Unnatural Selection

    Conservationists, in the case of this article, are using two different methods to restore populations of endangered species. The first method involves closely monitoring the endangered species natural predators in the area, and reducing the interaction between predator and prey. This is done through the tracking of the predators and the prey, and human intervention if deemed necessary. In the case of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep, mountain lions were killed to protect the small herds.  The second method involves transferring pregnant females from one herd into another to increase genetic diversity. In this case pregnant females were basically kidnapped by humans tangling them in nets and transporting them by helicopters and trucks to other herds. Both of these methods are human intervention intensive and both seem to be costly and require copious amounts of energy and technology. I think the method of eliminating predation of a species will be more successful than than the other method. I believe this because it happens all the time with deer populations in modern day America. Natural predators of deer are hunted and killed off to the point of no return. Deer populations then flourish until they run out of food. So that is what I think will happen with that method.
      Restored populations will have less genetic diversity than 200 years ago because the restored population came from a smaller group of individuals. Most of the genetic diversity was lost when the population hit the low, endangered point. So all the individuals of the restored population descended from a smaller group of individuals than those from 200 years ago. Conservationists are mixing up individuals from different herds to improve genetic diversity. I don't think this can be called the wild. The wild, defined by me, is not interfered with by humans. These Bighorn Sheep are, making them not wild, by my definition.

Topic one

       The process that goes into putting food on the table in America has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. In the past, most farms were small and labor intensive. They required a relatively large group of highly skilled workers to raise animals and produce food. Antibiotics did not have widespread use. Technology and standardization were less prevalent. Farms were somewhat unique. Present day farms are large and built for mass production. The process is streamlined. Workers are fewer and less skilled. Everything is standardized for maximum efficiency. Animals are fed a specific amount of food to get the greatest return on investment. There is also a widespread use of antibiotics. This leads to the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria which leads to a host of other problems, including human and animal disease that can't be treated by drugs.
    Another problem present day farms have is waste treatment. Before, animals weren't confined and their feces was spread out throughout the land they grazed on. Now, with the animals packed together in huge groups, feces is produced at a fast rate in a confined area. Farms are typically in rural areas, away from waste-treatment plants. So this huge amount of waste isn't disposed of properly and can threaten the neighboring human population with disease and water contamination.
  This problem is fixable, but would be detrimental to the IFAP system. Farming could be taken back to the old ways where animals aren't as densely confined. This way manure would be less dense and the problems associated with it would be less severe. The system of farming could be promoted by government subsidies for SMALL farms only.   

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp


   

EROI HW

EROI

1.) We should extract oil from tar sands first because they have a higher EROEI than oil shale.
2.) One similarity between the process used to get oil from shale and the process used to extract oil from tar sands is the use of heat. Heat causes the kerogen in oil shale to form crude oil and natural gas while it used in the tar sands to extract bitumen, which is further refned.
3.) A key difference between the process that is used to get oil from shale and the process used to get oil from tar sands is, the bitumen extracted from the tar sands needs to be upgraded with either methane or hydrogen from more natural gas in order to be refined further. With the process used to get oil from shale, adding another substance is not needed for refining the crude oil and natural gas derived from it.
4.) The author believes that offshore drilling will decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the future because he believes that restricting drilling will make oil more expensive, making it more economically viable to exploit low EROEI fuel sources. This will cause more greenhouse gases to be produced to extract these low EROEI fuels in addition to the greenhouse gases produced when these low EROEI fuels are used. The author also believes that restricting drilling will increase our demand for foreign fuels who may not be carbon efficient as us. The author believes these effects of restricting offshore drilling would produce more greenhouse gases than offshore drilling itself.
5.) I eat food to gain energy. I gain more calories (energy) than the calories (energy) used to eat the food and exploit the energy from it. If there was less calories in the food I ate than the amount of calories I needed to eat and digest that food, I would die.

Research Plan for Seneca Lake

Research Question: How will the levels of dissolved oxygen and PH affect the amount of macro-invertebrate in the water.

Independent Variable: The depth of the water and sample locations.

Dependent Variable: The levels of dissolved oxygen and PH.

      As mentioned in the packet, Seneca Lake is a water source for over 100,000 people (page 18). It is vital to monitor this water to avoid letting the water quality to succumb to unhealthy levels and possibly having adverse effects on the drinking population. Scientists study macroinvertebrates to detect a body of water's dissolved oxygen and PH levels to determine whether it is fit for human consumption and is able to support life in the water. So we will measure the population of macroinvertebrates to insure the water is fit for human consumption . If there are very little to no macroinvertebrates that means the water is not safe for human consumption and people will have to go elsewhere for water.

Methods: Keep everything exactly the same throughout and follow exact procedures in each sample location.

Hypothesis: I believe that medium levels of PH and dissolved oxygen will result in a healthy amount of macroinvertebrates.

Procedure: 1.) Go to sample location. Measure depth.
                  2.) Measure PH levels using the instructions on the guide to Seneca Lake. (page 20)
                  3.) Measure dissolved oxygen levels using instructions on guide to Seneca Lake.
                       (page 20)
                  4.) Measure macroinvertebrate population using instructions on guide to Seneca Lake
                       (page 27 and 28)
                  5.) Repeat at other sample locations.

Question: What weather is predicted for the trip on Thursday?


"How Biologists Study Streams." N.p., n.d. Web. <http://chamisa.freeshell.org/science.htm>.

"Biological Monitoring." U.S Government, n.d. Web. <http://www.dep.wv.gov/wwe/watershed/bio_fish/pages/bio_fish.aspx>.

Science on Seneca. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Biomagnification Case Study

  Biomagnification of micro beads in fish is an increasing problem in the Great Lakes and Wisconsin. The beads are found in soaps and toothpaste. They find their way down the drain and aren't filtered out by the water treatment facilities because of its small size. It then finds its way into lakes, rivers, streams where it is mistaken for food by small fish and eaten. Then many of these little fish with these beads are eaten by larger fish. So the amount of plastic that larger fish has increases with every contaminated little fish it eats. Then an even larger fish eats that and the process is repeated until the food chain reaches the top predator who has a very a high level of micro bead contaminants. There are no clean up efforts being considered but Governor Scott Walker is eliminating them from Wisconsin completely. He signed legislature that phases out their manufacturing by 2018 and their sale by 2019.

"Wisconsin to Phase out Microplastics to Protect Great Lakes." Wisconsin to Phase out Microplastics to Protect Great Lakes. Wisconsin Gazette, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2015. <http://www.wisconsingazette.com/wisconsin/wisconsin-to-phase-out-microplastics-to-protect-great-lakes.html>.                         

test post

Test post