PDS APES 5th Period 2009-10

On Wednesday we reviewed some of the qualities of soil.  To do this, we looked at a soil profile, and we also made our own edible version.

A soil profile is a view of the different layers of soil from the side, so it’s easy to separate each one.  These layers are also called horizons, and there are four  main ones that our text mentions- O, A, B, and C. Page 49 of our text has a good description as well.      http://soils.usda.gov/education/resources/lessons/profile/profile.jpg

A soil profile that contains the basic horizons.

Each of the horizons have distinct qualities that separate them from the others:

• O- This is made up of the seasoned, dead organic matter known as “leaf litter.” It contains detritivores, and other small insects. The material we collected during the Davidson field trip was the O layer.
• A- This is the topsoil. Combined with the O and E, which isn’t necessary to know, layers it makes up the zone of leaching. Humus is also found in this horizon. Humus is the nutrient-rich soil that is dark brown in color.
• B- This is the subsoil and the zone of accumulation.
• C- This is the parent material, which is made up of weathered, larger rocks. The R horizon lies below the C and is known as bedrock, but it isn’t necessary to know this layer either.

We then went on to make our own ice cream version.  First we added cookies, which were the R layer, next was the ice cream, which was the C layer.  On top of that we put whipped cream as the B layer and pudding represented the A layer. The O layer was a combination of nuts, chocolate chips, and other toppings. This helped us to visualize what makes up each of the horizons.

We also reviewed a soil triangle; it might be nice to make sure you know how to read one- clay is read on the horizontal, and silt and sand are read on the diagonal.

A soil triangle, notice how each one is read on different angles.

http://www.oneplan.org/Images/soilMst/SoilTriangle.gif

A review over the qualities of sand, silt, and clay:

Sand- It is the largest of the three and is very permeable, so it doesn’t retain water well. This results in lots of leaching, which causes nutrients to be lost because they are “leached” downwards through the horizons. This causes sand to have poor nutrient retention. On the other hand, it has very good water infiltration (absorption), but poor aeration.

Silt- It is the second largest and retains water and nutrients fairly well. Its aeration and ability to absorb water are fair too.

Clay- It is the smallest of the three, and  retains water and nutrients well.  However, it has poor water absorption and aeration.

A combination of the three soils makes the “best” type of soil, which is known as loam. Loam exhibits the best qualities of all three particles, which is why it’s so good.

That was about it, so I hope this helps anyone who needed a review of soil!

If you enjoyed “The Meatrix,” then you’ll enjoy this short parody too…

Hey APES class!

Question 43 on the study guide asks for alternatives to synthetic pesticides. The book lists “natural enemies/biological controls” and explains that introducing a natural predator could help reduce the numbers of the pests. Granted, later in the paragraph the text qualifies this statement by acknowledging that sometimes introducing foreign species is disruptive to ecosystems. Nevertheless, I’m having a hard time reconciling this statement after watching Cane Toads.  Is this actually a legitimate solution, or is it sort of hit or miss? Are there any examples of this strategy working without the predator totally invading the habitat like in Cane Toads?

Thanks! -Coco

Number 3 on the study guide asks that if “we, humanity, produces more than enough food to meet the basic nutritional needs of every person on earth, why do one in six people in developing countries not get enough to eat?”  Food insecurity, or living with chronic hunger and malnutrition that threatens the ability to lead healthy and productive lives is one of the main topics the book brings up about this subject.  Poverty, war, and corruption also are reasons people have poor access to food.  Did we ever discuss why the US or other developed nations don’t take part in helping these poorer countries have food to survive?  I think we might have discussed this in class, but I thought since I was questioning myself on it, I would see if anyone else remembered what we said…thanks!

Question 32 on the study guide asks what is the most sustainable form of meat production/consumption, and I wrote down that shifting from animal protein (like beef or pork) to poultry or herbivorous farmed fish would be the most sustainable form, but I don’t really understand why.  Is it because less grain is used to feed the animals, which will help the environment by reducing the large-scale agriculture?  

