Research Final Draft – Pure Power: Clean power needs clean delivery

While new sources of energy are often the focus of environmental discussions, little thought is given to the logistical infrastructure that is needed and how improving this system will bring about benefits just as much as a new power source. Some of the new challenges caused by alternative energy sources such as solar power that only produce power in daylight, can also be overcome with improved infrastructure for power grids. The electric grid of today is outdated and in desperate need of an upgrade (FitzPatrick, 2012). Old grids of simple wires and transformers designed to move power short distances will not be able to keep up with alternative energy sources. Storage needs to be a part of any truly efficient electrical network; today’s electrical supply has no storage. If companies and consumers can handle the upfront costs of rebuilding the grid; all parties will benefit greatly in the long run. 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 power grids, little storage capacity and economic benefit for all.

The electrical infrastructure today is a massive technical marvel of immense proportions. The problem of controlling the massive amount of power and complexity of “the grid” falls to groups called Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). These 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 (Greenfield, 2011). These RTOs allow for electricity to be moved to where it is needed. When it is needed, this committee is finite and can only act on the limited information available today. The current power system doesn’t inform the supplier where the power is going. The only way to receive minimal information is by using smaller grids that don’t allow for long distance power transmission. So how can this information be gathered and how can it be used? What needs to happen is the grid needs to “smarten” up. A two-way system of electricity and data returns equals better usage of our resources. The so called “smart” grid adds a new dimension to the traditional one way system currently in place. 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, 2011). By using constant monitoring technology power companies can know what every user is using instantly. This allows for a computerized grid to react in real time. Power can be directed to where it would be most effective, and surpluses and shortages can be corrected. This will give RTOs a better chance of making good decisions regarding power production. Another possible solution is called “A day-ahead energy market simulation framework.” This network uses past data and future predictions to tell how much energy should be produced by a power plant (Palma-Behnke, 2012). These predictions will become more important as smaller, more decentralized generators come online. If everyone puts a solar panel on their roof, suddenly there is a varying amount of power being put in the grid that the power company can’t control. Knowing what will happen a day in advance will allow power companies to maximize profits and minimize waste. Besides prediction, a Smart grid allows for instantaneous transfers of power across states and countries. If the wind picks up in Utah and the grid realizes that there is a surplus, it can send that power to Oregon, where the solar plants are under cloud cover. This shuffling of resources saves a coal plant in Oregon from turning on to cover and saves the wind companies from losing money on power plants with no customers.

The solar radiation power plants and wind power plants offer great sources of renewable energy but the sun is not always shining when it is needed and the wind doesn’t blow consistently. The addition of storage to a wind or solar system can also make these technologies competitive with conventional technologies. The ability to control when power is produced greatly affects the ability to make profit (Sioshansi, 2011). For example, if a solar plant has no storage, it pours energy out during the middle of the day when energy is cheap and this makes the price fall more. When the sun goes down, people go home and start using power but the solar plant has no supply to meet the demand. By adding storage, plant managers can release power when it will create the most profit, making this alternative source more desirable for the capitalist market. There are many new options to store energy besides just hooking a lot of AAs together. While standard batteries are a good option, they break down, are inefficient, and are expensive. Some simple materials can be used in unusual ways.  Systems that use compressed air can be used exclusively for storage or for storage as well as production. A plain tank of compressed air has energy that can be put through a turbine and converted to electricity. Air that is compressed by the waves of the ocean not only creates clean, renewable energy but also storable energy. Waves are used to compress a chamber on the shoreline and the air in this chamber is pressurized then converted to power when needed. The technology to store air is available and well tested. High levels of efficiency, up to 85%, are possible with compressed air power systems (Garvey, 2012). Another simple solution is a tank of water stored underground. By heating the water with solar energy then storing it underground, its heat is preserved until it is needed to heat a building (Yumrutaş, 2012). While this is not a solution for mass energy storage, every house that uses this system does not need power from elsewhere for heating. Many complex systems can also be used with even greater success. Latent heat energy systems which use the energy storage potential of phase change (such as ice becoming water) to store up to 14 times more heat than non-phase based storage methods. Instead of heating water up and storing it as warm water, a material that has a low evaporation temperature is heated past its boiling point then stored. This technology utilizes the idea of latent heat which is that materials absorb much more energy when changing state. By exploiting the natural phenomena of latent heat, energy can be stored in quantities never thought possible before. Raising the temperature of water from 99 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees takes 500% more heat energy then heating water from 0 to 99 degrees. Using special materials that are selected for this purpose allows this method to do more than water and ice could ever do. Materials can be selected that have higher latent heat demands than water. The more energy a material needs to heat up the more heat it will release as it cools. By using chemicals such as lauric acid, large amounts of heat energy can be stored for many uses (Desgrosseilliers, 2011). Special artificial paraffin capsules have also shown promise as a material that holds heat to extreme temperature yet does not degrade after hundreds of recharging cycles (Su, 2012). The 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. Water can easily be broken down to hydrogen and oxygen, which can be used to create power with zero pollution. By coating electrodes in exotic metals, researchers have created solar power systems that can take sunlight and use it to break water into its base components. When power is needed and the sun is not shining the hydrogen and oxygen are reintroduced back into the water and this releases electricity on demand. (Myers, 2011) This new technology allows for clean, alternative energy that can supply electricity whether the sun is shining or not. The only byproducts are oxygen, which all life needs to live, and hydrogen, a fuel that burns perfectly cleanly. A motor running on hydrogen puts off water vapor as exhaust. Any technology that produces all good byproducts should be invested in heavily. One of the biggest advantages of breaking apart water or some other compound is that no insulation is needed. While a tank of superheated water or sodium will eventually cool, hydrogen and oxygen will keep their energy potential until they are remixed. Instead of using heat that naturally dissipates, the chemical bonds are what the energy is stored in. By not needing to be kept hot, chemical solutions allow for infinite storage times. The insane amounts of heat easily available from solar reactors, up to 2000K, make these chemical reactions possible and economical (Heintz, 2012). Two thousand degrees Kelvin is enough heat to easily melt steel and break down many chemical compounds, not just water. Every chemical bond that is broken takes energy and when the compounds recombine that energy is released. Flywheel Energy Storage Systems are another solution for storing energy to be released later. A spinning wheel contains energy that can be used later to turn a generator. While simple flywheels run on metal bearings and can lose energy to friction, new versions run on magnetic bearings inside a vacuum. With no mechanical resistance or air resistance, these wheels can hold energy for longer periods of time with minimal loss (Prodromidis, 2012). Massive banks of flywheels can wind up and store a huge amount of power for later use. By using storage to get the most out of our resources, the environment would benefit from reduced emissions while companies would benefit from maximized profits.

However, upgrading the United States utility grid to a smart grid and adding storage would not be easy. The large initial expenses lead companies to drag their feet.  The costs of upgrading are passed down to consumers who don’t like paying more; this causes public opinion to turn against this needed technology. Even though studies have shown that over a twenty year period the smart grid and storage will pay for itself, (Fox-Penner, 2011) no customer wants a higher bill and no company wants to lose profit. What people need to realize is the overall gains far outweigh the temporary costs. The smaller utility companies have a much harder time fronting the cash needed to upgrade their systems to a smart grid due to less capital and fewer customers (Chun, 2011). This problem can be solved with closer cooperation between large and small companies to share resources and increase profits even faster. By working together, everyone would benefit. Planning these new systems would be difficult, but humans don’t need to do it all. Bacteria can plan our power system better than we can; a method of planning networking reconstruction is to use a “bacterial foraging optimization algorithm” (Sathish Kumer, 2012). This equation is based on bacterial growth models and can find the network setup that loses the least energy. By studying the natural organization of bacteria foraging, scientists developed a mathematical formula that can create the optimal design for power distribution. Evolutionary algorithms are designed to solve non-linear problems that computers are not very good at solving. When single celled organisms can create better solutions then humankind, things need to change.

Between new storage technology and better designed transmission systems, there are many ways the problem of an aging energy infrastructure can be addressed. If millions of dollars are being poured into new ways of creating energy, it only makes sense to improve the support system equally; otherwise all the work goes to waste. These ideas need to be used. Power companies need to research ways to upgrade and modernize their systems. When they do look closely at green solutions they will find that the company will benefit both environmentally and economically by upgrading their networks. The companies that first embrace this new technology will lead the way for the industry. When the industry begins to adapt the vital infrastructure needed, the ultimate winner will be the environment and therefore people everywhere.

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.

FitzPatrick, K. (2012, January 23). Upgrading the electric grid. Retrieved from http://sites.duke.edu/sjpp/2012/upgrading-the-electric-grid/

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

Myers, A. (2011, June 20). Stanford team devises a better solar-powered water splitter. Retrieved from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/solar-water-splitter-062011.html

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

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

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

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 – Final -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” (Woods 2012, p. 16).  Farmers were trying to sustain larger numbers of animals in smaller spaces, and to make use of 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 these 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).  A growing popular literature has portrayed “commercial animal production as 1) detrimental to animal welfare, 2) controlled by corporate interests, 3) motivated by profit rather than by traditional animal care values, 4) causing increased world hunger, 5) producing unhealthy food, and 6) harming the environment” (Fraser,. 2001, p. 634).  Both, scientist and ethicist must take in consideration complex, and ethical issues as problems that are worth investigating, and analyzing.  (Fraser,. 2001, p. 634).  There are always different perspectives, but animal abuse is animal abuse, and anything that will cause suffering is abuse.

Genetically engineered livestock has become a recent topic particularly with respect to welfare concerns.  This work is not only to increase animal productivity, increase growth, and feed efficiency, but also in more important factors such as studying the same to reduce environmental pollution from animals “and to improve both animal and human health” (Maga, E.A., Murray, J.D., 2010, p. 1588).  Animal welfare was affected in some instances in the past, but presently the well-being of these animals is as important as the well-being of any other animals used in modern production systems (Maga, E.A., Murray, J.D., 2010, p. 1588).  Fahrenkrug et al (2010) explains that “indirect modification of animal genomes” has been used over more than 10,000 and that “improvements in the efficiency and precision of genetic technologies will enable a timely response to meet the multifaceted food requirements of a rapidly increasing world population” (p. 2530).  If there would be animals that produce greater amounts of resources, less animals would be required decreasing their footprint (Fahrenkrug et al, 2010, p. 2533).  Another scientist goal is to create species that would be more resistant to diseases.

