Exploration Five: Allison Clark

Part  One:

Mr. Money Mustache - Get Rich With Your Public Library:

In this post, he talks about the saving money by using the public library, which he goes on to say that many people do not. The need to feel intellectual cannot be overcome by being money savvy, he goes on to say. He claims that if people simply used the tool of the library and their free books, then you wouldn't waste nearly as much money on a stack of books that end up laying idle on your bookshelf, only becoming something pretty to look at. 

The strengths of this article is that he is urging people, in a connectable and sarcastic way, to become something that everyone wishes to be (smart with their money), and so people genuinely want to learn that, so then it becomes an easy subject to relate to. His opinions are blunt and to the point which is easily understandable but can become a weakness to the article because some may take his stereotype of the average person "attempting to be intellectual", in an offensive way.

As someone that loves to read, I can relate to the people wanting to purchase these books, I often buy them to read them over and over and mark them to however I desire. I have a copy of The Outsiders that I've read more than 10 times, and I would be lost without my own copy of it. So I do agree with his money saving technique, but I don't think that it can always be realistic. So the idea was useful but maybe a compromise would be more useful, A lot of my books have been handed down to me (i.e my beloved copy of the outsiders) or bought at stores like half priced books and goodwill. Its easier to save money by going through the cheaper alternative. 

Link to blog post: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/08/get-rich-with-the-library/

Part Two:

A website that I have found a really educational one is the YouTube channel that is run by the famous author John Green. He has started this YouTube channel called Crash Course, giving short videos about certain subjects regarding history, and teaches them in a fun and quirky manner. He has tons of videos that are about specific topics like the civil war and women's suffrage, and are extremely helpful if you're looking for a refresher over or a topic or a couple of fun facts, and most are mildly entertaining. 

As a Social Studies Education major, these videos are a gold mine for me. As I have a genuine curiosity for these subjects, I enjoy the short videos to pick up on some facts that I didn't previously know or refresh on something that I had previously learned, Even for the people that don't find history as interesting as I do, this could be a tool used to help with subjects that come off as a little dry. It also provides crash courses to other subjects in math and science. 

Link to Website:  https://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse

Exploration 5 Pt. 2 Cole Haferman

SnowboardProCamp

SnowboardProCamp is a YouTube channel created and run by a man named Kevin Pearce. He is an avid snowboarder and snowboarding instructor who spent ten years teaching at Whistler B.C. On the YouTube channel you will find many different snowboarding videos that will teach you everything from the basic first day lessons to more advanced park and rail tricks. I have personally viewed a number of the videos trying to learn new tricks on rails as well as attempting to ride in steep powder. All of the videos are extremely well filmed and edited but most importantly are explained in such a way that makes each skill easy to learn and understand. For each new trick video Kevin first begins by showing what the full completed trick should look like when properly executed, then dives into the details of each trick by breaking down all the individual components to the tricks and teaching those skills separately. This method of explaining things has really helped me to learn the tricks at a faster rate than i would have been able to without the videos and had also given me the confidence to continue pushing and improving my riding with each new trick learned. 

 Kevin Pearce creator of SnowboardProCamp       

One of the many snowboard tutorials on the channel

         

https://www.youtube.com/user/SnowboardProCamp/featured

Exploration 5: Amanda Chirico

Part 1: How to Make Money Buy Happiness by Mr. Money

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/04/14/how-to-make-money-buy-happiness/

The main point of this article is to open up peoples eyes making them realize that most people buy things for their own happiness not because they need it. He repeatedly discusses things people buy just for happiness like for example he brings up a 4500 square-foot custom dream home. You don't buy that cause you need more space for the family to gather or to throw killer parties but you buy it for the feelings you anticipate it will bring you.
The strengths in this article would be he does a good job giving you different senaireos within his opinion. The weakness in this article could be he doesn't give you any other view. He only discusses what he believes which is people only spend there money on things that make them happy and the way he comes off makes it sound like he doesn't like that. In many ways I agree with him  I feel like if your spending money on something that doesn't make you happy then why the heck are you buying it. What I don't really agree with is he makes it sound like spending money on things that make you happy is a bad thing. I believe if you are making the money and you have enough you should spend it on what makes you happy.
I really don't think this artical is that useful to me at least I guess to some people it could be useful but I think it really was just written because he needed to get it off his chest he wanted to tell people what he feels.

Part 2: YouTuber Beautygivemeabeat

https://www.youtube.com/user/beautygivemeabeat

This YouTuber gives you fun little DIY hacks as well good fashion advice I like watching Beautygivemeabeat to stay up to date with the latest trends.

