Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Animal Warfare (Topic 3)
Topic three, Animal Welfare from Putting Meat On The Table surrounds the idea of how to keep animals when farming. It talks about what the best ways to raise the animals are, indoors or outdoors. In Hoop Barns or Confinement Systems. There are arguments for both sides. Hoop barns are nice when you want a cheap small area for pigs to be raised in, but the cost goes up when you need to buy bedding for the urine and feces to soak into. It also doesn't last as long as a Confinement System. Hoop Barns also aren't meant for colder climates. Confinement Systems are nice because there tend to be lower incidences for diseases. But, on the other hand, animals are kept in more crowded conditions, are subject to a number of chronic and production-related diseases, and are unable to exhibit natural behaviors. In addition, animals are physically altered to reduce further injury. Most animals are physically altered without pain relief when raised in confined production systems even though it is widely accepted that such alteration causes pain. For example, hogs have their tails docked to avoid tail biting by other hogs in close proximity. Laying hens and broilers have their toenails, spurs, and beaks clipped. The purpose of such alteration is to avoid injury to the animal or any other animal. The fundamental welfare concern is the ability of the animal to express natural behaviors, for example, having natural materials to walk or lie on, having enough floor space to move around with some freedom.
According to an article I found, (http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsusedforfood/a/SolutionFactory.htm) it states that going vegan is the only solution. I disagree with this completely. There are tons of ways farmers can make living situations more comfortable for animals. These ways include, giving them more living space with less of them in said living space. Feeding them correct food and an appropriate amount. And just all around treating them better, especially if these farmers plan on keeping them around for a while to use for a source of milk and eggs.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Tar Sand
1) Which energy source should we extract and use first, oil shale or tar sands? Why?
We should extract and use tar sands first because it doesn't require so much digging, and it could be less harmful to the environment it is in. It also only requires steam to extract.
2) Describe one similarity between the process used to get oil from tar sands and the process used to get oil from oil shale.
A similarity between getting oil from tar sands and from oil shale is digging. They both require some drilling to extract the oil. They also both, once the drilling is done, require heat.
3) Describe one key difference between the process used to get oil from tar sands and the process used to get oil from oil shale.
One difference between extracting oil from oil shale and from tar sand is that when extracting oil from tar sand it only requires steam to heat it whereas, extracting oil from oil shale it requires drilling heater holes about 7,000 feet down and that can get dangerous.
4) Explain, in terms of EROI, why the author believes "off-shore oil drilling may be a smart way to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the long run".
The author thinks that drilling off shore will reduce greenhouse gas emissions because
5) Use EROI/Best First Principle to explain one decision that you have made in your day-to-day life. This could literally be anything, but I am looking for new examples other than the energy resources we have been studying. In other words, you should provide an example of how EROI influenced a decision at your individual level rather than the societal level.
We should extract and use tar sands first because it doesn't require so much digging, and it could be less harmful to the environment it is in. It also only requires steam to extract.
2) Describe one similarity between the process used to get oil from tar sands and the process used to get oil from oil shale.
A similarity between getting oil from tar sands and from oil shale is digging. They both require some drilling to extract the oil. They also both, once the drilling is done, require heat.
3) Describe one key difference between the process used to get oil from tar sands and the process used to get oil from oil shale.
One difference between extracting oil from oil shale and from tar sand is that when extracting oil from tar sand it only requires steam to heat it whereas, extracting oil from oil shale it requires drilling heater holes about 7,000 feet down and that can get dangerous.
4) Explain, in terms of EROI, why the author believes "off-shore oil drilling may be a smart way to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the long run".
The author thinks that drilling off shore will reduce greenhouse gas emissions because
5) Use EROI/Best First Principle to explain one decision that you have made in your day-to-day life. This could literally be anything, but I am looking for new examples other than the energy resources we have been studying. In other words, you should provide an example of how EROI influenced a decision at your individual level rather than the societal level.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Science On Seneca
Seneca Lake Lab
Report
Research Question: How do the levels of Dissolved Oxygen in the
water affect the phytoplankton’s lives?
Hypothesis: As the levels of DO decrease, the population of phytoplankton’s will also decrease.