Pollution is the real cost we pay for negligent farming practice, that is why pollution is one the main concerns in agriculture.  Giant livestock farms produce vast amounts of waste, often equivalent of a small city, this threaten humans, fish and ecosystems (“Facts,” 2011).  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 tracks 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. The nutrients found in animal waste are responsible for algal blooms, which use up the oxygen in the water.  This contributes to a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  When this happens there is not enough oxygen in the water to support aquatic life.  The dead zones fluctuate in size each year, “extending a record… 7,700 square miles during the summer 2010” (“Facts” 2011). ”Estuarine and coastal agricultural nutrient pollution is also an issue in some regions causing algal blooms (i.e. “red tides” or “dead zones”)” (Parris, 2011, p. 39).  These chemicals damage marine life, to include commercial fisheries neighboring Australia, Japan, Korea, the United States and Europe.  The damage produce by these chemicals, is clearly visible in the common problem of the depletion of oxygen in the water reported across countries, and the damage caused to other aquatic organisms as a consequence from the 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 now a better understanding that water policies should be consistent throughout different phases of the decision-making process; from the farm to water catchment; through national and international levels, and also between the different users, and uses of water (e.g. aquatic ecosystems, recreational uses).  The need for policy consistency is also important across environmental, agricultural, and water policies, particularly 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 farming is also a major contributor.  Not only do the animals themselves produce methane through decomposition, and respiration, but when combining all areas of the industrial farming sector (e.g. production of feed, rearing, transportation and processing), large volumes of carbon dioxide is being produced, as well as 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” (Ni et al. 2010, p. 5918).  This gas has been responsible for many animals, and human deaths in animal facilities

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; these gases are harmful for the animals.  Population has grown, as a result of this growth “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.  These open-air waste lagoons could be as big as several football fields, and they are prone to leaks, and spills.  For example, in 1995 a hog-waste lagoon, in North Carolina, burst spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River.  This spillage killed about 10 million fish and closed about 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shell fishing (“Facts,” 2011).

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, discovered penicillin, over 50 years ago.  Fleming warned that bacteria could develop resistance to antibiotics.  He also mentioned that this resistance would diminish antibiotics effectiveness over time.  That has proven to be true, as each new class of antibiotics has been 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. There have been many instances in which the increasing frequency of “resistant microbial strains jeopardized the continuing effective use of the respective antibiotics in clinical medicine.  In addition to resistant infections that occur in health-care establishments, one of the recent challenges is the emergence of pathogens, such as MRSA” (Stain, 2011, p. 314).  Since the use of antibiotics in healthy animals contributed to their growth rate, this became a common practice.  Cooking usually destroys bacteria found in food products.  Pathogens can become a significant threat under certain conditions (Stain, 2011, p. 317).  The more resistant the bacteria become the bigger threat it poses eventually causing an ecological disaster.

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” (Humphreys, 2008 p. 36).  Ireland’s most serious pollution problem is Phosphorus loss to water.  In 2006 a new set of regulations governing agricultural practices was implemented.  To achieve environmental targets ruminant livestock population had to decrease as well as manufactured fertilizers (Humphreys, 2008 p. 36).  This is just an example of how a county can overcome pollution, but the way we farm now is not only destructive for us, but it is also destroying the soil, and the environment. According to the growing population demand for meat, and poultry will rise 25% by 2015, but the earth can no longer deliver. “Unless there is a radical change in the way we grow and consume food, we face a future of eroded farmland, hollowed-out countryside, scarier germs, higher health costs, and bland taste. Each of us depends on the soil, animals and plants, and if we don’t take care of our land, it can’t take care of us.”  (Walsh, 2009 p.1).

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.  This plant is “sanfoin”.  Sanfoin 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).  Mueller-Harvey explained that 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.

There are several factors that threaten our ecosystems.  One of these factors is the pollution produced by industrial farming.  We are not talking about little farms; we are talking about the growing industry of raising large amounts of cattle, poultry or pig for profit.  The kind of farm that will not care about animal’s well being or pollution.  Those farms that will overlook the overuse of antibiotics without any public concern.

So, before people eat their dinner, they need to ask themselves: where did their dinner come from?

 

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

Fahrenkrug, S.C., Blake, A., Carlson, D.F., Doran, T., Van Eenennaam, A., Faber, D., Galli, C., Gao, Q., Hackett, P.B., Li, N., Maga, E.A., Muir, W.M., Murray, J.D., Shi, D., Stotish, R., Sullivan, E., Tay1or, J.F., Walton, M., Wheeler, M., Whitelaw, B., (2010).  Precision genetics for complex objectives in animal agriculture.  Journal of Animal Science, 88(7), 2530-2539.  doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2847

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.

Frasier, D., (2001).  The “new perception” of animal agriculture:  legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis.  Journal of animal science, 79(3), 634-641.  Retrieved from http://www.animal-science.org/content/79/3/634.full.pdf+html

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.

Maga, E.A., Murray, J.D., (2010).  Welfare applications of genetically engineered animals for use in agriculture.  Journal of Animal Science, 88(4), 1588-1591.  doi:  10.252/jas.2010-2828

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

Natural Resources Defense Council, the Earth’s Best Defense. (2011).  Environmental Issues.  Facts About Pollution from Livestock Farms.  Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

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

Stein, R.A., (2011).  Antibiotic Resistance:  A global, interdisciplinary concern.  American Biology teacher, 73(6), 314-321.  doi:  10.1525/abt.2011.73.6.3

Walsh, B., (2009). Getting real about the high price of cheap food (Eds.), Time Magazine Health.  Retrieved from https://classes.uaf.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?content_id=_1466397_1&displayName=Walsh%2C+Brian.+%22Getting+Real+About+the+High+Price+of+Cheap+Food%22&course_id=_103307_1&navItem=content&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2F0%2C8599%2C1917458-1%2C00.html

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 Final Draft-The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

What would we do without plastic? There wouldn’t be any single-use water bottles, plastic wrap, plastic grocery bags, 6-pack holders, lawn chairs, packing “peanut” material or sandwich bags. Just one generation ago, we used recyclable materials such as paper, glass and metal to store food. Now we use petroleum plastic. This is a convenient and useful product that is very popular with our “throw-away” society, but it’s what happens after we are done with it that’s the problem. These items are supposed to go to the local landfills where they breakdown and decompose. However, they are making their way to the Earth’s largest landfill, which isn’t actually on land; it’s out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in an area called the Great Pacific garbage patch located between Japan and the United States. Although plastic products have made life easier in the world, they are contaminating the oceans because litter is finding its way out into the ocean, the materials are then breaking down and allowing toxic chemicals to leech into the water, and plastic pieces are being ingested by maritime birdlife.

There are several types of plastic that we use in our daily life. We use hard plastic, plastic bags and a product called Styrofoam. Polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam, is a petroleum-based plastic that has been combined with styrene monomer (Senegalese, 2012). Large amounts of these plastics are turning up in our oceans. The majority of ocean trash comes 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). This garbage gets caught in ocean currents called gyres and will circulate in the water until it either breaks down or is eaten.

A gyre is a huge area where water of different temperatures mixes together causing a spiral effect in the current. There are five major gyres in the world (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). The North Atlantic, North Pacific, South Atlantic, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean gyres all have their own sources of pollution. The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is the most researched, so we are more aware of the extent of the great Pacific garbage patch. This particular gyre is roughly double the size of the United States. The other gyres are just as polluted and, while not as big, they are equally as dangerous to the environment (5 Gyres Institute, 2012). The process of trash getting from one side of the gyre to the other is a slow process. It can take as long as five years for a piece of trash to make it from the beaches of California to the Eastern Pacific garbage patch (National Public Radio, 2008). This current changes during different times of the year due to El Nino. During the summer, the gyre is located more north, and in the winter it is located just above Hawaii. The Atoll islands, just Northwest of Hawaii is an area that is greatly affected by the great Pacific garbage patch. It has been shown that marine animals tend to congregate here (Pichel, et al., 2007). This are is where animals build their nests, lay their eggs and raise their babies.

Countries around the world have had to come up with ways to combat the pollution in the gyres closest to them. The Mediterranean’s surrounding countries have adopted bans on dumping in the ocean. They have realized that when something is dumped in the ocean, it winds up on shore and soils the beaches. The cruise ships are now only allowed to dump food overboard. The remaining garbage is taken off the ship when in port and sent to a local landfill. The Caribbean has not adhered to these same standards, mainly because 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 to the island (Melia, 2009).  Under the Caribbean guidelines as of 2009, ships can dump metal, glass, paper, and other trash three miles from shore but only if it’s smaller than an inch. Beyond 25 miles they can dump anything (Melia, 2009).

The cruise lines and cargo vessels are the biggest contributor to the garbage patch, but they’re not the only one’s at fault for this mess. Another way that trash is getting to the great garbage patch is from rain and wind carrying litter to local rivers that eventually dump into the ocean. Trash on the street accumulates in gutters and washes into nearby storm drains. Most storm drain systems empty directly into local rivers, which flow into the ocean (California Coastal Commission, 2011). Once in the Pacific Ocean, it gets caught up in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, also known as the great Pacific garbage patch.

One of the ways that plastic is harmful is that it breaks down and releases toxins into the water. There is some debate as to where the plastic is breaking down though. 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, the man responsible for discovering the great Pacific garbage patch, 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 however, 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). Charles Moore also stated that the plastic is found in every shape and size. Even the smallest zooplankton is feeding on microscopic pieces of plastic (Greenberg, 2009). This is dangerous for us because we are eating these animals that have consumed plastic and these chemicals in our bodies are having ill effects on our health.

Another reason plastic and Styrofoam is harmful to the environment is that BPA, styrene and PS oligomer have now been found in small quantities in the ocean, which has been shown to cause hormonal imbalances in animals and humans. The immediate effects 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). There is again, some debate as to where this is coming from. It could be because the food they are eating is contaminated, or they are eating the plastic thinking that it is food, or it could even be that the water they are living in is contaminated. No one has been able to conclusively determine what is the cause. The point is that there has been chemicals found in animals, no matter what is concentration it is not a good sign.

We also have the problem of the plastic 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. In one year, Japan has found as much as 150,000 tons of plastic and Styrofoam debris washed up on its shores (American Chemical Society, 2009). Plastic grocery bags are found all over the oceans. Whales and other animals eat them thinking they are jellyfish. Scientists have noted 177 different kinds of marine life that have been injured by plastic debris (Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J., 2012).

Some of these bags come from the dump. They blow around and get to the ocean. Recycling is a great alternative, but it requires work. When you recycle plastic, you must know that there are rules to follow or the plastic will be sent on to the dump. Once a water bottle is used, the cap must be removed along with the circle of plastic that was attached to the cap. These are a different plastic than the bottle, so even if the bottle is deposited in the recycle can, if this cap is still on, the bottle will be sent to the landfill. Also, like plastic grocery bags and polystyrene, not all plastics are recycled at the same plant. If these are placed in a recycle can, they will be taken to a local landfill. In order to get them where they need to go, they must be taken to a drop-off site. To find a local drop-off site, you can go to earth911.com.

