The Effects Of Conventional Agricultural Farms On Agriculture

Agriculture contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. The “agriculture connection” is any direct impacts agriculture has on climatic change. “Carbon dioxide is the

After learning about the statistics of how much agriculture consumes our planet, I was appalled to see how destructive it is. Jonathan Foley put into perspective the increase and rapid demand for food. Agriculture alone consumes 40% of our land surface, 70% of our irrigation system, and

The excess of carbon in the atmosphere is the cause of global climate change. To reverse global warming we must balance the carbon cycle by removing carbon from the atmosphere and returning it to the plants and to the soil (4). Though in the end, carbon exists in everything and the carbon cycle is much more complex because it includes every plant, animal, microbe, fallen tree, body of water, bit of soil, breath of air, plume of smoke, combustion of fossil fuel, decaying particle, and bubble popping to the surface of a swamp (5). Industrial farming has disrupted this cycle. If we completely halted the burning of fossil fuels today, which we can not by any means, climate change would still continue through modern agriculture. The key to reversing global warming is not solely through solar panels and ethanol fuel, but in proper symbiotic farming

What most people will find surprising is the fact that the industrialized agricultural and food systems is a great contributor to global warming, as its carbon emission are increasing year after year. This is something that the general public is unaware of. There are several statistics that shows the grand scale of damage that this

When you think of Iowa, you think of the fields that consume Iowa. There are millions of acres of farmland, But what if all this land was killing the rivers? There are many big rivers that run through Iowa such as the Winnebago, Racoon, and the Mississippi river. The fertilizer from Iowa’s farms and lawns are hurting the rivers at an alarming rate.

Land use changes, as described by Lappé, include every change of land in order to produce, or distribute, food. Annually, forests, bogs, swamps, rain forests, and other biomes are Ableman 1 destroyed for agricultural purpose. Destruction of these biomes lead to the release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is the most prominent greenhouse gas. The second “connection” in The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork is the “agricultural connection.”

In the 2015 article for The Atlantic “Farmland without Farmers”, Berry writes a thought-provoking piece about how industrial agriculture has taken over American landscapes, and as a result, stewards and culture are lost. Berry gives us the impression that an urge to change is needed, and the sense of knowledge and community is required to help farms thrive again.

Research shows that two of the major human-caused climate change attributers are factory farms and burning of fossil fuels. Factory farms are a big controversy for climate change because of the byproducts created in everyday production. My uncles who run a small to medium scale farm operation believe that farming doesn't have a very big impact on global climate change. Scientists and environmentalists believe that animals crammed together on large farms produce too much manure and methane, and that's causing a negative effect on the climate. My uncles didn't believe this because most farmers take good care of their farms and use manure in a safe and secure manner to help fertilize their crops from the natural cycles from animals. Fossil fuels

The excess of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have led to a dramatic rise in the climate and the hottest recorded years the Earth has seen. To be specific, “the 25 warmest years on record have come since 1980 [and] the 10 warmest since global recordkeeping began in 1880 have come since 1996, (p 56)” which is nothing to boast about, seeing as this is also the largest population and most technology the Earth has ever seen. Moreover, in lecture, we went over the amount of greenhouse gases created solely by livestock and how being a society dependent of livestock for food is very negative. Livestock emit about 68% of all agriculturally produced methane(lecture) and methane counts for approximately 18% of greenhouse gases (p 57). That is not to say that livestock do not create a large amount; in fact, human-caused methane emissions are almost solely from agriculture. To combat this, Dr. Wailes proposed that instead of basing our diet on water-heavy crops and methane-emitting animals, we switch to much more sustainable foods. One example of this would be to eat bugs. Bugs contain much more protein by the pound and do not eat alfalfa, which is what causes cows and other livestock to emit greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Dr. Wailes also displayed a chart with three different “meals” which

Franklin D Roosevelt once said, “the history of every Nation is eventually written in the way in which it cares for its soil.” The United States began seeing sustainable management practices in farms, and healthier soil through this act. In 1982 through 2007, the United States soil erosion had declined by 43%” (Montanarella, 2015). Every year the United States loses about $400 billion dollars due to crop soil that is eroded. Soil is a limited resource and the largest resource for growing food, accommodating diverse ecosystems, and providing food resources. Therefore laws, acts, and provisions are necessary to protect this natural resource.