Variable Identification:
Controlled variable-
Study takes place in Seneca Lake
Dependent variable-
Depth of the water
Other contributing
variables- Water temp., amount of DO, and amount of other living organisms
Experimental Setup : When
the boat was brought out to the middle of the lake, it was cold and very windy.
Materials such as sifters, secky disks and DO tablets were used.
Procedure:
•
When we got on the boat Mr.Williams explained that we would be going
out into the middle of the lake for the first location and then make our way
back. He separated us into 3 groups, one at each station.
•
When my group went to station three, we took a sample of water from
the lake and took the temperature, and found how deep we went when we got the
sample.
•
I quickly went to the inside of the boat, and found the latitude and
longitude of where we took the sample.
•
We took a drop from the sample
of water and put it on a slide. We put the slide on the microscope and observed
whatever little critters we saw swimming around.
•
In our packet we attempted to draw what we saw, identified what the
organisms we saw, and wrote how many of them we saw.
•
We repeated this step with a new sample.
•
Data:
|
SAMPLE
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
TOTAL
|
|
1A
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
2A
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
15
|
|
3A
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
9
|
|
1P
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
16+
|
2
|
|
|
|
21+
|
|
2P
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
17
|
|
3P
|
6
|
1
|
7
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
19
|
References –
"Finger Lakes Visitors Connection."
<i>Seneca Lake —</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Biomagnification Study
Biomagnifacation is the concentration of toxins in an organism as a result of other plants or animals ingesting it which makes the toxins more widely disbursed. Once a toxin is in an organism, whatever eats said organism will have the toxin in it too. This is how it travels up the food chain and becomes more disbursed. There are so many different toxins in our ecosystems, causing things like a decrease in population. One of these toxins is BPA. BPA is an organic, synthetic compound that is used to harden plastics. It is also known as Bisphenol A. It is found in water bottles, dentist equipment, and lots of products for children and babies, like baby formula and sippie cups. We aren't entirely sure what BPA does to us, but based on some animal studies, it could affect young children's brains and behaviors. To get BPA out of your body, just exercise. The less fat you have, the less likely it would be for BPA to stick around. BPA will leave your system after just a few hours of being ingested, but some will stay in your fat tissue, which makes it harder for you to lose weight.
"The Facts About Bisphenol A, BPA." WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
"How to Get Bisphenol A (BPA) Out of Your Body? Hit The Gym!" Essentia. N.p., 26 Aug. 2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
Furnace Brook Lab
Furnace Brook Lab Report
Introduction: The amount of macroinvertebrates in a body of water can be an important sign for the quality of that body of water, according to a Penn State study. If a body of water is clean and functional, that means the entire ecosystem around it will be healthy. Certain macroinvertebrates, like aquatic worms, can survive with high water pollution levels, where others cannot. This lab was conducted to test the health of the water and the ecosystem based on pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen levels, and macroinvertebrate levels. If the level of dissolved oxygen is high enough, there will be a large amount of macroinvertebrates in the water. Two different locations were tested in both areas, and every time we went to both areas, the turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature levels were taken. The flow rate was found by dropping a plastic practice golf ball into the stream and timing how long it took the ball to travel 40 feet. The macroinvertebrate population was found by a group member putting a piece of screen door under a rock and waiting a set amount of time for macroinvertebrates to flow into the screen, and were then put in a controlled area of water.
Research Question: What kind of impact will the water quality of Furnace Brook have on the macroinvertebrate population?
Hypothesis: The dissolved oxygen levels and water quality will be high enough to sustain a high level of macroinvertebrates. Again based on the Utah State study, the high dissolved oxygen levels would lead to a high population of macroinvertebrates.
Variable Identification:
Controlled Variable Method to control the variable
Creek Flow Rate Flow rate is uncontrollable.
Distance of ball flow same distance was always used.
Experimental Setup : My group conducted our experiment in two different places. Our first location was down in Elmwood park before the bridges by the playground. Our second location was about 50 to 100 feet away, past one of the bridges by the playground. In the lab, the materials used were pH and dissolved oxygen tablets, a water thermometer, metal door screening, a plastic golf ball, a stop watch, a plastic paint tray, and two different sized vials, one for pH and one for dissolved oxygen.