(The website is YouTube so here is there logo)

Exploration 5 Pt. 1 Cole Hafeman

You Can't Cure Obesity with Bigger Pants

     This post focuses not on the issue of obesity but on how to solve all of your problems by directly confronting them and facing them head on instead of doing what most people in modern society do, to change something and hide from the problem. In the blog he uses the great example of an office worker who has become too sucked into his work that he has begun to gain weight and his favorite work pants are beginning to seem tight around his waist. Mr. Money Mustache's solution to the mans problem is not for the man to buy bigger pants but to continue wearing those pants and instead exercise more and take the stairs at work. Now this brought up another problem for the man, his office is on the twentieth floor of the building and it takes him too long to walk the steps. Again Mr. Money Mustache's solution is not for the man to take the elevator at work but to continue taking the steps and he will soon be fit enough to make it to his floor in time. This is what I really love about this particular blog post, how versatile the core idea is, it applies to every aspect of life and every little problem we can face in our lifetime. The problem is not the problem, the problem is the way you choose to look at it and address it, are you confronting it head on or are you hiding from it and using another credit card to pay off the other one. 

     As I stated above the main strength of the blog post is the versatility of it's core idea and how it can be applied to the individual and his problems. Personally I agree through and through with Mr. Money Mustache's idea and his way of thinking, how he lives his life and solves his problems. I furthermore believe that this way of thinking is not only incredibly useful and practical for many people, I also believe it to be highly useful. If at all possible I would like to experiment with this lifestyle and will try to solve a problem or two of my own using Mr. Money Mustache's own ideas and thinking.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/09/you-cant-cure-obesity-with-bigger-pants/ 

Brian Hagman-Luxury is just another weakness review

Luxury is Just Another Weakness

The main point of this article is to explain why you shouldn't live a luxurious lifestyle even if you have the means to, but rather to live your life with the occasional dabble in luxury. I believe the strongest point of this article is that the writer, MMM, has experience and knows what he is talking about. He points out that even he lives a pretty luxurious lifestyle, but makes sure not to sound hypocritical. This gives him credibility because readers know that he isn't just jealous of people living more extravagant lives than he is, but rather telling people about his experience with the topic. People off all incomes can relate to his article, and I think that is crucial to being popular and well liked, especially on the internet. I think this is a very strong article with a strong point, and I completely agree with what he is saying. It's human nature to want the best and nicest things, but when you only settle for the biggest and best things, that's when it becomes a problem. He says luxury is like a drug. Luxury, like drugs, have their negatives and their positives. He states that only a fool would overdose on a drug because he wants all of the positive he can get, without remember the negatives that come with it. Luxury is the same way. While more and more luxury may bring more and more positives, it also carries more and more negatives along with the positives. I found this article very useful and educative. I now understand why luxury should be occasional, no matter what the circumstances. I found no weaknesses with this article.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/08/29/luxury-is-just-another-weakness/

Part 2: A website that I visit frequently is cnet.com. I like this website because it reviews all kinds of products. Before purchasing any electronics, I always vist Cnet to see what experts think about the product. They compare products to other products that are similar, so you can know which is the best product in the specific category, for example, over-ear headphones. I trust the experts at Cnet and I rarely have conflicting viewpoints from their reviews. http://www.cnet.com/

Exploration 5 links for Part 1. From Mike Lohre

You'll find Mr. Money Mustache link to list of all posts, so you can pick one, here.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/

Mr. Money Mustache.  Really.

Skim, surf, browse through some titles and find one you really want to read and review.  They are all short so, if you are feeling lazy, don't spend too much time trying to find the shortest.  Ha ha.  Once you find one, claim it by telling us you want it and writing the full title of that post in the Comments section here.

Here also are links to the other sites I showed you, just in case you are interested in them and find them helpful.

Have fun, and really use your writing to explore ideas.  We''ll all learn more!

Mike 

Scotty Kilmer channel
https://youtu.be/tbhHcxscu4Q

Houston mechanic Scotty Kilmer

Veritasium and Derek Muller
https://youtu.be/2KZb2_vcNTg

Derek Muller, founder of this channel and someone who is thinking about how to make science engaging, on YouTube.

Death Exploration Three from Omar

Recently my godfather passed away. He had been a big part of my life since I was a child. I can remember for the past four years, he has been the only person to get me anything for my birthday. And for my high school graduation, he gave me the most memorable gift. unfortunately he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and over the last six years he slowly passed away. Six months ago, unexpectedly his condition became very severe. He had to move two hours away to live with his cousin who was taking care of him daily. One month ago he passed away and for some reason I always thought there would be another day I could make the two hour drive out to see him. Him passing away so suddenly taught me to be there for the people you love everyday. It showed me how simple life really is and how it can be taken from us within a second.


 Issues of Evaluation are where we morally make a choice as to whether we want something done one way or the other be it good or bad, wanted or unwanted, or even effective or ineffective. These appear in our life everyday and are some of the simplest choices we make. They could be whether a mac or PC is better for your needs or whether you are going to jump in front of a car to save a women's life or not. There is no right or wrong answer in these issues, it is all about perspective and the outcome you wish to have.




