# as the future becomes the present...



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

I recently picked up the book _The Smaller Majority_ by Piotr Naskrecki. At the beginning of the section on amphibians, he writes (sorry for the giant single paragraph...but that's the form it was in):

"The global decline of amphibians is further exacerbated by other facts, most notably pollution runoffs from agricultural and industrial areas and global climate change. The former produces the widely publicized deformities in frogs, causing them to grow extra limbs or eyes, and generally lowering viability of their natural populations. Stricture pollution regulations, if properly enforced, would help reverse this trend. But global warming, caused by high levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from industries and deforestation, combined with depletion of the ozone layer, can easily wipe out entire species. Particularly impacted are frogs in high elevation areas, which are adapted to cooler, more humid conditions. Rising temperatures cause warm air to envelop their habitats, killing all organisms unable to cope with drier, warmer conditions. The recent Global Amphibian Assessment conducted by IUCN and Conservation International has found that as many as 1,856 species, or 32 percent of the entire world fauna of frogs and their relatives, are threated with extinction. Can anything be done to to change these very disturbing developments? As with most negative environmental impacts of human actions the answer is 'yes,' but on ly if we stop the accelerating pace of habitat degradation and implement recovery plans for areas and populations. Are we willing to do this? Current projections of human population growth predict a steady increase of our numbers, to peak at about 12 billion in 2050. This doubling of the human population will require dramatic increases in production of food and other commodities. And what is easier than converting areas unpopulated by humans, such as the vast forests of the Amazon, into beef pastures and sawmills? Even if the current potentates of countries lucky enough to possess, large, unspoiled areas agree to protect them, who is to say what will happen if the populations of these countries are faced with a choice of protetcting the last stand of endangered species or feeding themselves? And yet habitat protection, rooted in precise, scientifically sound estimates of species composition and their sustainability in a given area, is the best solution to species extinction we have now. In some cases protection of natural populations can be augmented with captive breeding programs, an din the case of some amphibians thsi may be the only way out, especially if wild populations are already gone or infected with deadly fungi. The balance between a comfortable human existence and preservation of Earth's natural heritage is increasingly more difficult to achieve, yet the optimist in me still has a strong voice. I believe that fifty or a hundred years from now a child's heart will jum at the sight of a tree frog discovered after the rain in her backyard, and a scientist in South America will solve the mystery of reproduction of yet another species of caecilian."

There is a lot mentioned here (chytrid, climate change, human population and removal of habitat, pollution, etc.), and I thought it might make a great jumping-off point for some discussion about these various topics. I know some of them have been discussed on here in specific threads, but maybe we could look at some different angles on things. 

On Frognet a month or two ago there was an interesting thread of discussion about 'green frogging,' possible ways to lessen our impact as we (ironically) worked to conserve these animals. So how do we navigate this tension? How do we walk the wire of survivability and progress and population increase, but not at the expense of other species (specifically amphibians)? And if amphibians are the 'canaries in the coal mine'...what could this be saying about ecosystems as a whole and the larger picture that we are inevitably apart of?

It's easy to say "stop polluting," "conserve species," etc...but what does that look like? What specifics does that entail? And how do we, as a collective of individuals that run the gamut of backgrounds and situations and abilities, do something about it?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The thing that has always struck me being an American is how unwilling we are to do these practices at home but insist that the practices as much as possible be implemented in a third world country... 

Ed


----------



## r90s (Jun 13, 2006)

> But global warming, caused by high levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from industries and deforestation, combined with depletion of the ozone layer, can easily wipe out entire species.


I find the info here very interesting, but in light of a documentary that I just watched and other information that I have gathered, I feel that you might also find something interesting.
You might want to view the documentary that is available in kyle1745's
topic, in this section.
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25748


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I agree take a look at the documentary and some of the recent small pockets of data coming out. Its truly sad that so many scientists have been telling half truths or full blown lies on this topic.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2007)

You guys do realize that global warming wasn't the the only issue presented above, right? Let's not get sidetracked by that when there are other issues involved in the amphibian decline.



> The thing that has always struck me being an American is how unwilling we are to do these practices at home but insist that the practices as much as possible be implemented in a third world country...


I would agree with you Ed, but can you elaborate a bit more? Are you thinking in terms of how we expect other countries to deal with and treat and conserve their land...but we don't?


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I think everyone needs to work to conserve land, I also think everyone needs to start working on population control. Though if history teaches us anything we are due for a massive war or plague to take care of the second one.

In all honesty though if we don't control our immigration policies we will never be able to conserve any land... We already can't educate all the children, and soon we will have bigger problems.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

kyle1745 said:


> In all honesty though if we don't control our immigration policies we will never be able to conserve any land... We already can't educate all the children, and soon we will have bigger problems.


Spoken like a wise man....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

You should get Brent Brock to comment on this as he has much better information than I do... 

snip "I would agree with you Ed, but can you elaborate a bit more? Are you thinking in terms of how we expect other countries to deal with and treat and conserve their land...but we don't?"endsnip

This is part of the issue but it goes beyond that as we don't just expect them to do so we tell them to do so as if we have the right.... 

Many sections of our country are fire ecologies yet we build housing in the middle of a zone that is sooner or later going to burn, yet we suppress the fires in the area until there is so much fuel that they can't control the fire yet we spend millions of dollars fighting these fires to protect the houses that are built in the wrong zone (think LA right now). In some areas the fire suppression has gone on so long the local ecology is changing (this is occuring in Southern Jersey as we speak in the Pine Barrens). The fire ecology cleaned the duff/leaf litter off the ground and suppressed the growth of oak, maples, and sweet gum and allowed the pine trees to grow resulting in a totally different ecology than can be seen in many of the areas today (where I live was historically Pine Barrens but there is a 3-4 inch thick layer of leaf compost on the ground under the tree canopy giving and indication how long it has been since the last burn. (I can't do a burn here as there are all of these wood houses built back in the trees that the fire department is concerned will burn... )
The movement of people from the cities into these areas is overloading the aquifers resulting is water right problems and townships sueing other townships. Towns and states that are attempting to control sprawl (or are trying are being sued as by speculators even when the land cannot support the sprawl. (Look at what is occuring with the aquifers in the south west that are being depleted faster than they can be replenished).. 