Procedure:
1. Picked two locations to sample flow rate and macroinvertebrate populations.
2. Look around at locations, observe water clarity.
3. Develop a hypothesis based on the appearance of the water.
4. Test the pH. This is done by filling up the smaller vial with water and placing two pH tablets in the vial and agitating the vial for four to five minutes. Check the color of the water, and record the pH based on the color of the water. 5. Test the dissolved oxygen. This process is the same except for the fact that the larger vial is used and only one tablet is placed in the water. Make sure the vial is filled to 10mL.
6. Take the cup that contained most of the materials, and fill it with water. Look at the circle at the bottom with is divided into quarters and determine the turbidity based on the reference sheet.
7. Place water thermometer in the water and record temperature in degrees Celsius. 8. Repeat steps 4-7 for both locations on both days.
9. Measure width of stream using measuring tape, recorded width.
10. Take six different measurements of depth, making sure they are equidistant, along the width of the stream. Record the depths. 11. Convert the depth from inches to feet by dividing each by 12.
12. Find the average depth of the stream by adding all of the depths up and dividing by 6.
13. Have one person stand at a location in the stream. Have another person stand 40 feet downstream form the first person.
14. Have person one drop the plastic golf ball. 15. Record how long it takes for the ball to travel from the first person to the second person. 16. Repeat steps 14 and 15 five times.
17. Repeat steps 9 through 16 at both locations.
18. Find the average flow rates for both by adding the five trials together and dividing by five. Repeat for both locations. 19. Calculated the stream velocity and discharge. 20. Give person 2 the screen kick net and have them move about 10 feet away from person 1. Then Have person 1 kick up rocks and debris. 21. The person with the screen will collect any macroinvertebrates. 22. Remove the macroinvertebrates and place them in the paint tray. Record the amount of species you find. 23. Put the macroinvertebrates back in the stream.
Data: Each piece of data collected in this lab was collected from two different locations on two different days. The turbidity on each day was recorded at zero. On both days, both locations had a pH of seven. On the first day, both locations had a dissolved oxygen level of four, and it was five on the second day. The temperatures of the first location were 11 degrees on the first day and 10 degrees on the second. For the second location, the first day was 11 degrees and the second day was 8. The first site had a width of 15.0 feet, while the second had a width of 9.2 feet. The average stream depth for the first location was 0.4217ft and for the second it was 0.49 ft.
Site 1:
Trial Depth (in) Depth (ft) Time (sec)
1 5.5 .0.458 32.97
2 8.0 .666 35.40
3 10.0 .833 41.41
4 7.0 .583 50.19
5 8.0 .666 34.22
6 7.0 .583 NA
Site 2:
Trial Depth(in) Depth(ft) Time(sec)
1 32.0 2.666 43.50
2 24.8 2.066 59.78
3 39.0 3.25 48.90
4 23.5 1.95 37.23
5 17.2 1.43 26.98
6 11.0 .916 30.60
Site 1:
Day 1 Day 2
pH 7 7
Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 4 4
Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 11 10
Turbidity (JTU) 0 0
Site 2:
Day 1 Day 2
pH 7 7
Dissolved Oxygen 4 5
Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 11 8
Turbidity (JTU) 0 0
Results :
Site 1:
Title: Population of Macroinvertebrates in Furnace Brook
Site 2:
Discussion: In the first site, only two types of macroinvertebrates were present at the time of our testing. Stonefly nymphs and midge larvae floated into our net, where in the second site, scuds and caddisfly larvae were also present. The population of the macroinvertebrates in the two streams was different as well, because the first and second sites had considerably different populations of midge larvae. Since midge larvae are very tolerant of pollution, the population difference based on the graphs leads me to believe the first site is much more polluted than the second. That would also explain the very slight increase in stonefly nymphs in the second location, along with the presence of scuds and caddisfly larvae.