 The biggest issue that I see as a young citizen is racism. Some people do not see racism as a prevalent issue today, but from my perspective, I deal with it everyday. My father owns a car dealership and I am often times driving with dealer license plates instead of a average cars license plate. I have been pulled over more times than I can count by white cops asking if the car is stolen after taking me out of the car and inspecting everything. I feel as though I am being targeted racially, not just because I am driving a nice car with dealership plates, but because I am some one who is not white driving a nice brand new car, still with fresh marker on it and dealer plates they instantly believe the car could possibly be stolen and pull me over even after the license plate runs clean. A lot of white people do not deal with issues such as these though. I have even noticed at public events, if I am with a group of minorities versus a group of white people I am watched and followed a lot more than when I am with only my white friends. For some people, they just are not a target so they do not see racism as a issue. This is a issue of policy, a issue of how we should implement our aims. For the racist people it is to target and blame minorities on all issues. I am heavily against and believe awareness is the only way to stop the issue.

Exploration Two from Omar

Hello Class, I am Omar Shehadeh. I am a Palestinian-American who is my first generation born in America. I am a political science major with a focus on Pre-med. I have a pit-bull named Astro who I would give anything for. This is my second year at OSUM and I continue to enjoy the environment the teachers create and the one on one help they can provide. I worked at Nordstrom for a year, but with my recent appendicitis I had to take a leave of absence while I recover and focus on my school work.

"The life of Fredrick Douglass" stood out to me the most. The fact that an entire race of people was being condemned to live an un-educated life and to stay impoverished and enslaved made me very angry. Mr. Aulds hatred for black people and his view of it being "unlawful" and "unsafe" to teach slaves to read and write shows the true ignorance a entire society can develop. For an entire society to accept another part of their society as lesser creatures really had a big affect on me. Through the reading I learned that literacy events are times in our lives in which we use linguistics to interact with one another. This can be either orally or written in text. The reading was a direct narrative of the life of Fredrick Douglass. A former slave who reached his freedom after many years of hardship, the story clearly depicted a literacy event.

Exploration 4 - Brayden

     The most important idea I got from Fresh was that the farmers were trying to stay as close to the natural animal template as possible. Industrializing farms and livestock isn't how nature was originally designed. Now scientist say they have proof to back up that local farms can produce more food than industrial ones. I thought the film was very good on delivering its purpose, and was overall a very informational. It was very one sided that local farms are better for living than industrializing everything.

     My biggest question from Fresh is "how bad industrialization of cows really is". Very quickly the first thing that stuck out to me that almost all of our dairy products come from an animal that is heavily reliant on genetically modified organisms. I don't want to consume anything that needs GMOs to be able to live how it is. Industrial dairy farms often pull cows away from the heard to be 4-5 because they ant in there prime anymore, when a healthy cow can produce milk for 15-20 years.

source:
http://gmoinside.org/concerns-industrialized-dairy-operations/

Exploration 4 - Bianca

I think one of the most important ideas in the film Fresh is the idea that organic farms are healthier, more efficient, and more sustainable than industrial farms. In the film, Michael Polland points out that "The more you process food, the less nutritious it is". Because of industrialized farming, most of the food we eat is actually much less nutritious than if it were to come from an organic farm. Later in the film, Joel Salatin says "Our neighbors get about $150 an acre, when we're getting about $3,000 an acre".  So not only are organic farms healthier than industrialized farms, but they are also significantly more profitable. 

One question I had after watching the film Fresh was whether or not the growth hormones and antibiotics used on the animals in industrial farming affect the health of the people consuming them. Through my research I found that the six growth hormones commonly used on cattle in the U.S. have been proven to significantly increase the risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in people in consumers of the product. It has also been proven that the growth hormones and unnatural feed have also increased the saturated fat in the meat, which is linked to obesity and heart disease.

Source: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/factory-farming-and-human-health/

Exploration Four - Chris Phillips

The most important theme of in the movie "Fresh" was the idea that the food industry doesn't *have* to be the way it is. In fact, some interviewees claim that this method of farming and food production is less sustainable than an organic approach. This is because the mass production of meat is done in monocultures, and Michael Pollan says that "it takes a huge amount of pesticides to keep monocultures healthy." The treatment of these illnesses comes with more problems, killing off the weaker strains of the viruses and leaving only resistant ones. This is one reason why organic production begins to become more sustainable than mass production. If I were to review the film, I would focus on what it really means to produce organically and what complications might arise from it. I would also see what the plan is for the future of mass producers of meat and crops, since the movie says that this method is unsustainable. I thought that the movie represented the arguments for organic production very well, with seemingly credible sources and anecdotes from farmers who produced both organically and inorganically. However, I think that the filmmaker could have sought out more knowledgeable businessmen and higher-ups involved in inorganic production to give their opinions on the matter. This would make the film seem less like propaganda and more like a reality check where the viewer makes up their mind. If organic production has every advantage over inorganic production, the message of the film would only be strengthened.

