, therefore, increase insecticide. Researchers results were different, an increase in the concentration of crop will decrease weevils because it pressures the pests over time and causes a population reduction. Although the case is subjective, we can learn from this more sustainable agricultural development. Pesticides create a significant cost to human health. Communities near water pollution via pesticide often cannot see themselves out of the toxic chemicals, unless they have the resources (often money) to relocate or invest in purification. Generalizing this case to limit pesticide in other landscapes could provide better pest management solutions over less sustainable ways of increasing pesticide use with the rise in crop production.

3) Modern agriculture works to control the landscape and increase productivity through efficiency, rather than incorporate sustainable systems that protect the environment and social equity. In Indonesia development focused on economic growth proved to degrade the environment and reduce crop yields. In the Peruvian case, I found that exceptions exist to modern pest control. Both cases show the benefits to improve sustainable agriculture. Neither case directly relates to where I live, but monocrop production of corn is the top subsidized agricultural product in Pennsylvania. Subsidizing can lead farmers carelessly overuse their inputs. The most sustainable way to develop agriculture is to work with nature and limit the production to match the rate at which natural resources can be renewable. As landscapes change and vary geographically is important to consider improvements on local scales. Success in a tropical or high mountain region may not be applicable in the U.S. It is difficult to keep sustainable agricultural practices when production extends beyond an individual or community supply, as is the case for Indonesia when the government subsided.