When items do not make it to the proper facilities for disposal, they may end up on our beaches. 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 up to 50% of the undigested material in an albatross’ intestinal tract is plastic (Mayer, 2003). Even though the chicks are being fed, they are full of plastic, which can cause blockages and starvation. The plastic that does digest releases harmful toxins that can poison the albatross. Some of the most obvious plastic on beaches are cigarette lighters. In two-and-a-half months, volunteers collected 1000 lighters while they worked on the Atoll (Mayer, 2003). These lighters were found inland, away from the water, closer to the nesting areas. This means they are not only washing up on shore, but the Albatross are picking them up and bring them to their 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. San Francisco has completely banned the thin plastic bags (Carlson, Wendy, 2008). Bangladesh, Australia, France, Italy and China have also banned them. While several European countries, as well as Taiwan have imposed a tax on plastic bags.

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 ten 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 this mess we are creating. The use of post-consumer recycled paper, bamboo, and corn plastic is a great place to start. These are biodegradable and can be composted. We also need to be more conscious about what we are throwing into our landfills. There are many items that can be recycled that are not being properly disposed of. There’s no good way, as of yet to clean up the great Pacific garbage patch, but if we can start cleaning up our country and not contribute any more debris, we can prevent it from getting bigger. That’s a good place to start.

References

5 Gyres Institute. (2012). Retrieved 2012, 10-04 from 5 Gyres Institute: http://5gyres.org

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

Carlson, W. (2008, September 28). Westport First in State To Ban Plastic Bags. New York Times. p. 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/nyregion/connecticut/28bagsct.html

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

Greenberg, N. (2009). Captain Charles Moore. Earth Island Journal. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 24. Issue 1. p47-50. 4p

Leggett, H. (2009, 19-08). Toxic Soup: Plastics Could Be Leaching Chemicals Into Ocean. Retrieved 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 from http://www.fws.gov/midway/Midway_Atoll_NWR_Cigarette_Lighters.pdf

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

Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science Of The Total Environment. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 416464-467. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008, 03 28). Surface Ocean Currents. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from NOAA Ocean Service Education: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/05currents3.html

National Public Radio. (2008, 03 26). Garbage Mass is Growing in the Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89099470

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. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 54, pp. 1207–1211.

Saido, K., Itagaki, T., Sato, H., Kodera, Y., Abe, O., Ogawa, N., et al. (2009 йил 26-08). New contamination derived from marine debris plastics. Washington DC. http://5gyres.org/media/Saido_etal_plastics_break_down_in_ocean.pdf

Senegalese, B. D. (2012). Polystyrene Foam Report. Earth Resource Foundation: http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-styrofoam.html

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

Research Final Draft: All Shall Have Their Ancient Liberties

The Appalachian mountain region is home to an old culture devoted to tradition, storytelling, and in many places coal mining. The hills themselves are said to be among the oldest mountains on the planet. These ancient and worn ridges of the Appalachian region don’t project the magnificence of the Rockies but are uniquely humbling to behold. For a long time, communities across Appalachia have made their livelihoods in valleys where generations of people raised their families around and in the coal mining industry. These communities and ancient hills are now threatened by innovation in coal mining that is able to not only assess if a coal seam is near the top of a ridge, but actually blow that ridge off of the mountain itself in order to expose and mine its coal. Commonly called Mountaintop Removal Mining (MTR), this technology has created a desperate need for more research into the effects of such a land changing system and is causing outrage among activists, both for the environment and for the well being of Appalachia. With alternative energies constantly being researched, attempted, and utilized, it seems shameful to destroy this valuable region, its animals, flora, streams and culture to produce electricity so regularly wasted in broader culture. Although coal is a trusted source of generating energy, mining operations using MTR in the Appalachian mountains are tragically destructive to the natural environment in that region because of water pollution, negative effects of the changing landscape on streams and animals, and the ways that pollution destroys the area and hurts its inhabitants.

Photographs of either mining operations or locations that are supposedly in a reclamation phase offer tragic visual evidence of what happens geologically to Appalachian mountaintops during and after MTR mining. The scene is shocking, as in the middle of pristine forest, MTR mining operations appear to be deeply scarred amputees of mountains, crippled by their loss of rock and timber. Emma Marris, the author of one review of two recent documentaries on the topic of MTR mining for Nature magazine describes the visual: “Both films feature aerial shots of the mines, which look as if someone has skinned the top halves of mountains down to the rock, then snapped off the peaks (Marris, 2008, p.158)”. Her assessment is accurate.

In order to gain access to the coal at or near a mountain’s peak, a mining company removes part of the mountain itself. This is done by explosion or industrial shovel, and the displaced earth removed must then be dealt with. The term used for rock and dirt blown from the ridge by the intrusion is called overburden. Overburden is moved from the place nature put it to any valley below. The crumbled rock of different sizes is then referred to as mine spoil. Settlements of mine spoil form a new geological landscape which differ in degrees of stability and are sometimes used as created space to develop buildings and roads, though the integrity of these settlements in terms of safety vary (Karem, Kalinski and Hancher, 2007, p. 345). Proponents of MTR mining suggest that potential development once a mining operation has gone through reformation is good for the region, and that it is even an opportunity for sustainable economic development. Reclamation of mined land in Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia can include or have included the development of golf courses, hospitals, Walmarts and housing developments (Gardner and Sainato, 2007, p.50). While the Appalachian region is stereotyped in our consciousnesses as being desperate for economic development, there is far more evidence to suggest that the region overall maintains attitudes that prefer the hills to be untouched, rather than have a new space for a Walmart.

From their harmless state where nature intended them to be, the tops of mountains after removal termed overburden and then mine spoil cause an array of problems. In their paper titled “Settlement of Mine Spoil Fill from Water Infiltration: Case Study in Eastern Kentucky,” Karem, Kalinski and Hancher describe the three primary causes of mine spoil settlement that would cause damage or danger to structures built atop. They are creep, dry crushing, and hydro-compression, where hydro-compression is the most dangerous. The paper describes hydro-compression as the wetting of the mine spoil which would cause it to crumble and settle, the causes of this are seeping of rain water, septic systems, and infiltration of groundwater into the mine spoil settlement. They note that this material can and often does settle to a significant degree which provides a fragile foundation at best (p. 346). Claims that development of offices and roads on valleys filled with mine spoil are economic opportunities are then invalidated when considering the perspective that these areas are often dangerous due to settlement.

While the above research focuses on the risks posed by water systems to the displaced mountaintop known as mine spoil, it could be suggested that this man-made problem is evidence to the fact that the unnatural valley fill becomes intertwined with surrounding water systems, the consequences of dislodging spoil and it’s settlement in surrounding valleys include the burial of at least 2,000 streams and headwaters that all flow, or used to flow, into the Mississippi River (Holzman, p. A477).

Overburden caused by MTR mining causes an even still wider spectrum of destruction. One of many concerns about this destruction is related to the area’s water systems. The integrity of the region’s water systems is in jeopardy because of displacement of overburden from the mountain’s ridges to the valley, which threaten to bury headwaters and streams. This is adjoined with the toxic realities of what is known as slurry. In essence, slurry is soap scum. Created during the process of cleaning mined coal, slurry must be disposed of, and that is done by injecting it into old and abandoned mine shafts or otherwise plunging it into the ground where it is likely to leach toxic chemicals into ground water (Holzman, 2011, p.A477).

David Holzman reports in Environmental Health Perspectives about the potential for pollution regarding slurry. He states that there are several opportunities for the complex and varying combinations of chemical deposits to enter water systems, whether by spoil or slurry. Holzman cites Professor of Environmental Science at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, Scott Simonton, who reports that there is little to no dispute among players in the coal mining industry as well of course among its critics that mining does effect groundwater and contaminates it, and that this contamination will travel from the immediate area of the operation. Essentially, slurry invades water systems surrounding mining operations, but claims made to defend this widespread conclusion are based on the idea that the impact of slurry on water systems is harmless (Holzman, 2011, p. A478).

However, of particular concern when it comes to the certain impact on watershed downstream of spoil fills is a known chemical toxin, selenium (Lindberg,et al., 2011). Selenium poses a significant threat to aquatic life in Appalachia’s water systems, as well as aquatic plant life. Regarding human’s safety in fishing their long trusted rivers and streams, researchers advise caution in consuming fish from mountaintop-removal affected areas because of the dangers involved in selenium consumption for humans (Palmer, et al., 2011, p. 148).

Dr. Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council makes a case in the recent documentary, The Last Mountain, that tens of millions of people in areas where rivers and streams originate in coal mining country are also being affected, while geographically they may live in seemingly non-impacted areas. The film includes a graphic explaining this effect. Mining operations in West Virginia or Kentucky have potential to affect water quality for citizens of Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, or Florida through intricate webs of streams and rivers (Bingham, Grunebaum, and Haney, 2011). That means that mine spoil, slurry, and associated toxins as well as known and unknown effects of those toxins on all life are not necessarily isolated in Appalachia, but carry environmental harm throughout the southeastern United States.

Appalachian households who have long trusted their drinking water have begun to report a barrage of health related difficulties and other clearly observable problems with their water. Something called slurry syndrome is reported, a combination of symptoms believed to be caused by toxic slurry infiltrating the drinking water in mining communities. Ailments include rash and diarrhea, and even changes to the victim’s dental health (Holzman, p. A480).

Pollution pathways specifically into water systems are significant culprits in the decline of well being for residents of MTR mining areas, but they are not the only ones. Research affirms that the consequences of the disaster is more far reaching than pollutants in water systems. There is also danger in confirmed hazards to air quality caused by dust from surface mining operations. Airborne pollutants are linked to increased chronic medical issues in surrounding communities. These include but are not limited to higher blood pressure, higher mortality rates, heart disease, lung disease, and kidney disease (Palmer, et al., 2011, p. 149).

In retrospectively studying the 2006 national Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, researchers Keith J. Zullig, PhD, MSPH, and Michael Hendryx, PhD, report on the “Health-Related Quality of Life Among Central Appalachian Residents in Mountaintop Mining Counties,” finding that when controlling for factors such as smoking or obesity, residents in areas where mining by MTR consistently report on their own health as being worse than those who do not live in those areas. Additionally, Zullig and Hendryx claim that that self-rated health is a mortality indicator and therefore is considered a reliable way to measure the health of a population by organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. They report that according to research in the self-rated health of residents where MTR mining takes place, there is an increased mortality risk. These residents self report that on average they experience 18 additional unhealthy days per year than respective averages in other populations. When multiplied across years in the average American lifetime, those extra unhealthy days account for close to four years, and this is associated directly with living in an area where there is MTR mining taking place. The authors are insistent that their findings suggest a major decrease in the health related quality of life for Appalachian residents (Zullig and Hendryx, 2011, p. 852).

There has been a surge of awareness regarding this issue and its far reaching effects in the last decade, and in March 2006, National Geographic published “When Mountains Move,” explaining to readers the difference between strip mining and what is truly happening in the Appalachian mountains, providing pictures to prove the drastic changes in landscape. Explanations of mining politics, cultural impacts, deforestation and the grief of Appalachian communities are all available in the documentation of writer John Mitchell and photographer Melissa Farlow’s visit to a West Virginia mining community. This article is just one available illustration of the depth of loss communities dealing with MTR mining experience.