One question I had during the film was how effective the pesticides commonly used were. According to Cornell entomologist David Pimentel, “[i]t has been estimated that only 0.1% of applied pesticides reach the target pests, leaving the bulk of the pesticides (99.9%) to impact the environment." (Environmental Health Perspectives, Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002))
These impacts include loss of biodiversity, water and soil contamination, and increases in the resistance of pests due to only the strongest pests surviving and reproducing.
This information was found at http://www.sustainabletable.org/263/pesticides.

Exploration 4- Jared

     The film Fresh captures its audience by showing the ins and outs of the modern agricultural industry in the United States. Something that really stood out to me was that smaller farms are not inefficient by any means. The livestock are proven to be healthier than livestock raised in an industrialized facility. This is due to the use of mono cultures in industrialized farms. The film did a great job describing how the creation of mono cultures in industrialized farms is not natural and is the reason why the use of all sorts of antibiotics is a necessity in these industrialized farms. Livestock on smaller, natural farms don't need these antibiotics because these farmers tend to mimic how nature really works. If I were to review this film, I would take facts from each side and present both arguments as it would only be fair to do so, in my opinion. Fresh does a fantastic job convincing viewers that the industrialization of agriculture is wrong in many ways and that America could only benefit if smaller organic farms made a return. However, the film lacked facts about any positives of the industrialization of agriculture and also lacked negatives of organic farming.

     I was curious about how many steroids and growth hormones are given to cattle farms. I found that there are around six anabolic steroids given to nearly all livestock in cattle farms here in America. That is crazy to me. These anabolic steroids help cattle grow faster, larger and give them a larger appetite. In 1988, the European Union banned the use of all hormone growth promoters, yet the United States has continued to allow it for over 50 years.

Source

https://www.organicconsumers.org/scientific/growth-hormones-fed-beef-cattle-damage-human-health

Exploration Four- Jenny Kitzler

One of the most important ideas that stood out to me from the film "Fresh" was that we pay so little money for out industrialized foods now, but in the long run we will end up paying more do to poor health. Not only will we end up paying more but so do the industrialized farmers. In the film the pig farmer stated that when he switched to natural farming from industrialized farming he saved $14,000 within the first year. He switched to natural farming once he realized the damage the drugs were doing to the animals and our bodies as well. 

I enjoyed seeing how the natural farmers allowed you to see their farms and the passion that they have for what they do. I feel as though we could have gotten into depth more about how nasty and brutal these industrialized farms have become. Like a look into the actual factories themselves.

One of the men in the film stated "If you want to feed the world, don't industrialize." This stood out to me because you always hear bigger is better. In this case no it's not. Stay small, stay local, stay healthy. If you notice how much of an issue unhealthy eating habits have become it corresponds greatly with how big the industrialized farms have become. 

According to the information that I found on the Natural Resources Defense Council website " 80% of all antibiotics sold in the United States are for use on livestock and poultry who may not even be sick or be in need of the antibiotics." When our food is getting injected with these antibiotics the drugs go into the consumers body system, after so long our bodies are use to it an become immune to it. Not only that but industrialized farms are feeding meat to our cows, pigs, and chickens who are actually herbivores. So if our bodies become resistant to the drug theirs do as well. This website also talks about how the NRDC sued the FDA in hopes that the FDA would mandate its distributors to no longer disperse the unnecessary use of drugs to their livestock. 

    http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics.asp 

Exploration Four- Lillie Weber

After watching the film, "Fresh", I have decided to take a better look at what I am eating. It interested me because honestly I have not really known where my meat was raised or HOW they were raised. Within the movie, an author by the name of Michael Polland, stated "...the more you process food, the less nutritious it is". In my opinion, this was one the most important themes within the movie. When I was doing a little bit more research on how often we eat processed foods, I found out that 70 percent of America's diet involves processed foods (Ryssdal, 2013).

 Within the same article, the author states, "Cookies, crackers, cereal, even yogurt, crammed with various chemicals that'll let it sit on the shelf for a good long time, all the while containing enough sugar and salt to make it taste good." Honestly I believe that everyone has turned a blind eye to that. Some people truly believe that they are eating healthy because they are eating yogurt, but what they don't know is how many chemicals are in that yogurt.
The link to my source is http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/big-book/processed-foods-make-70-percent-us-diet

Exploration 4: Allison Clark

Fresh Response

"Americans are only afraid of one thing- inconvenience". To me, this quote centralizes everything in the film Fresh, it grabs the attention of the audience and brings them in to open their minds on the idea that the United States agriculturally is not as well off as it seems to be. There are many flaws in our food production system, and the thing that I respected most about this film is that it is not out to accuse, but to educate and suggest solutions. The first step to conquering a problem is admitting that you have one, and this film brings realization to any who watch it. So it does not only educate about our food productions flaws but it brings a moral to apply to life in the long run, and any movie that provokes thought is an important one. I feel as if that's a strength to this film, the way that it suggests our solutions in a way appeals to everyone from any background or point in their life. The film addresses the factors that are against them and picks out flaws in their argument to explain a way that those can be fixed as well, and making their ideology undeniable. I relate to this film because it applies to everyone, including me, and it resonates because who wouldn't want to eat healthy? Who wants to eat meat from a place where there are 2,000 pigs in one small building? That's not an appealing thought. I relate to it's way of going about the problem and solution method, its not about the accusation and the wrong doing but what you can make right about it.