Protection of endangered/threatened animals... there have been accusations against the USA goverment that they are seeding lands with the endangered species using choppers so they can tell the people what they can or can't do with thier land... 

But all of this boils back to one issue... we have to have a growth economy to keep living the way we do.. part of which requires a continued developement which requires a continued use of resources.... 


some disjointed thoughts from a pre-caffeine (and slightly fevered brain)

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "In all honesty though if we don't control our immigration policies we will never be able to conserve any land... We already can't educate all the children, and soon we will have bigger problems."endsnip


This is not as simple as it seems... without the immigration the USA would have a negative population growth which would mean that we could no longer support as a growth economy as well which means that we would not longer continue to grow in the fashion that we do.... which means that the American population would have to curtail thier life styles.... This has been true since I took a class in demographics almost 20 years ago... 

Education... think about, do you know the average age/education level for which a commercial or marketing campaign is developed? (hint third grade)
When it comes to science, it is impossible for the average person to understand the issues behind many of the different disciplines as the disciplines have become so complex and change so quickly... (Epigenetic 
gene regulation to name an important one off the top of my head)... 

Some comments (again slightly fevered and a little more caffinated) 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Don't take my comments on immigration the wrong way, it just needs restructured, with realistic limits not eliminated. People can still be allowed in to work and etc as long as they pay taxes. Im a big fan of http://www.fairtax.org as it will eliminate many of the current tax loopholes related to this and many other things.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ron gave me a nudge that this thread was going on. Before spewing an opinion, I think it is worth pointing out some inaccuracies and ommissions in the quoted text



> "The global decline of amphibians is further exacerbated by other facts, most notably pollution runoffs from agricultural and industrial areas and global climate change. The former produces the widely publicized deformities in frogs, causing them to grow extra limbs or eyes, and generally lowering viability of their natural populations. Stricture pollution regulations, if properly enforced, would help reverse this trend.


This does not include the work of Tyrone Hayes and others that have shown that atrazine (one of the most widely used pesticides) levels far below EPA allowed levels (and below what is commonly found in the environment) causes hermaphodism (chemical neutering) in frogs. The problem is far worse than stated here. 



> Rising temperatures cause warm air to envelop their habitats, killing all organisms unable to cope with drier, warmer conditions.


This is not the mechanism described by Pounds et al 1999 and Bosch et al 2006. The described mechanism is actually that global warming increases evaporation of the oceans which increases cloud cover over the cloud forests. The result is that the cloud forests are moderated to cooler, more humid conditions which are ideal for chytrid.



> Current projections of human population growth predict a steady increase of our numbers, to peak at about 12 billion in 2050. This doubling of the human population will require dramatic increases in production of food and other commodities.


This is alarmist rhetoric. We already produce enough food to feed 12 billion people. But most of that food is used to feed animals unnecessarily or wasted. But we could actually feed the projected 12 billion with the same acreage already under production if we were smart about it.

And now for my opinions. People often jump to the conclusion that to save the planet will require going back to living in mud huts with candlelight. But the fact is that western society is very stupid about the way we use resources. We use pesticides where and when it is unnecessary. We use our grain in the most wasteful ways possible. For example, about 70% of the corn grown in the US feeds cattle and other livestock rather than people. Here's a shock, cattle can eat grass - something humans can't digest - and we can actually eat the cattle that ate the grass. So why are we wasting diesel, pesticides, and fertilizer to grow corn unnecessarily? Also, about 1/2 of all the food produced for people goes to waste. Shocking! To make it worse, we now appear to be determined to start growing corn to burn in our cars. That's the dummest thing we could possibly do. Did you know that recent studies have shown that harvesting native prairie grass produces more useable fuel than even the most fertile corn fields? Here's another. The EU uses a protective approach to pesticide regulation. Basically, the pesiticide needs to be tested as safe before it can be used in the environment. In the US, the pesticide manufacturers are expected to conduct the studies to prove that their product is harmful. If it isn't shown to be harmful, then it is assumed to be safe. Do you trust that? Here's another. In the US when a house is built in the suburbs or rural areas we don't just put a small house in a natural setting. No, we nuke the whole frickin' landscape and convert anywhere from 1/2 to 20 acres per house to lawns and ornamentals that support almost none of the wildlife species that orignally occupied the area. Believe it or not, it is possible to have a comfortable modern house that still supports healthy wildlife habitat around it.

Western (and particularly American) culture just has an unbelievable amount of waste built into it. The fact is that if we would just stop being such idiots, we could enjoy our modern lifestyles with far less impact on the planet. So before we start whining about what enormous changes we need to make in our lives to maintain a healthy ecosystem, perhaps we should start by just cutting out the unnecessary waste and consumption. Last week I replaced every 60w incandescent bulb in our house with a 14w CF bulb at a cost of less than $2 per bulb. That's an 80% reduction in the amount of electricity used to run those lights and I sacrificed absolutely nothing for it. They still produce the same amount of light and in the same color as the old bulbs, and they will last 9 times longer.

