Research Project Rough Draft 1-The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

What would we do without plastic? There wouldn’t be any water bottles, plastic wrap, plastic bags, soda can holders, etc. Plastic is convenient, but it’s what happens after we are done with it that’s the problem. These products are supposed to go to the local landfills. However, the Earth’s largest landfill isn’t actually on land; it’s out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in an area called the Great Pacific garbage patch. There are several of these garbage patches located around the world, but the biggest one is closest to the U.S. Although plastic and Styrofoam products have made life easier in the world, they are contaminating the oceans because litter is finding it’s way out into the ocean, the materials are then breaking down and allowing toxic chemicals to leech into the water and plastic pieces are making their way into the bellies of birds and other animals.

 

Large amounts of plastic and Styrofoam are finding their way to the ocean. The largest amounts of ocean trash come from cruise and cargo ships. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that ocean-based sources, such as cargo ships and cruise liners, dumped 14 billion pounds of garbage into the ocean (California Coastal Commission, 2011). The Mediterranean’s surrounding countries have adopted bans on dumping in the ocean. They have noticed that when something is dumped in the ocean, it ends up on shore and it soils the beaches. The cruise ships are now only allowed to dump food overboard. The remaining garbage is taken off the ship when it’s in port and sent to a local landfill. The Caribbean, however, has not adhered to these same standards. The surrounding islands do not have the capacity to take the garbage from the cruise ships. When Grenada tried to tax $1.50 per head to Carnival Cruise Line so they could pay for a new landfill, Carnival withdrew and will not go back there (Melia, 2009).  Under the Caribbean guidelines as of 2009, “ships can begin dumping garbage, including metal, glass and paper, three miles from shore as long as it is ground to less than an inch. Almost anything but plastic can be dumped beyond 25 miles” (Melia, 2009). An inch is small enough that a fish or turtle will think it’s food, but large enough to choke on.

 

Another way that trash is finding its way to the Great Garbage Patch is by rain and wind carrying litter to local rivers that eventually dump into the ocean. Trash on the street will accumulate in gutters and will likely get washed into a nearby storm drain. Most storm drain systems empty directly into local rivers, which flow into the ocean (California Coastal Commission, 2011). Once the trash makes its way to the ocean, it gets caught up in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. A gyre is a huge area where water of different temperatures mixes together causing a spiral effect in the current. This is a slow process and can take as long as seven to eight years for a piece of trash to make it from the beaches of California to the Eastern Pacific garbage patch. This current changes during different times of the year due to El Nino. During the summer, it is located more north, and in the winter it is located just above Hawaii. It has also been shown that marine animals tend to congregate in these areas as well (Pichel, et al., 2007).

 

The problems with plastics and Styrofoam in the water are many. The first problem is that plastic and Styrofoam break down and release toxins into the water. There is some debate as the where the plastic is breaking down. In the right conditions the plastic could break down in the water due to the sun and rain. A recent study showed that it would take as little as one year for the decomposing of Styrofoam to start. This would release bisphenol A and styrene trimer into the water (Saido, et al., 2009). Charles Moore doesn’t think that the breaking down of hard plastic is as likely due to the plastic being heavier than water, so it would sink. There is less sun at the bottom of the ocean, so no photosynthesis would occur. Also, the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is colder than the water in the test. Moore does point out though, that if the marine animals eat the plastic, it would digest inside of them and these chemicals would be released into their bodies (Leggett, 2009).

 

It is no secret though that BPA, styrene and PS oligomer are now found in small quantities in the ocean, which has been shown to cause hormonal imbalances in animals and humans. The immediate affects of low doses of these chemicals are largely unknown at this time, but these chemicals and other, man-made chemicals, have been found in the blubber of whales and bottlenose dolphins. A study of 300 blubber samples, from 14 geographic locations, from the years 2000-2007, was completed with surprising results. The closer the dolphins lived to large cities, the higher the contaminant in their blubber. The dolphins that lived in rural areas still had some pollutants, but not nearly as high as the dolphins closer to the cities (Sohn, 2011).

 

We also have the problem of the plastic and Styrofoam debris washing up on shore. While it seems like this would be easier to clean up than out in the middle of the ocean, the huge quantities are not easy to deal with. “Each year as much as 150,000 tons of plastic debris, most notably Styrofoam, wash up on the shores of Japan alone” (American Chemical Society, 2009). Plastic is not easy to recycle. Once you finish with a water bottle, you must remove the cap and the circle of plastic that was attached to the cap. These are a different plastic than the bottle, so even if you place your bottle in the recycle can, if this cap is still on, the bottle will be sent to the landfill. Another hard to recycle plastic product is plastic grocery bags. If these are placed in a recycle can, they will be taken to a local landfill. Only certain places will recycle them. In order to get them where they need to be, you must take them back to your grocery store and place them in a container there. Plastic grocery bags are found all over the oceans. Whales and other animals eat them thinking they are jellyfish. Scientists have noted 170 different kinds of land animals, birds, and marine animals, from calves and albatross to sea turtles to dolphins that have been injured by plastic bags on British beaches alone (Advocacy For Animals, 2008).

 

A major problem with shoreline plastic debris is that every year thousands of albatross chicks are dying from starvation and choking because their parents are feeding them plastic that looks like food. On the shores of Kure Atoll, northwest of Hawaii, the Albatross forage for food in the Western Pacific garbage patch. They are looking for flying fish eggs that are attached to floating object. New studies have shown that “plastics can comprise up to 50% of the indigestible material in an albatross’ intestinal tract” (Mayer, 2003). The plastic causes the chicks to die from starvation, even though they are full of plastic, they can die from blockages from the plastic, and they can become poisoned from all the harmful chemicals in the plastic. Some of the most obvious plastic on the beaches are cigarette lighters. “In a two-and-a-half month period, volunteers collected well over 1000 lighters while working on the atoll” (Mayer, 2003). These lighters were found inland, away from the water, closer to the nesting areas.

 

The best way to clean up this problem is to stop using plastic. Plastic bags are an immediate concern due to their inability to be recycled easily. Several countries have banned the use of plastic bags or made them less desirable by placing taxes on them. While the United States has made no attempt to stop the use of plastic bags, environmentally conscious stores, such as Trader Joe’s and Albertson’s, as well as the cities New York and San Francisco, have taken steps to help the reduction of plastic bag use. “The city of San Francisco banned plastic bags altogether, at least the flimsy ones of yore. National Public Radio reported a few months later that the ban had been a boon for local plastics manufacturers, who have been introducing heavy-duty, recyclable, and even compostable bags into the marketplace” (Advocacy For Animals, 2008). Several European countries, as well as Ireland and Taiwan have imposed a tax on plastic bags. While Bangladesh, Australia, France, Italy and China have gone so far as to ban them altogether.

 

We are a very lazy society. There used to be a time when we had to get up from the couch to change the channel on the TV, we had to cook dinner from scratch in a cast iron pan, and we had to walk or ride a bicycle to work. This was a much cleaner time. Now we need 10 plastic bags to take our groceries home, we have to drink water from a new bottle every time, and we drive everywhere, even if it’s a block down the street. We are lazy and we are destroying our planet. The Great Pacific garbage patch is just one of the many examples of what we have done and we have to fix it.

Works Cited

Advocacy For Animals. (2008 йил 08-12). Plastic Bags and Animals. Retrieved 2012 йил 20-02 from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2008/12/plastic-bags-and-animals-making-the-wild-safe-for-wildlife/

American Chemical Society. (2009, 08 19). Plastics in the Oceans Decompose, Release Hazardous Chemicals, Surprising New Study Says. Retrieved 03 25, 2012, from ScienceDaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819234651.htm

California Coastal Commission. (2011). The Problem With Marine Debris. Retrieved 2012 йил 23-02 from Public Education Program: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/marinedebris.html

Leggett, H. (2009 йил 19-08). Toxic Soup: Plastics Could Be Leaching Chemicals Into Ocean. Retrieved 2012 йил 23-02 from Wired Science: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/plasticoceans/

Mayer, B. (2003). Marine Debris: Cigarette Lighters and the Plastic Problem on Misway Atoll. Retrieved 03 24, 2012, from http://www.fws.gov/midway/Midway_Atoll_NWR_Cigarette_Lighters.pdf

Melia, M. (2009 йил 01-03). Caribbean A Dumping Ground For Garbage From Cruise Ships. Retrieved 2012 йил 23-02 from LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/01/news/adfg-cruise-dumping1

Pichel, W. G., Churnside, J. H., Veenstra, T. S., Foley, D. G., Friedman, K. S., Brainard, R. E., et al. (2007). Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 54, pp. 1207–1211.

Saido, K., Itagaki, T., Sato, H., Kodera, Y., Abe, O., Ogawa, N., et al. (2009, 08 26). New contamination derived from marine debris plastics. Washington DC.

Sohn, E. (2011, 05 20). DOLPHIN, WHALE BLUBBER HARBORS CHEMICALS Since we tend to eat the same fish as these marine predators, this is bad news for humans, too. Retrieved from Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/animals/dolphins-whales-chemicals-blubber-110520.html

Research Project Draft 1: Power Infrastructure

While new sources of energy are often the focus of any environmental discussion, little thought is given to the support system that is needed and how improving this system will bring about benefits just as much as a new power source. If the efficiency of the power lines is increased, less power will be needed and emissions will decrease. Some of the new challenges caused by alternative energy sources, such as solar power sources that only produce at night, can also be overcome with an improved infrastructure. Storage needs to be a part of any electrical network; this is not true of today’s electrical supply. While new wires and sources will help, even small changes made by the end user can also greatly benefit the environment. Although new alternative sources of energy need to be found for the United States, the infrastructure that will handle and use that power must be upgraded as well because of old transmission lines, little storage capacity and inefficient home devices.

