A Farmer’s Savior or a Toxic Curse? The Question of Chemical Fertilizers and Agriculture in the Developing World

-->

-->

Image from:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfam/6909835917/

A sub-Saharan African farmer toils over a small field of wheat, an important regional staple crop. Unfortunately, repeated cultivation on the same plot of land has left the soil parched and nutrient-deprived, and the farmer’s wheat yields suffer. His profit margin has almost disappeared completely. Even worse, however, the village that depends on this farmer’s wheat crop will have to go hungry once again. The reality of starvation threatens this farmer and many others all over the developing world. The world’s developed nations frequently question how to best aid entire regions of undernourished people; in the end, nearly all solutions must address the problems facing the farmer and his food crops. In recent years, developed countries’ chemical fertilizer use has boosted crop yields to astronomical levels; many recommend Africa and other developing regions use these synthetic inputs without considering the underlying consequences. Although they effectively boost crop yields in the short term, the chemical fertilizer’s long-term consequences, such as environmental degradation, economic dependence, and negative human health impacts, prove that these synthetic inputs fail to provide the best solution to feed people in the developing world.  

Environmental degradation is perhaps the most obvious negative side effect of chemical fertilizer use.  An article by Serpil Savci titled, “An Agricultural Pollutant – Chemical Fertilizers”, explains how chemical fertilizers impact all elements of the biosphere.  Sub-Saharan Africa’s soil quality is naturally less than ideal for growing crops.  Chemical fertilizers appear a viable nutrient source in such a situation.  Though not immediate in their impact (as soil characteristically serves as an excellent natural buffer), over time these fertilizers undermine the soil quality.  Savci notes “…NaNO3, NH4NO3, KCI, K2SO4, NH4Cl [chemicals found in synthetic fertilizers] demolish the structure, such as [natural] fertilizers, soil, soil structure, deterioration is difficult to obtain high-quality and efficient product” (Savci 78).

Not all chemicals diminish soil quality, of course. Compounds containing nitrogen and organic carbon, along with numerous other elements, provide absolutely essential nutrients for plant growth and have been a key component of natural fertilizers for millennia. Both natural and synthetic fertilizers essentially rely on the same basic elements, so the question persists why the latter ruins soil quality. In his article “The Greening of the Green Revolution”, David Tilman asserts the reason for such differences remains mostly unknown to science; however, he offers two possible hypotheses to explain this scenario. Firstly, “the nitrogen pulse from a single application of mineral fertilizer can cause soil nitrate concentrations to greatly exceed plant needs. The unconsumed nutrients are susceptible to loss by leaching and denitrification” (Tilman 211). Conversely, organic fertilizers work through gradual nutrient release into the soil, allowing plants to actually utilize these inputs. Secondly, “…although equivalent amounts of nitrogen and organic carbon were added to the soil…the manure system included a higher proportion and greater diversity of recalcitrant (that is, slowly biodegradable) organic compounds than the conventional system. This may have caused carbon and nitrogen to accumulate in the manure system, minimizing leaching losses” (Tilman 211). Simply put, organic fertilizers provide a wider range of essential carbon and nitrogen compounds that build up naturally in the soil; in contrast, similar chemicals found in chemical fertilizer leach straight through.

When it comes to environmental degradation and chemical fertilizers, the water cycle suffers more than any other biosphere realm. A case study, produced by Divya J of the University of Mysore, titled “Impact of chemical fertilizers on water quality in selected agricultural areas of Mysore district, Karnataka, India” provides an excellent example of the impact of chemical fertilizers on water quality in the developing world. The study had a simple premise: observe the ground water, lake water, and channel water quality of an agricultural district in India that uses chemical fertilizer. Research teams measured fertilizer residues, as well as pH, electrical conductivity, and the concentration of over ten different nutrients in collected water samples. The results determined, “From the statistical analysis, it concluded that, for all the water samples nitrate was strongly correlated with urea, which indicates surface and ground water contamination is mainly due to nitrogenous fertilizers.” (Divya 1457). The research team also discovered high concentrations of dissolved metals and carbonates in the water samples as well as decreased dissolved oxygen content, a classic nutrient pollution indicator (Divya 1457). In regions of the developing world already faced with lack of clean drinking water (notably drier regions such as sub-Saharan Africa), further pollution of what little available water exists may produce catastrophic results for environmental and human health.

