2nd Rough Draft of research paper

Ariel Swingley
March 16, 2010
Environmental Science
Engineering the Solutions For Our Modern World
Our world today moves a mile a minute. Everything from talking to traveling is racing towards instantaneous and the technology making it possible is evolving at an even faster pace. It makes sense that in this engineered world of ours, that new problems should arise from the lives we live and the environments we live them in. It seems like in order to keep up with the next new thing in every aspect of life we have to keep moving forward and surpassing the previously accepted end points. However, many people seem to be resisting many of the new technologies and fields of study that could solve many of the problems facing everyone in this day and age. I argue that there should be no regulations upon biotechnology, genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms of their research because they have the potential to solve many modern and developing problems in agriculture, medicine and beyond.
Lets begin with the basics, what exactly are biotechnology, genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms? Biotechnology is the use of living things and/or organic processes to make marketable products, genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genes, and a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genes have been modified by genetic engineering processes. An easy way to think of these things is that biotechnology is the type of company, genetic engineering the work they do and a GMO is their product.
Some genetically engineered products are easily recognized like In vitro fertilization, recumbent human insulin and genetically modified, herbicide tolerant (GMHT) plants. In recent years some couple’s inability to conceive children, has come to the forefront of science. In vitro, which is Latin for ‘in glass’, fertilization is the process by which female eggs are stripped of their genetic information and is replaced by the genetic information of the mother and father. This process actually happens in a glass Petri-dish giving validity to its Latin name and its product’s common reference, test tube babies. The fertilized egg (zygote) is then implanted into the mother, or a surrogate mother’s uterus. This genetic engineering technique allows people who would naturally be unable to reproduce, to be ripe with children (in vitro fertilization often leads to multiples i.e. twins, triplets, etc.)
Another easily recognized product of genetic engineering is recumbent human insulin. Human bodies break down everything they are fed into sugars, which are then put into the blood stream and transferred into our cells for energy by means of insulin. Type one diabetics did not get so lucky. Due to a certain genetic mutation, type one diabetics do not make insulin, so the sugar they break down circulates in their blood streams until fatal chemicals are released. Thanks to the scientific geniuses at Genentech and Eli Lilly, type one diabetics now have recumbent human insulin, a mirror image of our natural insulin, made in a lab by genetic engineers.
A final example of a genetic engineering feat is genetically modified, herbicide tolerant (GMHT) plants. Farming is tough. Not only do you have to do all the manual labor of prepping soil, planting crops, watering and harvesting, you also have to deal with a percentage of your crop being ruined by pesky bugs. Monsanto Agricultural Biotechnology Company decided to take a stand, and engineered some of the first commercially grown GMHT plants. If you lay down the green for some Monsanto seeds, you are paying for the freedom to spray your plants with deadly toxins that will trample the attempts of Mother Nature to ruin your crop quota, because Monsanto GMHT crops can withstand the spray and live to see a riper day (Swingley 2010).
So if science is capable of all this what is the problem? Why on earth would anyone want to stifle our journey towards better farming, medicine and families? Well despite John Locke’s attempts at a government free of religious impediment, many people are not down with the idea of scientists crafting their dinner salads, children or health, for whatever personal reasons they choose. In fact between 20 and 30% of the USA’s population is against any type of GMO (Kwiecinski 2009). In Europe many EU state members have outlawed the widespread use of GM plants for their direct impacts of being potentially invasive and their enhanced ecological fitness, both of which could ruin their native plant life (Hails, 2002). However, despite many attempts at testing these theories, nothing conclusive has been proven (hails 2002), showing once again that it is hard to know what you don’t know, but that wont stop people from passing laws anyways.
As our science advances and our population grows, several related problems have popped up. Some examples are the daunting food and water shortages, food-growing space vs. living space and cancer. It has been projected that in 2050 our population and food demand will have doubled (Tilman 2002). That is a rather scary statistic considering that there currently is not enough produce in the United States for everyone we already have, to eat the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables daily. So how on earth are we supposed to keep up with those numbers when urban sprawl is already creeping into farm space? The answer is genetic engineering. We need plants that have more nutritional value, more easily harvested and that can survive in our changing climates, and there currently are none. We do not have time to waste hoping plants will evolve to our every needs; we need to assist the process. Regulating environments for the sake of biodiversity and scenery is nice, but don’t be surprised if in 40 years you don’t have any food. The next example is cancer. Why is it that as our technologies get more advanced more people have these raging diseases we can not figure out? Did people thousands of years ago get melanoma? Ovarian cancer? Or could these things be from the tanning boxes and laptops we created in the past decades? Well no one knows for sure, trust me I have definitely checked, but there is truth in recognizing that we are doing a lot of unnatural stuff theses days and somehow that has to effect us.
In conclusion, I argue that there should be no regulations upon biotechnology, genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms, or the research of them, because they have the potential to solve many modern and developing problems in agriculture, medicine and beyond. As we move forward at a pace unforeseen by those before us, we have to recognize that with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton), and that suggests we need to either revert to all natural discourse or keep ahead of the curve and explore every option there is to balance the scale. Biotechnology, genetic engineering and GMO’s are just our way of keeping ahead of the curve and using what nature gave us, to sustain our life styles and momentum.