Among the various tragedies associated with MTR mining are effects on the hilltop’s primary inhabitants, plant life. Appalachia is a wonderland in terms of medicinal plants such as ginseng and goldenseal. These have become more widely used in alternative medicine across the world and are harvested regularly in the region. While the harvesting of these plants is regulated to prevent poaching and species endangerment of these fragile, wild plants, the same careful standards are not applied to mining operations who are allowed to systematically destroy large areas of the herb’s natural habitat (Myles, 2007, p.4). While reforestation efforts are being made in Appalachia to restore valuable hardwoods and other vegetation, many concerns arise due to the reformation of the land and soil. Restoring ecosystems in these areas is extremely dependent on the success of reforestation, and the viability of the methods being used are not known for sure to be dependable as these replanted forests are too new to tell (Zipper and Burger, et al., 2011, p.751-753).
The movement by student activists and diverse members of Appalachian communities to put an end to MTR mining include the moving words and actions of any major social justice movement. Well known fiction writer Silas House is an outspoken advocate for the health and strength of the Appalachian people and their land. In one speech titled “A Conscious Heart,” given as the keynote for a conference on Appalachian studies, House advocates for the region’s citizenship to reclaim their identity as a people, to develop new pride in this identity and to not continue to tolerate mountaintop mining and the devastation it brings. According to House, this devastation includes a wearing down of the region’s sense of itself, their self esteem, and traditions. He urges Appalachia to consider the issue not only in environmental terms, but to look beyond the tangible evidence of danger to land and health, and peer deeply into the ways that MTR is threatening Appalachia in a holistic sense (House, 2008, p.7).

Heated frustration over the rights of communities and property entitlement fill any quiet moments in the study of this issue. Anthropologists, social theorists, and others in academia debate on concepts of common land and privatization, and what is best for a people. Some argue that when a people collectively hold rights to the natural world around them, that due to human nature itself some will successfully exploit it (Hasler, 2005, p.96). Others have watched in horror as their family’s centuries old cemeteries are bulldozed and the bones of their ancestors are then considered overburden (McGlynn, 2012, p.29).

A long time advocate for environmental justice, Robert Kennedy, Jr., visits Appalachian coal mining country in 2011′s The Last Mountain. With the eloquence of his family’s legacy, Kennedy speaks of a people’s right to protect their own land. He affectionately references a public’s just right to preserve their land as the film quotes the Magna Carta: “We decree that all shall have their ancient liberties by land and by water” (Bingham, Grunebaum, and Haney, 2011).

Other inspiring stories of people’s dedication to this cause, as well as information about the science associated to that dedication can be found at social justice-oriented websites like iLoveMountains.org and mountainjustice.org. These sites provide headlines about the latest demonstrations or protest, and stories of people’s changed lives because of mining by MTR. The destruction that lies in the paths of these irresponsible mining operations makes it seemingly impossible to not feel grief for the Appalachian region and its people. To some degree our greed for energy is at fault for such ancient and beautiful areas to be so drastically scarred. Power to the people who insist that it stops and that the Appalachian mountain region can rest and heal from this devastation.

References

Bingham, C. Grunebaum, E. Haney, B. (Producer), & Haney, B. (Director). (June 3, 2011). The Last Mountain. [Motion picture]. United States: Dada Films

Gardner, J. S., & Sainato, P. P. (2007). Mountaintop mining and sustainable development in Appalachia. Mining Engineering, 59(3), 48-55.

Hasler, R. (2005). THE TRAGEDY OF PRIVATIZATION: MOVING MOUNTAINS IN APPALACHIA, A SOUTHERN AFRICAN CRITIQUE. Journal Of Appalachian Studies, 11(1/2), 95-103.

Holzman, D. C. (2011). Mountaintop Removal Mining. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(11), A476-A483.

House, S. (2008). A Conscious Heart. Journal Of Appalachian Studies, 14(1/2), 7-19.

iLoveMountains.org-End Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining. (n.d.). iLoveMountains.org. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://ilovemountains.org

Karem, W. A., Kalinski, M. E., & Hancher, D. E. (2007). Settlement of Mine Spoil Fill from Water Infiltration: Case Study in Eastern Kentucky. Journal Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities, 21(5), 345-350. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:5(345)

Lindberg, T., Bernhardt, E. S., Bier, R., Helton, A. M., Merola, R., Vengosh, A., & Di Giulio, R. T. (2011). Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 108(52), 20929-20934. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112381108

Marris, E. (2008). Mountains into molehills. Nature, 453(7192), 158. doi:10.1038/453158b

McGlynn, D. (2012). MOVE NOT THOSE BONES. Sierra, 97(2), 28-33.

Mitchell, J. (2006). When Mountains Move. National Geographic. Retrieved fromhttp://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/when-mountains-move.html

Mountain Justice. (n.d.). Mountain Justice. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://mountainjustice.org

Myles, D. (2007). Saving Wild Ginseng, Goldenseal, and other Native Plants from Mountain Top Removal. Herbalgram, (73), 4.

Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Schlesinger, W. H., Eshleman, K. N., Foufoula-Georgiou, E. E., Hendryx, M. S., & … Wilcock, P. R. (2010). Mountaintop Mining Consequences. Science, 327(5962), 148-149.

Zipper, C. E., Burger, J. A., Skousen, J. G., Angel, P. N., Barton, C. D., Davis, V., & Franklin, J. A. (2011). Restoring Forests and Associated Ecosystem Services on Appalachian Coal Surface Mines. Environmental Management, 47(5), 751-765. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9670-z

Zullig, K. J., & Hendryx, M. (2011). Health-Related Quality of Life Among Central Appalachian Residents in Mountaintop Mining Counties. American Journal Of Public Health, 101(5), 848-853. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300073

Final Draft: Eat Organic, or All Is Lost

Where our food comes from can make an impact on the environment, either for the good or the bad.  Grocery stores have many food choices ranging from foods with organic labels to foods that are not organic.  There is a large gap between the number of choices that are organic and those that are not, and the majority of those choices are not organic. Conventional agriculture and organic agriculture are very different forms of agriculture, but both provide the foods available in grocery stores.  Conventional agriculture is, at this time, the dominate way of farming.  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.  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.

Conventional farming techniques implement the use of chemicals for synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.  When we choose 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.  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 (Gomiero 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 and in turn offers environmentally friendly methods of weed control.

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 the species of pests on farm land that harmful to crops and the natural enemies of those pests that damage crops (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 the majority of organic pesticides “have low residual activity” but does also 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 heavily relied upon nor are they 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 far less chemicals 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.  Continued purchases of inorganic foods are an indirect way to promote the continued use of the chemicals that infect the environment.  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). Organic farming does not rely on chemical usage like conventional farming.  With the high usage of chemicals in conventional farming it is alarming that so little attention is given to that fact, and it is frightening that conventional farming foods are so prevalent in food selections in stores.  By choosing organic foods, people can choose not to support the use of so many chemicals and instead support the health of the environment.  Organic farming techniques go beyond the scope of plant based foods and into more natural and less environmentally devastating way to raise animals for consumer consumption as well.

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 (Putting Meat, n.d.).  Organic animal agriculture raises animals in drastically different ways than conventional.  When we go through the stores, 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).  Waste lagoons are common on the CAFOs; waste lagoons are essentially small ponds that contain waste from the animals housed on the CAFOs (Jing et al., 2010; Starmer, n.d.).  Animals cannot be made to quit ridding themselves of their waste; it is a natural process that takes place regardless of what anyone does.  Since organic farming does not implement waste lagoons, it makes sense to move away from conventional farming and toward organic.  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 are used in large amounts and 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.  Along with antibiotics, growth hormones may be used as well; some of these substances used in poultry contain arsenic (They Eat, 2006).  Again, as with the other pollutions that result from animal waste, the arsenic present in runoff at the facilities that use the substances the arsenic can pollute water sources (They Eat, 2006).  The conventional animal agriculture management techniques are appalling.  Even if regulations were constructed and enforced to reduce the possibility of pollutants, there will still be the risk of contamination of the environment until conventional animal agriculture ceases to exist and organic agriculture takes center stage.   Feed provided for animals raised in non-organic practices have environmental impacts as well.

Feed farms in conventional farming, like at cattle feed farms, provide large amounts of corn in the feed provided for the animals (Woolf, 2007).  The corn is actually not part of a healthy diet for the cattle and is conventionally grown corn (Woolf, 2007), which loops back to all the issues of conventionally grown crops that are discussed in previous paragraphs.  In order for the animals to be considered organically raised, they must be fed a 100% organic diet (Organic Livestock, 2004).  Conventionally raised animals cause pollutions to the environment through their care in every aspect while organically raised animals are raised through more natural processes and do not contribute to polluting the environment.    From chemicals to animals, there is plenty to be alarmed about within the subject of crops; the different characteristics of crop treatment can be an issue of importance for the environment as well.

Different farming methods can have different results on the soil in which crops are planted.  The differences that occur between organic farming methods and conventional farming methods are substantial and should not be ignored.  Conventional farming methods include the use of chemicals through fertilizers and pesticides; due to the extensive use of these chemicals, the result has been raised toxicity levels of the soils exposed to the chemicals and has caused the degradation of the soils (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Those pollutants that conventional farming employs are polluting the environment and ruining the soil they are used on, which can only further the reliance that conventional farming has on its chemicals.  The differences in organic and conventional farming include more than the use of chemicals.  The non-chemical methods implemented in organic farming promote soil fertility (Broad & Cavanagh, 2012), the opposite of conventional farming.  The healthier soil in organic farming can use water more efficiently than soil in conventional farming (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Conventional farming cannot even sustain its own soil, and with the poor soil requires more water than organic farming.  Organic practices actually help improve soil conditions, which would seem to be a much more desirable outcome than the results provided by conventional farming.  Organic foods may cost more in the stores, but conventional farming certainly runs high costs for the environment.  Some risks or consequences may not be quite as obvious.

Another of the many differences between organic farming and conventional farming is the inclusion or restriction of the use of GMs.  GM stands for genetically modified, and GM plants are those that have been either bioengineered or genetically engineered, or have had both changes made as defined by Perr (2004) (as cited in Singh et. al., 2006).  It isn’t that all conventional farming grows GM crops, but there are no restrictions to using GM crops.  In organic farming, however, the use of GM crops is prohibited (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Although at first glance it may seem that GM foods actually offer great benefits as listed in Singh et. al. (2006), there are risks to the use of GM foods that are known and perhaps some still unknown (Singh et. al., 2006).  GM crops can be altered so they do not need pesticides, but as pests build a tolerance to the plant’s new changes, the use of pesticides or more alterations will again be needed (Singh et. al., 2006).  Any conventional farming that uses GM crops will be stuck in a cycle in which the outcome can only be negative toward the environment or unknown.  Organic crops offer natural solutions such as mentioned in Broad & Cavanagh (2012), since farmers use seeds that have been “in-bred”, making it so the seeds grow well within the local ecosystem the parent plants were a part of and in the soils those parent plants grew.  Organic crops are unaltered crops that can be cultivated naturally to work with the environment making them superior when keeping the environment in mind.  GM crops also pose possible danger to the diversity of plants (Balezentiene, 2011).

