Response to "Big Agriculture Creating a New Generation of Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs

Antibiotics are often used in farm animals due to the belief that they reduce risk of the animals getting sick and helps to create larger animal. This constant use of antibiotics is believed to now be "accelerating the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or bacteria that is now unaffected by our common antibiotics. However, these antibiotics don't just stay in the animals. They eventually end up in the soil when deposited in manure. According to a recent study, this regular deposit of antibiotics in the soil of farmland is growing these "super bacteria" in the same soil in which we grow a lot of our agricultural products. 

You may be asking yourself how this could possibly apply to you. In reality, this problem could affect all of us. Due to the fact that we are practically training these bacteria to become resistant to our antibiotics, this puts not only the animals at risk, but also ourselves. A common bacteria found in meat is E. Coli. If we keep this up, and the antibiotics we are feeding these animals stop working, it puts us at serious risk of contracting bacterial diseases and infections. An'd it's not just meat either. Like mentioned before, it's affecting the soil and agricultural products we grow as well.

Now you're probably wondering if there's a way to help this problem. This is where it gets tricky. The antibiotics were originally needed to help stop the spread of bacteria such as E. coli, but now it's almost helping it. So it comes down to the question as to whether it's worth it. If we could find another thing, such as a hormone, that could result in larger animals without the negative side effects that an antibiotic brings, we might have a solution. However, if we went with this route, we once again come across the risk of the bacteria still being able to live in the animals. We have to find a healthy balance.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038312_antibiotic_resistance_superbugs_Big_Agriculture.html

"A Jolt to Complacency on Food Supply"

Last year, in 2012,  the American Corn Belt was greatly affected by a harsh heat wave and drought. In the beginning of the year the Agriculture Department even predicted the largest corn harvest in the history of our country, but the unsurprising climate change dashed hopes. Due to this heat wave, many plants withered, prices rose, and the harvest was 27 percent lower then the Agriculture Department predicted. This drastic plunge is still being discussed by United States scientists, but many believe that climate change caused by human interaction, might be the answer.

This may not be an impending problem at the moment, but in the near future the effects of climate change on our food supply can be disastrous. The impact of global warming on the world's food supply could lead to a rise in hunger and even starvation. In years past scientists have hoped the that increase in carbon dioxide, due to global warming, would be more beneficial for plants than the heat was detrimental. Recently though, scientists have discovered that even though the carbon dioxide is good for the plants, the heat counteracts that. It is going to require even more research to determine the full effects of Global Warming on different plants. One thing is sure, if heat waves continue to strike like the one last year, then the food supply will take definite plunges and in order to survive we will have to find solutions.

Researchers have proposed there may be a few things that can be done to protect plants from the possibility of damage from heat waves. In order to be protected from massive heat waves, crops can be planted sooner and new varieties of plants can be developed so that they are more resistant to climate changes. The intergovernmental panel has also proposed a global carbon budget, that limits the carbon output to no more than one trillion tons of carbon. Since 1870, 515 billion tons have been calculated from the human carbon emissions. This means that, if that budget is approved, we have already exceeded half of it, but we will still have many more years to contribute to the apparent climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/science/earth/warning-on-global-food-supply.html?_r=0

Colorado floodwaters menace state's $41 billion agriculture sector

In the summer of 2013, the towns of Lyons and Longmont, Colorado were hit hard by severe flooding, causing at least 8 deaths and $2 billion in damages. While many people are worried about rebuilding homes and community buildings, it is often forgotten how much the state depends on it's agricultural industry. The main cash crop in Colorado is corn, which is mostly put towards feeding cattle. After the flooding, the fields of corn, which bring in a total of $41 billion a year, are covered in mud and debris.

This may not affect us here in Virginia, but as a Coloradan at heart, this really hits home. The economy around the country is strained enough as it is without covering for natural disasters. New Orleans wasn't rebuilt in a day after Katrina. It may take years to restore Colorado's agriculture industry. The state is a top producer of corn, and a decline in product could affect the rest of the country. 

This issue raises the question of whether or not farmers should invest in cleaning up their fields or replanting altogether. Colorado isn't known for its high levels of precipitation; having only 15- 22 in of precipitation on average, the majority of that being snow. This flooding brought 9 inches, just on the first day, which is unheard of. Could this water have been beneficial to the soil? After giving the soil time to adjust to the rain, it may help the next year's corn production. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-usa-colorado-flooding-farms-idUSBRE98J09I20130920

UN Ditches Climate-Friendly Agriculture Plan

What?: This article discusses the UN's failed attempt to pass climate-friendly agriculture plans that its negotiators had previously supported. Developing nations that vetoed the plans argue that they were an attempt by the rich nations to control the carbon emissions of only the developing nations.

So what?: This severely impacts the number and strictness of individual countries' plans to reduce carbon emissions in their agricultural processes. If their is no pressure from the United Nations to reduce carbon emissions, the nations of the world will not make any extreme (but necessary) cuts to their carbon emissions.

Now what?: This decision is not final and it is not too late for nations to get back on board with the reduction of carbon emissions. The best we can do is lobby for the United States and other developed nations to convince the UN to overturn this veto and that we must stick to climate-friendly agriculture to protect our world from carbom emissions and therefore, climate change.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24604-un-negotiators-ditch-climatefriendly-agriculture-plan.html#.UozFPHBJMoo

"Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests"

   The term organic farming is pretty self explanatory; it relies on ecosystem management and the attempt to completely eliminate the use of pesticides or herbicides. Based on current studies organic farming can also yield up to three times as much as conventional farming. 


   Researchers from the University of Michigan found that yields of organic farming and conventional were almost the same in developed countries and in developing countries the yield from organic production might even be higher than conventionally farming. In addition to equal or greater yields organic farming can be done using the same amount of land as conventional farming. 

   So why is this important to us? While in some aspects this sounds like it may be a lot of work, in developing countries it may be the only way for farmers to feed their country because they have no means of getting expensive herbicides and pesticides. It can also be important to us because the extensive use of mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides is so detrimental to the environment. An example would be the high amounts of fertilizer run-off from farmlands are creating dead-zones (low oxygen levels in our watersheds where marine life cannot live). 
Conventional Farming also causes soil-erosion, lack of biodiversity, also plant and animals becoming resistant to these chemicals. 

    Now more time needs to be put into the research of organic farming finding out how easily it can be done and for what price? Will our crops become expensive? And will there be no profit? Obviously these are all considerations that we have to take into account, but as of now I think that organic farming could be a substantial way to feed our earth for years to come.

MLA Citation: American Institute of Biological Sciences. "More Recycling On The Farm Could Reduce Environmental Problems." ScienceDaily, 3 May 2007. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

Link to the article

Blog Post - Agriculturally-related Article

Your task: Find an article that pertains to some aspect of agriculture (yes, that's vague on purpose).  The article can be online or in a newspaper, magazine, etc.  Provide a link (or cite the article if it's in print) with your post.  I prefer the article to be recent (from 2013), but if you find an older article that is still relavent today, you can use it.  Follow the "What?", "So what?", "Now what" format for your blog post.

DUE DATE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2013.