Climate Adaptation in Colombia

Colombia, a country in Central America, has recently come to the forefront of making advances in the ability to adapt to climate change issues, especially as they relate to agriculture.  Climate change has caused problems mainly in the variability of weather and new extremes such as years of intense rain and flooding followed by years of drought.  Colombia has had a lot of recent experience with these issues and has begun to rise to the challenge.  From these problematic climate events, many countries, including Colombia have been pushed to make changes in their responses.

The catalytic event for Colombia was the La Nina in 2010-2011 which caused severe flooding.  Since then, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) has invested in holistic, multi-crop, and regionally focused efforts for adaptation to climate.  They have also partnered with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

These changes have allowed approaches to problems to be fine-tuned for different areas depending on varying risks.  Additionally, farmers have been included in the process which makes solutions better suited to the needs of farmers and what conditions are actually like for them.  Farmer involvement also leads to an increase in awareness of climate change which will be necessary to begin to make changes to combat climate issues.

Technological advances are also being used to make great strides in adaption to climate change.  A recent technological development, a decision making tool that takes climate, annual rice surveys, experiments on rice planting dates, and specific location into account, saved rice farmers in Colombia great economic losses.  The climate modeling used by CIAT showed that there would be a drought during the first growing season of the year and urged farmers not to plant their crops.  Farmers who listened were saved from large economic loss and will still be able to grow their crops later this year.  Advances like this are obviously not a panacea to climate change, but can certainly be helpful in the meantime, reducing losses due to variability in climate.

Sources: Short articles that are interesting to read if you have time :)
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/sep/30/colombia-rice-growers-climate-change
http://www.ciatnews.cgiar.org/2014/02/28/can-colombia-lead-the-way-to-the-agriculture-of-the-future/

Subsidies to Improve India's Food Security

       With the ever-growing population in India, providing food for the incredible numbers of people has become an even greater problem. Approximately one year ago, India's government passed legislation that would provide grain to 67% of the population at a significantly lower price. By subsidizing wheat and rice, the government would be able to feed the thousands of hungry people. However, the real problem comes from the fact that the cheaper food does not always reach those that actually need it. The Forbes article by Megha Bahree states the in 2012, about 35% of the wheat and rice were "leaked in the system." This is down from the 55% that was leaked in 2005, but it still shows that a significant amount of usable food did not reach its destination. Technology that tracks food grain delivery has been one of the greatest causes for improvements in leakages in many states, but in others, corruption still remains. While the legislation had overall positive reactions, many people critisized how not everyone was included in the group that receives lower priced grain, including Koraput. In this state, 39% are excluded from receiving food even though 88% are considered "multi-dimensionally poor" (Aljazeera).

       After the subsidies were implemented several months ago, India now faces challenges with the World Trade Organization about producing grain at such a low price. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad "highlighted India's food security concerns which must not be construed by the developed world as a stumbling block" (Business Standard). India's food security is steadily improving despite the growing population, but they still have many steps before they are able to eliminate undernourishment in the country.

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/tag/food-security-bill/ 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghabahree/2013/09/02/how-bad-really-is-indias-new-food-security-bill/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/food-security-india-not-doomed-after-all-20131110572633972.html

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/germany-respects-india-s-concern-on-food-security-114091800655_1.html

Microbes and Our Food

There is much debate over the use of pesticides and herbicides and other chemicals used on different crops. While I think it is important to entertain these discussions, I also believe that people fail to realize that maybe the solution lies with another alternative. This idea is where research and government support comes in. Without the support of the government any research is nearly impossible, but there has to be a way to attract the appropriate attention from them first. I found an article that I though hit close to home, literally. The article is about a microbiologist who discovered a microbe in Centralia PA. Sometimes we don’t take notice of the problems effecting our environment until it hits closer to home. This new information that this article tells us about stems from a discovery in Pennsylvania, which is where I am from. In the article there is talk about soil microbes and their ability to possibly grow stronger and more resilient crops. I found this to be great news especially because of the fact that it is a different idea that has not been fully explored yet. Of course it is also important to take into consideration that these soil microbes may not do that job as effectively compared to the widely used chemicals today. I think that despite this, we should look more diligently into this possible solution because we need to start securing our food now for our future. In order to really start supporting the use of these microbes we need more research. I think discussion about this at the FSSD ISGP Conference at Cornell will help get the attention needed to start researching and hopefully get us closer to a solution about how to protect our food. I really encourage you all to check this article out if you are at all interested!   