Cross pollination and accidental seeding, through means such as transportation of seed, can cause GM crops to grow or cross with other plants (Craig et. al., 2008) (Singh et. al., 2006).  With unknown long term affects of the GM alterations, limiting crops to only organic origins will help prevent any potential adverse affects on the environment.  As stated in Balezentiene (2011), conventional farming has had a negative influence on the “floristic diversity” of the areas surrounding such farms.  Balezentiene (2011) reports that organic farming is helpful to surrounding plant life due to the methods used in organic farming.  The results are in for organic farming, but still pending for GM crops that are allowable in conventional farming.  With so many things to consider between organic foods and conventionally farmed and raised foods, organic continuously comes out on top as a better choice for the environment.

People must speak out with a unified voice, as consumers who want organic foods to be the prevalent choices in stores to promote a healthy environment.  Right now in the market place, organic foods are no doubt more expensive than there conventional farmed counterparts, but that is because there are many fewer organic farms than conventional farms, so the prices must be higher in order to keep up with the supply.  If organic farming becomes the prevalent form of farming, or better yet the only way of farming, the supply for organic foods will be higher and thus allow the prices of organic foods to be lowered.  Right now, chemicals make their way through the environment, animals crowd at feed factories, and genetically altered crops are being made and grown.  Right now choices are being made in stores.  Right now, make the right choice for the environment and choose organic.

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.

Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., Ripandelli, D.. (2008, January)  An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops.  Euphytica International Journal of Plant Breeding, 164, 853-880. doi 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8

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.

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.

Organic Livestock Workbook. A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices.  (2004). National Center for Appropriate Technology.  Retrieved from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/AG/Main/PDFsForOrganicAgAndMOCA/livestockworkbook.pdf

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.

Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. (n.d.).  A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.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.

Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., Jain, R. K.. (2006, April). Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern.  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 71, 598-607.  doi 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8

Starmer, E..  (n.d.).  Environmental and Health Problems in Livestock Production: Pollution in the Food System.  The Agribusiness Accountability Initiative Leveling The Field, Issue Brief 2, 1-8.  Retrieved from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_2_1.pdf

 They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories.  (2006, August).  Union of Concerned Scientists.  Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html

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

Research Part 5 Final Draft: The Dark Side of Hydroelectric Dams

The Dark Side of 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 (2009) 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 (2008) 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. When fish enter the turbine system the outcome is nearly always fatal for the fish (Carr 2012, Ferguson 2011, Keefer 2010). The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed then only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed then 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 world’s 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There are also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. A dam in the Nile River drainage displaced nearly 50,000 residents (Bosshard 2009). 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 (Demarty 2011). 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 and water filter. 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 (Roland 2010). 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 (2012) 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 humankind’s warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network (2012) report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network (2012), 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.” (International River Network 2012)

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 (Grahm-Rowe 2005, Marriot 2010, Mourad 2011) 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. Continuious flooding of a seasonally flooded region upsets breeding, spawning, and migratory schedules of numerous species of aquatic wetland indigenous creatures. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding (Lopez-Pujol and Ming-Xun 2009). 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 (Welch 2008). 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 into the water system. 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. Every method of electrical generation has downsides. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Every person can lead by example and cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Turning off lights after leaving a room, unplugging unused electrical appliances when not in use because many appliances contain clocks which are continuously drawing current. It is cutting down on the small uses of electricity that can add up to save large volumes of power. 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.

References

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/>.

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 et al, “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 et al, “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, et al, “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 et al, “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

 

Welch, David W. et al, “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 Part 5 Final Draft: A Changing Arctic

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 are 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 mammals at bay longer. 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 (Inupiat) 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 in almost any of the oceans or seas around the world, from Antarctica to the Arctic (Pitman, Perryman, LeRoi, & Eilers, 2007; Zerbini, 2007). Their presence in the Arctic Sea has increased over the years due to the warming of the Arctic region.  In just the Hudson Bay area alone, from 1990 to 2000 there have been reports of an increase of 79 killer whale sightings (Hidgon & Ferguson, 2009).  The killer whales usually make an appearance in July and begin their move back into warmer waters around the end of August. Since the waters have become warmer they are staying a lot longer, even into December.  Killer whales are not the only factor in reshaping this ecological environment, but they are becoming a very devastating one.  Due to the fact these rather large marine mammals live in such an expansive territory, they do not have a stable food source but eat 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, Higdon, & Wetsdal, 2012; Laden, 2012). Most studies have been done on whale pods not living in the Arctic, but with the help of the Inuit (Inupiat) people of the 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 prefer. Many of the Inuit that have been interviewed as to the eating habits of the killer whale have stated they have not seen them eat fish but have gone after seals, sea lions, otters, walrus, and other more docile whales, such as the bowhead, beluga, and the narwhal (Morell, 2012). The killer whales have been observed as not being very 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).  They have also been seen taking an unsuspecting polar bear for a meal, too.  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 works together to create a massive wave knocking the seal from its safe location, giving the whale pod a chance at their prey (Ferguson, Higdon, & Wetsdal, 2012).  The Inuit have seen many killer whale pods slaughter other members of a different whale species family, such as the very rare narwhal and the bowhead whale along with the beluga (Morell, 2012). The Inuit or the Inupiat are known as the “People of the Whales”, and since they are not the only ones who use the whale as a food source this increase of killer whale presence gives them a reason to be concerned (Sakakibara, 2010).

The killer whales are now coming into the Arctic much earlier and staying much later than they have in the past. The local native people now have to compete with these pack hunting killers for one of their native ancestral food sources, the whale. Orcas or killer whales have been called wolves of the sea because of their pack like hunting skills (O’Harra, 2012). As a researcher for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Institute, Steven Ferguson has made a very scary observation.  Because of the climate change, the killer whales could be the cause of an irreversible change that is being seen in the Arctic ecosystem.  Steven Ferguson also states that, “This change of what animals live in the Arctic is likely going to happen with the warming but we didn’t anticipate that killer whales might be removing certain susceptible prey and maybe temperate species will move up to take their place” (Puxley, 2012). This is a very real outcome that could start to take place. The native whales of the Arctic are not the only marine mammals the killer whales are affecting.   The killer whales are causing the Inuit to become worried about the seals and walrus populations as well (Mead, Gittelsohn, Kratzmann, Roache, & Sharma, 2010). With the killer whales trespassing into the Inuit way of life, these giants cannot be met with open arms who are trying to take over the Inuit hunting grounds.  The Inuit live in an area of the world where they have to rely on the animals of the sea for nutrition.  They live in a tundra area where wild plants just don’t want to grow.  “In our society, it is always the whale that brings us together,” said Mae Ahgeak, whaling captain’s wife, in her personal interview with Sakakibara in Barrow, Alaska, June 18, 2005. Whales are a very important part of the Inuit subsistence. As Sakakibara stated in her article, “Cetaceousness and Climate Change Among the Inupiat of Arctic Alaska,” “The cultural survival and social ethics are all based on intimate relationships with the whale, and the whale symbolically and physically lies in the heart of human subsistence” (Sakakibara, 2010). This leaves the only option for the Inuit culture to survive is to hunt the hunters who are depleting their way of life (Lougheed, 2010).  With the invasion of the killer whales, 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, Gittelsohn, Kratzmann, Roache, & Sharma, 2010). A way in which the Inuit people have survived for thousands of years may become harder and harder to pass on to the next generation. Some might suggest that with the introduction of Euroamerican ideals, the significance of the ancestral ways is not as important.  But it should not be due to the ancestral food sources being over hunted by the killer whale (Lougheed, 2009). Concerns of the Inuit way of hunting are also being called in to question with the increase of the killer whale presence.  Some feel it may not be safe for both the Inuit and the killer whale to be hunting the same areas and hunting the same animals, sometimes at the same time (Ferguson, Higdon, & Wetsdal, 2012). It is not just the Inuit that the killer whale is having a great 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, too. The bigger problem however, 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 and Alaska, aboriginal whaling is still legal, and because these great giants can become overwhelming killers, the Inuit are doing their part in the circle of life (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, 2007). Some may argue that that is exactly what the killer whale is doing also, just doing their part of the circle of life.  It has been suggested that when the food source of an animal runs low, that species will be affected and their numbers will start to drop.  In this way giving their prey a chance to reproduce, and get their populations back up to allow the circle to continue as it always has. But what about the animals who are being hunted to their extinction?

Before the longer seasonal appearances of the orca in the Arctic region, researchers tried to get an accurate count of marine populations but were not very successful. They were unable to get an assessment of the climate change that has affected their population numbers.  The killer whales’ extended appearance in the Arctic has been a great shock to this very fragile ecosystem. With the melting sea ice, many changes have occurred. One change can be seen with the migration of the beluga whales.  The beluga whales prefer to spend their winters in an area where there is a light and moveable sea ice flow.  Researchers are now finding where some of these whales have now moved into areas that have deep ice coverage to try to escape becoming the prey of the killer whale (Laidre, Stirling, Lowry, Wiig, Heide-Jorgensen, & Ferguson, 2008). This global change is something everyone needs to be more aware of. The narwhal whale is another one of the animals that are being affected 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, Laidre, Burt, Borchers, Marques, Hansen, & Fossette, 2010; Kwok & Untersteiner, 2011). The narwhal whales rely on the densely packed sea ice flow during the winter months. They have adapted to this type of habitat and with the melting of the sea ice it is disappearing fast (Laidre, Stirling, Lowry, Wiig, Heide-Jorgensen, & Ferguson, 2008).  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, Yurik, & Snow, 1988). The narwhals are not the only animals at risk of their populations decreasing. The bowhead whales, which are the most important source for the Inuit subsistence, have had eye witnesses to their killings by killer whales.  In 1999, there were a greater number of killer whales in the Arctic since sea ice flows were minimal. A group of Inuit reported discovering at least eight dead whales, one in which was a recent kill which they could still use (Ferguson, Higdon, & Chemelnitsky, 2010).  Many other mammals are affected, too, such as the sea otter, stellar sea lions, along with the ringed and bearded seals (Ferguson, Higdon, and Wetsdal, 2012; Kuker & Barrett-Lennard, 2010; Durban, Ellifrit, Dahlheim, Waite, Matkin, Barrett-Lennard, & Wade, 2009). During the spring and summer months, the Arctic waters come alive with marine mammals. The Arctic areas are their breeding grounds and where in the next year their young will be born.  When this very delicate balance is interrupted, “with earlier spring break-up of sea ice and reduced snow cover for birth lairs” this has a direct result in reducing the amount of offspring born each year (Higdon & Ferguson, 2010). What happens if these animals are over hunted by other animals, how will they procreate and continue generation after generation? With native Inuit hunting these same animals as part of their subsistence and cultural practices, their culture like the many marine mammals do not stand a chance at being around for much longer.