As for immigration and land conservation. When I look out my window it isn't immigrant houses that I see gobbling up the natural landscape. Instead, I see 2nd and 3rd tropy homes built by very wealthy Americans who don't even live in the houses for more than a couple weeks a year. And Ed is right. Our current economic policies are based on the fantasy of perpetual growth. Ignoring the ecological impossibilities, perpetual growth requires that you have a perpetually increasing number of consumers, or your per capita consumption must continue to increase. It's hard to imagine the per capita consumption of Americans increasing but I guess if we all start owning 3 or 4 homes, we could do it. The birth rate in the country is not high enough to grow the number of consumers (they would actually decrease). So the slack is taken up by immigration. So, if you are in favor of a "strong economy" according to the current definition, then you should be for immigration.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

just a comment on this snippet 
widely publicized deformities in frogs, causing them to grow extra limbs or eyes, and generally lowering viability of their natural populations. Stricture pollution regulations, if properly enforced, would help reverse this trend."endsnip

The deformities are due to an encysting of a trematode parasite whose end host is some form of water fowl that eats frogs. The trematode encysts near the limb buds disrupting the normal development resulting in the deformities. This is a normal process. What is not normal is that there appears to be an increase in the infection rates of the frogs due to an increase in the snails that host the trematode larve before the tadpoles become infected. And it appears that exposure to some pesticides do not affect the rate of infection of the tadpoles depending on the species of anruan by the trematodes (for an example see http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... Thesis.pdf and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/15/9900) But what appears to really be occuring is a change in the aquatic food web due to human oriented changes that favor the Planorbella snails (which are the exclusive hosts for the parasite) (see http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel/pie ... 202004.pdf) 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Much of this conversation falls back to what has come up in other talks. Money... A farmer may not want to stop growing corn, as it may not be cost effective for them to switch to something else, or it may not seem to be. Many of the "right things", can put people out of jobs.

For example the pesticide thing, while I agree its dumb to use it if you don't need it, Id bet they almost see it as a guarantee. If by chance you don't use it and something happens then what? In many cases, as I understand it, people may lose their family farms because they run that close financially. There is more to right and wrong than meets the eye as often the right way can have long lasting effects if later it is found to be wrong. As Americans we often stick with what works rather than what is right, due to these types of senerios. Mistakes just cost too much money, and just to be clear I am explaining it as I see it, and am not saying we should not work to change.

I have also replaced every bulb in my house for the last couple of years, though they need to make a cheap ceiling fan version.

As for the immigration, yes I agree the houses around me may not be being built for them just yet, but I can say that every low paying job in town is gone, and you can't order at McDonald's and get anyone who speaks English. The entire country needs to wake up as all of our schools are going to start failing like they are in California. There is just not enough money coming in to support all the people not paying into the system, and in all honesty Im tired of my taxes going up to accommodate it. If everyone paid their fair share this would not be a issue. Thus why I have posted http://www.fairtax.org more than a couple of times. Its time to force everyone to pay their fair share, personal, business, or foreigner... EVERYONE If you want to live here, work here, or do anything here you MUST pay into the system.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> The deformities are due to an encysting of a trematode parasite whose end host is some form of water fowl that eats frogs. The trematode encysts near the limb buds disrupting the normal development resulting in the deformities. This is a normal process.


If I remember right, this is only one of 2 or 3 agents that appear to cause deformities. However, these deformity studies have always had the problem of proper benchmarks. You look for deformities and you find them. But are they new? In some cases, yes.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> Much of this conversation falls back to what has come up in other talks. Money... A farmer may not want to stop growing corn, as it may not be cost effective for them to switch to something else, or it may not seem to be. Many of the "right things", can put people out of jobs.


This isn't even close to what is happening here. First, farmers are caught in a catch 22 with many grain products. They over produce which causes the price to go down. Which makes the grain economical to use as feed to fatten livestock instead of feeding people. Which creates a market for the over production of grain. But grain is worth more if it is sold to feed people rather than livestock so as the population grows, that part of the market will work itself out. But farmers also have a history of gold rush mentality which is ramping up again with respect to corn ethanol. Back in the seventies when soybean prices took off, farmers started sodbusting like crazy to put more acres into production. Most of the last remnants of old growth southern bottomland forest fell during this time. The huge cypress and tupelo were just cut down and burned to make room for soybeans. This wasn't done just to "get by", it was done to get rich. But I don't blame the farmers, I blame the farm policy. So now farmers are champing at the bit to start breaking out CRP land to grow corn so they can let it rot to produce ethanol. Dumb, dumb, dumb. You know, CRP is the stuff your tax dollars paid to farmers to take cropland out of production. Much of it was restored to native vegetation. And here's the deal. If the farmer busts the CRP out to plant corn, they have to fertilize and probably irrigate as well. And in the end, the best corn field will produce less fuel than if they just mowed even the lowest productivity CRP. Unfortunately our esteemed policy makers are jumping all over promoting corn for fuel because it is a new farm subsidy. But what they should be doing is trying to get the farmers to harvest grass instead. It will produce more profit for the farmers, more fuel for us, and more habitat for wildlife. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108206 This isn't about making economically tough choices, it is about having our policy makers pull their heads out.



> For example the pesticide thing, while I agree its dumb to use it if you don't need it, Id bet they almost see it as a guarantee. If by chance you don't use it and something happens then what?


In many cases, nothing happens. Up until the post World War era, crop fields tended to be rather "weedy" and nobody thought anything of it. Then came better living through chemistry and suddenly it was economically feasible to produce "clean" fields. The chemical companies created a marketing atmosphere that led farmers to believe that weeds in fields resulted in reduced yields. But there is not a lot of evidence to support that. In some cases, yes, weeds may outcompete crops. But in most cases they have now effect on the crop other than aesthetics. So the farmers are being duped. But regardless, I think society as a whole has the right to be free from harmful pesticides. Sure, there are times when using pesticides make sense, but they should be used only when safer options have been exhausted and ONLY pesticides that are safe for the environment should be in use. If that means the profit margin for farming takes a hit, then society should buck up and pay a few cents more for their french fries to pay for safer, but perhaps more expensive, pesticides. The current system is corrupt and it is simply not right for the general public and wildlife to suffer to raise the profit margin for a very small minority of people.



> In many cases, as I understand it, people may lose their family farms because they run that close financially.


Unfortunately, the "family farm" is becoming a thing of the past. The majority of crops are now raised on corporate farms or privately owned farms run under corporate contracts.



> There is more to right and wrong than meets the eye as often the right way can have long lasting effects if later it is found to be wrong. As Americans we often stick with what works rather than what is right, due to these types of senerios. Mistakes just cost too much money, and just to be clear I am explaining it as I see it, and am not saying we should not work to change.