Evaluation: To improve this experiment, I would repeat each step of the process multiple times. There is no such thing as enough when it comes to experiments, so more trials would be a more realistic representation of the population of macroinvertebrates in Furnace Brook. Also, testing at five or ten different locations instead of two would be helpful, so differences in pollution and the types of species in different areas will be even greater. The main limitation of this lab was the amount of trials we were held to while doing field work. Human error can possibly be found while rounding answers while recording data such as depth. Exact answers are more precise, but cannot always be used. A group error made could’ve been making accurate measurements under water. Since the bottom of the creek is not totally flat, measurements can be misread or mistaken by group members.
Conclusion: The data collected in this lab did indeed support my hypothesis. The dissolved oxygen levels were high enough to support at least four different types of species in the stream. Throughout the stream I am sure there are many more different kinds of species, but based on where my group was located, only four species were present. The dissolved oxygen levels were always measured at 4 or 5, which is high enough to sustain a small population of different species. The different species were also limited by the amount of pollution in the water, which varied form location to location. According to the Macroinvertebrate Identification Key, midge larvae are very tolerant of pollution, making it easy to understand why there was such a high population at the first location.
Introduction: The amount of macroinvertebrates in a body of water can be an important sign for the quality of that body of water, according to a Penn State study. If a body of water is clean and functional, that means the entire ecosystem around it will be healthy. Certain macroinvertebrates, like aquatic worms, can survive with high water pollution levels, where others cannot. This lab was conducted to test the health of the water and the ecosystem based on pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen levels, and macroinvertebrate levels. If the level of dissolved oxygen is high enough, there will be a large amount of macroinvertebrates in the water. Two different locations were tested in both areas, and every time we went to both areas, the turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature levels were taken. The flow rate was found by dropping a plastic practice golf ball into the stream and timing how long it took the ball to travel 40 feet. The macroinvertebrate population was found by a group member putting a piece of screen door under a rock and waiting a set amount of time for macroinvertebrates to flow into the screen, and were then put in a controlled area of water.
Research Question: What kind of impact will the water quality of Furnace Brook have on the macroinvertebrate population?
Hypothesis: The dissolved oxygen levels and water quality will be high enough to sustain a high level of macroinvertebrates. Again based on the Utah State study, the high dissolved oxygen levels would lead to a high population of macroinvertebrates.
Variable Identification:
Controlled Variable Method to control the variable
Creek Flow Rate Flow rate is uncontrollable.
Distance of ball flow same distance was always used.
Experimental Setup : My group conducted our experiment in two different places. Our first location was down in Elmwood park before the bridges by the playground. Our second location was about 50 to 100 feet away, past one of the bridges by the playground. In the lab, the materials used were pH and dissolved oxygen tablets, a water thermometer, metal door screening, a plastic golf ball, a stop watch, a plastic paint tray, and two different sized vials, one for pH and one for dissolved oxygen.
Procedure:
1. Picked two locations to sample flow rate and macroinvertebrate populations.
2. Look around at locations, observe water clarity.
3. Develop a hypothesis based on the appearance of the water.
4. Test the pH. This is done by filling up the smaller vial with water and placing two pH tablets in the vial and agitating the vial for four to five minutes. Check the color of the water, and record the pH based on the color of the water. 5. Test the dissolved oxygen. This process is the same except for the fact that the larger vial is used and only one tablet is placed in the water. Make sure the vial is filled to 10mL.
6. Take the cup that contained most of the materials, and fill it with water. Look at the circle at the bottom with is divided into quarters and determine the turbidity based on the reference sheet.
7. Place water thermometer in the water and record temperature in degrees Celsius. 8. Repeat steps 4-7 for both locations on both days.
9. Measure width of stream using measuring tape, recorded width.
10. Take six different measurements of depth, making sure they are equidistant, along the width of the stream. Record the depths. 11. Convert the depth from inches to feet by dividing each by 12.
12. Find the average depth of the stream by adding all of the depths up and dividing by 6.
13. Have one person stand at a location in the stream. Have another person stand 40 feet downstream form the first person.
14. Have person one drop the plastic golf ball. 15. Record how long it takes for the ball to travel from the first person to the second person. 16. Repeat steps 14 and 15 five times.