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-soil-bacteria-microbe-farming-technology- ngfood/

The Great, Fat War

It's an age old question that has recently been revisited in the media. Which diet is better for losing weight, or maintaining a healthy lifestyle? For decades, many major health organizations promoted the a low-fat diet. However, in recent years, a number of rigorous scientific studies have shown that actually low-fat diets are largely ineffective in helping individuals lose weight when compared to a diet low in carbohydrates.

In one particular study, two groups were put on different diets, one low-carb and the other low-fat. Those in the low-carb group were told to only consume about 30 percent of their daily calories from carbohydrates. In the low-fat group, 30 percent of their daily calories could come from fats. Over the course of a year, those in the low-carb group lost about 7.7 lbs per year more than those in the low-fat group, on average. In addition, most of weight lost by participants in the low-fat group was lean muscle, not fat.

Aside from weight loss, those in the low-carb group saw significant improvement in their total-HDL cholesterol ratio, meaning that their "good cholesterol" levels increased with respect to their "bad cholesterol." The same cannot be said for those in the low-fat group. Not to mention, the triglyceride levels of participants in the low-carb group fell more than those in the other group. Yes, by most measurements, it seems that the results of this study indicate superior health benefits for those eating a low-carb diet versus a low-fat one.

While this is only one study, there have been a number of others over the past decade that verify these findings. Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and it is difficult to expect the governmental guidelines for the optimal diet will change anytime soon. However, if Americans were to substantially alter their diets to favor one richer in fats and proteins with fewer carbohydrates, how would it impact our current food system? Would subsidies necessarily be provided to those growing different crops? What would the economic and social impacts be of such a dramatic shift in what people eat? It is hard to know for sure, but it is something to consider.

Below is a link to 23 studies showing the benefits of a low-carb diet:

<http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/>

A New Agriculture

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000195 EndHTML:0000008685 StartFragment:0000002407 EndFragment:0000008649 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/jimspeth/Desktop/Internship/ISGP%20Blog%202%20-%20Speth

About 6 times a year for the past three years I have made the trek from my school in southeastern Pennsylvania to my home in Chicago, Illinois. While every 12-hour drive offers a new set of adventures, my favorite by far is the first one of the year in late August. The never-ending farms that stretch from Illinois to central Pennsylvania are just reaching harvest. I love looking at the swaying golden wheat, the infinite fields of rich-green soybeans, and the cornfields that even the most directionally competent person would get lost in. While I do adore the view, I also have to acknowledge that looks can be deceiving. This form of intense annual agriculture, which may be visual pleasing, actually causes several significant issues, such as increased greenhouse gases; increase pesticide use, and decreased food security due to vulnerable crops. These environmental and food-related issues are exacerbated even more since the global demand for grain is currently dramatically increasing. Our world simply cannot economically or socially afford for much longer these issues in intense annual agriculture. Thus, in order to combat these issues, we must reevaluate the agricultural system and begin to shift toward a more sustainable, secure system of perennial agriculture.

            Before we examine the benefits of perennial agriculture though, we must first understand the issues associated with annuals. Annuals, which are defined as a crop that completes its life cycle within one year and then dies, have been popular since the domestication of crops, about 10,000 years ago. Our Neolithic ancestors realized that the annuals, such as wheat, maize/corn, soybeans, etc, adapted better to soil conditions. In addition, annuals seeds were preferred over perennials because annual seeds were bigger and easier to handle. Due to this, the selection pressure was unintentionally applied to the annuals, thus making them even more desirable. As these annuals rose to dominance, their environmental issues became more apparent. These issues stem from the fact that annuals have a shorter growing season and shallower, less dense roots than perennials. This trait limits the nutrients and the water available to them. Thus, annual plants require an excessive amount of fertilizers and pesticides, which are associated with increase greenhouse gases and runoff of dangerous chemicals. In addition to the required inputs, the root structure of the annuals also makes them more susceptible to temperature changes, which, at a time of climate change, is troubling.