Economic dependence on foreign powers is another potential long-term consequence of using chemical fertilizers. As agriculture moves more and more into the realm of global trade, new questions arise about food security’s constantly changing nature. In the Africa and the rest of the developing world, a flood of cheap subsidized surplus food from developed nations (including United States, the United Kingdom, and many others) crushed the market, threatening the local agricultural sector and putting many farmers out of business. Chemical fertilizers offer a possible solution to the food security problem by allowing native farmers to quickly and substantially boost crop yields, thus decreasing the country or region’s imported food dependence. Unfortunately, many do not realize alleviating developing nations’ foreign food imports will only force these same nations to become dependent once again, this time on foreign fertilizers and fossil fuels.
           

Consider the hypothetical farmer from the introduction. Many rural farmers simply do not have the economical means to afford enough chemical fertilizer to maintain a farm season after season. Trusting developed nations to provide the fertilizer at low cost should be considered a feeble option at best. Many chemical fertilizer ingredients originate from petroleum, a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. As the developed nations pay more and more for what little fossil fuel remains, undoubtedly governments would be forced to cut the cheap organic fertilizer exportation. The impact would be immediate, stirring up a panic and tension filled atmosphere, eventually triggering deadly food shortages and riots.

Now consider a viable alternative, organic agriculture. According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), “An internationally acknowledged computer model of global food supply grown organically concluded that a fifty percent conversion to organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa would likely increase food availability and decrease food import dependency” (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 2). In sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the developing world, food security is paramount; without a reliable agricultural industry to feed the population, few other societal improvements can be made, whether it be infrastructure growth, improved sanitation, or family planning practices. Only when people have full stomachs can they focus on improving their livelihood in other ways.

Perhaps the least seen – and least understood for that matter – consequence of chemical fertilizers is the possible human health implications. While chemical fertilizer compositions vary, nearly all contain a select set of compounds based on plants’ universal nutrient needs. Unfortunately, while many basic compounds exist in nature, these synthetic fertilizers consist of many other materials, most toxic for human consumption. As stated previously, many such ingredients emanate from fossil fuels – hardly something any learned person would want to ingest in any amount. Just how these man-made additives affect human health remains unknown; early research, however, remains grim. Savci notes just one example: “[Nitrogen fertilizers] consist of carcinogenic substances such as nitrosamines, especially [in] plants such as lettuce and spinach…” (Savci 77). Many such substances enter the human food system by piggybacking in fruits, vegetables, and other plant-based products. Luckily for the public, many chemicals persist in small enough quantities that no scientific studies have linked exposure to human health problems. However, note that the chemical fertilizer and agriculture pairing established itself only around thirty-to-forty years ago – yet unknown long-term side effects may eventually emerge. In developing nations where the population often lacks access to decent public health care, is it really worth the risk?

Twenty first century global food security and decreased agriculture production will undoubtedly remain among the many monumental challenges facing the world’s developing nations. In the short term, chemical fertilizers may appear to be a viable option for increasing crop yields, especially in the arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere facing low-nutrient soils. Nevertheless, the long-term consequences of chemical fertilizers, environmental degradation, economic dependence, and negative impact on human health, outweigh the immediate food surplus benefit. The developing world needs to embrace organic and alternative agriculture practices, concentrating on food security and environmental sustainability rather than synthetic chemicals.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.  2008.  Key Statistics on Organic Agriculture in Africa. [Internet].  [4 October 2012]. Available from: www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/3.../eng.../Statistic_Africa.pdf

J, Divya.  2012.  "Impact of Chemical Fertilizers on Water Quality in Selected Agricultural Areas of MysoreDistrict, Karnataka, India."  International Journal of Environmental Sciences [Internet].  [4 October 2012]  Vol 2(3): 1449-58.  Available from:  www.ipublishing.co.in/ijesarticles/twelve/articles/.../EIJES3135.pdf

Savci, S.  2012.  "An Agricultural Pollutant: Chemical Fertilizer." International Journal of Environmental Science and Development [Internet].  [4 October 2012] Vol 3(1): 77-80.  Available from:  www.ijesd.org/papers/191-X30004.pdf

Tilman, D.  1998.  "The Greening of the Green Revolution." Nature [Internet].  [4 October 2012]  Vol 396: 211-12.  Available from:  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6708/full/396211a0.html