Works Cited
"About the Human Genome Project." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
Amunts, Alexey, Omri Drory, and Nathan Nelson. "The Structure of a Plant Photosystem I Supercomplex at 3.4 A? Resolution." Nature 447 (2007): 1-6. Print.
"BIO | About BIO." BIO | Biotechnology Industry Organization. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
BIO | Biotechnology Industry Organization. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
Endy, Drew. "Foundations for Engineering Biology." Nature 438 (2005): 1-5. Print.
"Gene Therapy." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
"Genentech: Research: Biotechnology." Genentech: Home. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
"Genentech: Research: Genomics." Genentech. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
"Genentech: Research: Milestones in Biotechnology." Genentech: Home. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News - Biotechnology from Bench to Business. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .
Huang, Jikung, Karl Pray, and Scott Rozelle. "Enhancing the Crops to Feed the Poor." Nature 418 (2002): 1-7. Print.
Pearson, Graham S. "How to Make Microbes Safer." Nature 349 (1998): 1-2. Print.
Sharma, Cynthia M., Steve Hoffmann, Fabien Darfeuille, Jeremy Reugnier, Sven FindeiB, Alexandra Sittka, Sarndrine Shabas, Kristin Reiche, Jorg Hackermullen, Richard Reinhardt, Peter F. Standler, and Jorg Vogel. "The Primary Transcriptome of the Major Human Pathogen Helicobacter Pylori." Nature (2010). Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 2010. Web. 8 Mar. 2010. .
Tilman, David. "Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices." Nature 418 (2002): 1-7. Print.
Van ?t Veer, Laura J., and René Renards. "Enabling Personalized Cancer Medicine through Analysis of Gene-expression Patterns." Nature 452 (2008): 1-7. Print.
Wambugu, Florence. "Why Africa Need Agricultural Biotech." Nature 400 (1995): 1-2. Print.
Weber, Bruce H. "Back to Basics." Nature 445 (2007): 1-1. Print.

Biodiversity Reading

(Wrote this out on paper for homework and just copied to blog)
1. Intrinsic Value?
The view that nature is innately valuable
2. Ecological Services-> anthropocentric?
They are anthropocentric because they have economic, aesthetic or recreational value, all of which benefit humans.
3. Noah Principle?
The principle that the ‘usefulness’ of a species is not a consideration when discussing it’s conservation, but that the specie’s presence in the history of evolution is a good enough reason to protect it.
4. Is there truth to biophilia?
There must be some truth to the theory that environmentalism is hardwired into humans through natural selection because environmentalist exist and Native Americans and other cultures all over the world (unrelated) had similar ideals of connection to the earth, but it must be a trait some people miss out on because there are of course those who do not feel any sort of connection to the earth and really don’t care at all. I think it has to do with the type of person you are and whether or not you care about things that may not seem to directly affect you.
5. 3 Goods:
Domestic agriculture (crops) -> food supply
Medicine
Clothing
6. 4 Services:
Air Purification
Water Purification
Climate Regulation
Generation of moisture and oxygen
7. Gram of soil – Ecosystem?
1 gram: 2.5 billion fungi, 50,000 algae, 30,000 protozoa…. That is a whole bunch of living organisms in one small amount of soil all coexisting and functioning together… seems like an ecosystem to me.
8. Dangers of over-emphasizing:
1. Could create a bias towards which species to save (biodiversity no, no)
2. Could lead to the thought that ecosystems that don’t directly benefit humans are not worth preserving
9. Aesthetic value only for the wealthy?
No. Having natural wild reserves provides a very cheap and nice vacation for people who could not other ways afford it. It also provides free outlets for exercise. Certainly desolately poor families probably will not be able to appreciate them as often as those who have more available money to take vacations and things but it provides an opportunity for those with enough money to do that and not other vacations a place to go instead of not having the option at all.
10. Protection of biodiversity -> benefit human future
Biodiversity is not only the diversity of animals on the planet for the way they look, they each support an ecosystem. When there are no masquitos what do spiders eat? When the spiders die what do the animals that eat them eat? Loosing one species could mean eventually loosing all the animals we need.