Changing over the United States utility grid to a smart grid will not come easy. The large initial expenses lead companies to drag their feet and these expenses trickle down to the consumer who doesn’t like it, causing public opinion to turn against this needed, vital technology. However, studies have shown that over a twenty year period the smart grid will pay for itself. (Fox-Penner) The electrical infrastructure today is a massive technical marvel of immense proportions. (Bushby) A smart grid adds a new dimension to the traditional one way system in place. A two way system of electricity and data returns equals better usage of our resources. Instead of blindly pumping power through the transmission lines and not knowing the use or waste of that power, the smart grid can inform the producers of who needs power and how much. (Bushby) Regional Transmission Organizations are the current system of large scale movement of energy between companies. RTOs are nonprofit organizations that are responsible for connecting the individual networks of utility companies. This allows for electricity to be moved to where it is needed. However, this committee is human and can only act on the limited information available today. (Greenfield) Smaller utility companies have a much harder time fronting the cash needed to upgrade their systems to a smart grid. (Chun)

Systems that use compressed air can be just for storage or storage and production. Air that is compressed by the waves of the ocean not only creates clean, renewable energy but also storable energy. High levels of efficiency, up to 85%, are possible with compressed air power systems. (Garvey) Latent heat energy systems which use the energy storage potential of phase change (such as ice becoming water) to up to 14 times more heat than none phase based storage methods. The use of special materials that are selected for this purpose allows this method to do more than water and ice could ever do however. By using such chemicals as lauric acid large amounts of heat energy can be stored to heat water for many uses. (Desgrosseilliers) Solar radiation power plants offer a great source of renewable energy but the sun is not always shining when you need it. This problem of storage can be countered by using chemical reactions to store the energy until needed. Instead of directly making electricity, solar heat is used to split water or drive other processes. The insane amounts of heat easily available, up to 2000K, make theses chemical reactions possible and economical. (Heintz)

 

References

Bushby, S. T. (2011). Information Model Standard for Integrating Facilities with Smart Grid. ASHRAE Journal, 53(11), B18-B22.

Chun, S., Sandoval, R., Arens, Y., Sarfi, R. J., Tao, M. K., & Gemoets, L. (2011). Making the smart grid work for community energy delivery. Information Polity: The International Journal Of Government & Democracy In The Information Age, 16(3), 267-281.

Desgrosseilliers, L., Safatli, A., Osbourne, N., Marin, G., White, M., Murray, R., & … Groulx, D. (2011). Phase change material selection in the design of a latent heat energy storage system coupled with a domestic hot water solar thermal system. ASHRAE Transactions, 117(2), 183-190.

Fox-Penner, P., Faruqui, A., & Grasso, D. (2011). Moving to the smart grid. Issues In Science & Technology, 27(4), 12-16.

Garvey, S. D. (2012). The dynamics of integrated compressed air renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 271-292. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.019

Greenfield, D., & Kwoka, J. (2011). The Cost Structure of Regional Transmission Organizations. Energy Journal, 32(4), 159-181. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vo132-No4-7

Heintz, A. (2012). Solar energy combined with chemical reactive systems for the production and storage of sustainable energy. A review of thermodynamic principles. Journal Of Chemical Thermodynamics, 4699-108. doi:10.1016/j.jct.2011.08.023

Maliszewski, P. J., & Perrings, C. (2012). Factors in the resilience of electrical power distribution infrastructures. Applied Geography, 32(2), 668-679. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.08.001

Palma-Behnke, R., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Vargas, L. S., Handschin, E., Uphaus, F., & Hauptmeier, E. (2012). A day-ahead energy market simulation framework for assessing the impact of decentralized generators on step-down transformer power flows. International Journal Of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 35(1), 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.08.009

Prodromidis, G. N., & Coutelieris, F. A. (2012). Simulations of economical and technical feasibility of battery and flywheel hybrid energy storage systems in autonomous projects. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 149-153. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.041

Rosellón, J., Vogelsang, l., & Weigt, H. (2012). Long-run cost functions for electricity transmission. Energy Journal, 33(1), 131-160. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ

Samdanis, K., Taleb, T., Kutscher, D., & Brunner, M. (2012). Self organized network management functions for energy efficient cellular urban infrastructures. Mobile Networks and Applications, 17(1), 119-131. doi: 10.1007/s11036-011-0293-7

Sathish Kumar, K. K., & Jayabarathi, T. T. (2012). Power system reconfiguration and loss minimization for an distribution systems using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm. International Journal Of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 36(1), 13-17. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.10.016

Shafiullah, G. M., Amanullah, M. O., Shawkat Ali, A. M., Jarvis, D., & Wolfs, P. (2012). Prospects of renewable energy – a feasibility study in the australian context. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 183-197. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.016

Sioshansi, R. (2011). Increasing the value of wind with energy storage. Energy Journal, 32(2), 1-29.

Su, J., Wang, X., Wang, S., Zhao, Y., & Huang, Z. (2012). Fabrication and properties of microencapsulated-paraffin/gypsum-matrix building materials for thermal energy storage. Energy Conversion & Management, 55101-107. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.10.015

Vine, E. (2012). Adaptation of California’s electricity sector to climate change. Climatic Change, 111(1), 75-99. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0242-2

Yumrutaş, R., & Ünsal, M. (2012). Energy analysis and modeling of a solar assisted house heating system with a heat pump and an underground energy storage tank. Solar Energy, 86(3), 983-993. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2012.01.008

Research Project Draft 1: Food Industry

There are many factors that contribute to water pollution, but the one that would be discussed is animal agriculture.  We are not talking about small farms; we are talking about industries whose only purpose is to raise animals for profit.  These animals are raised in large quantities, and in the past, in some places, they have been found in inhumane conditions.  These types of farms create large amounts of waste and pollution that is transferred to the water, to the earth and even to the same air we breathe.  Every time we consume products we should probably wonder where are these products coming from and what we are sustaining. Although chicken sounds like a good idea for dinner tonight, eating chicken causes more harm than good to us and the planet because animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world’s acid-rain-causing ammonia and is the world’s largest source of water pollution. 

In animal agriculture even though pollution is one of the main concerns, there are other factors that are as important and in some cases are being disregarded.  There are some instances where it has been noted that, in some of this agricultural farms, there is little or no regard for the animal’s well-being.  According to Deemer and Lobao (2011), few U.S. studies examine specific quality-of-life concerns regarding on-farm practices such as use of gestation crates for sows and battery cages for egg hens (p. 184).  There are several factors that influence human behavior towards farm-animals, religion, politics, and sociodemographics.  Studies were conducted within different groups separated in different categories such as race, religion, marital status, employment status, gender, vegetarian, no vegetarian, childhood residence.  There was no significant difference within all of the groups but it was observed that “Catholics, mainline Protestants, and those with no religious preference hold less dominionistic views than evangelical Protestants, as shown by significant coefficients. As noted, insofar as religious traditionalists read the Bible more literally, they may have a stronger belief in human superiority over animals. Similarly, religiosity as measured by frequent church attendance is significantly related to higher dominion orientation. Those who reflect on the place of animals in their belief system hold somewhat less dominionistic views” (Deemer and Lobao, 2011, p. 184).  During this study it was found that people that care less about human well-being are the ones who tend to be more concerned with animal welfare (Deemer and Lobao, 2011, p. 184).

There are still debates about animal’s well-being, how they should be kept, bred, moved, used and slaughtered. EU and British governments count with the minimum standards on animal welfare (Woods 2012, p. 14).  Since the early 1960s concerns about livestock farming grew, “particularly in pig, poultry and calf production, farmers were attempting to keep larger numbers of animals in ever-smaller spaces, and to exert tighter control over their health and productivity.  By the early 1960s, 35% of the nation’s laying stock was located in densely stocked battery cages, with another 50% in indoor deep litter houses.  Two thirds of broiler chickens were kept indoors in units of more than 20,000 birds (Woods 2012, p. 16).  Since then de-beaking in chickens was a common practice as well as tail docking in pigs to prevent cannibalism.  Small spaces where there was not even enough room to turn were also popular; veal were also kept in small crates and fed with milk (Woods 2012, p. 16).   Today some of this practices still being used “however, the tension between scientific and ethical perspectives remains unresolved.  Consequently, the question of how animals should be kept on farms continues to be a highly contentious and a highly political problem” (Woods 2012, p. 21).  There are always different perspectives, but animal abuse is animal abuse, and anything that will cause suffering is abuse.

Pollution, is the real cost we pay for negligent farming practice, that is why pollution is one the main concerns in agriculture.  There has been a rapid increase in pollution from agriculture due to the rapid growth in livestock farming, particularly in pig, poultry and dairy.  The most notorious contaminants caused by agriculture are nitrate, phosphorus, pesticides, soil sediment, salt and pathogen pollution of water (Parris, 2011, p. 33)..  “Water pollution from agriculture has associated costs in terms of removing pollutants from drinking water supplies, as well as damage to ecosystems and commercial fishing, recreational, and cultural values associated with rivers, lakes groundwater and marine waters”  (Parris, 2011, p. 33).  Monitoring networks have been established to measure pollution of water bodies, but these are not found in all the countries, neither track all the pollutants.  Pollution levels can vary depending on the region, conditions, climate, policies and farming practices.  Pollutants, even when they take longer, tend to leach through soils into aquifers, contaminating them.  Agriculture is a major cause of surface water pollution and the major growing source of groundwater pollution (Parris, 2011, p. 33).

It used to be water pollution, now they are dead zones ”Estuarine and coastal agricultural nutrient pollution is also an issue in some regions causing algal blooms (i.e. “red tides” or “dead zones”), damaging marine life, including commercial fisheries in coastal waters adjacent to Australia, Japan, Korea, the United States and Europe, mainly the Baltic, North Sea and Mediterranean.  This is evident in the widespread problem of eutrophication reported in surface water across OECD countries, and the damage to aquatic organisms from pesticides” (Parris, 2011, p. 39).  Two great examples of agricultural water pollution (coastal) are in the Great Lakes of North America and the Australian Great Barrier Reef.

Excess fertilizers, farm nutrients, pesticides and soil sediments that are being washed into rivers and oceans are threatening, recreational as well as sustainment activities and raising the costs of treating drinking water.  Water pollutants not only affect humans, they affect different species habitats, and there are no bodies of water being spared. “There is a growing recognition that water policies should be coherent across different scales of decision-making, including from the farm to water catchment, national and international levels, and also between the different users and uses of water (e.g. aquatic ecosystems, recreational uses).  The need for policy coherence is also important across agricultural, environmental and water policies, especially to avoid conflicting signals and incentives to farmers in achieving sustainable water management” (Parris, 2011, p. 43).  Water is the most important substance on earth, without water there is no life.  Polluted water has to go through extensive and expensive purification process before it can be consumed.  Water is vital not only for humans, but also for other animal species as well as entire habitats.  When water resources get affected there is a chain reaction that will affect everything surrounding the area and not only that but with the help of air, and wind pollution will travel for miles affecting more than we can even imagine.