The Savior of Africa's Agriculture

Despite our dearest efforts to give as much aid as possible, 2,500 children die each day in Africa (“Water Crisis”). The assistance developed nations provide Africa has helped the continent a great deal; however, help may not last much longer. The continent must employ methods to boost agricultural yields in order to feed the population. Unfortunately, African farmers’ hard labor methods aren’t sufficient enough to distribute an adequate amount of food to nourish the whole population. No matter hard these farmers work, current crop yields will not placate the population’s stomachs unless farmers begin using plant-enhancing supplements. These supplements, notably fertilizers, shall soon become Africa’s saviors if used properly. A delicate mix of chemical fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and biofertilizers provides the best short-term solution to ensure that the starving African population survives. The synergy between the three will lower the risk of pollution while promoting fast-acting crop growth and soil recovery for Africa’s agricultural field.

Some people have formulated other solutions. One slightly misled author wrote an article in Nature about this subject. This article has brought attention to the fact that these African farmers need fast-acting solutions that will provide the benefits needed for their continent in the short-term. The author believes that because the African soil needs this short-term attention, the right choice lies in using mainly chemical fertilizers. He believes that, because the chemical fertilizers maximize plant productivity if used properly, farmers can save the situation by using them (Anonymous 2012). Unfortunately, this author is sadly mistaken; yes, the chemical fertilizers will provide a high amount of yield, but the damages to the environment and possibly to the crops themselves bring up a whole new depth to the situation. The author did consider those possibilities within his article, but in his attempt to persuade his readers, he left out vital tidbits of information that drastically affect whether the agriculture of Africa will be saved or destroyed.

So what exactly are chemical fertilizers, and what do they do? These concentrated, nutrient-filled crop-boosters contain a potent mix of phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium (“The 411”). The plant growth requires those three elements in varying levels. The soil in Africa lacks these key nutrients. The Nature article mentions that, “Intensive farming has seen the typical hectare of sub-Saharan farmland lose 22 kilograms of nitrogen, 2.5 kg of phosphorus and 15 kg of potassium annually over the past 30 years” (Anonymous 2012). The levels of the nutrients in the soil have definitely decreased in the past years, so of course, there must be some type of replenishment to get the crops growing again. Chemical fertilizers do have the ability to replenish this stricken soil, but at what cost? Many people are aware of the consequences of using chemical fertilizers; one of the most notable effects is the pollution of water sources. Not only would this become an issue if farmers use the chemical fertilizers, but many other lesser-known consequences would follow, such as the possibility of burning the plants and weakening them. Exposure to fertilizers could also make the plants more susceptible to disease, which may cause more long-term problems for farmers even if only a short-term application is used (Chen 2006).

The methods farmers use to grow rice demonstrate one prominent example of chemical fertilizers’ powerful pollution capabilities. Rice is a very large crop for most of the northern and western African countries and some of the southern and central ones. To maintain higher crop yields, farmers must add nitrogen to the surrounding water that the rice sits in. While growing, rice must remain submerged to allow that moist environment to remain, effectively allowing the nitrogen to mineralize underwater. However, because farmers add the nitrogen directly to the water, they waste a great amount of the fertilizers; this wastefulness soon turns into pollution. The excess nitrogen floats in the water, so the water must simply seep lower into the aquifers or travel downhill in order to pollute other water sources. Eutrophication, the growth of algae due to excess nitrogen in water, will then occur, which causes leads to many fish deaths (B Ghosh 1998). This disaster is only one of the many examples of pollution that can come about from the use of chemical fertilizers; if pollution can cause fish deaths, then it’s capable of much more.

In India, a study done on chemical fertilizer dependency found that chemical fertilizers have “undermined soil quality in terms of its physical, biological and chemical properties afflicting its ability to satisfy healthy plant growth and crop production” (N. Ghosh 2004). Though these chemicals can replenish the soil momentarily by refilling what it may have lost, the true results are actually fully detrimental to the health of the soil. As farmers apply more chemicals, they make the soil harder to work, ruin the environment that microorganisms live in, and deplete nutrients that already exist in the soil. No matter how appealing a high-yield fantasy sounds for Africa, chemical fertilizers can damage the agriculture much more than they can help. If the soil becomes unworkable, rather than just weak, then how can farmers grow more food in the future? If the water becomes undrinkable, then how can the inhabitants survive on their own?