Also, question 35 asks about bycatch. We learned about that from the movie, but I wrote down that because it isn’t profitable, it is chopped up and pumped back into the ocean, which we didn’t see in the movie.  The bycatch, such as the shark, was just thrown back in dead but as a whole animal, so I was just wondering if those are just two different ways to dispose of bycatch, or if I’m misunderstanding what I wrote from the book.

Today we watched a good bit of the PBS documentary Empty Oceans, Empty Nets. Feel free to click around the movie web site if you want want to explore the issues further.  What were the main points?

1.  The Problem. Yes, we seem to be overfishing the oceans.  In the last 4 years, numerous articles have come out predicting the collapse of most commercial fisheries by 2050.  If you have 5 minutes, read this very current article cleverly titled, “Aquacalypse Now: The End of Fish.”  This brief public service announcement give some reasons WHY this is happening and what we might do about it.

2. Causes.  As mentioned in the PSA above, many of the “industrial” fishing methods used by large vessels or factory ships have the potential to remove fish from our oceans in massive quantities.  Check out the animations at this Monterery Bay Aquarium web site of bottom-trawling, longlining, and purse-seine fishing techniques.  Additionally, each of these method capture different types of bycatch (bykill).  The movie we watched stated that for every pound of catch in the US fisheries, there may be five pounds of bycatch.  Sometimes, it may include endangered animals like sea turtles.

US Fishing Methods

Image source: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_gear.aspx

3.  Solutions: We saw several solutions throughout the film.

• Since this is a commons issue (oceans fisheries), governments can regulate fisheries by setting quotas in their territorial waters.  Anything involving species migrating across oceans and/or beyond those 200 miles offshore has to be addressed by international treaty, but enforcement becomes problematic.
• Governments can establish marine protected areas (MPAs), marine reserves, or marine sanctuaries in their territorial waters.  Check this link for the US system of MPAs.  These are safe areas for fish to hide and breed as fishing there is usually banned.
• Consumers can create more demand for fish taken from sustainable fisheries. You can download a pocket guide from this web site, or I can give you a printed pocket guide when you return.  I gave them out in class for folks to keep in a wallet or pocketbook.  I think there is also an app for mobile phones/ iPhones at that link!

Sustainable Seafood Guide

Image source: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx

Much of this is covered in your text, but I think it is hard to really appreciate the impact of these commercial scale fishing methods unless you SEE them.  You are always welcome to borrow the DVD from me…

I told folks I’d handle scribe post duties today, so here goes. We made lists of organic farming techniques that students viewed at green.tv in the Food for Life videos (homework). While these videos were based on the UK’s Soil Association organic standards, they are almost the same as the USDA National Organic Program organic standards (established by the 1990 Organic Food Production Act). For the test, you need to know the USDA definition of organic (I have a handout for you) and methods farmers must use to earn this label:

USDA Organic Label

Image source: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOP

On the outside chance that today’s discussion was of interest and you want to know more, here’s what comes to my mind. This summer I finished The Ominvore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, by Michael Pollan (2006). Wow. What do you eat for dinner when you can eat anything-and how do you know it is safe? That, in a nutshell, is the omnivore’s dilemma. More importantly, Pollan tries to trace what we eat to the sources. Along the way, you discover some of the “why” we eat what we do…and the answers are sometimes quite unappetizing.

I was thrilled to move to a yard last fall that gave me the room to garden again. Our last lot was too small. Here is my 10 x 20 foot raised-bed garden at about 60 days after planting:

My Garden

My daughter helped me plant it in last April. We grew tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, onions, potatoes, corn, squash, carrots, and herbs (oregano, basil, rosemary, cilantro, mint)–all in this small space. While I can’t grow all my veggies, I’m glad I can show my kids where food comes from, other than the grocery. I’ve read the average piece of produce in an American supermarket travels some 1,500 miles! It takes a tremendous amount of oil to ship out-of-season “fresh” produce to our grocery stores. So, my little garden is an attempt to save some oil in a way. People make a great deal of fuss about buying organic without realizing that large-scale organic (like Whole Foods) uses a lot of energy resources. Perhaps the MOST “environmentally-friendly” food choice one can make is to buy local.