Current data usually suggests that the major source of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and the transportation industry, but in reality “industrial animal agriculture is also a significant contributor.  Not only do the animals themselves produce methane through respiration and decomposition, but when combining all areas of the livestock sector (e.g. production of feed, rearing, transportation and processing), it produces large volumes of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide” (Bristow, 2011, p. 205).  Schiepanski and Bennett (2012) reported that “Agriculture covers more than one-third of the world’s ice-free land area and is a large component of human perturbations to global biogeochemical cycles (p. 256).  Gases, odour, and dust constitute the three major types of air pollution from Industrial farming. “High concentrations and emissions of agricultural air pollutants are related to human and animal health, ecological damage, loss of nitrogen as fertilizer, and malodour emissions” (Ni et al. 2010, p. 5918).  Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are among the gases that cause the greatest environmental concerns from industrial farming.  “Hydrogen sulfide is considered the most dangerous gas in animal buildings and manure storage.  It has been responsible for many animal as well as human deaths in animal facilities” (Ni et al. 2010, p. 5918).

Animal Manure is a significant source of environmental pollution.  Carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide from animal manure are released to the environment.  It has been proven that besides the release of gases on its own there are bigger emissions during removal of manure due to the agitation of the manure during storage emptying.  It has also been noted that buildings with poor ventilation contain a higher concentration of gases, this gases are harmful for the animals.  Population has grown, as a result “meat consumption nearly doubled… As a result, a growing global livestock population now annually produces seven to nine times more manure than the global human population” (Galloway et al. 2007; Steinfeid et al. 2010, as cited in Schiepanski and Bennett, 2012, p. 257).  Schiepanski and Bennet (2012) explained that the “livestock waste is increasingly concentrated in confined animal feeding operations,” they also mentioned that usually this operations are not near areas where there is a significant crop production (p. 257).  This is important because in some of this areas manure could be used as a fertilizer and at least serve one good purpose.

Another major concern is the acid rain, “Sulfur dioxide is one of the six criteria pollutants defined by the U.S. EPA and is a major precursor to acid rain.  It contributes to the acidification of soils, lakes, and streams and the associated adverse impacts on ecosystems (USEPA, 2003 as cited by Ni, J. Et al, 2010 p. 5919).  Lagoon manure storages are also a big concern, and they are widely used in industrial animal agriculture.

Antibiotics are extremely important for treatment of bacterial infections in humans as well as for the efficient production of food animals.  Most of the antibiotics used in humans have also been used in animals.  “Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin over 50 years ago, warned that bacteria could develop resistance to antibiotics that would diminish their effectiveness over time.  Sure enough, as each new class of antibiotics was released, resistance has emerged sooner or later in pathogenic bacteria.  Historically, the principal strategies to cope with resistance were twofold:  develop new or altered drugs to which target pathogens are susceptible, and/or take steps to delay the onset of resistance by limiting use”  (McEwen, 2006, p. 239).  There is some concern in the ability of bacteria to become resistant to certain antibiotics, but the main concern “is the ability of bacteria to acquire resistance attributes through genetic mutation or transfer of genetic elements from other bacteria of the same or even completely different species and genera.”   (McEwen, 2006, p. 241).   There is evidence that demonstrates that with antibiotic exposure the likelihood of prevalence resistant bacteria will increase.

Human health is or should be everybody’s priority.  Modern agriculture seemed to have become more aware or more interested of these issues.  “Our lives are sustained by consumption of foods that are produced almost exclusively by modern agricultural practices. Ideally, these foods are of high nutritional value and free of potentially deleterious compounds or agents (e.g., toxins, pathogens, parasites, chemicals) (Frank, 2011, p. 835).  Frank (2011) explained that in reality, we are usually exposed to pollutants, infectious agents and degraded resources “as a result of livestock and crop production” (p. 835).  “Practices that disturb the microbiots, such as antibiotic use or dietary manipulation, can lead to dysfunction and increased susceptibility of livestock to infectious diseases” (Frank, 2011, p. 840).  Even though several changes have been made, we still need to be educated and learn more about acceptable means of modifying livestock and food products to improve human’s health (Frank, 2011, p. 835).

There are different countries like Ireland, where agriculture “utilizes 63% of total land area and has a big environmental impact accounting for 70% of phosphorus and 82% of nitrogen in surface waters, and for 97% of ammonia, 81% of nitrous oxide and 86% of methane emissions to air.  Phosphorus loss to water is Ireland’s most serious pollution problem (Humphreys, 2008 p. 36).  To achieve environmental targets there was a decline in “ruminant livestock populations and declining inputs of manufactured fertilizers as a result of increasing emphasis on extensification of production practices in the Common Agricultural Policy during the past decade…a wide ranging set of regulations governing agricultural practices was implemented in 2006  (Humphreys, 2008 p. 36).  This is just an example of how a county can overcome pollution.

Changes do not always occur as fast as we would like them, and sometimes the results are not what we really expected, but there is always a starting point.  Feeding habits could be one of the little changes that will add up to a bigger benefit.  One of the concerns during feeding is bloating; if animals are bloated they could die.  There is a plant that has attracted some attention “sanfoin” it contains tannin, which inhibits bloat, and it is a really attractive plant for several animals.  Sanfoin never causes bloat.  Plant tannins are also effective against intestinal worms.  “Sanfoin tannins are more effective than other plant tannins for lowering total worm burdens and egg excretion (Mueller-Harvey, 2009 p. 23).  Sanfoin is also tolerant of drought and alkaline soils, provides an efficient use of nutrients in ruminants and produce lower emissions of environmental pollutants (Mueller-Harvey, 2009 p. 23).  Lower emissions will help with water contamination, air pollution and obviously acid rain.  If more resources like this are found and other little steps are taken, little by little we will not just help the environment, we will also help ourselves.

 

References

Bristow, E., (2011).  Global Climate Change and the industrial animal agriculture link:  The construction of risk.  Society & Animals, 19(3), 205-224.  doi:  10.1163/156853011×578893.

Deemer, D. and Lobao, L. (2011).  Public concern with farm-animal welfare:  Religion, politics, and human disadvantage in the food sector.  Rural Sociology, 76(2), 167-196.  doi:  10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00044.x

Frank, D.N., (2011).  Growth and development symposium:  Promoting healthier humans through healthier livestock:  Animal agriculture enters the metagenomics era.  Journal of Animal Science, 89(3), 835-844. doi:  10.2527/jas.2010-3392.

Humphreys, J., (2008).  Nutrient issues on Irish farms and solutions to lower losses.  International Journal of Dairy Technology, 61(1), 36-42.  doi:  10.1111/j.1471-0307.2008.00372.x.

McEwen, S. (2006). Antibiotic use in animal agriculture:  What have we learned and where are we going? Animal Biotechnology, 17(2), 239-250.  doi:  10.1080/10495390600957233.

Mueller-Harvey, I., (2009).  ‘Holy hay’ – re-inventing a traditional animal feed.  Biologist, 56(1), 22-27.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ff8a6e1f-891a-4f8a-afc5-cca76d8caac3%40sessionmgr4&vid=12&hid=17

Ni, J., Heber, Albert J., Sutton, A. L., Kelly, D. T., Patterson, J. A., Kim, S., (2010).  Effects of swine manure dilution on ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide releases.  Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5917-5923.  doi:  10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.031

Parris, Kevin (2011).  Impact of agriculture on water pollution in OECD countries:  Recent trends and future prospects.  International journal of water resources development, 27(1), 33-52.  doi:  10.1080/07900627.2010.531898

Schipanski, M. E. And Bennett, E. M. (2012).  The influence of agricultural trade and livestock production on the global phosphorus Cycle.  Ecosystems, 15(2), 256-268.  doi:  10.1007/s10021-011- 9507-x

Woods, A. (2012).  From cruelty to welfare:  the emergence of farm animal welfare in Britain, 1964-71.  Endeavour, 36(1), 14-22.  doi:  10.1016/j.endeavour.2011.10.003.

Research Draft: Organic Food for Healthy Environment

Intro

Where our food comes from can make an impact on the environment, for the good of the environment or for bad.  Grocery stores have many food choices labeled organic and food choices with no organic label.   Conventional agriculture is a form of farming that is the dominate form of farming.  Conventional agriculture and organic agriculture are forms of agriculture that provide the foods within grocery stores.  Conventional farming techniques implement the use of chemicals for synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.  When we chose foods that are not labeled as organic, we may not only be getting more than we bargained for with chemical covered foods, but we also contribute to the continued use of chemicals for the production of food products.  The way animals are held and raised for consumer consumption can be differentiated as either inorganic or organic as well.  In both forms of agriculture, crop and animal, organic farming provides a healthier alternative means of production for the environment.  Organic farming does not rely on chemical usage like conventional farming, and provides more natural and less environmentally devastating way to raise animals for consumer consumption.  Although there are many choices in a grocery store, organic foods should be seriously considered over inorganic produced foods because organic farming reduces chemical pollutions, animal pollutants, and preserves our lands and plants species.

 

Chemical

In crop agriculture farmers face challenges in areas of weed control, pest control, and fertilization of crops for the purpose of greater yield. When it comes to growing crops, conventional agriculture and organic agriculture use different methods to help get the best possible results.  For the control of weeds conventional agriculture uses chemical herbicides.  Weeds can become resistant to herbicides rendering the herbicide, or combination of herbicides, less effective as time goes by (Mortensen et al., 2012).  Mortensen et al. (2012) asserts that more a greater amount of herbicide is the result of better resilience against the chemicals of the herbicide.  Mortensen et al. also argues that the use of combined herbicides, the use of two herbicides instead of just one, can also result in herbicide resilience in weeds.  Due to the fact that organic agriculture does not implement the use of chemicals for weed control, organic agriculture must rely on other forms of management (G0miero et al., 2011).  According to Howard (1943), Altieri (1987), Lamplin (2002), Lotter (2003), Altieri & Nichols (2004), Koepf (2006), Kristiansen et al. (2006), Gliessman (2007), practices to control weeds in an organic manner include “appropriate rotation, seeding timing, mechanic cultivation, mulching, transplanting, flaming, ect.” (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Since organic agriculture methods do not involve the use of chemicals for weed control it helps keep harmful chemicals from entering the land in which the crops grow.