Thankfully, a solution to all this madness exists. Chemical fertilizers alone won’t do the job. Perhaps, then, smaller amounts of this questionable substance can bring higher yields while keeping the amount of environmental damage to a minimum. A simple mixture of three main types of fertilizers provides the solution needed to feed Africa’s population in both the short-term and the long-term. An organic aspect is one of those ingredients. People who discuss matters such as this usually hold chemical fertilizers and organic fertilizers in opposition to each other, but the two could actually work together for a true benefit. A study done in Switzerland confirms that organic fertilizers require a relatively low amount of nutrient input and still have largely decent yields. In fact, when compared to conventional methods of farming (which the Africans have been relying on for quite some time), the nutrient inputs decreased by 34-51% while still keeping almost 100% yields for many crops (Maeder 2002). This signifies an amazing find, because it allows the farmers to put in much less work for near-equal yields if they rely on organic fertilizer alone. However, organic fertilizer is only one ingredient of the all-powerful, Africa-saving solution.

The chemical fertilizers are incorporated into the mix next. Chemical fertilizers alone would ruin the plants and deplete the organic matter within the soil, but a combination of organic and chemical fertilizers actually forms a complementary mixture (Chen 2006). The organic fertilizers strengthen the plants and prepare the soil with organic matter, and the chemical fertilizers provide the unnatural boost of nutrients that will cause the yields to skyrocket while still avoiding environmental damage. In a sense, the organic fertilizer generously prepares the soil for the chemical fertilizer and allows less input to create more yields.

Finally, the inclusion of biofertilizers completes the mix. Biofertilizers hold microorganisms that help to enrich the soil and to make the plants stronger (Chen 2006). By adding biofertilizers to the combination, the plants can grow much healthier, counteracting the negative effects of the chemical fertilizers. The microorganisms provide life within the soil and often on the plants; they can accomplish a variety of things from fixing nitrogen to making complex substances simpler for the plants to absorb.

These three vital ingredients create the ideal solution for the problem in Africa. The three cannot separately complete what the full mix can. The chemical fertilizers destroy the soil, the organic fertilizers work too slowly, and the biofertilizers just add organisms to the soil. On the other hand, when put together, the mix makes the best short-term solution for the preservation of Africa’s starving population clear. If this plan rockets into action, rather than the pure chemical fertilizer plan, then it can protect Africa for quite some time; extreme growth can blossom from that. The soil will rebuild and produce high yields in the short-term, and in the long-term, it will continue to grow healthier as the microorganisms do their work in making it rich. As a result, Africans will view agriculture as a notably easier matter, and they can continue to make other developments to push Africa toward the status of a developed country.

Works Cited

Anonymous. 2012. Food for thought. Nature [Internet]. [2012 Mar 29, cited 2012 Sept 17] 483(7391):510. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483510a.html
"The 411 on Chemical Fertilizer." Lawncare.net. N.p., Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.lawncare.net/the-411-on-chemical-fertilizer/>.

Chen J. 2006 Oct 20. The Combined Use of Chemical and Organic Fertilizers and/or Biofertilizers for Crop Growth and Soil Fertility [Internet]. Taiwan:Food & Fertilizer Technology Center; [2006 Oct 20, cited 2012 Sept 17] . Available from: http://fftc.imita.org/htmlarea_file/activities/20110719102200/7.pdf

Ghosh B. 1998. Environmental hazards of nitrogen loading in wetland rice fields. Environmental Pollution [Internet]. [1998, cited 2012 Sept 17] 102(1):123-126. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749198800249

Ghosh N. 2004. Reducing dependence on chemical fertilizers and its financial implications for farmers in India. Ecological Economics [Internet]. [2004 July 14, cited 2012 Sept 17] 49(2):149-162. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800904000734

Maeder P. 2002. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Farming. Science [Internet]. [2002, cited 2012 Sept 17] 296(5573):1694-1697. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5573/1694.full

"Water Crisis." Missionaries of Africa. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.missionariesofafrica.org/challenges/water1.html>.

Picture from http://www.flickr.com/photos/iita-media-library/4925613373/

(MLA style was used for online sources that were not journals and that I could not use CSE style on.)