17. Repeat steps 9 through 16 at both locations.
18. Find the average flow rates for both by adding the five trials together and dividing by five. Repeat for both locations. 19. Calculated the stream velocity and discharge. 20. Give person 2 the screen kick net and have them move about 10 feet away from person 1. Then Have person 1 kick up rocks and debris. 21. The person with the screen will collect any macroinvertebrates. 22. Remove the macroinvertebrates and place them in the paint tray. Record the amount of species you find. 23. Put the macroinvertebrates back in the stream.
Data: Each piece of data collected in this lab was collected from two different locations on two different days. The turbidity on each day was recorded at zero. On both days, both locations had a pH of seven. On the first day, both locations had a dissolved oxygen level of four, and it was five on the second day. The temperatures of the first location were 11 degrees on the first day and 10 degrees on the second. For the second location, the first day was 11 degrees and the second day was 8. The first site had a width of 15.0 feet, while the second had a width of 9.2 feet. The average stream depth for the first location was 0.4217ft and for the second it was 0.49 ft.
Site 1:
Trial Depth (in) Depth (ft) Time (sec)
1 5.5 .0.458 32.97
2 8.0 .666 35.40
3 10.0 .833 41.41
4 7.0 .583 50.19
5 8.0 .666 34.22
6 7.0 .583 NA
Site 2:
Trial Depth(in) Depth(ft) Time(sec)
1 32.0 2.666 43.50
2 24.8 2.066 59.78
3 39.0 3.25 48.90
4 23.5 1.95 37.23
5 17.2 1.43 26.98
6 11.0 .916 30.60
Site 1:
Day 1 Day 2
pH 7 7
Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 4 4
Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 11 10
Turbidity (JTU) 0 0
Site 2:
Day 1 Day 2
pH 7 7
Dissolved Oxygen 4 5
Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 11 8
Turbidity (JTU) 0 0
Results :
Site 1:
Title: Population of Macroinvertebrates in Furnace Brook
Site 2:
Discussion: In the first site, only two types of macroinvertebrates were present at the time of our testing. Stonefly nymphs and midge larvae floated into our net, where in the second site, scuds and caddisfly larvae were also present. The population of the macroinvertebrates in the two streams was different as well, because the first and second sites had considerably different populations of midge larvae. Since midge larvae are very tolerant of pollution, the population difference based on the graphs leads me to believe the first site is much more polluted than the second. That would also explain the very slight increase in stonefly nymphs in the second location, along with the presence of scuds and caddisfly larvae.
Evaluation: To improve this experiment, I would repeat each step of the process multiple times. There is no such thing as enough when it comes to experiments, so more trials would be a more realistic representation of the population of macroinvertebrates in Furnace Brook. Also, testing at five or ten different locations instead of two would be helpful, so differences in pollution and the types of species in different areas will be even greater. The main limitation of this lab was the amount of trials we were held to while doing field work. Human error can possibly be found while rounding answers while recording data such as depth. Exact answers are more precise, but cannot always be used. A group error made could’ve been making accurate measurements under water. Since the bottom of the creek is not totally flat, measurements can be misread or mistaken by group members.
Conclusion: The data collected in this lab did indeed support my hypothesis. The dissolved oxygen levels were high enough to support at least four different types of species in the stream. Throughout the stream I am sure there are many more different kinds of species, but based on where my group was located, only four species were present. The dissolved oxygen levels were always measured at 4 or 5, which is high enough to sustain a small population of different species. The different species were also limited by the amount of pollution in the water, which varied form location to location. According to the Macroinvertebrate Identification Key, midge larvae are very tolerant of pollution, making it easy to understand why there was such a high population at the first location.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
The Rhino's Biome
Rhinoceros's live in the Grasslands of Eastern and Southern Africa. Some types of rhinos can be found in the swamps and rain forests in India and Nepal, and parts of Malaysia. The average temperature of Southern Africa range from Mediterranean, to temperate. Usually warm sunny days, and cool nights. Most of the area in the grassland, doesn't look like grass. It's quite brown, and looks dead. They have wet summers, followed by cold, dry winters with heavy frosts. There are about 80 different vegetation types, and around 3370 plant types. Three of these different plants are Aloe Vera, Arum Lilies, and Ground Orchids. The grasslands are also home to 45% of Africa's endemic mammal species,
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)