Pest control is another factor that farmers must take in account in managing their crops.  Again solutions for pest control in conventional farming involve the use of chemicals.  Crops are treated with chemical pesticides to kill pests that would otherwise cause damage to the crops.  Kabaru & Gichia (2001) report that synthetic pesticides have been the primary solution for pest control for around the last 50 years (as cited in Shrivastava et al., 2010).  Pesticides do not distinguish between species of the farming land that harmful to crops or the natural enemies of crop damaging pests, Pimental et al. (1992, 1997), Kruess & Tscharntke (1994), Pimental (1997), Barbosa (2003), Altieri & Nicholls (2004), Perfecto et al. (2004), Bianchi et al. (2006), Crowder et al. (2010) (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Solutions to pest control in organic agriculture without the use of pesticides are prevention and biological control (Shrivastava et al., 2010).  In organic agriculture there are organic pesticides that are allowed in the treatment of crops to eliminate pests (Shrivastava et al., (2010).    Shrivastastava et al. (2010) asserts that “most organic pesticides have low residual activity…” but does concede that the use of the approved organic pesticides is still controversial and debated over whether or not they are truly environmentally safe.   Unfortunately it cannot be said with complete assurance that every product on the grocery store shelves has not be subjected to any kind of pesticide, however, in organic agriculture pesticides are not the only means of pest control.

Fertilizers are used as an aid for crops.  Fertilizers are meant to help plants grow bigger and produce more and better results than a plant would on its own.  In Araujo & Melo (2010) it is reported that conventional farming uses synthetic, or chemical, fertilizers.  Chemical fertilizers are said to lead to degraded soil and increases the toxicity of the soil (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Conventional agriculture depends on chemical solutions for weed control, pest control, and for the purpose of growing food better all at the expense of the environment of the lands in which the farming is done.  Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers which promote sustainability (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  There are different practices for fertilizing the soil for crop growth in organic farming.  Employing practices such as “crop rotation, intercropping, polyculture, covering crops and mulching” (Araujo & Melo, 2010) are all organic means of fertilization without using synthetic fertilizers.  Although organic farming may permit some usage of organic pesticides, it uses nonchemical was for weed control and fertilizing than does conventional farming.  The significantly higher usage of chemicals on conventional farming lands leads to increased amounts of chemicals into the environment.  These chemicals pollute the land and are not sucked back up after using the chemicals, but are instead left in the ground.  A well known, and terrible, effect of chemical fertilizer usage is the “dead zone” of the Gulf of Mexico which is the result of chemical usage in the “corn-belt corn production” (Pimentel et al., 2005).

Animal

Animal agriculture presents different issues that can cause environmental stress.  In animal agriculture animals are raised for eventual consumer consumption.  Conventional farming emphasizes animal management procedures that produce high output over environmental friendly procedures.  Organic animal agriculture raises animals in drastically different ways.  When we go through the stores the beef, pork, and chicken are the most prominent forms of meats available for purchase.  In conventional farming the use of confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, are implemented to help provide high output (Jing et al., 2010).  “Most large CAFOs have on-farm waste lagoons to store manure flushed out of barns” (Jing et al., 2010).  So the waste from the animals being held at these facilities is washed into body of water on the land of the CAFO.  Organic farming does not implement waste lagoons.  Organic animal farming provides open pastures for cattle, allowing cattle to roam over a large area in which waste can be absorbed by the land or even used as fertilizer.  Either way organic farming keeps a far smaller number of animals per area of land where conventional animal farming keeps many animals in confined spaces.  Since animals in CAFOs are kept in such close quarters measures need to be taken in order to help prevent the spread of diseases.  Antibiotics used in swine CAFOs used in large amounts lead to antibiotic resistant strands of infectious microbial (Chen et al., 2010).  Chen et al. (2010) reports that through the waste lagoons adverse effects are created by environmental pollution of the resistant strands of microbial which can transfer to animals within the area.  Feed provided in the different forms of animal agriculture have environmental impacts as well.  Feed farms, in conventional farming, provide a large amount of corn in the feed provided for the animals.

 

Crops

 

conclusion

 

References

 

Araújo, A. S. F. de, Melo, W. J. de..  (2010, November).  Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system.  Biomassa microbiana do solo em sistemas orgânicos.  Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

 

Balezentiene, L..  (2011).  Alpha-Diversity of Differently Managed Agro-Ecosystems Assessed at a Habitat Scale.  Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,  20(6), 1387-1394.

 

Broad, R., Cavanagh, J..  (2012).  CAN DANILO ATILANO FEED THE WORLD?   Earth Island Journal, 26(4), 56-60.

 

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M. G..  (2011, January-April).  Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture.  Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124.

 

Jing C., Michel Jr., F. C., Sreevatsan, S., Morrison, M., Zhongtang Y..  (2010, October). Occurrence and Persistence of Erythromycin Resistance Genes ( erm) and Tetracycline Resistance Genes ( tet) in Waste Treatment Systems on Swine Farms. Microbial Ecology, 60(3), 479-486.

 

Lavigne, C., Klein, E. K., Mari, J-F., Ber, F. Le, Adamczyk, K., Monod, H., Angevin, F..  (2008, August).  How do genetically modified (GM) crops contribute to background levels of GM pollen in an agricultural landscape?  Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(4), 1104-1113.

 

Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., Smith, R. G..  (2012, January).  Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.  BioScience, 62(1), p75-84.

 

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P.,Hanson, J., Seidel, R., Douds, D..  (2005, July). Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues.  Report 05-1, http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf.

 

Shrivastava, G., Rogers, M., Wszelaki, A., Panthee, D. R., Feng C..  (2010, April/March). Plant Volatiles-based Insect Pest Management in Organic Farming. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29(2), 123-133.

 

Woolf, A., Ellis, C., Cheney, I., Mosaic Films. (2007).  King Corn.  USA

 

 

 

 

Research Project Rough Draft 1: Organic Foods

Organic food is what should be eaten, what should be bought and used because it is the growing basics. The growing basics are what I refer to as the natural science of how earth was supposed to be cared for. Although organic food is more costly, people should invest in organic because of the soil care, climate benefits, and water welfare.

Soil care is probably one of the most important benefits of growing organic. Organic farmers rely on the natural science of recycling nutrient supply unlike conventional farms that depend on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (Araújo, 2010). It happens that since conventional farmers follow the path of using chemicals, the farmers end up causing “soil degradation, reduction of biodiversity, and decrease environmental sustainability” writes Araújo (2010). Araújo (2010) also writes that unlike conventional farms, organic farms protect the fertility of its soils in the long-term.  Unfortunately, it will take not just America, but the world time to help change conventional farmers to organic, and I am not just talking about how long it will take a conventional farmer to be persuaded, but how long it will take them to have a fully matured organic plot. It takes ten years for organic farm land to mature because of all the chemicals that must be worked out of the soil (Crinnion, 2010).

In the long run ten years is worth the effort. Consider that organic preserves soil quality and can also improve it (Gomiero, 2011). The soil fertility can be improved by “crop rotation, intercropping, poly-culture, and covering crops” (Gomiero, 2011). It may seem like more effort than farmers want to put out, but considering they find the time to cover their crops with chemicals, they can find the time to better care for their soil. That is not all, it is proven that organic topsoil is sixteen cm deeper than conventional topsoil (Gomiero, 2011). Now, if sixteen cm more of topsoil can’t convince you that buying organic is worth its price let us consider climate benefits.

Consider that pesticides went over five billion pounds in the years 2000 and 2001 (Crinnion, 2010). Now take that number and put the five billion pounds of pesticides covering the whole earth, except for the farm fields. According to Crinnion (2010) less than 0.1 percent made it to its intended location which leaves 99.9 percent of the five billion pounds of pesticides unaccounted for.  Is the higher cost of organic looking better when you weigh it against the cost of our earth?

Organic farming doesn’t just stray from unnatural chemicals, but it also lowers larger amounts of carbon dioxide and fossil energy than conventional farming (Davidson, 2005).

References

 

Araújo, A., & Melo, W. (2010). Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system. Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer. Alternative Medicine Review, 15(1), 4-12.

Davidson, S. (2005). Going organic. Ecos, (127), 8-12.

GIBSON, R. H., PEARCE, S. S., MORRIS, R. J., SYMONDSON, W. C., & MEMMOTT, J. J. (2007). Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole-farm approach. Journal Of Applied Ecology, 44(4), 792-803. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01292.x

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Critical Reviews In Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124. doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.554355

Loven, Z. (2008). Organic Works. Organic Gardening, 55(6), 48-49.

Organic farming. (2004). Better Nutrition, 66(1), 20.

Pollan, Micheal, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006. Print.

ULBER, L. L., STEINMANN, H. H., KLIMEK, S. S., & ISSELSTEIN, J. J. (2009). An on-farm approach to investigate the impact of diversified crop rotations on weed species richness and composition in winter wheat. Weed Research, 49(5), 534-543. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00722.x

Research Project Rough Draft 1: A Changing Arctic

The arctic sea is an undiscovered beauty with its crystal blue green waters and sculptures of ice that look as if Picasso himself created the massive bergs. With such natural beauty it is hard to believe what lies beneath this surreal waterscape is the greatest killer this world has ever seen. Usually the grand flows of sea ice that freeze in the winter keep these black and white animals at bay longer. But over the years the shift in the weather has provided for them an earlier season to explore the arctic waters. Although the melting sea ice is allowing for an increase of killer whale presence in the arctic the whales are damaging the ecosystem of the arctic sea because they are dominating the top of the food chain, they are competing with the Inuit for their marine food supply, and they are causing marine mammals to become endangered and possibly extinct.