Genetic Engineering Information

New useful sources:
Genetic Technology and Biotechnology News
http://www.genengnews.com/

Genetic Technology and Biotechnology News: Best of the Web (Genetics Specific)
http://www.genengnews.com/bestofweb/bestofweb.aspx?tid=13

Genetic Engineering The Facts (Book w/ Extensive Preview)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fr4-sMtxoMYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Genetic Engineering Second Edition (Book w/ Extensive Preview)
http://books.google.com/books?id=7yo0Baa0lgwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=genetic+engineering&lr=&ei=zvGPS77PCITmlAT-9emwDQ&cd=11#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Genetic Engineering (Used Book $1.99 + shipping)
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/invid/10147580776?cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-base-_-aisbn2-_-na

Genetic Engineering Volume 1 (Used Book $0.75 + shipping)
http://www.a1books.com/search-page/show-seller-item?act=showSellerItem&WVSESSION_ID=616220868&SELLER_ID=394959&SKU=ZL-050-110%3AP12&ITEM_CODE=0122703014&LIST_PRICE=49&TITLE=Genetic+Engineering+%28Genetic+Engineering%29&%60cart%60=Continue

Human Genome Project:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/medicine.shtml

Main Points:

Genetic Engineering is the direct manipulation of genes.
Techniques: Molecular cloning, transformation
Five steps of accomplishing manipulation:
1. Isolate desired genes
2. Insert desired genes into a transfer vector
3. Transfer of vector into organism
4. Organism's cells change
5. Select altered organism from non-altered organisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Gene Therapy:
Altering a faulty or damaged gene that causes a disease
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/genetherapy.shtml

No Impact Man

What Struck Me:
The wife's designer apparel addiction parallel's mine, or is the future of mine, and she WANTED to give it up. In fact it seems to me that she was the epitome of the over using out of sight and out of mind life style, so he was really making a difference by changing HER lifestyle. Her caffeine addiction terrifies me. I am ASTOUNDED by how much they were actually able to change. Some people may think that they did too much, but they really proved it was possible, and that gives me a lot of hope.

A huge thing that affected me was the parenting aspect of this video. How many people who want children or have children actually raise their own kids? Instead of handing them off to a nanny or subscribing them early to TV. A lot of people have kids because that is what they are 'supposed' to do at a certain age or once they get married, but how many are actually willing to give up their relax time in the afternoons to running around with their kids? Or their date nights and vacations to spending quality time raising their children? I want to be a surgeon and that means a lot of time in school, late nights and weird sleep times, will I be able to have children if I am going to raise them the way I want to? I am not sure I will.

Beyond even that, how much time and energy should go into living? How much of our days are spent in a half-conscience state? How much do we really have to think about? We microwave food or at best read recipes. What would our world be like if we had to make our own food, and follow our garbage to the dump? Is being 'lazy' a new characteristic to recent generations made possible by money interested corporations? Are profitable things only things that make stuff easier? THIS IS A TERRIFYING WEB OF SELF AND CULTURAL DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIORS!

What our SCHOOL can do:
Recycling: We have LOTS of aluminum and plastic but barely any paper and we are a SCHOOL. We are also awful at keeping this stuff straight. Our school majorly lacks in the organization of many things but if we could just get recycling straight it would have a big impact I think.
Carpooling: We are a commuter school, carpooling should be better as well. That is HUGE.
We should figure out what exactly being a new wave educational institution means and cut out the things we don't need. We should be ALL online or use smartboards, we need to go all the way on this if we are going to be a 'high tech' school and help the environment where we can.

New Annotated Sources!