            In order to combat the negative impacts of annuals while also ensuring food security in a world of shrinking resources, we must begin to develop perennial crops. Perennials are defined as crops that live longer than two years. So while annuals die after one year, perennials can be harvest multiple times over several years before they die. Even though perennials have been ignored for centuries, they are actually extremely beneficial. Unlike annuals, perennials have long, dense root system and a long growing season. This trait makes them more effective in maintaining topsoil by reducing water and nitrate lost. This also means that the perennials require much less inputs due to increase access to nutrient in the soil, thus decreasing cost and mitigating greenhouse gas emission. In addition, the root structure and resilience of perennials allows them to be planted on more-marginal lands. In other words, perennials can be planted on lands that are less fertile; therefore they can be used to increase the economic and biological diversity of farms. Lastly and most importantly, perennials are more resilient to social, political, health, and environmental disturbances. Since they do not rely on annual seed preparations or constant inputs, a perennial will still be productive even when there is a lack of human interference.

            The question that now faces us is: “is adapting perennials physically and economically feasible?” In short, the answer is yes. Adapting perennials is physically possible both in the sense of domestication/hybridization and crop yield. Domestication/hybridization would consist of breeding wild perennials for desirable traits. One could also crossbreed an annual, such as wheat, with a perennial relative in order to achieve an intermediate. In relation to crop yield, it may seem counterintuitive to have an intense root system AND a high crop yield. This is because carbon is captured and used in photosynthesis to produce energy, which is then allocated to different parts of the plant. Thus, if more is going to the root less would go to producing seeds. Luckily though, plants are flexible organisms that respond to selection pressures. This means that depending on a plants environment, the resources available can expand or shrink. So, by putting a perennial in a fertile environment, there would be an adequate amount of resources for both an intense root system and a high crop yield.

            When it comes to economic feasibility is when the idea of shifting to perennials becomes difficult. Currently, less than $1.5 million dollars directly supports perennial grain projects. In order to achieve an efficient perennial system, much more resources and funding will be necessary. These resources would have to come from both the private and public sector. Even when perennial grains are developed, there will still need to be programs and monetary incentives to persuade farmers to make the shift.  Once the resources of secured though, they will be nothing to stop this necessary shift to a sustainable, perennial agricultural system.

The Middle East and Food Security

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-future-crops-conflict-zones.html

            I will be completely honest and say that I have never been very interested in politics and related world issues.  As a science major and hopeful future medical student, I find it easy to ignore world conflicts and assume that science can be studied on its own.  However, this article points out that this is not possible (and that I should really pay more attention to world news.)

            In the Middle East, particularly in areas called part of the Fertile Crescent, grow many crop wild relatives (CRWs).  CRWs are crops that are related to our food crops and are important for food security.  These crops have many traits that are beneficial such as drought or pest resistance, and can be vital for future attempts to breed or genetically modify crops.  For example, a relative of wheat (which was brought to other areas in the world from the Fertile Crescent in the first place) is resistant to the Hessian fly.  This CRW, then, may help people develop wheat that is resistant to such pests as well.  Thus, CRWs are important not only as parts of the ecosystem in the Middle East, but also as a vital resource to conserve as the world population continues to grow.

            However, many CRWs are at risk of going extinct.  Although there have been efforts to take samples for gene banks, conserving the plants in the wild is still important because they can only continue to adapt to changes in the environment, climate, and ecosystems in the wild.  Furthermore, even collections of seeds may be threatened as one of the largest seed collections is in Syria and is believed to be under the control of rebel forces.

           Conservation efforts are also hindered by the conflicts in the Middle East.  These include the Syrian civil war, the Iraq insurgency, conflicts associated with IS, and more.  Unfortunately, the highest concentration of CRWs also happens to fall in the same areas affected by these conflicts, especially in Syria and Lebanon.

            Although I am not sure how such clashes between food security, conservation efforts, politics, and science will ultimately play out, but I think this situation highlights the importance of understanding both politics and war even as scientists.

India and Germany's Talk on Trade: Are We Losing Sight of What's Important?