Researchers are discovering everyday new information regarding the impact of the killer whales on the Arctic.  With these new findings, they may be able to find ways to decrease the killer whales effects on this fragile ecosystem, while helping to preserve the culture of the native people and help to bring back the dwindling marine mammal populations that they have affected. With the help of conservationists, along with the people of the world, maybe one day it might be possible for each creature on earth to find that middle ground and 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.

Hidgon, J., & Ferguson, S. (2009). Loss of Arctic Sea Ice Causing Punctuated Change in Sightings of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) Over the Past Century. Ecological Applications, 19(5), 1365-1375.

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

Laidre, K., Stirling, I., Lowry, L., Wiig, O., Heide-Jorgensen, M., & Ferguson, S. (2008). Quantifying the Sensitive of Arctic Marine Mammals to Climate-Induced Habitat Change. Ecological Application, 18(2) Supplement, S97-S125.

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

Pitman, R.L., Perryman, W.L., LeRoi, D., & Eilers, E. (2007). A Dwarf Form of Killer Whale in Antarctica. Journal of Mammalogy, 88(1), 43-48.

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

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 Part 5: Can Corn Really Save Us?

With oil politics raging and pump prices steadily rising, many are looking to golden rows of corn as an out for the nation’s daunting energy crisis; 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. Although burning biofuel creates less GHG emissions than does gasoline or diesel, one must take into account the emissions that occurred during its production; agriculture is responsible for a sizable portion of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane associated with human activities (Good & Beatty, 2011, p. 1). In a study done by Argonne National Laboratory, it was found that the United States Goal of decreasing its use of petroleum products by replacing them with biofuel would have negligible effects on our GHG emissions, lowering them “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 greenhouse gasses. Many of the beneficial or benign nutrients applied to corn crops are converted into harmful products such as nitrous oxide through the natural metabolic processes of bacteria residing in the soil (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. Burning vegetation in order to clear land releases all of the carbon that was stored in that plant matter; additionally, more carbon will continue to be released slowly as root systems decompose (Holzman, 2008, p. A248). “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).As ethanol production increases the demand for corn, more and more land will need to be converted to cornfields, increasing the unloading of carbon into our atmosphere.

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. The widespread use of chemical fertilizers destroys soil quality, reducing its ability to naturally support crops (Cook, 37).  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. “Compared with the more common corn and soybean rotation, continuous corn planting requires more fertilizer inputs, results in greater nitrogen leaching, is more susceptible to buildups of soil pathogens, and lowers annual yields by about 14%”  (Fargione, Cooper, Flaspohler, Hill, Lehman, Tilman & Oberhauser, 2009, p.668). 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; rain and irrigation allow these nutrients to run into streams and rivers contaminating waterways far away from the source of pollution (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. While the overall level of ground water contamination has declined since the early 90’s, studies show that the decline is due to improvements in areas not related to agriculture such as industrial pollution; agricultural pollution, however, has actually been increasing (Paris, 2011, p.34-36). 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. As the local bacteria work to decompose the excess algae, they use of most of the available oxygen in the process (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. Fertilizers associated with corn production are currently one of the largest sources of nutrient runoff into waterways that drain to the gulf (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). The media focus on the Gulf of Mexico has led to widespread awareness of its hypoxia issues, but there are other less known cases of ecosystems suffering from pollution by agricultural products. Agricultural runoff from North America has caused local damage to coastal areas in the Great Lakes as well as parts of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia (Paris, 2011, p. 39). North America is not the only culprit, studies done in Finnish lake regions attribute up to “37%” of nutrient pollution to agriculture (Rasd, Olin & Ruuhijarvi, 2010, p. 126). Clearly, something must be done about the impacts of conventional farming practices on water sources before expanding the industry to accommodate the nation’s energy needs.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus are not the only agricultural substances posing a major threat to the environment. In addition to water and fertilizer, corn crops are sprayed with a variety of pesticides; these substances range from fairly benign to extremely hazardous chemicals, many of which are known poisons and neurotoxins. Many of the ingredients in common fertilizers “belong to a group of compounds whose specific characteristics classify them as one of the most dangerous for the environment” (Nowik & Dawidowicz, 2011, p. 1259). The amount of chemicals applied to corn crops simply cannot be contained efficiently; the chemicals applied to croplands drain, like minerals, into waterways and even make their way into the atmosphere, showing up in rain and fog hundreds of miles from their source (Cook, 2005, p.36). Pesticides have also been found in an alarming number of rivers and streams, and much of the nation’s groundwater– with especially high numbers near corn growing regions (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). Studies have shown that changes in sparrow populations are directly correlated to the concentration and proximity of large scale farming operations to their habitats (Fargione, Cooper, Flaspohler, Hill, Lehman, Tilman & Oberhauser, 2009, p.668).  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 damaged thyroid glands in birds, deformed frog limbs, decreased sperm count and reduced embryo weight in mosquito fish, and abnormally small or nonfunctioning genitalia in alligators (Hamlin & Guillette, 2010, p. 115-118).

Aside from poisoning by fertilizers and pesticides, steady expansion of the agriculture industry has stressed animal populations through invasion and destruction of habitats. “Anthropogenic habitat loss is usually cited as the most important cause of recent species’ extinctions” (Gibbs, Mackey & Currie, 2009, p.242). With the United States biofuel production goals driving up the demand (and incentive) for corn production, more and more wildlife habitats will inevitably be destroyed or removed in favor of corn fields.

With all that is known about the detrimental effects of conventional farming practices, continuing to expand the industry would be highly irresponsible. For years researchers have been concerned about our current food systems ability to operate efficiently with minimal environmental impacts; if our system cannot feed the nation safely, it certainly cannot be expected to pick up the energy bill. Despite the serious and diverse consequences associated with industrial agriculture, 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 its current highly polluting, inefficient system of agriculture, it cannot be a viable solution to our energy crisis.

References

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

Fargione, J. E., Cooper, T. R., Flaspohler, D. J., Hill, J., Lehman, C., Tilman, D., & … Oberhauser, K. S. (2009). Bioenergy and Wildlife: Threats and Opportunities for Grassland Conservation. Bioscience, 59(9), 767-777. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.8

Gibbs, K. E., Mackey, R. L., & Currie, D. J. (2009). Human land use, agriculture, pesticides and losses of imperiled species. Diversity & Distributions, 15(2), 242-253. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00543.x

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

Nowik, M., & Dawidowicz, A. L. (2011). Krzna River Basin Pollution by Chosen Chloroorganic Pesticides. Polish Journal Of Environmental Studies, 20(5), 1259-1265.

Parris, K. (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

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

Rasd, M. M., Olin, M. M., & Ruuhijarvi, J..(2010). Fish-based assessment of ecological status of Finnish lakes loaded by diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture. Fisheries Management & Ecology, 17(2), 126-133. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00685.x

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.

Final Draft of Research: A Look into the Jeopardy of Birds

A Look into the Jeopardy of Birds

We say something is as dead as a dodo. What is a dodo? It’s a kind of bird that has extinct. The same thing is happening to various birds around the world. Although birds we see may be abundant in amount, at the present they are jeopardized because of alien species and diseases, pollution and unlimited logging, and cats’ threat.

The species distribution around the world has been restricted by the vastitude of oceans and other natural barriers keeping species from invading other species’ environment for eons. However, activities conducted by human beings have circumvented these natural barriers, and, as a result, species are invading other species’ habitat, leading to major disasters. Alien invasions can lead to bad disturbance to forest ecosystems. It can even cause severe socioeconomic impacts.

As is told in Lebbin ‘s book, an invading organism does not always turn into a pest. Though people bear considerable worry over alien species, certain animals, such as the brown tail moth, never became a pest that generated severe impacts in USA.  Some pest’s impacts are overestimated. For example, the scleroderris pathogen that was discovered in the Northeastern U.S. led to impacts to local environment, but the pathogen never spread beyond the area due to climatic restriction.

Some of alien species lead to tremendous impacts on forest resources. The way they generate ecological and economic impacts are similar to that of native pests. Tree growth, mortality, and reproduction can be significantly affected by forest pests. Some alien pests can even impose long-term effects on forest ecosystems, which is spectacular. For example, the chestnut blight fungus has eliminated American chestnut that was a dominant species throughout the eastern U.S. The elimination has forever changed forest ecosystem in America.

As is told in Pimentel‘s article, the invading forest pests’ threat lies in their ability to die out endangered species or endangered ecosystems where endangered species live. We can take the balsam woolly adelgid for example. Feeding by this pest and interactions with atmospheric deposition has caused dying out of Fraser fir in the southern Appalacian Mountains. If the impacts go on, those firs will extinct finally. This kind of fir is favorite habitat for certain birds, especially when these birds are incubating babies. Great decrease of this kind of fir can contribute to the decrease of birth rate of bird babies.

Birds are threatened by diseases around the world. As is told in Di Mauro’s article, West Nile Virus has been closely connected to jays, crows, hawks and other birds. Bird flu is also a common bird disease that can be infected to human beings. It is also called avian influenza technically. Avian influenza is flu infection among birds. The mutation of the virus can start a deadly worldwide epidemic. As is told in Gurjar’s article, the first avian influenza virus emerged in Hongkong in 1997.  The virus has spread around the world till now. Hundreds of people have become sick with this virus, with 60 percent of which died. Diseases such as avian botulism, West Nile Virus and avian influenza that have been mentioned above can spread quickly and may put birds to death in a rather short period.

In the era of globalization, infectious disease thrives due to the movement of goods, labor, and transportation. Epidemics and the diseases started long ago, but they never transmitted as fast as today. As the global economy ties countries closer together, it becomes easier for diseases to spread over borders and cross vast oceans. Those alien virus may be more deadly than domestic ones, which can lead to elimination of local birds.

Pollution is common today, and we can see it all around us. We can find it in the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. Bird, as a major resident on the earth, is in crises due to pollution.

Many people prefer peaceful and quiet environment. In terms of this, birds are similar to human beings. Scientists have proved that noise do have effects on birds’ habits. When there is too much noise, birds’ ability to communicate will be significantly weakened. Birds that communicate at low frequencies always find that their voice are drowned out by noise, which can lead to behavior of disturbance.