The killer whale or orca is one animal that can be found almost every in any one of the given oceans or seas around the world, from the oceans of Antarctica to the Arctic (Pitman 2007; Zerbini 2007). Because they live in such an expansive territory killer whales are marine mammals that do not have a stable food source but eats whatever is available to them. There have been studies done on large whale pods that have suggested that they will stick to one diet but that particular diet is not the same for each pod (Ferguson 2012; Laden 2012). Most studies have been done on whale pods not living in the arctic but with the help of the Inuit people of the Canadian Arctic, researchers have been able to get a little better picture of what these whale pods are devouring.  One might think these giants would have an appetite for fish but marine mammals are what they are after. With many of the Inuit that have been interviewed as to the eating habits of the killer whale many have stated they have not seen them eat fish but have gone after seals, sea lions, otters, and other whales (Morell 2012). The killer whales have been observed as not being so humane in their killings.  They tend to play with their food, tossing it between them as if the animal were a rag doll (O’Harra 2012).  These adaptable mammals pick and choose their prey depending on the area they are in and tend to go after the more vulnerable marine mammals.  An example of an unsuspecting marine mammal would be a seal sunning itself on a piece of floating ice.  The whale pod will then work together to create a massive wave to knock the seal from its safe location giving the whale pod a chance at their prey (Ferguson 2012).  The local Canadian Inuit have seen many killer whale pods slaughter other members of the whale family too such as the very rare narwhal and the bowhead whale (Morell 2012). This gives the Inuit a cause to be concerned.

The killer whales are now coming into the arctic much earlier and staying much later then they have in the past. The local Inuit now have to compete with these pack hunting killers for one of their native ancestral food sources, the bowhead whale. Killer whales have been called wolves of the sea because of their pack like hunting skills (O’Harra 2012). Bowheads are not the only food sources the killer whales are affecting that the Inuit are worried about there are the seals as well (Mead 2010). This form of trespassing into the Inuit way of life cannot be met with open arms to these creatures who are trying to take over their hunting grounds.  A shift in the Inuit cultural pattern is again taking place.  This time it is not because of the introduction of other peoples and ideas but from an animal that cannot be controlled (Mead 2010).  The Inuit way of hunting is also being called in to question with the increase of the killer whale.  Some feel it may not be safe for both the Inuit and the killer whale to be going after the same animals sometimes at the same time (Ferguson 2012). It is not just the Inuit the killer whale is having a greater impact on but all life up in the arctic north.  It seems that all marine mammals that depend on the ice for protection are trying to find other places to hide not just from the Inuit but from the killer whales as well. But the bigger problem is how to keep the killer whales from over killing. Since these marine wolves do not have any natural predators it is hard keep their numbers under control. This is where the Inuit really come in to help keep the balance. In Canada aboriginal whaling is still legal and because these great giants can become over whelming killers the Inuit are doing their part in the circle of life (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2007). But what about the animals who are being hunted to their extinction?

The killer whales extended appearance in the arctic has been a great shock for this very fragile ecosystem. With the melting sea ice many changes have occurred and more are still to come. This global change is something everyone needs to be more aware of. The narwhal whale is one of the animals that are being attacked by the killer whale. The area of the arctic where the narwhal can be found most frequently is around the shores of Greenland.  This area too has seen an increase in killer whale activity over the years (Heide-Jorgensen 2010). Most have never seen a narwhal in the wild. These unicorns of the sea are very special creatures. If future generations are to have the experience of seeing one of these unique creatures more needs to be done to insure the sea ice does not completely disappear (Campbell 1988). The narwhals are not the only animals at risk of extinction, the bowhead whale, the sea otter, steller sea lions, and the ringed and bearded seals are too (Ferguson 2012; Kuker 2010; Durban 2009). During the spring and summer months the arctic waters come alive with marine mammals.  This is their breeding grounds and where in the next year their young will be born.  When this balance is interrupted or if these animals are over hunted not just by people but by other animals how will they procreate and continue generation after generation? With native Inuit hunting these same animals as part of the their subsistence and cultural practice and with the killer whales being able to hunt them more easily with the sea ice disappearing they like the narwhal whales do not stand a chance at being around for much longer.

With everything that researchers are learning about the killer whales and how they are the greatest predator in the ocean, maybe one day a solution can be found to help the Inuit from needing to compete with them for food and help to keep marine mammals from becoming extinct. Killer whales are beautiful but deadly creatures that need to find a way to coexist with all the other great marine mammals of our world. With help from conservationists along with the people of the world coming together to help find a balance maybe one day that can be possible for each creature on earth to coexist.

 

 

 

 

References

Campbell, R., Yurick, D., Snow, N. (1988). Predation on Narwhals, Monodon monoceros , by killer whales, Orcinus orca , in the Eastern Canada. Canadian field-naturalist. Ottawa ON [CAN. FIELD-NAT.]. Vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 689-696.

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. (2007). Archives. Status of Knowledge on Killer Whales (Orcinus) in the Canadian Arctic. Retrieved from http://www.biblio.uqar.qc.ca/archives/30137701.pdf

Durban, J. J., Ellifrit, D. D., Dahlheim, M. M., Waite, J. J., Matkin, C. C., Barrett-Lennard, L. L., & … Wade, P. P. (2010). Photographic mark-recapture analysis of clustered mammal-eating killer whales around the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska. Marine Biology, 157(7), 1591-1604. doi:10.1007/s00227-010-1432-6

Ferguson, S., Higdon, J., and Wetsdal, K. (2012). Prey items and predation behavior of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Nunavut, Canada based on Inuit hunter interviews. Aquatic Biosystems, 8:3 doi:10.1186/2046-9063-8-3

Heide-Jorgensen, M, Laidre, K., Burt, M., Borchers, D., Marques, T., Hansen, R., & Fossette, S. (2010). Abundance of narwhals on the hunting grounds in Greenland.  Journal of Mammalogy, 91(5), 1135-1151. Doi: 10.1644/09-MAMM-A-198.1.

Huntington, H. & Moore, S. (2008). Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: Impacts and Resilience. Ecological Society of America, 18, S157-S165. Doi: 10.1890/06-0571.1

Knopp, J. A. (2010). Investigating the Effects of Environmental Change on Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) Growth Using Scientific and Inuit Traditional Knowledge. Arctic, 63(4), 493-497.

Kuker, K., & Barrett-Lennard, L. (2010). A re-evaluation of the role of killer whales Orcinus orca in a population decline of sea otters Enhydra lutris in the Aleutian Islands and a review of alternative hypotheses. Mammal Review, 40(2), 103-124. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2009.00156.x

Laden, G. (2012). What the Inuit Taught Scientists about Killer Whales. Surprising Science. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.Smithsonian.org.

Lougheed, T. (2010). THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF ARCTIC TRADITIONAL FOOD. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(9), A386-A393.

Mead, E. E., Gittelsohn, J. J., Kratzmann, M. M., Roache, C. C., & Sharma, S. S. (2010). Impact of the changing food environment on dietary practices of an Inuit population in Arctic Canada. Journal Of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, 2318-26. doi:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01102.x

Morell, V. (2012). Killer Whale Menu Finally Revealed. Science Now. Retrieved from

http://www.news.sciencemag.org

O’Harra, D. (2012). Killer Whales are the Sea Wolves of Arctic. Alaska Dispatch. Retrieved from http://www.alaskadispatch.com

Puxley, C. (2012).Disappearing Sea Ice Enticing More Killer Whales to Arctic.
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www. Winnipegfreepress.com

Sakakibara, C. (2010). Kiavallakkikput Agviq (Into the Whaling Cycle): Cetaceousness and Climate Change Among the Inupiat of Arctic Alaska. Annals Of The Association Of American Geographers, 100(4), 1003-1012. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.500561

Wendler, G. G., Shulski, M. M., & Moore, B. B. (2010). Changes in the climate of the Alaskan North Slope and the ice concentration of the adjacent Beaufort Sea. Theoretical & Applied Climatology, 99(1/2), 67-74. doi:10.1007/s00704-009-0127-8

Zerbini, A. N., Waite, J. M., Durban, J. W., LeDuc, R., Dahlheim, M. E., & Wade, P. R. (2007). Estimating abundance of killer whales in the nearshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands using line-transect sampling. Marine Biology, 150(5), 1033-1045. doi:10.1007/s00227-006-0347-8

Research Project Rough Draft 1: The Dark Side to Hydroelectric Dams

The third longest river in the world is also the longest river in Asia. The ancient Yangtze River begins its life high upon the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. The spark of its life is derived from glacial runoff. This runoff is joined by small streams and creeks as it descends from its lofty Tibetan perch. The river gains volume and ferocity as it tumbles and roils towards China’s east coast. As the river nears the coast it splinters apart to form the capillaries of the Yangtze River Delta. For centuries this unrelenting river etched its pathway unmolested across China, splitting the country in two. However, in 2006 the completion of the Three Gorges Dam forever changed the ecology, environment, and destiny of the river. The Yangtze is not alone. According to an article by David Biello called “Dam Building Boom: Path to Clean Energy?” The world has as many as 48,000 hydroelectric dams. These dams provide electricity to millions of people. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s article called “China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe” the Three Gorges Dam alone will generate 18,000 megawatts of electricity. That is eight times the amount of electricity generated by the America’s Hoover Dam. However this green source of energy has a dark side. Although hydroelectric dams are believed to provide a relatively clean source of electricity, they cause an increase in greenhouse gases because flooding destroys carbon dioxide filtering vegetation and forests, decomposing organic material releases methane and stored carbon dioxide into the water, and the dam’s turbines release these gasses into the atmosphere.

Dams have a very simple yet extremely functional design. Simply build a wall across a river and effectively stop it in its tracks. Provide a pathway for the water to escape to the other side of the dam. This pathway is called a penstock. The penstock is filled from near the base of the dam thereby pulling water from near the bottom of the reservoir. At the end of the penstock the water enters a large chamber that houses the blades of the turbines. The water spins the blades of the turbines which generates the electricity. Once the water has passed the turbine blades it is spat out the back side of the dam where it is free to continue its journey downstream. The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed than only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed than more water can be let through. Dams will also open the penstocks fully to drain large amounts of water to accommodate floodwater during rainy seasons and during spring snow thawing.

However, by placing a dam in the river water begins to build up on the upriver side. Often a large lake will be formed. These lakes are called reservoirs. The reservoir can be massive. This flooding alone often has serious consequences for people. The flooding from the Three Gorges Dam created a lake that was so large it displaced nearly 1.3 million people. Deep beneath this lake rests the skeletal remains of a forest. This forest was once thriving, absorbing carbon dioxide to grow and releasing precious oxygen as a result. The lake that developed behind the Three Gorges Dam covers 468 square miles of land that once grew vegetation and forests. Imagine how much forested land has been destroyed by the flooding behind the worlds 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There is also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. Also, land must be cleared for the electrical transmission lines and other necessary dam projects.

