Is a Family Farm Better

Lauver: Family farming -- an American tradition that must be preserved

By Andrew Lauver,

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1a9d0ffc-3ffa-11e2-80ac-0019bb2963f4.html

This Article talks about the importance of keeping the family farm. One of the great things about working in a place like this is that it makes the family so much stronger. There are siblings working right next to each other as a team... long ago most people use to live on a farm. Now only about 2% of Americans live on a farm. Soon that number will drop again because the average age of a farmer is 57, not many more years for them to keep the businesses open.  When it come to the new generation replacing their parent there are many things that make this very difficult. One thing is that is making it hard when the children try to plan a future for the land is they often do not agree about what to do with the land. They can sometimes make $20,000 an acre if they sell it. If the family keeps the land, the taxes are a huge burden on the children. To help the family out there are some organizations that will help but not many. To operate a farm it can cost up to one million dollars to set it up and that will make it just reach industry level. A way to help this cause is to education people on this matter. In addition, the government needs to help the family farms. Hopefully, if both of these things are done the agriculture lifestyle can become more popular.

     

  Then                                                       Now

Opinion
I think that it would be great to have a family farm but it is just not practical for the size of our nation’s population for family farms to be the only option. The small family farm is good to serve a family, a community and local manufactures but it is not a good way to feed the country. I also do not agree with factory farming. I think that animals should not be treated as they are in factory farms. It would be good if we could mix the two and have a farm where animals get great care and make enough food to feed a nation as big as America. The use of GMOs on factory farms makes them suitable for producing the majority of the nation’s agriculture but small farms offer safe and humane ways for livestock to live. Perhaps a blending of these two ideas would allow both institutions to succeed.

Questions
What is a benefit of Factory farm?
Should the government be helping in your option?
Which farming is the best to be the major was to farm?
 

Organic Farming

Title:Organic vs. conventional farming: Which uses less energy?

Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/organic-vs-conventional-farming-which-uses-less-energy/2012/11/12/776ad970-2769-11e2-b4f2-8320a9f00869_story.html
Published:By Brian Palmer, Published: November 12
Date:12/10/12

This article talks about organic farming and how it is beneficial to the environment from an energy standpoint. Conventionally grown food and organic food is about the same when it comes to nutritional value. Many people buy organic food because it helps save the environment.Organic food requires more land to produce but it requires less energy. The Rodale Institute has been researching whether organic food really does take less energy to produce then conventionally grown food for over 30 years. Farming 2.5 acres of organic corn takes 10,150 megajoules of energy, while farming 2.5 acres of conventionally grown corn requires 71 percent more. The reason for this is due to nitrogen-based fertilizer that is used. The nitrogen-fertilizer used to grow organic corn comes from cow manure and nitrogen fixing crops such as legumes and these are less energy-intensive sources. Conventional farms use synthetic nitrogen that requires a lot of oil to transport and make. Only about 10 percent of energy goes towards making, and transporting pesticides and herbicides. Most of the energy that is used goes toward transportation, cooking, and disposal of waste, so if someones goal is to cut back on the amount of energy they use it may be more helpful to find more energy efficient cooking methods. 

This is nitrogen- fertilizer on an organic farm

organicfarming.myonlineorganicstore.com

Opinion- I always thought that organic food was healthier and more nutritious  then conventionally grown crops. This article was a surprise to me because I thought that most of the energy that was used on conventionally grown crops came from pesticides and herbicides, it turns out that it actually comes from nitrogen fertilizer. I always purchased as much organic food as I could but for other reasons, now I think I will continue to purchase organic food knowing that it takes less energy to produce it. I also think it is important for people to keep in mind that if their goal is to use less energy then they need to use different methods of cooking, disposal, and transportation to really make a difference. 

Questions- 

1)Do you think it is worth it to purchase organic food? why or why not?

2) Do you think that conventional farms can use less energy, without drastically changing their farming technique?