Pollan also explores industrialized meat production (feedlots or CAFOs). I don’t want to get to far into that topic today as someone has already blogged on it in from your class. He affirms much of what was documented by Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation (2001). Another gripping read about the American diet–I think you guys did in 9th grade? If the topic interests you, keep your eyes open for the documentary movie Food, Inc., which was in theaters this summer. I know Time Warner has it on DVR currently. Check out the trailer (it features Pollan and Schlosser):

So, do you know where your food comes from?

In class last Friday, we had a class “conversation” in which we discusses the pros and cons of Genetically Modified Organisms.

According to our textbook, a GMO is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered by genetic engineering (inserting alien genes to obtain a beneficial genetic trait). These are also referred to as transgenic organisms. GMFs (genetically modified foods) are a sub-category of GMOs.

Gene Splicing is the process by which a gene of one organism is transfered to another (http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/virtual_labs/BL_22/BL_22.html). This technology began in the 1980s and has become more prevalent over the years.

Pros and Cons of GMOs (Summarized)

Pros:

• Allow for more production which leads to cheaper food for consumers
• Crop resistance to pesticides and herbicides provide chemical companies (“cide” producers) with a business opportunity and contribute to the first point
• This technology and/or the crops the GMOs themselves can be used to feed developing nations***(1)
• Commercial farmers prosper economically by spending less money on more crops
• Some GMFs (corn) are grown rapidly, then used to feed livestock (helps them grow bigger and faster)
• Mass production allows Americans the luxury of “picking and choosing” from a large food variety

Cons:

• Word hunger has risen despite rise in GMO use
• Large scale, GMO dependent agriculture pushes smaller farmers out of business
• Gene flow along with the mating of GMOs and wild species poses problems***(2)
• Lead to more pesticide and herbicide use (more “harmful” mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, etc.)
• Companies like Monsonto create terminator genes (ensures that their bioengineered plants had no progeny). This forces farmers to buy new seeds year after year rather than reuse.
• Expensive technology
• Massive amounts of land needed to cultivate GMFs (leads to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss)
• Moral controversy (Do humans have the right to “play GOD”?)

***Explanations:

1. This can also be a con. It can also be argued that if developed countries simply ship this abundance of food (due to GMOs) to developing countries, then farmers in these nations will lose business opportunities which could lead to more poverty.
2. Two examples: a-legal disputes can arise if patented genetically modified seeds blow to an “unauthorized” neighboring farm (Maonsonto vs. Schmeiser).  b-mating of transgenics and wild species could cause offspring to be susceptible to viruses (could wipe out species).

A Few GMO Examples:

Liberty Link Corn has been genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.

The salmon in the back has been genetically modified to grow faster.

Final Note:

Does the consumption of GMOs come with long term health risks? The answer: None have been scientifically proven; however, this technology is fairly new.

We are what we eat. For Americans that means we eat a lot of processed foods. When you pick up a bag of potato chips, its easy to see that the product is unnatural, the chip didn’t fry itself and dip it in oil man did that. But what about the meat we eat? In class today we talked about how the meat production industry has changed since the early 1980′s, about the mechanism that replaced the stereotypical small farmer, CAFO’s.

CAFO’s, or Condensed Agriculture Feed Operations is brain child of antibiotics and genetically modified corn. GM corn allows for cheap feed for cows, while antibiotics allows for livestock to bypass population density inhibitors along with an increased growth rate. What this means is that we can now feed more cows, aka produce more meet in less room. That may sound like a simple achievement, but these adjustments allowed for a much higher rate of meat production than other farming methods by fencing animals as tightly as possible, and fattening them as fast as possible.