            In a recent meeting between German Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabrial, and Indian Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, the two discussed German and Indian financial investment relations along with India’s concern over food security within the coming years. Gabrial allegedly brought WTO concerns to the conversation in hopes that solutions could be sought between the countries. Prasad expressed India’s concerns on food security’s impact on WTO negotiations, and fears of how these issues may be construed by the developed world. In short, India decided not to ratify WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement, but instead asked for the organization to amend the norms for calculating agriculture subsidies in order for the country to continue feeding its lower class population on crops from its farmers. Gabrial “respected the concerns of India with respect to food security.” Throughout the meeting, the two continued to discuss trade negotiations and how each country could improve various investments in order to help the other out.

            In ways, developing nations facing a food crisis can be viewed as an immense opportunity for global change. These areas, while having food systems in place, also have the potential to alter these systems before anything becomes too rooted within developed institution. We now have the opportunity to build sustainable food systems from the ground up, as opposed to working within or completely tearing down faulty systems already in place (such as the case in the US). This potential brings with it immense challenges, but also offers a hope that may not yet be entirely explored. The optimism within this article, however, was not necessarily focused on such radical, romantic ideas.

The article at first offers a glimmer of light in a world where it seems as if we are all only attempting to oppose and out-play one another, but it also leaves the reader with a sense of suspicion due to the ambiguity of trade subsidy regulation. Nations reaching out to one another in order to band together and fight the food security crisis is certainly ideal, but when it is done in terms of investments and trade, an amount of idealism feels lost. Upon reading, it is also hard to ignore that key components of India's food security issues, such as corruption and sustainability, were not addressed. India has nearly doubled its food supply in the last two decades, yet 21 percent of the population remains undernourished. Pouring more money into subsidizing the world's second largest grain stockpile (behind China) seems to sidestep the issue of the corrupt government that refuses to find ways to actually get the food to its starving people.  Within this meeting it does not appear as if the men discussed sustainable practices either, so much as ways to continue building business and industry in order to increase funds. At this point in our knowledge on sustainable food systems, it is fairly certain that a more long-lasting prosperity will come from better treatment of soils and diversified crops, rather than continuing to mono-crop wheat and rice. 

At this point, we are left with numerous questions that we must not only ask, but beg answers for as well. Should India have to convince Germany of their imminent economic growth due to industry booms (an inherent institutional opposition to sustainable agricultural practices) in order to receive further investments to continue the mass subsidization of crops to feed starving people? Is it a pro or con that the food crisis has moved beyond a humanitarian issue and onto hard economics? Is this a sign of real, tangible progress, or a step backward in human morals and values? It is clear that sustainable development requires such funds, but how can we determine that incoming money will be allocated in this manner? And upon negotiations such as these, when did the food itself fall into the background?

Sources:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/germany-respects-indias-concern-on-food-security/articleshow/42808111.cms

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/business/global/a-failed-food-system-in-india-prompts-an-intense-review.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Soylent: From Science Fiction Horror to Food of the Future.

To many who have seen the 1973 Movie "Soylent Green", the idea of any food supplement carrying that moniker might make the stomach churn, but one Silicon Valley twenty-something might be on the verge of a new period in food production and nutrition.

Rob Rhinehart was stressed about money and how much was spent on non-nutritional "cheap" food. He wanted the best of both worlds: inexpensive and healthy.
He cracked open a few textbooks, did his research, and came up with Soylent, a meal supplement meant to be perfectly balanced to what the human body truly needs to survive.
According to his website "Soylent is a food product (classified as a food, not a supplement, by the FDA) designed for use as a staple meal by all adults. Each serving of Soylent provides maximum nutrition with minimum effort."

So, what's in Soylent? Well, for one, I can assure you it's not people:

http://www.soylent.me/#/

While Rhinehart means for this food to be a supplement for days when food is more a utility than an event or function (going out to dinner rather than eating a bowl of instant ramen) the implications of this are immense. Not because it marks the end of food and dining, but because it marks the beginning of the attack on hunger.

Imagine: inexpensive macro-nutritional shakes being giving to developing countries that are crippled by malnutrition and poverty. Plumpy'Nut is a good example of this sort of macro-nutritional food for the malnourished, which is given to children. In the case of Soylent, the shake is drunk slowly over the course of a day, eliminating food prep and the need for three square meals.

As of now, the Soylent drink does lead to some digestive discomfort if immediately switched to as a person's main food source, but by slowly mixing it in with one's normal dietary habits, it should relieve these problems. Critics point towards the fact that Rhinehart has no degree nor background in nutrition, and as of yet his claims have not been scientifically substantiated.