Americans don't stick with what works, they stick with what provides those in power with the most profit. This country has a long history of making a quick buck today at the expense of future generations. Take away the power of the lobby and I think you will see a LOT of things change in America. Our policies are NOT in the long term public interest and to me, that means things are not working. What disgusts me is that there are so many opportunities and win-win possibilities out there for positive change. But they won't happen because there is always some group with political clout who stand to gain if things just stay the way they are.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ahhh Brent, I`m so glad your around. You sound like you took the same classes as me but retained most of it. Thanks for a great post.
I`m in the process of "reclaiming" 23 acres of 20 year overgrown farmland. I`m in the middle of figuring the lay of the land and planning the layout. Sustainable living is the only way to go. I hope to have a full organic farm running to sustain Michelle and myself and and have extra w/in a few years. Everything from berries and fruit trees, vegetables, goats and chickens, fish, deer turkey, snakes, bats, possum, mice and squirrel. How could I see a redtail hawk hover down into my garden while I`m drinking my morning coffee if there weren`t mice in the yard :lol: . Not to mention sustaining and monitoring the incredible amphibian population here. There is already enough downed wood here to heat the frogfarm for the next ten years or more. 
I was simply amazed that all that wood stacked by the side of the road after the storm was just mulched( i mean enough to heat most of these houses for the whole winter) when so many out here have wood stoves. sh*& that`s a reason to get a wood stove. the wood is right by the side of the road ready to be cut and thrown in the back of a pickup. all nice oak and maple and ash. They just let it go to waste. instead they turn it into mulch and let the people of amherst get pretty mulch to accent their pretty manicured lawns. people can`t even heat their families(farms because they have no woodlots to take from) and they can`t even cut the wood up into 16in. pieces and leave it in a park so locals can get free firewood for the winter. So many signs of waste in our society no one even notices. I won`t even start about driving around on trash day, ugghhhh.
Believe it or not, eggs should be $3 or more a dozen and they should be free range. The difference in nutrition and omega 3 and 6 in free range chicken eggs is incredible. Health costs alone would decrease tons if this nation wasn`t fueled by fast food. But that would put too much money into the real backbone of society, the farmer. 
Did you ever get one of those b-day cards from your insurance company that shows the difference in price from when you were born to present day between: a gallon of gas, a house, a new car, education, a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, minimum wage and i think there was a couple more. The house, and car went up tenfold. the gallon of gas went up sixfold, i can`t remember education( i know it more than tripled though), and a loaf of bread and milk about double to triple and minimum wage about tripled. That about says it in a nutshell. this was from 69 to 06.
Better living thru science, better living thru capitalism? When does it get better?
Not to mention your better off building something from scratch yourself these days than buying it. most of us could do a better job and it would last longer, from your own sneakers and boots to shelves toasters and washers and dryers. And we would know what kind of pollution was being created and it would have to be created in our own backyard, it would be evident right in front of your face instead of covered up by some megacorp. 
But of course, how could someone stay in business if you only had to buy something once and it never broke down? That`s why they market us such cheap stuff, to keep us buying it again every couple months to years. so you buy a blender nowadays from one company and it breaks just after the year warranty. then you go to another company hoping their product is better and it breaks after a year(cmon who really keeps their reciept anyway, they could set it to burn out after 10 months and they`d be safe). then you need that product though so you buy another, viola, perpetual growth, of both the companies and out trash heaps.
case in point, flourescents, i buy them 8-10 at a time. and they burn out 8-10 at a time, usually w/in a month of each other about 2-3 months after the warranty. I do however have 5 of 8 of the first ones i bought 10 years ago. they made them much better back then.
we won`t even start about what the tobacco companies were able to get away with. talk about reducing health costs!! And their still making money and I`M the one paying for it(health and cash). It just goes to show your government really doesn`t care about you.
I just don`t know how anyone retains their sanity in todays world. I guess they`ve squeezed us so that no one even thinks abuot the future, their too busy trying to get thru the present.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

kyle1745 said:


> For example the pesticide thing, while I agree its dumb to use it if you don't need it, Id bet they almost see it as a guarantee. If by chance you don't use it and something happens then what?


Exactly, a great point. The majority of pesticides being used aren't treating an existing problem but used as preventative measure to keep those (any) problems from arising. No matter how great, small or even in the majority of cases, are never even going to ever pop up.

It reminds of the citrus crops and the majority being treated even though less than 1% are ever likely to become vulnerable to anything pest wise. And by less than 1% I mean nearly non-existant. The only ones that are effected are the already harvested/left laying. If they were grown in an optimal way (environment), none if this would ever be 'needed'.

What gives the pests an option to take establishment is an already weakened host. And what are we doing by needlessly using these alternatives? Further impeding the hosts' viability to naturally fend/resist. So yah, pesticides work for the time being, but like w/ any treatment, once started you have to keep using, for keeping anything from building back up to take hold. It's not a cure. And in the long run your worse off, not only because you've now poisoned everything, but because the treatment never completely eradicates the pest and the one's that linger become more resistant. So now it has to be continually more concentrated/toxic. Weakening the crop (everything but the pest) even more. It's a lose lose situation.



> As Americans we often stick with what works rather than what is right, due to these types of senerios. Mistakes just cost too much money, and just to be clear I am explaining it as I see it, and am not saying we should not work to change.


Momentarily/short term (very short term) they "work" but in the long haul you are so much worse off it is not even comparable. Also cheaper short term but long term way way more expensive, because you are soon treating treatment w/ treatments instead of just letting things grow like they should of from the start.

A big over look in crop production is companion planting. Which one plant deters the other plants' pests and likewise. Not only that but when your growing a single type in a field, it's picking up its' preferred nutrients for growth while a lot of other things that something else could be using are left. Skewing the ratio and depleting the soil. Further inhibiting growth crop after crop. A lot of this could be prevented just be having a rotation of crops every planting to not let pests establish and to repair the depletion of nutrients the next crop can use.