Another Argument in Science vs. Religion

For those of you who don’t know, in July of this year, particle physicists at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland have reportedly found evidence of the long sought after Higgs Boson. The Higgs is the particle within the Standard Model of particle physics that is believed to give everything in our world mass. Pretty heavy stuff, I must admit. But in all seriousness, this discovery is monumental for modern science. It truly pushes the boundaries of what humans are capable of discovering and understanding. However, the controversy with the Higgs is that it is often deemed “The God Particle”, and many scientists and lay people alike, believe that its discovery can push aside the idea that God has any credibility in the world. This argument is very strong, due to the two vastly different ways that science and religion use to explain our existence and the beginnings of the universe. In his article “Sometimes science must give way to Religion,” Daniel Sarewitz attempts to prove that religion and science must exist together, however his argument is flawed due to the separate ways religion and science explain the world. Religion is focused on the emotional and ethereal, while science concerns itself with empirically proving and determining the origins and ways in which our world works, and when compared with Science, religion’s argument falls by the wayside.

The way that science comes to value knowledge is through empirical and theoretical means. To determine something empirically all one has to do is go out and observe it. It doesn’t get much easier than that does it? Particle physics, in particular, tries to understand the origins of our universe and the mechanisms by which it works through this empirical style. This is why the discovery of the Higgs Boson is so unbelievably important, because it is finally a rational explanation for one of the most baffling questions in science, “where does everything obtain mass?” The Higgs is the one particle that gives every single other particle in our entire universe the mass it has, including me and you. In Sarewitz’s article, he claims that “For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality” (Sarewitz 2012). While the intended effect of this statement is to draw a similarity between the religion and science it does quite the opposite. To state that if someone is unable to understand something they are showing faith of a certain type is an incorrect assumption. The math behind the explanation of the Higgs, while not known to everyone, can be taught and made understandable. Someone can learn from the very base of math and reach the point where they understand where the theory of the Higgs came from, and how the tests were devised. Just because something is most easily explained through metaphor does not mean it is one and the same with something that must be simply believed without empirical evidence to support it.

Seeing that religion and science both have markedly different ways of understanding leads us next to the idea that one is inherently more credible than the other. In Sarewitz’s article, he uses a specific example of a metaphor that likens the effect the Higgs boson has on other objects to an invisible field of “molasses” (Sarewtiz 2012), “weighing down” particles (giving them mass). This description does make the Higgs sound a bit ridiculous, but Sarewtiz’s logic falls apart because he is using the very metaphor for understanding the Higgs that he said makes belief in it an act of faith. He is ultimately constructing his argument on a false assumption, as stated in the above paragraph. Sarewitz compares an ancient Hindu representation of spirituality as a “sea of milk” (Sarewitz 2012) that gives the gods immortality, to the field of “molasses” which quite frankly sounds fairly unbelievable. The comparison of a “sea of milk” to a field of “molasses” (Sarewitz 2012) serves the purpose to make them both seem highly uncredible, but because the field of “molasses” is a phenomenon that can be characterized mathematically through empirical experimentation, it is in fact, inherently more credible than a “sea of milk” (Sarewitz 2012).

Religion has an entirely different approach to knowledge, namely that there are things we cannot understand and we must accept the way they are because someone made it that way. While many would say that this is by no means a poor view of the world, it is incompatible with the way science seeks to know the world. Religion seeks no answer for why things are the way that they are, apart from accepting they were created that way. As John Shook says “science must be incompatible with religion’s distinctive method of knowing” (Shook 2009), because science is incapable of compromising with religion. The truth’s that science discovers are irrefutable, and are easily proven to be absolutely correct, which is summed up by my favorite astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, when he says “the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” (Goodreads) This quote single handedly sums up the incompatibility of the two ways of knowing, because it shows that science cannot compromise to accommodate religion. Religion, however, can accommodate science, which according to Shook, is further evidence that they are actually incompatible. This may seem contrary to common sense, but if one school of thought (religion) is constantly adapting to recount their steps as another school (science) continues to put holes in the original school of thought, can they be said to exist together? Shook illustrates this accommodation when he says, “religion, by contrast, can accommodate science without surrendering its own method through some combination of (a) faithfully holding beliefs about matters immune from empirical inquiry; (b) adopting science’s conclusions by simply appending the conviction “and God made it so”; or (c) adapting science’s conclusions to fit spiritual intuitions and inspirations” (Shook 2009). So keeping this in mind, it is hard to say that the two can exist simultaneously in equal importance.