This hasn't stopped millions of dollars being flooded into Soylent by multiple backers and hundreds of customers.

If not Soylent, why not others that are similar? If not by a young computer programmer in Silicon Valley, why not a scientist in a lab? The future of macro-nutritional meals might be right on top of us.

Is Soylent the beginning of a new era of food security? We'll have to wait and see.

Sources:
http://www.soylent.me/#/
http://blog.soylent.me/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/soylent-documentary_n_4266853.html
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/soylent-no-food-for-30-days
http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/10/soylent-is-the-food-of-the-future-really-a-nutrition-solution/#ixzz2kIN5wrrK
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/soylent-beverage_n_5296329.html
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/the-end-of-food

Looking ahead: small-scale farming is the way to go

With increasing large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors in Africa, the prospects for small-scale farmers are not looking too promising.  Many small scale farmers barely scrape by to provide for their families, and with large scale land acquisitions, they face the danger of having their land taken from them or of not being able to compete in the market.   It is thought that large scale land acquisitions are not the best way to improve food security or to provide sustainable practices.  While large foreign investors may produce in much larger quantities, they are largely producing cereals and not foods that contain high levels of nutrients.  Furthermore, much of the problem of global food security is not that there isn’t enough food globally, but rather an issue with distribution.  Land-grabs will only exacerbate this problem by taking away land from precisely those people who have trouble accessing food to grow food and distribute it elsewhere.  With land-grabs, there is also the likelihood of environmental degradation, as larger farms require the clearing of land.  Therefore, rather than encouraging land acquisitions, it is probably in our best interest to support small scale farmers in these regions to help them be more productive in order to enhance food security.

 One of the biggest issues in small-scale farming in areas affected by land-grabs is the limited resources these farmers have to work with.  One of the biggest problems is the depletion of nutrients in the soil because of high costs and lack of infrastructure through which to purchase fertilizer. 

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which was established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, is working to combat this issue.  Through its soil health program, they have placed 9000 vendors within reach of farmers- within five kilometers- so that they can purchase necessary supplies.  Because of their proximity to dealers, farmers are now able to use more fertilizer to improve their soil health and crop production

AGRA has also helped set up infrastructure so that farmers can sell their crops, connecting farmers to business chains. Groups of farmers are also being encouraged to form collectives to which AGRA has provided advice and expertise.  Through these groups, farmers gain bargaining power and can fund communal assets together.

Rather than focusing on purely increasing the amount of food that is produced globally, it is imperative to make sure that food production is increasing in areas that are truly lacking and making sure that food will be distributed to those who need it. Programs such as AGRA’s are very important in the support of small-scale farmers, and are therefore some of the best ways to improve global food security.

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329853.100-bill-gatess-epic-project-transforms-farming-in-africa.html#.VBecfpRdU4I 

Is it still organic? Perceptions on GMO's by The General Public.

In an article recently published in The Smithsonian, journalist David Newland hope to conquer some of the preconceived notions about what is and isn't healthy.

To start with a bang, Newland immediately writes off one of the fad-ish "super foods" that's currently in fashion to eat. That organic kale you're eating? It's genetically modified. But what is the true definition of genetically modified?

All the foods in the article were bred to become the "super food" they've become today. Kale, Broccoli, and Cauliflower all descend from the same species Brassica oleracea, or wild cabbage. Almonds originally contained cyanide in them until a mutant tree that grew without it was discovered and used by early humans. Grapefruits have easily the strangest story of those on the list. Having only existed since the 18th century, they were created using a bombardment of gamma rays, x-rays, and other forms of radiation to cause mutations with the genes. This helped to develop not only the original grapefruit, but all further species that have arisen since (i.e. Star Ruby).

But what about corn? It's lack of diversity could spell trouble for any epidemic that might occur. What about tomatoes? 

In a recent poll done by ABC news, analyst Gary Langer discovered that 52% of people in America believe that genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat, and a whopping 93% of Americans surveyed believed that foods with GMO's should be labeled as such.

Does that mean that grapefruits should be labeled?

Arguments are made against this train of thought by Ottoline Leyser. In his article published by PLOS Biology, titled Moving beyond the GM Debate, he points out the intrinsic difference between plant breeding and genetically modifying: the origins of the genes. Plant breeding is the use of mutations already within the gene pool to change a plant, whilst genetically modifying can pull genes from anything.