A theme that I have chosen to further explore is the antibiotics used to make the chickens that we eat to grow faster and be up to the standards that the consumer has made for the meat. For example, consumers prefer white meat to dark meat so engineers have worked to recreate the chicken to having more white meat and to grow faster and bigger to get the most out of the livestock. Not only does this go against the ways of mother nature, it is abusive to the animals. In chickens, the antibiotic makes this grow so fast that their bones and inside organs cannot keep up with the process, make it impossible for them to take more than a few steps at a time before plopping down (Food Inc. 2008). In Fresh, Joel Salatin represents the fact that it is unnatural to the process of mother nature to change how these animals grow by feeding them foods they weren't meant to eat and giving antibiotics that they shouldn't have. Another problem with the antibiotics is the fact that they build resistance in our immune systems. As we consume the animals that have been given the antibiotics, its creates a tolerance to the antibiotics we would be prescribed when we are sick, which proves that antibiotics are not beneficial to either party involved. My real thought is why is this worth it? What makes this okay to do? Because as a consumer, I would gladly make any sacrifices to make our food as profitable and safe as it should be. Our livelihood as human beings should not be compromised to put money in someones pocket. 

Link to Sources:

Antibiotic Resistance: 

http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics.asp

Food Inc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Ltaxr_BWk

Exploration 4 - Emily Shearer

1)     The film, Fresh, was more interesting to me than I thought it would be. I was hooked right off the bat, when it was said that "Americans fear one thing: inconvenience." It really made me think, and I agree with that statement. 

     Throughout the whole film, the problem of unhealthy products from farms was discussed. Many farmers are only concerned about one thing, and that is the number of their products. For example, at one farm, over 200,000 chickens can be put in one chicken house. It was seen easily from the film that the farmers had to watch their every move so that they wouldn't step on a chicken. The reason for the industry doing this to their animals and crops is for bigger, faster, cheaper production. 

     One farmer, Joel Salamin, talked about diseases from the animals. From improper care and antibiotics, many of the animals on big farms develop diseases or mutations, potentially harming the consumer of those meats. Smaller farms have proven to have healthier meats and crops than bigger, industrialized farms. Salamin went on to say, "Wanna feed the world? Don't be industrialized."

     Fresh did a great job getting its point across: organic farming is the way to go. Industrialized farming has been proven to be harmful to the consumer. However, Americans want things instantly, and get impatient if they have to wait, and that is the main reason I believe that the industry is so huge. But, it is a problem. One thing I would have like to see in the film that wasn't there, are more positives, if any, on industrialized farming.

2) I was curious about monoculture and wanted to know more about the effects it has. As an idea, it sounds okay to do because of the mass produce, but over time and in the long run, it shows that it is harmful to the area because it destroys the diversity. Monoculture changes the conditions of living for the species. It also 'welcomes' pests. Those that weren't there before start showing up. The chemicals used on the crops begin to not work as well after using them, which makes the chemical amounts used increase. Increasing the amount of chemicals harms the animals around the area. And eventually from all the chemicals, the food we consume aren't even natural.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Monoculture-Farming---Disadvantages-And-Negative-Effects-On-The-Environment&id=6780941

Exploration four-Abigail Fortner

One of the most important ideas was inconvenience for Americans. They talked about how everything is convenient now. You don't have to worry about getting something because its practically at your fingertips. The more you process food, the less nutrious it is. Some people don't have access to healthy food if they live in big cities especially, so fast food is all over. They made the statement, "You get what you pay for with food.". If you pay for cheap food, then its going to be lower quality, and have a lot less nutrients than healthy food.

My question is, If we made sure there was access to healthy food, would people eat it? It seems people like fast food, because its convenient, easy, and it tastes good. Those are all things people want, but our bodies won't like us for it in the end.

Fresh Response Nicole Miller

The most important idea I took from watching this film would have to be that raising animals and crops as naturally as possible is the best way to go. Most of the speakers that were interviewed in the movie said that it was better to, and a lot said that they would rather go naturally, even if it meant they would not be able to mass produce their product as much. Due to industrialization, people started not caring as much about what was in their produce, just how quickly they could produce it. Some farms were feeding dead cows to alive ones because it made the cows grow quicker. This led to some major problems with the cows, sometimes resulting in mad cow disease or some other type of disease. It was said that we needed to "respect the design of nature."(Fresh) I agree with this. I think that in order to fully understand the way nature works, we need to respect it, and realize that we can benefit the way things naturally are. I liked that the farmer would move his cow from pasture to pasture to imitate the way they would live in nature.