Another assumption Sarewitz makes is that there is no room for wonder or emotion in science when he claims “Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective experience, to provide an antidote to it” (Sarewitz 2012). This is not entirely true. Take for example anyone who has looked up at the night sky and been overwhelmed by the enormity of our universe; this feeling is natural, but by no means does science try to discourage it. In particular, my favorite astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson does a phenomenal job using science to invoke emotional response in his audience, very successfully I might add. The belief that science is meant to be devoid of emotion is a key point of argument in Sarewitz’s article, shown by his continual references to Angkor Wat in Cambodia. He makes the assumption that the LHC would provide no sense of awe if it were seen in a thousand years, like Angkor Wat does when seen now, which I think is a ludicrous assumption. I am in awe of the LHC right now, because of its sheer size as well as its complexity, which I believe easily takes the place of a sculpture or decoration at Angkor. There is no reason whatsoever that the LHC would be unable to fascinate a visitor like Angkor, or any other religious monument does in the present day. Just take the video below, I think you would be hard pressed not to have an emotional response to it.

The wonder that is cultivated by science is very much an emotional response, but it arises from a rational explanation of the universe, whereas religion is based in faith. The entire premise of Sarewitz’s argument is that the emotional aspect of religion, and the empirical aspect of science are two comparable, roughly equivalent schools of thought. However, comparing these two is to compare the result of one thing with the premise and cause of another, which are inherently non-comparable. His constant referral to a visit to Angkor Wat shows that he is elevating the personal experience of a sense of wonder at a temple to the level of empirically determined knowledge. He is stating that the emotions he felt have as much or more value than rational thought. Fundamentally where Sarewitz goes wrong is by likening religion to art. The emotion and “glimpse of the unknown” (Sarewitz 2012) that he feels and receives are typical of seeing a great work of art, which I’m sure almost every reader can understand. By equating the two, whether consciously or not, he is devaluing religion and undermining his own argument.

Science and religion seek to know and understand the world in two vastly different ways, and as such are incompatible. While science empirically searches for answers of how, religion pontificates on the why. The difference is important because religion does not seek an answer for how, so when science discovers how, religion is forced to accommodate and backtrack in order to keep itself relevant. Sarewitz puts forth a valiant effort to explain how the two are necessary in our world, but because of logical fallacies and shortcomings his argument falls flat, leaving science as the remaining way of knowing. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums it up quite well, saying “The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there's any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all” (Goodreads). As a Christian, I must say that personally it is hard for me to refute Sarewitz, however it doesn't take much time to realize that the way he poses his argument is fundamentally flawed, allowing the argument I have presented.

Sarewitz D. 2012. Sometimes science must give way to religion. Nature. 488(7412). <http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244>. Accessed 2012 Sept 10.

Shook J. 2009 June 15. Science and religion are incompatible in two major ways. It’s Only Natural with John Shook: Center for Inquiry. <http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/science_and_religion_are_incompatible_in_two_major_ways/>. Accessed 2012 Sept 17

Easterbrook G. 1997. Science and God: a warming trend?. Science. 277(5328). <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5328/890.full>. Accessed 2012 Sept 17.

Cray D. 2006. God vs. Science. Time Magazine. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html>. Accessed 2012 Sept 17.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Quotes from:
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson> Accessed 2012 Sept 26.

Pigs: A Petri Dish for the Next Worldwide Plague?

One of the most versatile animals we domesticate today, pigs are a huge part of our everyday lives. Most households will use pig products in their homes on a daily basis, from meat to candles to soap. This has led to the growth of this fast-paced industry means that farmers are constantly trying to use and adapt the best technology and science available. When antibiotics came out in large quantities at affordable prices, many people who raised pigs in factory farming situations saw it as an effective way to ward off bacteria and keep the premature deaths of their animals to a minimum. Though this system has been working well since its introduction into the factory farming industry, there is now speculation that the excessive use of antibiotics will create super bacteria, which would be capable of spreading to humans. Countries like Denmark are being proactive about this potential issue by halting the use of over sixty percent of antibiotic use in both the poultry and pork industries. By assessing the damage that could be caused by prolonged abuse of antibiotics and studying how they could spread to humans, scientists can gain an accurate path of how to proceed effectively in the global pork industry, following the lead of countries like Denmark.