A interesting example off the top of my head is buckwheat. Another (completely different plant) is rye. Considered a pest by 'most' farmers when in another crop. It has nothing to do with decreasing the yield of the intended plant. Aesthetic may play a part for anal farmers, which would be stupid, but could be. It all has to do w/ the end bushel report of the harvesters. Farmers get deductions for having stray seed in their grain. The yield could be twice what they get if it was just one grain but they get paid half for what should of had.

That's just do to the overall anal nature of humans. But production wise it's the wisest to get the full potential out of land. If you have combine of your own and you know a wholesaler or cattle raiser to sell it to, they'll give your monies worth.

Another thing by putting to use all you can. W/ buckwheat (a lot of possible plants) you get a lot of pollen and nectar producing flowers, so if you hives set up that'll completely out way any loss/ govt. advantage/subsidies.

Now w/ rye it's the same deal, but w/ this I also know that aesthetics does play a part w/ this. For example if you have a field of wheat planted, you will know (and everyone else looking) if you have rye seed w/ it. The rye heads look basically the same but they rise just above the heads of wheat plants. NO matter how much or little you will be deducted.

I could get into incentives of foreclosure w/ bank/govt grab. but that is a tiring subject. The same can go for for livestock as well, but that's an even 'worse' subject to delve.

I'll get into CRP some other time as that is a very important discussion to be made. In fact that and pheasants forever is the only land currently under my name. It's been left for over a decade, so that land (if you lucky enough to get water) is worth way more than gold will ever be.

It's sad 'we' segregate everything and all anything is trying to do is reconnect/bond/work together.

A lot potential intentionally not set into motion, for the dumbest reasons, that are just simply accepted because they're never question/worked out/found out not to be true.

As for the snail bit I'd like to write more, but getting late. It probably has a lot to due w/ all the extra nitrate run off from commercial farming. Creating a rise in algae bloom which in turn the snail are feeding off of, increasing the pop. :?: There's surely a lot more to it but that's a substantial contributing factor.

Prairie grasses won't give the quick yield of ethanol they're looking for. They need high starch/carb producing plants. The yield wouldn't compare. But I do see where you're headed and w/ that I agree.

Also w/ the grain being fed to the cattle. It is dumb for a couple reasons. One, cattle aren't designed to digest and use such a high carb/protein diet. And because of that the ecology of correct bacteria in their gut is thrown off. Higher chance of E. coli contamination. And because of that more antibiotics and extracted nutrients are being implicated, creating way more issues, for everything, but especially us. The reason they feed grain, one, the can, two, increase production to more a confined area, again creating more other problems because now they're more likely to spread disease, not to mention laying in their own (others) waste. Not receiving the moment/stimulation the should be to be healthy. Again increasing the use of antibiotics and hormones and such. Which we in turn take in. It's no bueno.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

stchupa said:


> Prairie grasses won't give the quick yield of ethanol they're looking for. They need high starch/carb producing plants. The yield wouldn't compare. But I do see where you're headed and w/ that I agree.


If you can get a copy of Tilman's Science paper, read it. They aren't talking about producing ethanol from grass, they are talking about producing biodiesel. With corn ethanol you get about 25% more energy out than it takes to produce the fuel. With prairie grasses you get about 92% more energy in fuel than it took to produce. And Tilman outlines how even when they compared the least productive grasslands with the most productive corn, the grasses still yielded more useable fuel than the corn. 

Of course I just saw a documentary where the Dutch have already developed a system to produce hydrogen from solar power and they are now installing these hydrogen fuel stations along a remote (for the Netherlands) stretch of road they are calling the Hydrogen Highway. But mark my word. As hydrogen becomes the wave of the future, we will soon have to deal with problems associated with changing weather patterns because of all the water vapor put into the atmosphere. California thinks they have problems with mudslides now.... But at least there is a simple solution. The vapor from hydrogen cars could just be captured and condensed so it could be collected for drinking water and irrigation.



> Also w/ the grain being fed to the cattle. It is dumb for a couple reasons. One, cattle aren't designed to digest and use such a high carb/protein diet. And because of that the ecology of correct bacteria in their gut is thrown off. Higher chance of E. coli contamination. And because of that more antibiotics and extracted nutrients are being implicated, creating way more issues, for everything, but especially us. The reason they feed grain, one, the can, two, increase production to more a confined area, again creating more other problems because now they're more likely to spread disease, not to mention laying in their own (others) waste. Not receiving the moment/stimulation the should be to be healthy. Again increasing the use of antibiotics and hormones and such. Which we in turn take in. It's no bueno.


And all of these problems were created because capitalism created the large meat packing conglomerate of IBP which required that almost all cattle get shipped to central locations for processing. Once the shipping to central locations for processing was required, the feedlot became a standard part of the industry. Before this conglomeration, ranchers were able to sell their cattle to local processing plants directly and the meat was sold within the region where it was grown. What the ranchers got out of this whole capitalism deal is collapsing beef prices to the point where ranchers can't make a profit so the ranchlands are being replaced by summer homes and condos.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "As for the snail bit I'd like to write more, but getting late. It probably has a lot to due w/ all the extra nitrate run off from commercial farming. Creating a rise in algae bloom which in turn the snail are feeding off of, increasing the pop. There's surely a lot more to it but that's a substantial contributing factor"endsnip 


Yes the increase in nitrate levels does also increase the algae population which then feeds the increase in the snails but there are other snail species in those same ponds that are being suppressed through changes in the predator/prey webs, and increased water temperatures allowing the populations of Planorbella snails to increase which then increases the trematode population that can infect the snails. It is not just the increased level of nitrate run off. 

Yes there are other pollutants that can cause multiple leg malformations in the frogs usually by being an analog of retinioc acid. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

with the respect to the disruption to the gut flora ecology... I'm not totally convinced as E. coli is a naturally occuring bacterial part of the flora of the cattle. As with people, cattle are not 100% efficient in thier digestion so starchs and other items (such as fermentable sources of fiber) are used as nutrient sources for the bacteria. 