3) Do you think it is expensive to use the organic nitrogen fixing fertilizer even though it requires less energy? why or why not?

High Lead Levels in Water Causes Concern

High Lead Levels Found in Chicago Water

by: Ellen Gabler

Chicago Tribune

August 5, 2011

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-lead-in-water-20110805,0,2821410.story

In Chicago, high amounts of lead were found in seven of 38 homes during the required testing. A number set in 1990, 15 parts per billion in 10% of water samples, is the maximum amount of lead that can be in a home or pipe before it has to be examined with a closer look. Unfortunately, this number can be fixed, and has been. Utility providers required to do the testing have instructed residents to flush their pipes to remove lead one day before testing. They also use methods old methods that worked two decades ago, but are inaccurate today. After the City of Chicago took it upon themselves to check the water, the numbers were astounding. Although the lead levels do not reach the magic number of 15, they come close. Two homes registered 14.9 and 13.1 parts per billion. Most buildings that have running water have been told to flush their pipes, like schools. The utilities do not want to go through fixing pipes. Cold water supposedly contains less lead. Most utilities collect cold over the hot water that most of us use. High levels of lead can cause IQ loss in children, even death. The City of Chicago is stepping up to take care of this deadly problem.



This is a photo of a family wondering if there is deadly lead material in their drinking water.

The utilities that change the results of lead testing are just wrong. They need to change their methods and lower the parts per billion number. Any amount of lead can be deadly, so why can’t the number be zero or one? Lead is a poisonous material and it needs to be monitored closely. It also needs to be monitored during a typical day. There should be random test days so utilities can’t tell their customers to flush their lines to protect them from losing money. Older homes contain more lead due to the lead-based paints that were used years ago. I live in an old house, built in 1937, and lead paint was used. Concerns obviously arose due to the fact that lead paint was used inside and outside our home. My parents made sure that all areas of the house were “cleansed” of the poisonous material. This is no laughing matter, and we can’t afford to wait for it to be changed. The entire United States needs to change their lead testing right away. There needs to be a sense of urgency right now!

1.       Do you trust your utility provider after reading this article? Why or why not?

2.       Have your parents ever been told to flush their pipes? If so, by what company?

3.       Have you ever feared that lead could be inside of you right now?

4.       Have you ever thought that lead could be inside your house right now? Why or why not?

hunger in America

Hunger In America  by Travis Waldron and Pat Garofalo http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/24/375776/food-insecurity-by-the-numbers/?mobile=nc
10-26-12
Summary

In the year there was 17.2 billion households in the US were there was not enough food. This also represents 14.2% of the households. Within those households and others there was a total of 48.8 million Americans with less food than they should have. The saddest part to this is that children were effected. 3.9 million House hold had not the right amount of food and children. This could partly be blamed on the rise of food prices. Last year they rose 3.6%. 

http://www.laprogressive.com/hunger-in-america-worsens/#sthash.9OmpFpAv.dpbs 

Reflection

When I think of hunger I think of third world countries. Certainly not America to me is seen as a place that has a problem of hunger. I did not know that so many people do not have the right amount of food. It is sad to think that people have to think about where their next meal is coming from. There is always food there for me and I am grateful for that

Questions

1 Could food be a limiting factor for the human race? Explain?

2 After reading this does it change your likelihood of giving to others that have less?

3 Is there a way to better provide food for every one?

Arctic Sea Ice Melting

Title of Article: "Ending Its Summer Melt, Arctic Sea Ice Sets a New Low That Leads to Warnings"
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/science/earth/arctic-sea-ice-stops-melting-but-new-record-low-is-set.html?_r=0
Publication: The New York Times
Date: September 19th, 2012