A question I had was exactly how much the animals were hurt by using antibiotics and hormones used to grow the animals quicker. I found that when growth hormones are used in animals, it sometimes stays in the meat that we eat. Not only that, but it stays in the waste the animals excrete from their bodies, and some scientists are worried that it may begins to hurt our environment by contaminating soil and water sources. The European Union doesn't allow these hormones to be used. Approximately 80% of US cattle are injected with growth hormones, and was traceable in soil up to 195 days after being given to the animals. Overall, these hormones seem to be doing more negative than positive.

http://www.sustainabletable.org/258/hormones

Exploration Four: Zeb Lucas

         "Fresh" had several very important points, but if I were to pick a few of the most important parts, I would have to say how they touched on mono-cultures, and the downfalls of the industrialization of farming. From stripping the soil of its nutrients, to more prevalent pests as a result of mono-cultures, and to the lack of farms no longer being a self-sustaining cycle. I also found this quote from Joel Salatin interesting "Our neighbors get about $150 an acre, when we're getting about $3,000 an acre." I was somewhat taken aback when I heard those numbers. The fact that he is able to earn $2,850 more per acre is astounding. If Joel has a proven system that has the potential to make $2,850 more per acre than his neighbor, and is a self-sustaining cycle, then why isn't everyone doing it? If I were to review this film I would focus on the way that the film didn't solely focus on the issue of mono-cultures and the way that livestock are raised much like “Food Inc.” instead how it focused on the solution. The movie “Fresh” was more interested in educating its viewers, instead of just scaring them with horrific videos of the way that animals are treated. I would also focus on the statistic that 70% of US grain production is fed to livestock, and I would dig deeper into the negative effects that having such large amounts of livestock could be, such as water pollution. 

          The one question that I had after watching “Fresh” would be about pesticides, primarily when crop dusting. What is it that they are releasing into the air, and is it toxic to humans? After doing a bit of research, I found that pesticides can have a variety of harmful effects on humans, symptoms varying from headaches and blurred vision to asthma and nerve damage. Although many of the symptoms are flulike and therefore go untreated. The people that are most at risk would be the farmers, or anyone that comes in direct contact with the pesticide without proper safety gear.

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/pesticides.html

Exploration 4: Joe Weingates

The most important thing to me that stood out in the movie "Fresh " was that more and more pesticide is needed year after year just to produce the same protection to the plants. It never occurred to me that my dad would develop a tolerance to the pesticides that we use. The other one is that the antibiotics that we are putting into the livestock is just killing off the weak diseases and bringing out more serious mutated diseases. Professor John Ikerd says that the only way to produce the livestock in such confined conditions today is from the use of antibiotics. That's a scary thought that what we are using to help produce more livestock in confined space is really bringing more serious diseases to surface that we don't know how to treat since it already has a strong tolerance to the antibiotics we've already been pumping it with. So on that note if I were to review the film i'd focus on the pesticides and antibiotics. I Feel like one of their major strengths was that they just kept coming with fact after fact. I think its its powerful when you can say all this stuff and have off the statistics and studies right behind you to back it up.something that I feel like wasn't as strong in the film was that it didn't really visually put into your mind how messed up the conditions, and treatment of the animals were. I feel if they put a couple more videos of how they were treated it would have really stuck that it is not right. I can't really relate to this video at all other then that these videos are affecting people like my sister who will not eat pork because she has seen how it is processed and what part of the pigs are used in a lot of the food.

What I searched for i left a little broad and said "What the problems with feeding our livestock antibiotics". I found that when we do this it actually makes the perfect conditions for bacteria with stronger resistance to thrive and multiply. And when they want, those stonger bacteria can spread to the soil, workers, animal waste, or air to find new hosts to contaminate. The CDC even stated "much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe."

http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics.asp

Exploration 4:Fresh by Miguel Radilla

The film fresh took an appropriate (PG) path to the insight of industrial farming by not showing the disturbing graphic visuals of what pertains to industrial farming of treating of animals (goriness). Their approach was more of lighting a fuse to inquire of what really goes on behind the close doors of industrial farming rather than opening the doors and showing it first-hand(goriness). Important ideas that this film offered me was the repercussions of feeding meat to herbivores, trade offs versus spraying and not spraying pesticides, growth hormones, nature doesn’t have monocultures, natural farming versus industrial farming, and my favorite are the big players who are “controlling seed to plate.” The film definitely sparked curiosity on who are these big players who are “controlling seed to plate.” I related to this film on their idea of eating healthy instead of consuming the “junk/fast food” I think it’s common for us to turn our shoulders and not think of what we’re actually consuming. Like anybody else, if it taste good, I am not going to ask questions. I have a friend that came over to my house and was literally shocked of what he saw in my fridge. He was like “dude, you don’t have anything organic man?” I said to him “quit being such a hypochondriac man, and accept the good tasty sinful things in life.” Once I saw the film, I think it was the last straw that broke the camel’s back and I bought organic groceries that very same day, which was on Monday haha. No joke, bought some organic honey, organic potatoes, organic yogurt, etc. I am actually looking into local natural farms around Delaware as well. I am not saying I am going 100 percent organic, but it definitely made me transition to the organic side of things. I am still going to enjoy some tasty Chinese food, Buffalo Wild Wings, and the all day breakfast menu that McDonald’s is really enticing. Thanks to the film, I am more aware and will second-guess on what I consume.