Therer is some evidence that cattle shed E. coli for different periods depending on the recent diet changes (see 
http://intl-aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/7/3233 for one side) 

and http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/3/852 for the other side. \

I think there are some cofactors that we do not understand (or simply have not put all together) at this moment such as persistance and survival of the strains of E. coli in the feed lots (such as time of persistance in water troughs see http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/7/3053) 

I suspect that we are selecting for E. coli that are well adapted to persistance and spread through feedlot conditions (see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=321300) 

This is an example of why grain feedlotting is the main practice as opposed to using grass forages... 
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/10/2619 and 
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/8/2168

I am not in favor of feedlotting with grains for a number of reasons but we have been working with cattle that fatten well when fed grasses for a awhile now and fattening them with forages costs more so until the cost of the grains goes up past past the point of forage it will continue but also keep in mind that other grains than corn can be used such as barley and soy bean (and in fact there are studies going on to optimize barley for cattle feedlotting.) (see http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/dairy/eb72w.htm ) 




Ed


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

> This isn't even close to what is happening here. First, farmers are caught in a catch 22 with many grain products. They over produce which causes the price to go down. Which makes the grain economical to use as feed to fatten livestock instead of feeding people. Which creates a market for the over production of grain. But grain is worth more if it is sold to feed people rather than livestock so as the population grows, that part of the market will work itself out. But farmers also have a history of gold rush mentality which is ramping up again with respect to corn ethanol. Back in the seventies when soybean prices took off, farmers started sodbusting like crazy to put more acres into production.


Brent, yes this is true, but again the "root" of it is money. They are trying to make the most of what will bring in the largest profits



> [quote:2ul29ygt]There is more to right and wrong than meets the eye as often the right way can have long lasting effects if later it is found to be wrong. As Americans we often stick with what works rather than what is right, due to these types of senerios. Mistakes just cost too much money, and just to be clear I am explaining it as I see it, and am not saying we should not work to change.



Americans don't stick with what works, they stick with what provides those in power with the most profit. This country has a long history of making a quick buck today at the expense of future generations. Take away the power of the lobby and I think you will see a LOT of things change in America. Our policies are NOT in the long term public interest and to me, that means things are not working. What disgusts me is that there are so many opportunities and win-win possibilities out there for positive change. But they won't happen because there is always some group with political clout who stand to gain if things just stay the way they are.[/quote:2ul29ygt]
I think we are saying the same thing, but you broadened the scope a bit. So yes the people in power are looking for the most profit, but they normally stick with what provided profit last year as opposed to something new, that is unproven.

I agree our policies are crap, but im not sure we would agree on what they should be. The sad truth is that activists, lobbyists and beurocrates make most of the decisions, and almost all of them are biased towards their specific cause. The only way to control this is to control campaign contributions and get the focus back to the general population. In my opinion NO company should be able to donate to any political figure. They are too biased and have too much power compare to the average person.

Now Aaron, isn't burning wood very detrimental to the environment? If everyone used a wood burning stove wouldn't it create a ton of smog? I believe this is why it is only allowed in rural areas. I think currently most coal pants let off much less pollutants than a small camp fire, but I can not remember where I read that, and no telling if that was true or not.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I also agree that most products are crap, and I build a lot of my own stuff when I can find the time. Most companies go for quantity over quality, just get it done to get the next customer done rather than make sure it is perfect.

This though depends on the type of products and etc. Some of the things I have seen a HUGE drop in quality in are appliances, and houses. I have a new house and while I like it I could have done a much better job with some aspects of it. I would love to build my own place someday, but doubt I will ever get a chance. Just no time and to do so is very expensive now because you do not get contractor discounts. Heck why don't we make better use of the air outside to heat and cool our homes? Why does my AC run when its 60 out at night rather than just bring outside air? These are things my grandparents had in the 50s and 60s and yes they are no where to be seen now. For that matter add furnaces to the list. I have lived in this house for 5 years and have had to have it fixed 3-4 times, and it is a well known brand, which is supposed to be one of the best.

Understand that much of the quality issues are directly to blame on that they are manufactured in other countries who are being used because they were the lowest bidder.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> Brent, yes this is true, but again the "root" of it is money. They are trying to make the most of what will bring in the largest profits


But what is profitable to a farmer usually depends on the subsidies that are offered. Which is dictated by politicians with lobbying ties to Dow and Conagra. And I believe that our policy makers have an obligation to set policies that act for the long term benefit of the country at least but hopefully the world.



> I agree our policies are crap, but im not sure we would agree on what they should be. The sad truth is that activists, lobbyists and beurocrates make most of the decisions, and almost all of them are biased towards their specific cause. The only way to control this is to control campaign contributions and get the focus back to the general population. In my opinion NO company should be able to donate to any political figure. They are too biased and have too much power compare to the average person.


I'm in agreement with you here. Although I haven't been too impressed with the general public's competency with electing officials either. It appears that the general public is more interested in who Jessica Simpson is doing than what their elected officials are doing.



> Now Aaron, isn't burning wood very detrimental to the environment? If everyone used a wood burning stove wouldn't it create a ton of smog? I believe this is why it is only allowed in rural areas. I think currently most coal pants let off much less pollutants than a small camp fire, but I can not remember where I read that, and no telling if that was true or not.


Some of the new stoves are pretty impressive. We have a Danish stove that is 92% efficient because it reburns the flue gases. When it is running, you can't see any smoke coming from the chimney.

I built all of the cabinets and shelves in the frogroom, plus the desk I am working at now from twice recycled timber. First it was reclaimed from an old barn to make the framing timbers in our house. And the slabs that were removed from the timbers during resawing have provided me with a large supply of beautiful recycled old growth furniture lumber.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "I also agree that most products are crap, and I build a lot of my own stuff when I can find the time. Most companies go for quantity over quality, just get it done to get the next customer done rather than make sure it is perfect. "endsnip 

Some of these things are made to be crap so when the next thing appears on the market you will buy it... thus fueling our continual growth economy

see http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SLAM ... ow=reviews for a brief discussion. 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

> I'm in agreement with you here. Although I haven't been too impressed with the general public's competency with electing officials either. It appears that the general public is more interested in who Jessica Simpson is doing than what their elected officials are doing.