Just because the CAFO business is booming doesn’t mean that grass fed cattle operations don’t exist. There are still farmers who feed livestock on open pastures or fenced ranged land. But compared to CAFO, the output is so low, increasing pricing that grass fed operations only operate a small consumer niche of the market. Although economic incentives are virtually nonexistent in this market, there are ecological and personal incentives to eat grass fed.

As mentioned in King Corn, the ratio of saturated fat per t-bone in grass fed to corn fed is 5 to 9, almost double, which helps explain rising obesity rates. This along with the fact that cows aren’t meant to eat corn brings up some potential health issues. Other than health issues, by using feedlots, though we are conserving biodiversity by using less land, we promote other environmental issues. With high production of meat comes high production of manure, and methane(global warming gas). Although manure could be a plus since it could be used for fertilizer, with the sheer amount of manure produced by all the cattle, shipping all the manure is not possible and a fair amount of manure will end up traveling down watersheds and causing algae bloom in bodies of water. With high antibiotic use, people worry about the potential of feedlots breeding super drug resistant strains of bacteria also.

Criticism of CAFO’s are different in every country. In Europe, the precautionary principle came first, so GMO’s have been banned along with use of steroids on cattle, destroying CAFO’s. America on the other hand, has embraced the technology producing tons upon tons of corn beef. With no strong health benefits there is no clear winner. I just hope China has grass fed beef, so I don’t have to worry about ulcered cow stomach meat.

Made by KC.

So for those of  us not in class Thursday, (Meaghan…) we finished King Corn–> kingcorn.net and discussed the environmental and economic advantages and disadvantages associated with industrialized agriculture.

Summary (sorry if there’s overlap, I can’t remember where we stopped Wed.):

When we last left Ian and Curt, the pair was in Brooklyn investigating high fructose corn syrup and soda consumption in NYC. 70% percent of all high fructose corn syrup produced goes into beverages, so it’s no surprise that one in eight New Yorkers have diabetes.

Carl and Ian spend some more time looking into the sunset and playing baseball, but eventually harvest time rolls around. Now they must decide what to do with their harvest. After calculating the market rate for each bushel of corn, and subtracting the costs of renting the land, buying seeds and herbicides, Carl and Ian lost money.

So how do farmers grow money growing corn, anyway? The pair talk with that older farmer that’s usually hanging around to find out the answer: government subsidies. Without these subsidies, Mr. Experienced Farmer explains, no one would make a profit. Corn is being produced at such high rates (the county had a record harvest, remember the overflowing grain elevator?) that the market is flooded and prices dive down. The farmers are making a profit off of the government.

Carl and Ian then go and talk to Earl Butz, (the Nixon-era Secretary of Agriculture and brainchild of the subsidy system) and he explains that the prior policy subsidized farmers not to grow, but he didn’t think this was right. Butz’s program of providing government subsidies encouraged production, not discouraged it.

It turns out that Carl and Ian do make money off of their acre, but it’s only because of  government subsidies. In the end, they buy the land. The closing shot of the film shows the pair playing baseball (what else) in a meadow-like patch of land (their acre) that’s surrounded by a million other corn fields. It’s their comment on the impersonalization of agriculture. The family farm doesn’t exist anymore; it’s all industrialized agriculture. Most of the corn that’s grown isn’t even edible, it is processed into cow feed or syrupy sweeteners.

Then we got out the dry erase boards to evaluate the environmental and economical pros and cons of industrialized agriculture.  Take a look:

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

There was of course,  debate regarding the statements on the boards. For example, the ecological board lists a con noting that industrialized agriculture decreases biodiversity by supporting monoculture, yet the pro board claims a protection of biodiversity since the land is used more efficiently, thus reducing the need to cultivate new fields. It’s a matter of opinion, really. As we’ve learned throughout the course of the class, there is rarely a clean cut right or wrong answers concerning the relationship between humans and the natural world.

Hope this helps! Have a lovely long weekend.