            This film made me curious of these big players that supply industrial farms. The film mentions that they’re four big players, soon to be three. As aforementioned, the film says that these particular players are the ones who are controlling from seed to plate and the industrial farms are entirely captive and dependent on these big companies. For example one of those companies are ADM and their CEO is Patricia Woertz. “As of 2009, Forbes ranked her as the 26th Most Powerful Woman in the World, and she was the top-ranking woman on Fortune 500's list of the most powerful CEOs around the world.” This already is a sheer sign that these companies are really powerful and with power comes lobbying.  Last year alone ADM had 82.27B dollar sales/revenue.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/patricia-woertz-net-worth/

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/adm/financials

Exploration 4: Fresh Response from Brian Klunder

In my opinion, the most important ideas to take from this movie is that Industrial Agriculture is unsustainable for the environment since mono-culture ends up destroying the other genetic variations of produce that is not sweet, or large and also destroys the surrounding environment to make room for the mass production of a single crop. An example of this are the Another idea to take from this movie is mass production of antibiotic resistant diseases that come from the overuse of antibiotics on the animals they integrate into small, closed off sections of the slaughterhouses, which will later on have some sort of medical impact when the diseases become more difficult to kill off. The film explores these ideas by showing scenes of a standard industrial farm and all the room it occupies to produce this one specific crop for consumption, and inside looks on how cramped and disgusting the spaces can be when a large group of animals are stuck in one area which is a great scenario where diseases can become sporadic and spread incredibly fast. If I was going to review the film, i'd focus on both perspectives and understand the reasoning for both sides of why they choose to go along the path they have chosen for themselves. The strong side of the film is its speakers that the producer has chosen to represent the side of fresh, natural agriculture to give it more impact to what the message of this movie is trying to say to people that are looking from the outside of food production. It also comes from the information that is provided by this film about the major issues that come industrial agriculture such as, farmers being dependent of companies' genetically modified seeds to stay in the business due to their competitiveness to natural farming and the soil being drained of nutrients rapidly for mono-culture. The weak side of the film is that it does not go further into industrial agriculture and why this method of farming is preferred. There is a lack of details within the inner workings of industrial agriculture which gives the viewers a weak perspective of what makes industrial agriculture a part of our society.

I had a question about what are the issues that originate from planting one specific plant on a humongous section of reserved land. The problems that come from mono-culture revolve around fertilizers, pesticide, and herbicide use, which is required to maintain a healthy field of crops and ends up having a toll on the species of birds and insects that dwell nearby and the environment it's based on. The chemical fertilizer runoff result in oxygen-deprived zones as they greatly promote algae and plant growth, which then quickly accumulates and takes up a massive supply of oxygen from underwater animals and insects and kills off a majority of them. The herbicides and pesticides are widely used onto crop fields, killing off those that live in that area with the growing crops. With the pests and plants coming into contact with these deadly chemicals, the helpful insects and birds end up becoming poisoned with their interactions on the farm and result in a decline in their respective species since they do not expect any dangers when coming onto the fields.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.html

Exp 4 Rachel Nicodemus

The most important evidence offered, in my opinion were all the benefits of farming and raising animals "the old way". The documentary talks about how people need to understand animals and plants, and respect them, in order to produce them correctly. People interviewed in the film say things like "Take care of your grass and feed and it will take care of the animals" (Fresh). People after industrialization, started to believe that many different pesticides and antibiotics were necessary, but in fact they only became necessary when people made it a necessity, mainly as a result from too much mono culture. If I were to review the film I would focus on facts, and how valid they were in this documentary. Some strengths would definitely be that it draws ones attention, emotionally but also it just makes you think... a lot. It makes you think about how things got this way and what could fix it and even things like "what do I eat on a regular basis?"

In the film they talk about how it is a recently proven fact that we do not need big industrialized farms to "feed the world" in fact, doing it the natural way it could feed the world, and feed it better. During the film I was really wandering how many people have turned away from the big industrialized farms and went back to the "old way" of things. That question led me to some other shocking facts like that farmers spend around $4.1 billion dollars on pesticides annually. Also I found that the top major crops in America are corn and soybeans, planted on around 157.8 million acres. That's more than all of the acreage (117.4 million) Americas other top crops like hay, wheat, cotton. rice, and sorghum (grain) are planted on. Reading these facts, and man more, I came to a conclusion that America still has a long way to work, basically backward, in order to fix these many issues of pesticide and antibiotic use and the practices of mono culture all over out country.