Since Darwin’s voyage on the HMS Beagle in 1831, it has been known that life exists within the boundaries of the law of the “survival of the fittest” ,which states that when a force was to act upon the population, only those who could survive that force would live to reproduce. These reproducing individuals passed on the gene that allowed for their survival to their offspring, thus keeping the trait alive in the population. Darwin, while working on the Galapagos Islands, discovered this by observing the speciation present in the finches. As Darwin noted, there were a number of finch species on the islands, and they looked very similar, save the size and shape of their bill. Bill construction is an important feature in food gathering and eating, and each of the finches had a beak suited to the food it ate. Darwin deduced that the birds all must have had a common ancestor that gave rise to the different species as niches in the environment allowed the speciation to occur. This observation was expanded, and when applied to other species and groups, lead to a better understanding of the meaning of our world’s diversity. This same phenomenon can be seen working in crop pest populations, where pesticides killed off all the insects, with the exception of those few that were genetically resistant to the chemicals. These resistant insects bred among themselves, passing on the gene of pesticide resistance to their young, thus creating new strains of pesticide-resistant insects. This same scenario can play out under a pig’s skin, with the hordes of bacteria that call it home. The antibiotics will kill most of the bacteria, but leave the few resistant ones to reproduce and populate, just as it happens to crop pests. These bacteria could potentially keep strengthening with each addition of antibiotics, and create super bacteria that cannot be killed by our current antibiotics. This would be devastating to the pork industry, as thousands of pigs would be expected to die, and much of the meat produced would become contaminated with super-bacteria, making it harmful for human consumption. The super-bacteria that could potentially be created by the strains in the pigs would destroy the pork industry, but that may not be the limit of the potential damage.

Pigs and humans, though not very similar in appearance, have surprisingly similar internal anatomical functions and structures, due to the evolutionary links to common ancestry and the large number of shared derived traits. Because of the similarities, bacteria can jump from pigs to humans. MRSA CC398 is a bacterium that, oddly enough, started out as human-spread and human-hosted. However, it started being hosted by pigs as well, due to the close proximity of many humans to them. Now, with the excessive use of antibiotics in the trade, the bacteria has a new strain only found on pigs, and is resistant to tetracycline and methicillin, both very common and effective antibiotics. It is already well known that this bacterium is capable of spreading to humans, as it started out as human-hosted, and it is only a matter of time before it makes the trans-species host exchange a second time. Another bacterium that has had even more publicity than MRSA CC398 was the “swine flu”, also known as H1N1. Though this bacterium is not a strengthened by-product of antibiotic use, it is a common inhabitant of pigs worldwide, and, as we all found out not more than two years ago, can spread to humans given the correct conditions. By using the antibiotics so liberally, pigs are essentially functioning as petri dishes for the next worldwide human plague.

Because this issue is threatening the lives of millions of people, the country of Denmark, long known as one of the most important pork producing countries in the world, stopped the use of antibiotics for the purpose of animal growth. This radical move shocked the entire farming industry, and was responsible for a sixty percent drop in total pig antibiotic use. Many analysts feared that this move would cause the output of pork to plummet as a result, but on the contrary, it rose by over fifty percent, due to increased fertility of the female breeding stock pigs. It is expected that other countries will see the changes made my Danish Farmers and copy their methods, but some worry that the large antibiotics companies, many of which have ties with government officials, will try to make those measures difficult.

The pork industry is a worldwide industry, and brings thousands of people in direct contact with pigs every day. Because of the ability for pigs to transmit diseases to humans, we have to be proactive and make sure that our swine populations do not become a breeding ground for super bacteria. If we are not taking preemptive measures to keep the antibiotic levels in the industry to a minimum, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.


Too many, too smelly; Should Denmark's exports of pork be chopped?. The Economist [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2012 September 13]; Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/1979752

Sohn, E. Antibiotics breed drug-resistant bacteria in pigs. Discovery News [Internet], 2012 [cited 2012 September 13]; available from: http://news.discovery.com/animals/antibiotics-drug-resistant-bacteria-pigs-farming-120116.html

Vince G. ‘Pig disease' may be spreading between humans. News Science [Internet], 2005 [cited 2012 September 13]; Available from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7773-pig-disease-may-be-spreading-between-humans.html

Antibiotics Prove Powerless as Super-Germs Spread. Spiegel International [Internet], 2012 [cited 2012 September 13]; Available from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/resistant-bacteria-antibiotics-prove-powerless-as-super-germs-spread-a-811560.html