Once the land behind a hydroelectric dam has been flooded and the forests and vegetation are all dead, the biological material begins to decompose deep below the surface of the lake. The dead biological material such as the trees, plant and animal matter is attacked by microscopic bacteria. Some bacteria called aerobic bacteria need oxygen to live as they begin to break down the plant and animal matter. As these bacteria live they release carbon dioxide. Other bacteria called anaerobic bacteria do not need oxygen to live. As these bacteria break down the animal and plant matter they release a toxic combination of carbon dioxide and methane gas. This gas is released into the surrounding water by the bacteria where it then resides until it can be released into the atmosphere. The flooding caused by the dam is not the only source of this organic material. The dam also works like a net. Any plant or animal matter that is carried by the river from further upstream is stopped by the dam. Trees, branches, driftwood, and animal matter are all trapped behind the dam. This material sinks to the bottom of the lake where it will also decompose. Therefore dams create a continual source of decomposing material which will release greenhouse gases. The production of greenhouse gases has been found to increase in dam reservoirs that are located in tropical climates.

Some of the gas is oxidized in the water to form carbon dioxide which is released at the surface of the lake by the gentle agitating motion of the waves and wind. However, most of the methane gas remains suspended in the deep water. As the dam releases water through the penstock the water becomes highly agitated by the movement. The spinning of the turbines, and eventually the turmoil caused by spilling from the down river side of the dam will cause most of the greenhouse gases to be released. The rest of the greenhouse gases will be released from the water as it continues its journey downstream. According to a report by International Rivers Network called “Frequently Asked Questions: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams”, as much as 104 million metric tons of methane gas will annually be released by the large dams of the world. This release of methane gas is responsible for as much as 4% of humankinds warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network, hydroelectric dams actually are less environmentally friendly than fossil fuel burning facilities when generating the same amount of electricity:

“Large hydropower reservoirs in the tropics can have a higher global warming impact per kilowatt hour generated than fossil fuels, including coal. Philip Fearnside, of Brazilian government research institute INPA, estimates that in 1990 the warming impact of hydropower dams in the Amazon was equal to that of between 3 and 54 natural gas plants generating the same amount of energy. Although hydroelectric dams provide millions of people cheap electricity they have their own dangerous effects on global warming.” (International River Network)

There are some methods to curb the production of greenhouse gases in dam reservoirs. Prior to the flooding of a proposed dam reservoir area it is possible to log off forested areas to cut down on the volume of organic material that will be covered with water. This is by no means a cure all. It would be impossible to fully remove all material from a proposed flood zone. The sheer volume would be incomprehensible. However, the removal of large timber would cut down on a large proportion of organic material. When the Three Gorges Dam reservoir flooded it covered numerous villages, cities and towns. This flooding added inorganic trash and material to the reservoir’s collection of decomposing sediment. Additional problems arise when dam building is proposed in tropical climates such as Brazil where a large scale dam on the Amazon River is proposed. The dam, named The Bella Monte, would be the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The flooding that would ensue from the construction of this dam could flood large portions of pristine Amazon rainforest. This flooding would release a catastrophic volume of methane gas into the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing vast amounts of toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dams have other effects on the environment around them. Up river flooding can cause serious seasonal flooding of agricultural and natural wetlands. The flooding of agricultural lands not only affects those that depend on agriculture but this flooding also releases toxic pesticides and poisons into the river water. Flooding natural wetland ecosystems with many times the normal amount of water can destroy these delicate ecosystems. Many natural wetlands are destroyed and cannot ever recover from the flooding. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding. Dams also inhibit migrations of keystone fish species such as salmon. The loss of salmon and salmon habitat can impact hundreds of species of birds, fish and mammals that rely on salmon as a food source. The Three Gorges Dam also threatens endangered species such as the Yangtze Alligator and the Yangtze Freshwater Dolphin. These species are found nowhere else in the world. Hydroelectric dams also increase the chances of landslides upstream of the dam where the reservoir erodes riverbanks. Large scale land slides into reservoirs have often caused large waves that flood river side villages leaving death and destruction in their wake. Cities, that were destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam reservoir released and unknown amount of human sewage, toxic waste, petroleum products and trash. These underwater ghost cities will undoubtedly pollute the Yangtze for generations to come.

Although hydroelectric dams were once thought to be the best source of electricity, new studies have proven that hydroelectric dams are no better, and in some cases a worse method of generating electricity. Hydroelectric dams can produce stunning amounts electricity. However, the release of methane and other greenhouse gases from hydroelectric dam reservoirs, especially those in tropical climates can in fact make hydroelectric dams less efficient than fossil fuel electric facilities that produce similar amounts of electricity. Methane production in reservoirs can be cut down by the removal of plant and animal matter from proposed dam reservoir areas prior to flooding however it cannot be eliminated completely. Dam reservoirs will always continue to produce greenhouse gases. As the human race continues to grow and expand into previously untouched wilderness the need for more and more electricity generating facilities will also grow. The damming and building of hydroelectric dams will continue and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases will also increase. Not only do humans increase greenhouse gases by building hydroelectric dams, but humans also inadvertently decrease the planet’s ability to filter carbon dioxide form the atmosphere by killing the vegetation in a proposed reservoir flood area. With today’s technology it is no obvious better or worse method for producing electricity. Each need must be analyzed and examined to determine the best method of electrical production whether it be a fossil fuel burning facility or a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant. It is up to humankind to determine the appropriate method of generating electricity for a certain area. There may never be a single environmentally sound method of electricity generation. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. By cutting down on the need for electricity, the need for large scale hydroelectric dams can be cut down. This cutback on electricity is the best method currently available to humans to keep planet Earth green.

Works Cited

Biello, David. “The Dam Building Boom: Right Path to Clean Energy?” Yale Environment 360. Feb 23, 2009 <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dam_building_boom_right_path_to_clean_energy/2119/&gt;.

Bosshard, Peter, “China Dams the World” World Policy Institute 26, no 4 (2009) http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-ba49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46730738

 

Carr, J.W. and F.G. Whorisky “Migration of Silver American Eels past a Hydroelectric Dam and Through A Coastal Zone” Fisheries Management and Ecology 15, no 5/6 (2008) 393-400. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34883128

 

Demarty, M and J. Bastien, “GHG Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical and Equatorial Regions: Review of 20 Years of CH4 Emission Measurements,” Energy Policy 34, no. 7 (2011): 4197-4206. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

 

Ferguson, John W and others, “Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers” Environmental Management 47 (2011) 141-159. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

 

Grahm-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret.” New Scientist. Feb 24, 2005 <httrp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html>.

 

Hvistendahl, Mara. “China’s Three Gorges Dam : An Environmental Catastrophe.” Scientific American. 3 Feb. 2012. 25 Mar. 2008 International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster&gt;

 

International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. International Rivers Network. <http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/GlobalResGHGsFAQ.pdf&gt;.

 

Keefer, M. L. et al. “Prespawn Mortality in Adult Spring Chinook Salmon Out Planted above Barrier Dams” The Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19 (2010) 361-372. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Lopez-Pujol, Jordi and Ming-Xun Ren, “Biodiversity and the Three Gorges Reservoir: A Troubled Marriage” Journal of Natural History 43, no 43-44 (2009) 2765-2786. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=20&hid=110

 

Marriot, Joe and others, “Impact of Power Generation Mix on Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Results,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, no 6 (2010) 917-928. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=18&hid=110

 

Mourad, Ben Amor, and others, “Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008),” Energy Policy 39, no 3 (2011) 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.001

 

Roland, Fabio and others, “Variability of Carbon Dioxide Flux from Tropical (Cerrado)

Hydroelectric Reservoirs,” Aquatic Sciences 72 (2010) 283-293. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=19&hid=110

 

Sovacool, Benjamin K. and L. C. Bulan “Behind an Ambitious Megaproject in Asia: The History and Implications of the Bukan Hydroelectric Dam in Borneo,” Energy Policy 39, no 9 (2011) 4842-4859. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=26&hid=14

 

Welch, David W. and others, “Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large

Rivers With and Without Dams” PloS Biology 6, no 10 (2008) 2101-2108. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Research Project Rough Draft 1- Corn Ethanol

The United States has made a goal to substantially increase biofuel production in response to the rising prices of gasoline and other petroleum products. Many factors must be considered in evaluating the benefits of switching from petro-based products to biofuels, including the economic efficiency, availability of resources, and potential environmental impacts. The rising price of gasoline has given ethanol production a push forward, but many are beginning to worry about the environmental implications of this switch. Studies are beginning to reveal a variety of air, soil and water quality issues associated with the industrial corn production required to sustain this industry. Although ethanol made from corn has the potential to lower the demand for petroleum products, the mass production of corn for biofuel causes environmental damage that outweighs these benefits because it releases greenhouse gasses, causes nutrient imbalances that harm the ecosystem, and threatens wildlife populations with pollution from fertilizers and pesticides. 

The potential to lower greenhouse gas emissions has been a major factor in the decision to produce biofuels; however many studies show that the energy intensive nature of biofuel production will significantly mitigate these benefits. “Agriculture plays a substantial role in the balance of the three most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gasses: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane” (Good & Beatty, 2011, p. 1). In a study done by Argonne National Laboratory, it was found that “increasing corn-based ethanol usage to 12-14 billion gallons annually would reduce present GHG emissions only minimally-by merely a fraction of a percent” (Siikamaki, 2008, p. 46). 

Part of the reason for this is the emissions caused by the natural gas or coal used to power biofuel refineries. However there are many other commonly overlooked sources of GHG emissions associated with corn agriculture. One such source is the application of nitrogen containing fertilizer, which has the ability to break down into a variety of harmful green house gasses. “If CO2 from fossil fuel combustion was the only GHG considered, (biofuel production) should reduce GHG emissions (…) However, N fertilization and incorporation of plant biomass into soil can cause microbially mediated production and release of N2O, which is a potent GHG”(Hill, Polasky, Tiffany, Nelson & Tilman, 2006, p. 11208) 

In addition to the process of fertilizing and processing the corn, GHG emissions occur before the crop is even planted; much of the potential for agriculture related GHG emissions lies in the soil itself. “The world’s soil and plant biomass collectively store about 2.7 times the carbon that is stored in the atmosphere” (Holzman, 2008, p. A248). Developing new land for use as cornfields causes the release of stored carbon from the area’s existing vegetation and soil. “CO2 is rapidly released during burning to clear land or decomposition of leaves and fine roots” (Holzman, 2008, p. A248). As ethanol production increases the demand for corn, more and more land will need to be converted to cornfields, “every additional billion gallons of ethanol production implies about 2.2-2.4 million acres of additional land devoted to corn” (Siikamaki, 2008, p. 45).