This past.. day actually, my fantastic group of four (Diana, Luke, Paul and I) met for the first time to really pan out our ideas for our senior project. Keeping an eye on the medical field of study and sciences has been really important to me so far in this class because I want to be able to use everything I learn in a way that will benefit me for the rest of my life. By that I mean I want to learn Environmental Science in a way that will make me a much better and more well rounded person, so I have been trying to attach it to things I am already really passionate about. Ok this is coming out wrong but moving on... I am letting go of my absolute NEED to have my senior project and research paper be ONLY about medicine, instead I am going to integrate the information I learned about the bacteria evolution and anti-biotic resistance and put it toward our video's new theme of a bacteria that solves the world's energy and oxygen needs (complete details on what this magnificent bacteria are still to be determined.)

Finding information has definitely been a problem since we clarified our ideas yesterday at lunch and I did my other citations for my previous idea Tuesday. With that stated please bear with me as I am using sources more to form ideas and learn current processes than directly support that our society is heading in this bacterial energy direction. I am also still a bit stuck in my ways with the medicine web sites, they just seem to have all the good articles.


Article 1: Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension.

"Gene splicing by overlap extension is a new approach for recombining DNA molecules at precise junctions..."

"Extension of this overlap by DNA polymerase produces a molecule in which the original sequences are 'spliced' together."

"This technique is used to construct a gene encoding a mosaic fusion protein comprised of parts of two different class-I major histocompatibility genes."

Annotations:
This article is really informative about the exact process of gene splicing, which is when then genetically engineer DNA by adding, subtracting or mutating the DNA. This article was really really helpful in the way of showing me what professional scientists in industry do to splice and what they are doing it for. Our video is going to be a commercial glorifying the new genetically engineered bacteria in a similar fashion to how petroleum and tobacco companies advertise their projects and do 'damage control' when people are opposing them, so we are considering having small sections of scientists actually creating the bacteria. I think it's taking science a little too far when they start to create their own creatures and things but I think that will add to the satirical aspect of our video. Plus who really cares about the well being of bacteria? (Rhetorical question) That could be another part to our video.

Citation:
Horton, R. M. "Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension." Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension. (1989). Pub Med Centeral. 1989. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

*another source I will be using for learning about gene/DNA reading, splicing, mapping, etc. will be the Human Genome Project


Article 2: Principles of Gene Manipulation. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering

"Genetic manipulation or genetic engineering is a technology which is becoming widely used in biological research and industry. It has therefore become difficult for scientists not directly involved in the field to keep pace with the literature.

"Other worthwhile contributions are on sickle cell disease, cystinosis, and the muco-
polysaccharidoses, by Lehmann, Schulman, and Leroy, respectively.

"..expression of cloned DNA sequences is also covered in this book and the development of vectors resulting in enhanced expression and in the production of proteins from cloned sequences are described with examples."

Annotations:
So this source is actually from a peer-reviewed text book type thing for a college course. It is a dated piece of work but now that I realize that maybe college textbooks or lesson plans could be really helpful, I am much more confident in my ability to get my hands on real solid evidence and thoughtful writings about the practices of gene splicing and genetic engineering. These materials may also give me a feel for the past's projections for today's science ability so I can make reasonably ridiculous expectations for our bacteria that could possibly be believable to scientist today. Only if we go that route though. I did realize that going the text book route could be either just as or more dry than reading journal articles... both are peer reviewed though! At this point I think that the science part from here on out could possibly be an easier part for me since I am genuinely interested in genetic engineering. It could also be interesting to explore the ethics side... but I guess I really need to do some more serious planning and idea consolidating sessions with my whole group specifically about what we are wanting out bacteria to DO. I think our project will be great because we have a topic that we can theoretically get small hints of all four of our initial researched topics in.



Citation:
Generet, Med J. "Principles of Gene Manipulation. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering." Principles of Gene Manipulation. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering (1981). Pub Med Centeral. 18 Apr. 1981. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .


If I am late tomorrow John I am so sorry. I was having the darndest time deciding on sources, ideas and really trying to make these annotated sources effective no matter what. I will most likely be there on time. GOODNIGHT

Nate Lewis Video

Video Recap:
We need roughly 10 Terra-watts of energy to sustain us.
Oil, Gas and Coal make up 85% of our current energy.
USA uses 1/4 of the worlds energy.
Renewable energy sources cost more money to build and run making them less desirable, we need cheap energy.
We have roughly 40 years of oil, 60 years of natural gas and 2,000 years of coal left on earth (based on current consumption amount.)