Summary: 
         Every summer, a drastic amount of the polar ice melts, and then as the colder seasons roll around, it refreezes for the winter. In 2007, the percent of sea ice that covered the surface of the 
Arctic Ocean reached an all time low of 29%. That record was broken this year, in 2012, only 24% of the ocean surface was covered with ice. Many experts believe that this is a result in the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced from human activities. The ice is a very important resource on earth, because it is considered "Earth's Air-Conditioner" and helps keep the plant's temperature regulated.  Although the water refreezes in the winter, it will be substantially thinner and more prone to melting.  If the rapid erosion of the ice continues at this rate of speed, researchers are speculating that in the year 2020, all of the ice will be gone. Even now, the ocean is rising at 1 foot a year, which is an alarming rate, and without any restrictions on emissions, the Polar Ice and the species that inhabit them may be doomed. 


Above is a picture of where the polar ice caps were in 1979, (outlined in red) compared to where they are today. 

Reflection: 
           I think that the health of the planet is rapidly deteriorating, and it needs to be mended somehow. Many species of animals inhabit these regions, and without them, biodiversity will go down, and the oceans will start to become overflowed, and all over the world, the climate and temperatures will be affected greatly. I believe that something needs to be done to help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are heating the planet up.

Questions: 
         1.) How do you believe that the human population can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and emission that is put into the air?
         2.) Do you believe that global warming exists, or is it just something that was bound to happen naturally? 
         3.) Do you think that it is important to put time and money into saving the Arctic Ice? Why or why not? 

Water Scarcity

Title:Water scarcity a reality in SADC

Author:Farirai Machivenyika

Date:10/22/12

Link:http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/news_article.php?id=7533&title=Water%20scarcity%20a%20reality%20in%20SADC&type=83

      Due to global warming and population growth, over five million people in Southern Africa may require humanitarian assistance in 2012 and 2013.There is an increase in the amount of people that require help. In 2011 3.93 million people needed assistance. 200 million people are are at risk for water shortage. Global warming has had a significant impact on weather patterns. Rainfall patterns have become unpredictable, which is bad for Africa because there is an insufficient amount of water there. Many people living in Africa depend on crops that require water. The lack of food and water in Africa has made many people think about how they can help the country receive the food and water that the people need.

peakwater.org

People in Africa trying to find drinking water

Opinion
    I think that it is terrible that 200 million people are at risk of water shortage and may not have enough food. I think that it is good that people are trying to find ways to make water more accessible in Africa and realize that there is an over dependence on rain water. People can not depend on the weather because global warming has made weather unpredictable, they must find other ways to have water available to them. We talked in class about how there are too many people and there are not enough resources. I think that this is a perfect example of why the human population needs to be controlled so that everyone has enough resources and nobody has to suffer. Food and water is a limiting factor in many poor countries such as Africa.

Questions
1)What do you think can be done to help people have clean drinking water in countries such as Africa? 
2)Why do you think people in Africa depend so much on rain? 
3)Who do you think can help Africa the most by supplying food,water,medicine,etc.? Why?

Shifts in the Pacific Ecosystem

Scientists Predict Major Shift in Pacific Ecosystem by 2100

Author: ScienceDaily.com

Date: 10-2-12

Global warming is predicted to change many things on this planet and the oceans are no exception. Experts estimate that in the next century, many important ocean habitats can shift over 600 miles away from their original location, while others will simply stay put. This change in habitation will put stress on already overfished species, increase migration time, and could potentially ruin tourism in many oceanfront areas. Although all of this seems so bad, there are a few species who can adapt and benefit from these drastic changes. Seabirds and tuna are two species that will actually have more food than before! Many scientists are working to preserve and protect delicate areas of the oceans and trying to learn more about the organisms who inhabit them before it is too late. 

Reflection:

I think that the scientists who are studying this topic are going in the right direction and that they should try to stop something like this before it happens. A steady change over time will cause a lot of damage and it will be way better to preserve the oceans habitats than to just let them move. 

 

Questions:

1.) What is the definition of a habitat?

2.) What do you think is more important, to save the ocean habitats or to save tourism?

3.) What species of animals will benefit from the chance of ocean habitats?