YES YES YES! I could not agree more, and in most cases all of the candidates suck, so it is the lessor of 2 evils.



> Some of the new stoves are pretty impressive. We have a Danish stove that is 92% efficient because it reburns the flue gases. When it is running, you can't see any smoke coming from the chimney.
> 
> I built all of the cabinets and shelves in the frogroom, plus the desk I am working at now from twice recycled timber. First it was reclaimed from an old barn to make the framing timbers in our house. And the slabs that were removed from the timbers during resawing have provided me with a large supply of beautiful recycled old growth furniture lumber.


I had not heard about the new stoves, but knew they were being drastically improved, but id bet you can not use them in the cities. I seem to remember some that burned pellets that were very efficient, but I have never used one. If I remember correctly the pellets were made from scraps and were very cheap. One of the bad things about living in the city is all of the restrictions. I can't even have a freaking shed where I live.

Not sure how many know it but I actually took a year off of school as I was so unsure what I wanted to do, and went and made solid oak furniture. You made me think of this with the old barn wood, as we had a guy there that made a front door out of it. I can not remember what wood it was, but it was rare old hardwood, and I can not put into words how amazing that door was when it was finished.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2007)

> And all of these problems were created because capitalism created the large meat packing conglomerate of IBP which required that almost all cattle get shipped to central locations for processing. Once the shipping to central locations for processing was required, the feedlot became a standard part of the industry. Before this conglomeration, ranchers were able to sell their cattle to local processing plants directly and the meat was sold within the region where it was grown.


In my area there is starting to be a Farm-to-Table push to help connect local farmers, ranchers, cheese and winemakers, etc. with local buyers (chefs, retailers, bakers, markets, etc.). There is actually a regional trade meeting next week to help form direct connections between the two. One of the problems, however, is that the infrastructure for this type of market has completely disappeared. There aren't any processing plants for the small/medium-sized farmers or ranchers. Because of that, they have to send their product long distances to be processed...then have it shipped all the way back to the area to be sold to local buyers/sellers, which all but defeats the purpose. Things are actually working _against_ local farmers and producers who want to get more of their product to local buyers and consumers.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

For example where I live, I can have anything except a piggery (more than 50 pigs) or a slaughtering operation on my property (as I have more than 5 acres) now if I rear chickens for market I have to find a local butcher that can process/package the birds for me before I can sell them and I would have to have my storage facility (for the processed birds) inspected by the USDA but if I want to sell eggs in a stand out front all I need is a stand, sign and eggs that I produce on the property.. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

My mom still burns wood in the south of buffalo in a fireplace, talk about innefficient. That`s in the city of buffalo and a friend is installing one in amherst and another in hamburg. outside wood boilers are allowed by permit only around here but are clean enough to use in cities if no local ordinance apply. I burned mostly ash this year and I also have a reburner and the furnace came on about 1-2 times a night as the fire died down and same, no smoke once the fire is burning. 76-78 during the day downstairs and the upstairs gets all the escape heat from down here keeping it a cozy 68-74 upstairs depending on sun and outside temps. 
I built my own. 2x6 walls, r27 walls and r44 for the ceiling. shoot the barn/greenhouse/chicken coop has r22 walls when it`s finished.
the one adverse affect i`m worried about is flooding
current situations may keep me from the long island show tomorrow. haven`t had flood levels this hi for a very long time. 14 more inches and it`s on my floor which is 3 inches above the 100 year flood plain.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> I had not heard about the new stoves, but knew they were being drastically improved, but id bet you can not use them in the cities.


It all depends on where you live. Don't know if it is still in effect, but for awhile Denver had an ordinance where if you lived at an even numbered address, you could burn wood on certain days while the odd numbered addresses burned on other days. I don't wood stoves will ever burn as cleanly as gas but they did improve a lot. I think it was Oregon in the 80's that passed particulate emmissions limits on wood stoves and the EPA considered (or maybe they did) adopt those standards. Anyway, it put a huge push to develop cleaner stoves. Now most (all?) new stoves either have catalytic converters or are reburners. When we were shopping for a stove, the Danish Morso stoves performed way above the EPA limits. It's a nice stove but if I kept my house as warm as Aaron, my face would melt off.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It`s gotta be like the tropics here. Pumilio like it warm. :lol: 
So do the chameleons and geckos.
It`s not my preferred temperature, that`s why I try and spend a lot of time out on the ice. :lol:


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

I didn't really notice this post, my bad.

keep in mind that developed nations' population tends to level out. Its more of a problem with population in third world countries because people need a lot of kids for farm help...and given infant mortality (which has improved) its understandable. Just until the last half of the century big families weren't uncommon. Now, they are very scarce here. Also, I believe I heard the average age for having a first child is increasing in age because people are spending more time in school or getting their careers established.

I heard that we have enough food to feed 6 times the amount of people we already have on the earth...but allocation (and wastefullness) is a major problem.

About what Ed said, I agree with the statement how hypocritical we can be, imposing our policies on third world countries. Yet, what is happening in FL with all the retired folk moving there? Just recently, my friend may have to sell his family farm because some real estaters want to "urbanize" the area...which means they'll have to remove the local forest with it. He was pissed. Why do we NEED another mall or a bunch of shopping centers?

Already there have been stats that "Americans are working too many hours" and yada yada. We just want more. And already, its causing a lot of stress and from a conservative standpoint (even though I'm not really conservative), the fabric of the "american family" has erroded. Very few families eat together any more. Additionally, I saw a stat on MSN news that college drinking and drug usage is increasing. 

I thought we protested against the practices of the industrial revolution? It seems to be happening all over again. Once we passed laws about child labor. Now, every kid wants a job to get "all the goodies." Meanwhile, we are falling behind as a world power because we're graduating fewer science and math majors like in Germany.

Do you realize how many SUVS or V8s are in America? About 1 out of three cars or so I see now. Why do we need them? 

I think deforestation is more of a result for wanting more. There are so many "developed" areas in town that NEED to be remodeled and torn down. To me, it's easier to build in an area already inhabited by people because of the vicinity of electricity and water. 