Renewable energies will ONLY have a chance to be used more often IF:
-There is a technology/cost break through
-Outside forces make us stop using oil (government interference)
-Climate change becomes more dramatic/more of a priority

Sources of Carbon-Free Power:
-Nuclear (Fusion/Fission) (capacity to produce 10 TW if we build 1 new plant a day for 50 years)
-Hydroelectric
-Geothermal
-Solar (active, passive, photosynthesis)
-Biomass
-Wind


I would like to start by saying that I really hate coal. Coal is bad in every way possible. I may be over simplifying but our entire global warming and air pollution problem could have been avoided if people stuck with a rule similar to you are what you eat, our air is what we burn. All the thick black petroleum and chary black coal burned up and put in our atmosphere, OBVIOUSLY we were going to have problems.

I think Nate Lewis is a really intelligent guy. Besides the obvious that he teaches at Cal Tech and such, I really like how he presented his ideas first stating that everything he was going to say was based on scientific fact, not personal preference or outside influence. He began by talking about how much energy we need and that stayed the constant theme through out the entire presentation which gave the presentation more structure and strength in my opinion. Mr. Lewis then proceeded to discuss what energy sources are currently used and how much each contributes to our total energy used. I can not believe coal is 50%. That is jaw dropping. Everything I hear is always about oil, solar, nuclear etc., and because of that I sort of forgot about coal as an energy source and seeing that it contributes that heavily to everything I do is rather discouraging. Like I stated earlier, I am not a fan of coal, so that added insult to the miss-informed injury.

Moving on to the renewable portion of the presentation, I am really bummed that renewables are not a larger percentage of our energy sources. Nuclear, probably the worst idea for energy ever because of the waste, is a MUCH larger percentage (19.9) and that SUCKS. I loose more respect for politicians and government every day that nuclear power is the topic for 'alternative' energy. We have NO idea what to do with the waste NOTHING can contain it long enough and there is NOTHING we can do (yet) to change the composition of the RADIO ACTIVE waste. There is so much wrong with nuclear power and our way of containing it (Barring it in a mountain? Seriously?) that I am convinced who ever thought it up just half thought it out and decided to not think it the rest of the way out period because he/she would be dead before it would be a problem. This out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude is getting more and more apparent and annoying as I get older and learn more about the things we (human race) have done. I would like to formally apologize to my future family and the future families of everyone in my generation if we don't figure this out, because you guys might all have cancer just for being alive on this planet we are pumping full of radio-active waste.

Meat, Disease and Climate Change?

Humans are not your average mammal. Not only are we the only species that drinks another animal's milk, we also have the ability and tendency to manipulate nature, resources and instincts. In the past hundred years we have made leaps in education and technology but we have also begun to see the repercussions of our out of sight, out of mind life styles in the form of disease and climate change. How does the meat we eat for dinner correlate to disease and climate change? That is what I sought to find out.

Article 1: Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change
By: Gowri Koneswaran and Danielle Nierenberg

Abstract:
Background
The farm animal sector is the single largest anthropogenic user of land, contributing to many environmental problems, including global warming and climate change.

Objectives
The aim of this study was to synthesize and expand upon existing data on the contribution of farm animal production to climate change.

Methods
We analyzed the scientific literature on farm animal production and documented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as various mitigation strategies.

Discussions
An analysis of meat, egg, and milk production encompasses not only the direct rearing and slaughtering of animals, but also grain and fertilizer production for animal feed, waste storage and disposal, water use, and energy expenditures on farms and in transporting feed and finished animal products, among other key impacts of the production process as a whole.

Conclusions
Immediate and far-reaching changes in current animal agriculture practices and consumption patterns are both critical and timely if GHGs from the farm animal sector are to be mitigated.

Citation:
Koneswaran, Gowri, and Danielle Nierenberg. "Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change." Environ Health Perspectives (2008). Pub Med Centeral. Enviornmental Protection Agency, 31 Jan. 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .

Connection:
The practice of meat farming directly contributes to global warming because the practices are proven to emit abundant amounts of green house gasses(proven to aid climate change and global warming).