Taking these facts into consideration, many researchers believe that the increase in corn production required to sustain a biofuel industry may create more emissions than are saved by using the biofuel produced (Holzman, 2008, p. A248). By calculating the number of years it would take for a given amount of biofuel to save the amount of GHG emissions that occurred during its production, researchers have estimated the “carbon debt” of biofuel to be 48 years for existing farmland, and 93 years for converted grasslands (Holzman, 2008, p. A248).

Unfortunately GHG emissions are not the only way in which mass corn agriculture threatens the ecosystem. The heavy use of nitrogen and phosphorus containing fertilizers required to grow a profitable crop raise concerns about where the extra nutrients will go. “Corn is an inherently inefficient N user in that 40 to 60% is generally not taken up by the crop” (Simpson, Paerl, Mankin, Sharpley & Howarth, 2008, p. 320). This means that the excess N and other nutrients sprayed on the crops has to be managed appropriately. “The concentration of grain-based ethanol production in the Corn Belt has the potential to create (…) state wide or regional imbalances” (Simpson, Paerl, Mankin, Sharpley & Howarth, 2008, p. 320).

Steadily increasing corn production in favor of other crops will make soil management practices tricky. Growing only a single variety of plant reduces the number of options farmers have for naturally managing soil fertility; with options such as crop rotation eliminated, pumping in nutrients becomes crucial. The wide spread use of chemical fertilizers “severely deplete(s) and erode(s) soil” (Cook, 37) and “allowed farmers to abandon practices (…) which had previously maintained soil fertility”(Cook, 37). Overuse of these chemicals have landed industrial agriculture in a vicious cycle:  as farmers switch to using chemical fertilizers because of their availability and relative low cost, their soil becomes even more infertile; thus making them more dependent on those same fertilizers to produce a profitable yield.

The damage is not contained to farmland; perhaps the greatest concern associated with nutrient spraying is the runoff to waterways. “River water quality world-wide has been reduced by inputs of nutrients, fine sediment, pesticides, and pathogens associated with intensive agriculture” (Matthaei, Piggot & Townsend, 2010, p. 639). The topical application of nutrients such as N and P make preventing runoff nearly impossible; “Agricultural N and P are transported by leaching and surface flow to surface, ground, and costal waters” (Hill, Polasky, Tiffany, Nelson & Tilman, 2006, p. 11208). The consequences of the presence of excess nutrients in water sources are varied, ranging from the contamination of drinking water with dangerous nitrates, to hypoxia in aquatic ecosystems. Even at the current level of production, nutrient runoff from cornfields is causing significant damage. “Over 60% of the coastal rivers and bays in the USA are moderately to severely degraded due to nutrient enrichment” (Simpson, Paerl, Mankin, Sharpley & Howarth, 2008, p. 319).

Currently the most prevalent example of aquatic hypoxia caused by agricultural nutrients is the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf has experienced recent, alarming declines in fish populations due to massive algae blooms that thrive on the N and P carried to the gulf via the Mississippi river. “When the algae die they are decomposed by bacteria that consume much of the oxygen in the water” (Potera, 2008, p. A242). As the algae grow, more of the gulf becomes uninhabitable for other aquatic creatures. This area of the gulf has been coined “the Dead Zone”, and “is so depleted of oxygen that fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life cannot survive there” (Potera, 2008, p. A242).

Although the “dead zone” has been an ongoing concern for many years, researchers have reason to believe that the increase in corn production following the 2007 ethanol boom is quickly exacerbating the problem. “Fertilizer applied to corn in the U.S Midwest is a primary source of nitrogen exported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers” (Donner & Kucharik, 2008, p.4513). While bacteria living in streams and rivers usually take care of excess nitrogen during their natural metabolic processes, the amount of nutrients flowing in from the Corn Belt has essentially overloaded the system (Potera, 2008). Aside from the sheer mass, researchers have cited a variety of reasons why nutrient flow from the Corn Belt poses a particularly high risk of entering the Gulf, including “greater use of artificial drainage” and “shorter river travel times” (Donner & Kucharik, 2008, p. 4516). The United States goal to increase the already sizable corn industry could have daunting consequences for the Gulf, “the expansion of corn cultivation to meet ethanol production goals, assuming no change in fertilizer application rates, would drive nitrogen export above current levels and far above the hypoxia target” (Donner & Kucharik, 2008, p. 4514).

Nitrogen and Phosphorus are not the only agricultural substances posing a major threat to the ecosystem. In addition to water and fertilizer corn crops are sprayed with a variety of pesticides, ranging from fairly benign, to extremely hazardous chemicals; many of which are known poisons and neurotoxins. “American industrial agriculture today dumps close to one billion pounds of pesticides” (Cook, 2005, p. 35), an amount that simply cannot be contained efficiently.

The chemicals applied to croplands drain, like minerals, into waterways and even end up in the atmosphere. According to the U.S Geological Survey, “‘nearly every pesticide that has been investigated has been detected in air, rain, snow, or fog across the nation’” (Cook, 2005, p.36). Pesticides have also been found in an alarming number of rivers and streams, and much of the nations groundwater– with especially high numbers near corn growing regions (Cook, 2005, p.35). “In Iowa, toxic chemicals are found in roughly half of the groundwater” (Cook, 2005, p. 35).

The consequences of the presence of pesticides in water systems are showing themselves in many wildlife populations throughout the nation. “Every year agricultural pesticides alone kill an estimated 67 million birds” (Cook, 35). Agricultural pesticides are also attributed to a rapid decline in populations of amphibians such as turtles, frogs, and toads (Hamlin & Guillette, 2010, p. 115).

While death from direct contact with chemicals does pose a risk to many species, it is not the primary cause behind population declines. Reptiles, fish, and amphibians often suffer feminization and sterility due to the exposure of their aquatic environments to agricultural toxins. “A suite of reproductive and congenital defects was identified in birds, reptiles, and mammals alike that were attributed to high concentrations of organochlorine pesticides” (Hamlin & Guillette, 2010, p.113).  Just some of the reproductive defects correlated with agricultural pollution are “thyroid dysfunction” in birds, deformed frog limbs, “low sperm count” and reduced embryo weight in mosquito fish, and abnormally small or nonfunctioning genitalia in alligators (Hamlin & Guillette, 2010, p. 115-118).

The idea behind ethanol production is valid; moving towards new methods of energy production should be a major goal for this nation. However the flaw with corn biofuel production is that it overlooks an equally destructive industry: agriculture. Until the U.S revolutionizes it’s current highly polluting, inefficient system of agriculture, it cannot be a viable solution to our energy crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources

 

Cook, C. D. (2005). The spraying of America. Earth Island Journal,

20(1), 34-38.

Donner, S. D., & Kucharik, C. J. (2008). Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United  States of America, 105 (11), 4513- 4518. doi:10.1073/pnas.0708300105

 

Good, A.G, & Beatty, P.H. (2011). Fertilizing Nature: A tragedy of excess in the commons. Plos Biology, 9(8), 1-9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001124

 

Hamlin, H. J., & Guillette, J. J. (2010). Birth Defects in Wildlife: The Role of Environmental Contaminants as Inducers of Reproductive and Developmental Dysfunction. Systems Biology In Reproductive Medicine, 56(2), 113-121. doi: 10.3109/19396360903244598

 

Holzman, D.C (2008). The carbon footprint of biofuels, can we shrink it down to size in time? Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(6), A246-A252

 

Hill, J. J., Polasky, S. S., Tiffany, D. D., Nelson, E. E., & Tilman, D. D. (2006). Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and Sciences Of The United States Of America, 103(30), 11206-11210.

 

Matthaei, C.D., Piggott, J.J., & Townsend, C.R, (2010). Multiple stressors in agricultural streams: interactions among sediment addition, nutrient enrichment, and water abstraction. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(3), 639- 649. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01809.x

 

Potera, C. (2008). Corn Ethanol Goal Revives Dead Zone Concerns. Environmental Health Perspectives,116(6), A242-A243.

 

Siikamäki, J. (2008). Climate Change and U.S. Agriculture: Examining the Connections. Environment,50(4), 36-49.

 

Simpson, T. W., Paerl, H. W., Mankin, K. R., Sharpley, A. N., & Howarth, R. W. (2008). The New Gold Rush: Fueling Ethanol Production while Protecting Water Quality [electronic resource]. Journal Of Environmental Quality, 37(2), 318-324.

Draft #1 Workshop for Z. Zhang

1. What does the author do particularly well? Be specific. There appears to be a lot of facts and data that seem to support your theory and your thesis. Your paper appears to meet the requirments for length and sources.

2. Ask the author for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions. My concern after reading the paper is that there is a lot of information on alien species and disease but that seems to be the main focus of the paper. There is a limited amount of information about cats and unlimited felling. I also do not understand what “felling” means or refers to. My suggestion would be to focus more on cats and their threat as they are the number one threat to Song Birds. Maybe perhaps research that as well and incorporate it into your paper.

Thesis

3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? There isn’t a strong thesis statement. You state that birds are cozy… I do not understand this statement. Nor do I agree. It doesn’t tie into your paper.

4. Does the thesis follow the format we’ve been using (ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, BECAUSE clause with 3 reasons of support). Is thesis bolded or underlined and in last sentence of intro paragraph? There is an although because clause and 3 supporting reasons of support but they do not tie into the paper well.

Content

5. How many words is the draft, not including References? There is 1,399 words which meets the requirement for draft #1 but not draft #2.

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! There are parts that are interesting and I would give it a 6.

7. Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? I think that restating that the articles of support are helpful but I would try to expand your ideas as referenced above.

8. What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? Someone could object the fact about cats and their threat to birds and disease.