“If we’re serious about the climate crisis, say’s Lappe, we have to talk about food.” Food processes and consumptions are being overlooked. The only thing that we do know when we shop at our local food markets is that we do not know what is exactly in the food, where it came from, and what route it took to get on to the shelf in our towns. Lappe addresses these questions within her book that sets the scene for many different products, corporations, and the effects that are taking place because of these methods that are helping the global warming crisis. The corporations are not assessing the risk and rewards of food production; they are sucking up the rewards and looking the other way. Taking responsibility is the first step to solving a problem and as you can see in the movie Cowspirarcy no one is willing to admit that food and productions are apart of the global warming event. The long view of our existence means we must take care of our habitat and build today for our children tomorrow instead of thinking about only today. To do this Lappe provides a list of seven principals of a climate friendly diet; “Reach for real food, Put plants on your plate, Don’t panic, go organic, Lean towards local, Finish your peas…the ice caps are melting, Send packaging packing, and Do it yourself

This video and article by Rose Marcario, the Chief Executive of Patagonia Inc., explains the effect that changing our farming practices could potentially have on our environment and our ability to live sustainably; if we switch from fossil fuel intensive farming to organic and low-till practices that put carbon back in the ground, we can improve soil, grow more nutritious food, and reverse the effects of climate

In this essay, I will defend the argument that the United States has a moral obligation to abolish meat and dairy subsidies in order to mitigate the adverse affects of climate change. Cows and other livestock emit a large portion of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, more than the entire transportation industry. Yet, the meat and dairy industry has faced few if any regulations to attempt to decrease these emissions. By abolishing these subsidies, the production of meat and dairy products would decrease and this would lead to a decrease of methane emitted into the atmosphere at no adverse cost to the human population. Clearly, decreasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere is favorable in our attempt to mitigate the effects of global warming which would decrease future human suffering. I argue that if a policy will help the human population avoid serious human suffering from climate change without any serious adverse effects on the population, than the United States has a moral obligation to enact that policy. Abolishing meat and dairy subsidies is one of these policies and therefore the United States has a moral obligation to abolish meat and dairy subsidies. I will raise an objection to this argument on the basis that it is not guaranteed that the ending of subsidies to the meat and dairy industry would lead to a decreased production of meat and dairy products in the long

When it comes to carbon sequestering, plants are a key player and we have the power to increase their numbers. Agriculture has the power to shape the future-if done correctly. Crops have the power to reduce the amount of carbon in the environment by simply just existing. However, if a farmer decides to purchase fertilizer to put on the crop that is rich in nitrous oxide, they have now caused more harm than good. Nitrous oxide is even worse then methane and traps nearly 200 times more heat than carbon. A shift back to the olden days of farming is what seems best to fight climate change. Looking back historically, the ways in which we used to produce food without the vast amount of machinery and technology left a much smaller footprint then methods used today. In order to move forward, we must look

Modern day farmers are faced with many challenges in both the short term (daily life), and in the long term (season to season). These challenges range from battling Mother Nature, to staying financially afloat – and that does not take into account managing ones family and their health. Currently, the agriculture economy is very poor for farmers, in particularly wheat farmers. Many wheat farmers in this economy are having to downsize their operations just to keep their heads above water. There is a plethora of challenges facing dryland wheat producers therefore, it is imperative that wheat producers adjust their operation to minimize expenses and maximize profit. There are quite a few ways a wheat farmer can make the situation better. However, regardless of what way they chose, they need to take a step back,