Honestly I think before frogs go extinct, WE'LL GO EXTINCT. Frogs have been around for about 200 million years. We may think we can take anything because we're "intelligent and complex." However, take away electricity and running water just for a day. Most of us depend on it.
We cannot eat raw meat without fear of bacterial diseases, due to the way its processed. But, there are really no wild animals to eat. 
We simply cannot drink from the local stream because of pollution and bacteria we are not designed to cope with from isolation. Allergies are abig problem now because we're not getting exposed to stuff from an early age.

Frogs do not need education and need to have connections with families and friends like we need. Just think, if global warming wrecks havoc by causing massive floods, the whole status quo of the system is disrupted. A whole semester of school for children may be gone. People may be without work for a while. Therefore, that increases the likeliness of a small economic depression. People who need medication may not receive any. Society is more fragile than we think.

I still hope someday something works out.But as long as we continue to value materialism, not only are we destroying the environment, we're also destroying our families and mental health faster with the previous examples.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Well simply put, people don't like change. Some areas of Japan have the train systems down to the point where the trains are rarely more than a few seconds off schedule. This only works, of course, if people live in condensed cities, and with our cities spread out the way they are this is unlikely to happen. Owning and driving a car is practically required here in highschool. Everyone always talks of getting their licenses and people drive to school despite living about a 2 minutes walk from it(some of these people could get their faster on a bike or on foot during days of moderately heavy traffic). 


That being said society as a whole will change...either willingly, or anyway.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

_Well simply put, people don't like change._

I think I remember from Biology classes, don't species that adapt to changing conditions flourish, while those that cannot adapt go extinct? :? 

About what I was saying earlier, it takes a human what, 18 years or so before its fully mature? It takes us 9 months to create a child, and usually one at a time. 

People may think that "well, I'll be dead by then, so no worries." But, their children and so on will be present. It's amazing how people make arguments when they need to cut forests or ruin the environment with the argument "people's needs come first, not frogs, tigers, bears, etc."

Apparently, that slogan comes from those that are more concerned about making money easily and dirtily. Somebody once told that to me when I said what's going to happen when they make the 3 gorges dam in China. It will have more consequences than just disrupting migrations for fish. I think they said it causes mass flooding? The government doesn't care about the peasants, I guess, even though Mao Zedong founding China from the peasants.

Another example is Egypt's dam. For thousands of years, the nile provided silt for the crops...which allowed Egyptian civilization to begin. Because they dammed it up, it no longer flows and now egypt has very poor soil. I believe it also caused some flooding issues as well.

The same problem will occur if the wetlands of the Southeast keep being encroached. Wetlands are areas that naturally allow things to drain. Without them, any developments there are at risk of being ruined by flooding. I think we've all noticed what happens to our stuff when our basement gets water in it.

I don't understand the logic of clear cutting a rainforest, considering how poor the soil is. (not to mention the likeliness of mudslides because rainforest precipitation won't change over night) 

It just boils down to money, if you ask me...even it means screwing over both humans and nature in the long run. I'm not anti-capitalist (then I wouldn't be in this hobby, which supports small business), but I do think part of the problem today is that we are such a material driven society (hence the previous argument). 

And, like Kyle said, we have been getting free rides from everybody and not doing anything ourselves. America has become a big "party country" now. That's part of the stereotype about us. We're wild, free spirited, rich, etc. and we do whatever we want. Like somebody else pointed out, we pay more attention to Jessica Simpson then the elections. Should we elect her then?

What's alarming is that three people I work with DID NOT KNOW the different BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM. That's very frightening. But they know all about Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears. Apalling!


----------



## salvoz (May 10, 2004)

I have no doubt that if given the means and opportunity, the relatively few people that truly care about the environment, and biodiversity in particular, could design legislation that would, if enforced, curtail some of the bleeding associated with humankind's never ending expansion. However, inefficiency and short-term gain are merely a byproduct of the fact that most people (the proverbial median person) dont really give a damn about how many species are lost (particularly ones that are as obscure as amphibians), or at least not enough to be motivated to suffer any short-term discomfort in the process. Global warming and loss of biodiversity due to human impact will only be combatted when most people are directly and negatively affected by it, or when the law punishes people for not doing their "part." Neither is going to happen too soon. On the whole, we are still very far from this point in most developing countries and are still struggling here in the states. Politicians and the political system cannot be blamed, as they merely follow this collective appreciation, or depreciation, of the environment which already exists.

The issue is, and will always be, a philisophical one: in order to be aggressive about interruping climate change and its already obvious assault on biodiversity, the average person must believe that biodiversity has independent value. All the rhetoric about saving species so that we can save ourselves because we are all linked is big distraction. Most endangered species exist in too few numbers or are simply not linked to our survival sufficient enough to justify this type of thinking. Besides, it only reaffirms the arrogance of humanity, and the notion that something must benefit us in order to be worth saving.

Working in the environmental consulting industry for several years, I have seen an incremental, generational improvement in the "growth" idealogies of this country, at here least in southern ca. But such efforts are fought, every step of the way by big development. The endangered species act is a very progressive piece of legislation, but is more feared than it is respected. Morever, "environmental" movements here in the states are generally associated with things like air and water quality...for people. Supporters of biodiversity, for its own sake, are much farer and fewer between...


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I would not say most people do not care, but that it is just not at the top of their list. We are all too busy to pay attention to our families let alone other things. What we have are some major society issues were it is more acceptable to be put on anti-depressants than stand up and say we should not work 60 hours a week.

On the other countries with better mass transit systems, remember that much of this is due to the lack of roads, or roads that are way too crowded. We were the first country to build a nation wide infrastructure of roads, and it was already in place when we needed something else. We also have a bit mroe land mass than some of the countries with these systems. So in many aspects it is not cost effective. Fact is Americans love the freedom of the automobile, and it would make more sense to focus on better cars than mass transit. Id love to be able to take a train to work, and maybe someday we will have something here. I would still own a car though.


----------