Water birds are greatly affected by oil pollution that takes place due to oil spill. As is told in Al-Azab’s article, the oil covers the feathers of the birds and sticks feathers together. When the feathers are covered in oil, their original ability to provide waterproof for water birds are weakened. As a result, the water birds’ skin is exposed to sea water and oil that may jeopardize them. When the birds feel uncomfortable, they will try to clean their feathers, but they end up taking in oil and may die from that. Pesticides and heavy metals that are washed into water can also contribute to decrease in the amount of birds. Fishes take in toxic particles in water. Once they are eaten as food of the water birds, those toxins will accumulate in the birds’ body, which eventually poisons the birds to death.  What’s more, as is told in Al-Azab’s article, water pollutants can reduce oxygen rate in waters, and, as a result, the amount of fishes will decrease. Then the water birds hunting fishes will migrate to other areas, causing natural unbalance.

Due to industrialization, people are generating air with poor quality by emitting poisonous gas into the air. The air mixed with smog and noxious gases have a devastation effect on the bird population in industrial areas. Moreover, as is told in Bhaskar ‘s article, these pollutants have even lifted up to arctic region. Birds lived in arctic region can be greatly affected, especially those birds bearing high respiratory rates because high respiratory rates make them more susceptible to pollutants in the air and to airborne impurities.

As we all know, forests are birds’ favorite habitat to live. Birds can’t live without forests. It’s common sense. However, we human beings also need forests as resources for products like paper and furniture. In many areas around the world, due to the absence of watchdog, unlimited hagging activities happen. To make things worse, a protection afterwards to recover forests doesn’t get executed. People even cut down original trees to grow new species of trees that can produce more wood, but birds won’t live on the latter trees. As a result, birds lost their resource of food and their habitats, and a lot of them migrate to other areas, and a lot of them dies due to incompatibility with new environment.

Cats are also a factor playing an important role in birds amount decrease. Cats, as people’s favorite pets and excellent hunters, have been brought to every continent and island humans have set foot in and they survived in most cases. The first recorded domestic cat was in Egypt, 3,600 years ago. In the words of researcher William Reville, “Cats witness the prosperity of Egypt and then they reached Greece, from where they spread throughout the Roman Empire. They spread to the east about 2,000 years ago along trade routes. The Mayflower brought cats to the US and cats reached Australia with European explorers in the 1600s” (Reville). Despite our familiarity with cats, they were actually introduced species to many continents.

Cats have become pests to a good many countries on every continent, due to their survival skills and superior fertility. Cats are pests because they cause ecological disequilibrium through killing and diversion of resources from native species. Cats’ instincts of hunting are extremely strong. Unlike some endangered species, for example panda, cats’ strong curiosities enable them to learn fast and dependently. Owners may have noticed that their lovely baby cats are becoming a sufficient hunter only by following its hunter’s natural instincts. Cats are species that will still hunt even though we dote on them.

Cats kill whether or not they are feral or someone’s pet. It is undeniable that owned domestic cats kill large numbers of birds. The originator and coordinator of the “Cats Indoors!” campaign, Linda Winter, argues that at estimate, hundreds of millions of birds and more than a billion small mammals are killed by domestic cats each year in the US alone (Winter). Also, a questionnaire survey of the numbers of animals brought home by domestic cats Felis catus was conducted by a group of biological scientists of University of Bristol in Britain, which revealed that birds were a primary food resource for cats: “A total of 14,370 prey items were brought home by 986 cats living in 618 households. Mammals made up 69% of the items, birds 24%, amphibians 4%, reptiles 1%, fish<1%, invertebrates 1% and unidentified items 1%. A minimum of 44 species of wild bird, 20 species of wild mammal, four species of reptile and three species of amphibian were recorded” (Woods et al).

In the United States, there are over 66 million pet cats (Winter). Also, even in a country like Australia where cats are mainly pests, there were 2.6 million pet cats in 1.8 million houses households (26% of households in Australia) in 1998 (woods et al). What influence could domestic cats have on the native environment in such large population? Ornithologists had noticed the declining of bird population years ago. Lepczyk has also noted, “Since the mid-1960s, long-term data on breeding birds have indicated that many species are declining or fluctuating throughout the Midwest and Eastern United States” (Lepczyk et al 191). And a new study shows that one of humans’ specific behaviors that could negatively impact breeding birds is allowing domestic cats to go outside.Cats frequently kill birds and the combined impact of predation by millions of cats may have a substantial effect on the amount of birds.

Too many cat lovers mistakenly believe their animals are innocent bystanders in the slaughter, says Erin Luther of the Toronto Wildlife Centre (Kalinowski). And they probably don’t have much chance of noticing their own putty tat from going after the birds at the neighbour’s feeder either, says Erin Luther (Kalinowski). These bird feeders are placed in order to help native bird and migrating bird populations recover, but turned out to be a slaughter place. Cats just need to hide behind the feeders and wait, and what a trap! Domestic cats are savaging the North American songbird population, with some U.S estimates suggesting cats kill 1 billion birds a year (Kalinowski). We brought our pets to a place where they don’t deserve to be. We once promised that we will never abandon them, but cat owners are abandoning cats when they can’t afford to give them a warm home. In the US alone, hundreds of cats are being abandoned every day, nowadays (CCTV). We are in common with cats at the point of inconstancy in some degree. We still hope our pet cats can make a living by themselves and they have, but the costs are heavy. Cats can survive without our care and flourish their lineage due to their prolificacy. An owner may never think of what kind of problem could be caused by abandoning a cat, especially when it hasn’t been desexed. One female can breed 30 baby cats at most in one year. Only in 7 years her descendants will exceed 3 million (CCTV).

Measures must be taken before it’s too late. According to the discussion above, birds are jeopardized by us. Birds lose their habitats because of pollution and unlimited logging. We human beings are also generating global warming, which is another disaster for birds. Birds are adept to certain environment, but, at the present, we human beings are destroying it. We may not realize that because our negative effects on birds are not direct, but we actually significantly impact their life and jeopardize them due to the things we are doing. Cat is also a source of jeopardy. Cats are born predators. They may be killing birds when we thought they are wandering cozily outside. Cats like predating birds and they are of large amount, so it is quite reasonable that cats are great threat to birds. It’s time to limit our behavior and to make some change. Only by doing this can we save those lovely birds.

Works Cited

Al-Azab, M.; El-Shorbagy, W.; Al-Ghais, S. (2005). Oil Pollution and its Environmental Impact in the Arabian Gulf Region. Elsevier Science. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Behavior & Traning.: Spend the Day with a Behavior Counselor.” Cats magazine.  01 April.         2000: 18. ArticleFirst. OCLC. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Bhaskar, P. (2009). Air Pollution and Plant Biotechnology. Mangalam Publishers. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Blackburn, Tim M.; Lockwood, Julie L.; Cassey, Phillip (2009). Avian Invasions : The Ecology and Evolution of Exotic Birds. OUP Oxford. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Cat.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 1 Oct. 2009: 1-2. Academic Search Premier.     EBSCO.

Di Mauro, Filippo; Dees, Stephane; Lombardi, Marco J (2010). Catching the Flu from the United States : Synchronisation and Transmission Mechanisms to the Euro Area. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Gurjar, Bhola R. (2010). Air Pollution : Health and Environmental Impacts. CRC Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Keep Cats Inside — and Entertained.” USA Today. Aug 10.2009. Academic Search            Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Krautwald-Junghanns, Maria-Elisabeth; Pees, Michael; Reese, Sven; Tully, Thomas (2010). Diagnostic Imaging of Exotic Pets : Birds, Small Mammals, Reptiles. Schlutersche GmbH. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Lebbin, Daniel J.; Parr, Michael J.; Fenwick, George H.; Franzen, Jonathan (2010). The American    Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Lepczyk, Mertig, et al. “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.”           Biological Conservation 115.2 (2004):191.

Michael Calvera, Sandra Thomasa, Stuart Bradleya, Helen McCutcheonb. “Reducing the             Rate of Predation on Wildlife by Pet Cats: The efficacy and practicability of    collar-mounted pounceprotectors.” Biological            Conservation 137.3(2007):341-348.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.

Pimentel, David (2011). Biological Invasions : Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species. CRC Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Reville, William. “Evidence Suggests It was Cats Who Chose Humans.” Irish Times 16 July.           2009. Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 20 Nov 2009.

Rock, Michael T. (2002). Pollution Control in East Asia : Lessons from Newly Industrializing Economies. RFF Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Sims Victoria, Karl L. Evans, Stuart E. Newson, Jamie A. Tratalos and Kevin J. Gaston

“Avian Assemblage Structure and Domestic Cat Densities in Urban Environments.”          Diversity & Distributions 14.2 (2008):387-399. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.          19 Nov. 2009.

“Speak to your cat: Never abandon.” CCTV: Podcast community Sep 3. 2008. Nov 20.2009.         (http://search.cctv.com/tv/tv.php?type=video&q=%E8%AF%B7%E5%AF%B9%E4%BD   %A0%E7%9A%84%E7%8C%AB%E8%AF%B4%E6%B0%B8%E4%B8%8D%E9%81        %97%E5%BC%83.)

Tess, Kalinowski. “Outside Kitties a Catastrophe for Birds.” Toronto Star. 24 Aug.2009.     Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Tameka Brockbank. “Importer Set for a Cat Fight to Claw; Back Compensation for Pet Ban”       Gold Coast Bulletin, 04. Aug. 2008. Print.

Winter, Linda “Cats indoors!.” Earth Island Journal 14.2 (1999): 25. Academic Search       Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Woods, Michael, Bobble. Mcdonald, and Stephen Harris “Predation of Wildlife by            Domestic Cats Felis Catus in Great Britain.” Mammal Review 33.2 (2003): 174-188.    Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Research Final Draft: Better Living Through Lack of Convention

Ashliegh M. Ariss

English 213X

Better Living Through Lack of Convention

Choosing organic has its many benefits to local famers, the people that consume the food and the environment that it is grown in. Not only is the consumer supporting healthy eating but they are supporting a healthy earth. Eating organic foods used to be a way of life before science and conventional farming methods were introduced to mass produce larger quantities of goods to consumers. Preservatives were introduced as a method of keeping food fresher for a longer period of time. Preservatives change the structure of the food that is packaged for resale in order to get to consumers in groceries stores before spoiling and having longer shelf life. What some consumers fail to realize is that preservatives kill other living cells. Organic farming is healthier and provides more nutrients to the consumer and soil.  Although consumers are paying more by purchasing organically farmed foods, it is healthier to the consumer and the environment.  Most consumers may not know the actual price that it costs the earth’s surface and the environment when purchasing goods that are not organic and filled with harsh chemicals. Industrialized farming methods cause a great deal of harm to the ecosystem and surrounding habitats. Although eating organic food appears to be more expensive it is actually cheaper in the long run because the food that is consumed has no preservatives, it lacks pesticides and chemicals that kill living organisms and erode the earth’s surface, and it uses less energy than conventional farming.