(http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/croppesticideuse.html)

Exploration 4: Fresh Response from Andrea Carwile

Ana Sofia Joanes produced a very informative documentary on the need for fresh food in our world today. Industrial farming has taken the concept of natural food away from this world and the movie Fresh was a step in the direction of spreading awareness about the terrible things going on within the agriculture industry. Throughout the movie the farmers kept stating the fact that animals and food are no longer being raised so they are healthy, rather they are being raised so that they grow in large amounts as quickly as possible. I think that if I were to write a review on this film, I would focus on industrial farming vs. organic farming in terms of how they are raising their livestock and crops . The producer showed one specific clip of a chicken house. In the film, it was stated that there were upwards of 30,000 chickens in one house. This scene did a great job at providing a visual example that it is unfair to raise the animals in such large amounts. The animals were barely able to move. That would be one important piece of information to support the film's statement that industrial farms need to regulate how many animals they are choosing to use. Another important aspect of how industrial farms are choosing to raise animals is they are taking away the natural eating habits of the animals for the sole fact that they want the livestock to grow bigger faster. Within the film one of the famers stated "Let's treat an herbivore like an herbivore first" because the cows are being fed dead cow meat. This is another strength because he was so clear in what he thinks will solve the problems of industrial faming. How animals are being treated on farms relates to me because my family owns a small farm and I would never want to see those animals treated like that. I think the movie is a great way of speaking against what is going on in industrial farms.

I questioned what the negative effects of monoculture are since nature doesn't have monocultures. I realize that in theory it is good for the economy, but I found that it does serious damage to the ecosystem surrounding the monoculture area. A monoculture, in fact, decreases nature's ability to be diverse. It is also much more susceptible to pests and fungi, which is why we come to spray monocultures. As a result of that, the plants are no natural. monocultures create a large chain of events that seemingly increase the negative habits in industrial farming.

http://twinqu.com/disadvantages-and-negative-effects-of-monoculture-farming/

Exploration 4: Fresh response Cole Haferman

     What stuck with me most from the film Fresh by ana Sofia Joanes was the idea of a monoculture and how they are impossible and do not exist in nature. I had never heard of such a thing before and took it for granted that the vast fields of corn and soybeans seen along the roads of Ohio were completely normal on their own. While I knew pesticides and fertilizers were used I was unaware that it is only through them that these large fields are seemingly possible. One thing this film did right was to focus largely on solutions to the problem of industrialized agriculture rather than glorifying its mistakes and weaknesses in the most gruesome way possible and many similar documentaries have done. This is what I would chose to focus my review on if I were to chose this film for my review. On a personal level I relate most to the idea that above all else "Americans fear inconvenience" and I believe this to be true on many levels with many applications of the word inconvenience to our daily lives.
     For this part of the blog I decided to stick with the idea of monocultures and where they are commonly seen throughout history and why they are not considered sustainable for modern farmers.
Before the use of pesticides and fertilizers was a common practice as it is today crops were rotated in fields to replenish the nutrients found in the soil and not cause the soil to be infertile. This over usage of a singular crop in part led to the cause of the dust bowl in the 1930's. It is because of the use of modern fertilizers that farmers today are able to plant their fields with corn year after year and not have to worry about depleting the soil, the nutrients are sprayed right on the plants.

http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/1128_cookrj.htm

Exploration 4- Fresh Response Devon Beck

I took a lot out of this movie. I didn't know a lot of things. I knew that the way the food industry was corrupt but I never imagined half the information I found out during this film.

The movie had a lot of good qualities and very few bad ones. I liked how the film had real life farmers who worked in the industry. When watching the movie I got a better sense of the way that they thought when it came to things like pesticides and the way that the livestock is treated.  I never really knew the thought process of farmers. I thought that they just did their job without thinking about what was happening. I liked how the film used comparison and contrast. As I watched I noticed how much better the animals looked when they were left to roam freely instead of being trapped with thousands of other animals. I wished the film would have given you the views of more people then just the selected ones it had. I liked that the film gave you a glimpse into how little people make when they are part of the farming industry. I wish the film would have showed you how businessman view the food industry from their perspectives. I would focus more on the cruel ways that the animals are treated. I feel like if people saw more of how the animals were treated they would be more inspired to act on finding better ways of handling them. A quote that really struck me in the movie was one that Joel Saletin said.  He was talking about the land when he said " Leave it in better shape for the next generation. Better than I found it." This really stuck out to me because I think that we all should try to take care of the land.  I also think this is a good quote because we also need to provide a better food system for future generations.

Through out the film I wondered if their were any laws to protect farm animals from abuse or neglect. I found out that there are no federal laws for farming animals. I found out that their are cruelty statuses but when it comes to farming animals nothing is done to stop the practices. The animals are put through awful procedures without any type of pain medicine given to them.


http://www.humanesociety.org/forms/contact_us/farm_animals_contact.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/