Article 2: Social and environmental risk factors in the emergence of infectious diseases
By: Robin A Weiss & Anthony J McMichael

Abstract:
Fifty years ago, the age-old scourge of infectious disease was receding in the developed world in response to improved public health measures, while the advent of antibiotics, better vaccines, insecticides and improved surveillance held the promise of eradicating residual problems. By the late twentieth century, however, an increase in the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases was evident in many parts of the world. This upturn looms as the fourth major transition in human–microbe relationships since the advent of agriculture around 10,000 years ago. About 30 new diseases have been identified, including Legionnaires' disease, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis C, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)/variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), Nipah virus, several viral hemorrhagic fevers and, most recently, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza. The emergence of these diseases, and resurgence of old ones like tuberculosis and cholera, reflects various changes in human ecology: rural-to-urban migration resulting in high-density peri-urban slums; increasing long-distance mobility and trade; the social disruption of war and conflict; changes in personal behavior; and, increasingly, human-induced global changes, including widespread forest clearance and climate change. Political ignorance, denial and obduracy (as with HIV/AIDS) further compound the risks. The use and misuse of medical technology also pose risks, such as drug-resistant microbes and contaminated equipment or biological medicines. A better understanding of the evolving social dynamics of emerging infectious diseases ought to help us to anticipate and hopefully ameliorate current and future risks.

Citation:
Weiss, Robin A., and Anthony J. McMichael. "Social and environmental risk factors in the emergence of infectious diseases." Nature Medice Magazine (2004). Nature Medicine. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .

Connection:
The act and process of farming animals for meat is an unnatural process that alters not only the animals and land causing global warming but has lead to the generation of bacterias un-effected by antibiotics leading to currently incurable diseases. Global warming and climate change is its self a new atmospheric combination that is causing a chain reaction of ecosystem alterations that has presented humans with new diseases and viruses that are also currently incurable.

Article 3:
Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production
By: Ingrid Strid Eriksson (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

Abstract:
The aim of this thesis was to develop the SALSA models (Systems AnaLysis for Sustainable Agriculture), and to apply them to studies for the benefit of more sustainable pig production.
Within the framework of environmental systems analysis, the SALSA models were constructed as substance and energy flow models using life cycle assessment methodology for impact assessment and scope definition. The pig production system studied included rearing of growing-finishing pigs (SALSA-pig model) and production of feed (SALSA-arable and SALSA-soybean models).
For energy use, global warming potential and eutrophication, the feed production sub- system had the largest environmental impact, whereas for acidification the pig sub-system was the dominant source.
Results from simulations using the SALSA-arable model showed that energy use, global warming potential and acidification increased with increasing nitrogen fertiliser rate, whereas eutrophication had a minimum around the current recommended rate.
When the pig production system was optimised regarding diet composition for different environmental targets, different diets were obtained. For acidification and eutrophication, a low protein diet was prioritised, which was achieved by high inclusion of synthetic amino acids. For energy use and global warming potential high levels of peas and rapeseed cake (a by-product from rapeseed oil production) were prioritised. The environmental optimiser almost entirely avoided soybean meal, due to its poor environmental record.
A main conclusion of the work was that feed choice had an impact on the environmental performance of pig meat production, not only via the features of the feed as fed to the pigs, such as the crude protein content, but also via the raw materials used, since the environmental impact from the production of these differed and since feed production generally had a large impact on the system as a whole

Citation:
Eriksson, Ingrid. "Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production." Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 15 Jan. 2004: 1-37. Print.


Connection:
The enviornmental impact of a meat farm can be dramatically reduced by changing the animal's diet. Animals packed full of enriched foods and hormones produce more CO2 and other GHG's than an animal that is given real feed and left to nature for size and strength. Organic meat means less GHG's and no genetically enhanced bacteria.




Reflection:
I thought it was sort of common knowledge that meat farming is a big contributor to global warming and climate change just because of what I already know about carbon cycle emission, however I was extremely surprised that the types of food given to an animal weigh heavily on their individual carbon foot print. Meat farming to me sticks out of the already unnatural practices humans use to make our lives easier, like a sore thumb just because of how morally and environmentally wrong it seems to me. I do know that I do not want to have to go hunt a cow every time I want a hamburger, but having a million cows in small area strung out on hormones and sedatives seems just as if not more inconvenient. I don't really want to focus exactly on the effects of the meat industry on climate change, the bacterial evolution is a tad bit easier to find information on and interesting to me.