9. Has the author dealt with these objections? If not, suggest some good places to deal with them. The author does not appear to deal with any objections. He could simply find an article and rebut it in his paper.

10. Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection? I think that the connections are fine but the paper isnt sectioned well. There is a lot of information on certain subjects and it starts off very strong. Then, there is simple statements which are backed by research and data but are not in good length.

Style

11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic? The topics are in order just as the thesis is.

12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening? Does the essay have an informative yet interesting title? The opening of the essay does not capture my attention. It is a simple sentence and does not flow into the paper well. I think that finding another way to describe how breath-taking certain bird species are or perhaps why you love them so much in the opening paragraph and be more enthusiastic as an advocate rather than state they are cozy would be helpful. The title is okay. Not capturing.

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? If your buddy’s conclusion just restate the thesis, call him/her on that, and help them come up with a better conclusion. Maybe give them tips from the Hacker handbook (section C).

There is no conclusion paragraph.

Research

14. Does the draft contain at least 10 sources (5 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources from EbscoHost or another database).

Yes

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

There seems to be equal use of resources.

16. Does the author use in-text citations after every quotation, statistic, paraphrase, idea and opinion borrowed from research? Are the in-text citations done in correct APA formatting?

Yes

17. Does the author have anything on the Reference list that is not used in the essay (she/he should not).

Yes, go back through and change your reference list.

18. Does the author have more quotations/statistics/paraphrases/etc in his/her paper than personal opinion? Essay should read as an argument, not as a report.

I think there is an equal amount of both.  

19. Are they any quotations that are longer than 2 lines?

No

20. Are there any quotations that you think should instead be paraphrased? Remember that too many quotations lead to clunky and chunky essays.

No

21. Any quotations should be commented upon. They are there to support the author’s argument, not to make it. Does the author comment after every one? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.

No

Other?  

Is there any other feedback you’d like to give your buddy? Make sure you have a strong opening statement and paragraph and a conclusion that refers back to it. Right now, there is neither. Otherwise, its interesting. I would also like to see more on the last two supporting statements or perhaps revise it and take out the part about “felling” because as  a reader I do not understand it.

Research Paper Part 3: Unfortunate Realities for the Innocent

ENGL 213X

Katie Roseberry

University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Unfortunate Realities for the Innocent

              The sun shone brightly as it continued to rise in the cold spring morning. The ice flows drifted by slowly with the currents. Drops of salty water fell as the seals continued to play, gliding through the water like a bird flying in the air, swift and full of joy. As the day continues on, another decides to join in the harmonious gathering. Head held high, the majestic polar bear appears. As he approaches the rest of the wildlife scatter in fear, for they know the fierceness of this mighty mammal. Now imagine, terribly strong storms, giant waves, thin ice that is so far from land it is almost impossible for animals to reach by swimming and die in the attempt, seal populations declining, and soon polar bear populations follow. These are the very real effects of global warming on the arctic. It creates problem after problem for polar bears that end in death, population decrease, and possibly even extinction. Native Alaskans, on the other hand, say that polar bears are doing fine. They want the polar bears taken off the endangered species list and have them available for hunting again (Howe, 2010). In my opinion, although Alaskan Natives disagree with it, the polar bear should remain on the endangered species list because their environment continues to change and it greatly affects their energy expenditure, hunting, reproduction, and weaning.

               The polar bear, or Ursus maritimus, is the largest bear that walks the earth. Their latin name, Ursus Maritimus, means sea bear. Males normally weigh in a range of 720-1700 pounds, while females, being smaller, range from 500-600 pounds. They can grow to be as tall as ten feet high when standing and have a rough skin surface on their paws to keep from slipping while walking on ice. These creatures are masters of surprise attacks. They are able to walk as quietly as the falling snow on a calm day and use a method called stalking when hunting their prey. Their white fur helps them stay camouflaged while hunting. The hair strands are hollow which supposedly helps them float and swim. Underneath the thick coat of fur is black skin that keeps allows them to keep warm by absorbing the heat from sunlight (the hollow fur may also contribute to this because it lets the sunlight reach the skin instead of blocking it out). Their diet consists of a number of different meats including walrus, fish, beluga whale, bowhead whale, bearded seal, ringed seal, as well as a few others. Most polar bears are “left handed,” meaning that they use their left paw to strike and kill their prey. (Animals and Pets – National Geographic Kids)

Climate Change is the result of something called the greenhouse effect. Lee, Lester, Lambert, and Jean-Baptiste (2007) define the greenhouse effect as the warming of the Earths atmosphere from captured chemical compounds, such as methane and carbon dioxide, etc., that pose as greenhouse gases and hold in the radiation that usually passes through the atmosphere (p. 117). It is something that happens naturally, however this effect has been increased through human activity and furthermore caused the earth to warm more rapidly. Factories, cattle farms, landfills, and other things that emit water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbon gases are all human-based causes for the intensified greenhouse effect (Lee et al., 2007).

The arctic ice environment has been changing rapidly due to a warming climate. The arctic is one of the places where the consequences are seen more prominently. The ice, which is so valuable to the marine life that lives throughout the Arctic Ocean, is weakening and shrinking. Studies have shown that the sea ice extent has been decreasing at an amount of about nine percent per decade (Derocher, Lunn, Stirling, 2004. p.164). According to Scheirmeier (2008) a lot of the ice seen out on the ocean is newer, or first year, ice (266). That means that the long-term ice has been melting and is being replaced by newer ice. It also means that it is more prone to melting because new ice is weaker and thinner than aged ice that was able to pile up and strengthen throughout a number of years (Scheirmeier, 2008). In January of this year Los Angeles Times’ Kim Murphy reported on a female polar bear that was forced to swim about 426 miles from shore just to reach an ice floe.

Not only is the ice thinning and shrinking but it is also breaking up earlier than it usually does due to unusual weather conditions from a warming climate. The time for break up is becoming less and less predictable as time and warming of the Earth continues (Engelhaupt, 2009).

As the ice continues to melt polar bears have harder time hunting and use up more of their stored energy. Being carnivores, the polar bear’s diet consists of a variety of meats but the most important of these are seals. They focus on hunting the smaller species of seal found in the arctic known as the ringed seal. Ringed seals stay by the ice as much as they can. When the ice moves they move with it, but some tend to stray during the summer months and go towards land or explore the ocean.

Now that the ice is changing and break up is occurring earlier polar bears do not have as much time to consume the amount they need to obtain the energy needed to make it through the summer (Derocher, 2004). That is only a small part of the energy problem polar bears face. They use a lot of energy throughout the summer swimming and roaming from place to place already. The ice that is now further away from shore causes them to swim further, which depletes their stored energy even faster. In 2005 an aerial survey found four carcasses of polar bears that had drowned (Murphy, 2011) Also, polar bears usually fast during the summer months so they live off the fat and energy they stored during the winter when they were able to hunt on the ice. During this fast their bodies “recycle” urea and keep creatine levels up, which means that they use up their fat and conserve protein (Gillis, 1991). With this depletion of energy hunting habits become affected. Like any other animal, when worn out and hungry it is more difficult to find the energy to do things. Chasing after prey becomes more difficult and a successful kill becomes less likely.

The trouble continues when the loss of energy and weakened ice affect reproduction and weaning of cubs. Female polar bears dig dens into the snow during the winter and sleep until spring comes. During this sleep they give birth to their cubs who stay in the den until it is time for the mother to climb out and start hunting for food (Armstrup, McDonald, Nielson, & Simac, 2004). The normal litter size for polar bears is one to two cubs, and if lucky the mother may have three. For the first two to three years or so the cubs stick by the mother’s side and learn how to hunt for their food. Until they are able to hunt they drink their mother’s milk for about two and a half years (Animals and Pets – National Geographic Kids)

If the mother bear does not have enough energy her pregnancy may become a miscarriage. The female bears need to have a lot of fat and energy stored before they dig their dens for giving birth. The changing environment and hunting troubles create stress for the polar bear and can cause reproduction complications (Courtland, 2008). If they are not successful in hunting enough then their body will not have enough energy to continue the pregnancy. Global warming, too, takes its toll on the reproduction of polar bears by weakening ice and snow, which causing maternal dens to collapse before the mother wakes up in the spring.

If the mother and the cubs survive until early spring and are able to emerge from the den then it becomes a matter of survival for the cubs. The cubs are supposed to wean off the mother’s milk by the time they are two and a half. When hunting becomes too difficult though, the cubs may take as long as three and a half years to wean. The extended period of time drains energy from the mother bear because she has to continue to hunt and eat enough for her cubs that are still drinking her milk. If she is not able to hunt enough food then the cubs face the possibility of death from starvation.

In conclusion, there are so many effects that climate change has on polar bears, especially because it changes their environment.  Thus saying, polar bears should be kept on the endangered species list because of the negative effects global warming has on their energy expenditure, hunting, reproduction, and weaning even though Native Alaskans disagree with it.

 

List of References

 

Animals and Pets — National Geographic Kids. (n.d.). National Geographic

                  Kids. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://kids.nationalgeographic.com

 

Armstrup, S. C., York, G., McDonald, T. L., Nielson, R., & Simac, K. (2004).

Detecting denning polar bears with forward-looking infrared (FLIR)

imagery. BioScience, 54(4), 337-344. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

Derocher, A., Lunn, N., & Stirling, I. (2004). Polar bears in a warming

climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(2), 163-176.

doi:10.1043/1540-7063(2004)44<163:PBIAWC>2.0.CO;2

 

Engelhaupt, E. (2009). Climate change and the arctic diet. Environmental

                  Health Perspectives, 117(7), A292. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

Gillis, A. M. (1991). Polar bears preserve protein. Bioscience, 41(8), 537.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Howe, L. E. (2010). Temporality and reconciliation. Administrative Theory &

                  Praxis, 32(4), 611-611-619. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Lee, O., Lester, B. T., Li, M., Lambert, J., & Jean-Baptiste, M. (2007).

Conceptions of the greenhouse effect and global warming among

 

Murphy, K. (2011, January 29). Bear’s long swim illustrates crisis; with arctic

sea ice shrinking, one female bear swims through open water for 9

days before reaching a floe. Los Angeles Times, p. A.12. Retrieved

October 20, 2011, from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Schiermeier, Q. (2008). The long summer begins. Nature, 454(7202), 266-

269. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from http://search.proquest.com/