Often time’s people do not think of the effects of farming foods and the environment when shopping for their weekly grocery list. Cassetty (2010) states that “organics are generally pricier than conventionally produced food” (p.51) and therefore, can become an increasing expense in a household budget for food items. The organic section in the grocery store is often smaller than the rest and costs consumers a considerable amount more to purchase then food with a sticker or label that states, organic (Crawford, 2010 p. 102). What people fail to realize is the effect of farming foods that are not organic and the harm that it costs the environment versus industrialized farming. Organic means that you are purchasing a food or a product that contains no additives aimed at increasing the shelf life of a product, whereas  non-organic foods often have extra ingredients aimed at helping the product last longer or appear more attractive to the consumer, (Barnard, 2010, p. 26). Zevnik (2009) states that “the basic requirements for organic labeling are avoidance of synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge, farmland that has been free of chemicals for a prescribed number of years; detailed written records; and periodic on-site inspections” (p. 45). Chappell (2008) states that “Strawberries are on the Environmental Working Group’s “dirty dozen” list of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that contain the most pesticide residues” (p.96). Conventional farming uses large amounts of preservatives to keep food from rotting over longer periods of times. However, the side effects that is hard to the earth to produce mass quantities of food at a cheap price to the consumer come at a greater cost to the environment. There are antimicrobial food additives; other preservatives contain ethanol and methylchloroisothiazolinone, propionic acid, and MSG (Masjedi, 2003, p. 149). These preservatives cause not only health concerns for the consumers but also kill the living cells of other plants or insects that surround them. MSG is a common preservative that causes major health concerns and is usually posted where it is commonly used. It can cause the consumer headaches, difficulty breathing, chest pain, drowsiness, and nausea (Moore-Thorpe, 2009, p.147). Long term health concerns for the use of preservatives also include respiratory problems, anaphylactic allergic reactions, cancer, and noted birth defects (Palmer, 2010, p. 2). Most packaging material for products also contains preservatives. Sulfide is a common preservative on packaging material. Many consumers are finding that they are allergic to the sulfide in the packaging. Now, the FDA has made the food industry state on the packaging if the material contains sulfide.

Many foods that are not organic contain pesticides and chemicals that are harmful to the environment and harmful to the consumer (Crinnion, 2010, p. 6).  Dangour (2010) states that “certified organic farmers produce foods according to a strict set of specified standards, which control the use of chemicals in crop production and medicines in animal production, and are required to pay particular attention to the impact of their farming practices on the wider environment” (p. 1). Many pesticides and chemicals kill livestock and other animals. Pesticides are used to destroy or prevent insects, weed, birds, and other things from killing the crop. However, pesticides are very toxic to consumers and very toxic to the land and other animals if consumed.  “Price Perspective” (2010) states that “ the non-profit organization Environmental Working Group published its “Dirty Dozen” list o the conventional produce mostly highly contaminated with pesticides: celery, peaches, strawberries, apples, blueberries, nectarines, bell peppers, spinach, cherries, kale/collard greens, potatoes, grapes (imported)” (p. 3). Pesticides can cause water pollution and other contamination of soil and vegetation. Rich (2008) states that “chemical pesticides dampens the mobilization of a plant’s own defenses” (p. 27). Crop dusters often spray the pesticides on a field and further pollute the environment with the gases that hurt the ozone layer. Farmers use the pesticides to prevent their crop from being destroyed by insects and other weeds and plants. But, the pesticides are toxic to not just the insects and weeds that they are trying to prevent from ruining their crop. They are also very harmful and toxic to other agriculture and vegetation that does not need to be compromised by the chemical (Williamson, 2007, p. 104).

Pesticide drift is something that is people are starting to research and learn more about as well. While the crop dusters spray the area for the crop with the pesticides they do not take into consideration where the pesticides fall as long as the crop gets dusted with the chemical. Pesticides can often drift with the direction of the wind and can spread across several miles of land. This can also lead to contamination of the water table which can negatively impact the environment and water source for human consumption and animals. Spedding (2006) states that “‘organic’ is better nutritionally and that their production methods are better for ‘the environment’ and especially wildlife” (p. 187). Pesticide drift can also cause toxic effects to other foliage and animals by contaminating their ecosystem. Spray drift is often a type of pesticide drift that is supposed to be sprayed directly onto the crop and can often times float to surrounding homes and forestry and other ecosystems. Volatilization drift is also dangerous and occurs when the pesticides vaporizes off the plant or soil several days later and then creates a cloud of vapor that can drift off into nearby neighborhoods and other plants and water sources. Conner (2003) states that “the NOP requires organic producers to maintain buffer zones of sufficient size or other features (e.g., windbreak or diversion ditch) to prevent contamination of their fields (p. 5). These methods seem not only difficult to maintain but also almost impossible to enforce. Not only can both of these types of pesticides make people, animals, and other ecosystems sick but it is also very toxic to the land and the plants and is often hard to recover (Spedding, 2006, p. 189). Regardless of whether pesticide drift is intentional or not, it happens. Pesticides cause more harm and deter healthy soil and land from growing.

Lastly, fossil fuels are used to create and make the pesticides that are used to spray the crop. Fossil fuels create green house and methane gases which pollute the earth and ruin the ozone layer. Pesticides are also distributed by airplane or a crop-duster and thus use fuel and pollute the earth, the air, and the air quality further. Pesticides then deplete the top soil. Depleting the top soil causes erosion to the land. This then creates poor soil and growing conditions and causes less nutrient in the food. Most consumers do not realize the effect that it causes on their food. Soil erosion can be life threatening to the habitats that live within that ecosystem and can also be irreversible. Once some ecosystems are gone, they can never be recovered. Nor, do they realize that the growing conditions often have a negative effect on their food and create fewer nutrients for consumption. Soil is the safety net for many different ecosystems. When the soil has been polluted by pesticides it causes friction for those life forms and their inhabitants (Castelo-Grande, 2010, p. 439). The chemicals from the pesticides causes an ecosystem or habitat that other life forms are unable to survive in and therefore ends up killing everything except for that crop or vegetation.

Pesticides and fossil fuels also increase energy consumption. Organic foods are raised completely pesticide and chemical free. Organic food uses renewable energy sources whereas conventional or factory farming uses non-renewable energy sources. For instance, some vegetables and other crops are able to be grown in a green house which absorbs energy from the sun. Whereas, other conventional farming methods grow their crops by using non-renewable electrical energy to boost their grow rates and rapid marketing. Organic food also uses natural fertilizers. All of the fertilizers are naturally occurring such as manure, slurry, and worms. Organic fertilizers also have increased nutrient content. Therefore, it is better for richer soil and the environment as well as healthier for the consumer. Organic fertilizers also create healthier soil. Natural compost contains more vitamins and minerals which then are able to provide it to the vegetation and the land without compromising other habitats. Due to the fact you are using existing nutrients from the soil rather than an artificial influx brought on by pesticides and preservatives. Is also helps to prevent topsoil erosion whereas pesticides and other chemicals actually cause top soil erosion and create soil that is not good for farming. The great dust bowl of the 1930’s is a perfect example of what can happen to top soil that is harvested carelessly. The costs for organic fertilizer are also a factor that should be considered. Pesticides and fuel cost a great deal of money whereas organic fertilizer is naturally occurring and cheap if not free. Cows are able to graze on land which then creates manure. For instance, the manure is then able to fertilize the land and creates great and rich soil that is ideal for growing crops and other vegetation for the land. Although naturally occurring fertilizers often take a longer time for the crop to grow it costs the land less because it does not damage the soil, the agriculture, the consumers, the plants, and the other animals that graze or live in that ecosystem (Scollan, 2006, p. 43).

Eating organic is more than a preferred choice of healthy eating. It costs consumers more financially, but in the end, it is less expensive to the environment and it pays for a healthier lifestyle for people and surrounding ecosystems. Factory farming contains a large amount of preservatives and chemical pesticides. These chemicals kill living organisms, are toxic to the land, the ecosystems, plants, wildlife, the soil, and the water table. Pesticides are not a chemical that only affects the plant or organism that has been sprayed. It affects the entire ecosystem and cannot be washed away after harvesting that plant for the season.  Although eating organic may appear to be more expensive in the short run, it costs the environment and the ecosystem a great deal less in the long run. Pleasant (2010) states “systemic pesticides are in the plant not on it When we make the plant itself poisonous to predators, one has to wonder what (or who) else it’s poisoning” (p. 16). Before consumers go to their local market and purchase goods that do not state organic, they should stop to think what their wallet is really paying for and who pays for it.

References

Barnard, N. D. (2010). why go organic?. Vegetarian Times, (379), 26-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Cassetty, S. B. (2010). ORGANIC FOOD: what’s really worth it. Good Housekeeping, 251(5), 51-59. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Castelo-Grande, T., Augusto, P. A., Monteiro, P., Estevez, A. M., & Barbosa, D. (2010). Remediation of soils contaminated with pesticides: a review. International Journal Of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 90(3-6), 438-467. doi:10.1080/03067310903374152. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Chappell, M. (2008). strawberries. Vegetarian Times, (359), 96. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

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. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dangour, A. D., Allen, E., Lock, K., & Uauy, R. (2010, April). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods — using systematic reviews to question the available evidence. Indian Journal of Medical Research. pp. 478-480. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hayes, S. (2010). The Organic Option. Scholastic Parent & Child, 18(2), 102. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Masjedi, K. K., Ahlborg, N. N., Gruvberger, B. B., Bruze, M. M., & Karlberg, A. T. (2003). Contact Dermatitis and Allergy Methylisothiazolinones elicit increased production of both T helper (Th)1- and Th2-like cytokines by peripheral blood mononuclear cells from contact allergic individuals. British Journal Of Dermatology, 149(6), 1172-1182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2003.05750.x. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Moore-Thorpe, A. P. (2009). Organic 101. Essence (Time Inc.), 40(1), 147. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Palmer, S. (2010). An Ounce of Prevention against Toxins in the Food System. Environmental Nutrition, 33(11), 2. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pesticides and Genetic Drift: Alternative Property Rights Scenarios. (2003). Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm & Resource Issues, 18(1), 5-7. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pleasant, B. (2010). Systematic Pesticides: Chemicals You Can’t Wash Off. Mother Earth News, (242), 16-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Price Perspective on Organic Foods. (2010). Environmental Nutrition, 33(11), 3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rich, D. (2008). Not All Apples Are Created Equal. Earth Island Journal, 23(1), 26-30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Scollan, D. (2006). Beyond Organic. E: The Environmental Magazine, 17(1), 42-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Spedding, C. (2006). Organic food production. (Cover story). Biologist, 53(4), 187-189. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Williamson, C. S. (2007). Is organic food better for our health?. Nutrition Bulletin, 32(2), 104-108. doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00628.x. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Zevnik, N. (2009). the ORGANIC CONUNDRUM. Better Nutrition, 71(9), 44-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.