The jury is still out on the safety of genetically modified foods, both for the environment and human consumption, but at the end of the day, aren't we all looking for the same thing? A sustainable, reliable food source?

Until then, rest assured that your grapefruit and kale are still safe to eat, modified or not.

Sources: 

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001887

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/sorry-hipsters-organic-kale-genetically-modified-food-180952656/?no-ist

Has China Found the Answer?

Chinese researchers believe that their country alone will require around 650 million tons of grain annually by the year 2030 in order to maintain their population. Consequently, China has become the world’s largest producer and consumer of fertilizer, making and using about a third of the global total.  Unfortunately, this mass fertilizer use is not even reaching crops as more than 50 percent leaches into surrounding environments. These practices, blaringly unsustainable, may no longer be needed, however. According to a group of scientists at the China Agricultural University, there is now a way to grow more food without increasing a higher toll on an already fragile environment.

            Using a new “smart” agricultural management technique in order to better match local soils and climate to optimize nutrient requirement, farmers were able to significantly boost yields while cutting their reliance on fertilizer. This agricultural management includes the introduction of GM crops that reduce fertilizer use by nearly 80 percent, as well as determining how biological, chemical, and geological processes determine soil properties. These techniques provide insight into the best times to add fertilizer, or the planting dates and densities that will optimize the use of water and solar energy. China is not the first country to utilize ecosystem-modeling approaches, but they are revolutionary in their integration of models and experiments with nationwide monitoring networks in order to redesign agriculture on such a vast scale.

            A major issue looming over scientists and researchers, however, is the challenge of transferring the knowledge of these farming practices across so many small farms. To support the transfer of knowledge and technology, the Chinese government is funding more than 12,000 researcher-led demonstrations of crop- and soil-management approaches throughout the country. It has established several programs and subsidies: for instance, last year, it invested 1.5 billion renminbi to pay for soil testing to guide farmers about how much fertilizer to add to their soils and when.

While it will be a while before these techniques can be implemented in more farms, they will offer a blueprint for Chinese farming in the future. If farmers could consistently obtain the 80 percent yields as performed in the study, and if crop acreage remains the same as it is now, then production will surpass the 2030 demand.  

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7447/full/497033a.html

What water options do we have for Florida agriculture?

Although completely surrounded by vast amounts of water, the state of Florida has always had extensive water shortage problems, but has carried on with the water supplied by the Floridan Aquifer in Northern Florida and Southern Georgia.

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/pages/8900/f8936/f8936.htm 

http://www.fractracker.org/2013/06/fla-gas-leg/

WATER SOURCE ONE: 

This aquifer is known for being one of the few that is not depleting nearly as quickly due to the high porosity and permeability of the surrounding stone that allows more water to enter. These factors also mean that water can enter from the ocean sides of the aquifer leading to saltwater intrusion. As soon as saltwater begins to enter the aquifer, the water is no more usable than the water in the Gulf of Mexico. As the sea level continues to rise with climate change and the aquifer's water table slowly falls, the threat of salt water intrusion increases immensely. Florida agriculture will no longer be able to access this great resource.

WATER SOURCE TWO:

If farmers are unable to access their first choice water supply, their second choice would be to use reclaimed water as much of the state does for watering lawns or golf courses. Reclaimed water comes from waste water that is treated extensively in order to make it acceptable for the environment but not for human consumption. Two nutrients not filtered out by waste treatment plants are nitrogen and phosphorus, both effective plant fertilizers. While the additional fertilizer may benefit some crops, the polluted runoff leads to algal blooms, caused by a process called eutrophication, in lakes and in the Gulf of Mexico. Algal blooms extract oxygen and sunlight from the plants underneath, leading to plants and fish dying. With the challenges surrounding reclaimed water use, the costs would greatly outweigh the benefits in terms of the Florida economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/edexcel/problems_in_environment/pollutionrev4.shtml 

WATER SOURCE THREE:

If options one and two are eliminated, there is really only one more solution to getting clean usable water for agriculture: reverse osmosis. With the vast amount of saltwater in and around the state of Florida, the theory of filtering saltwater into fresh water seems much simpler than it really is. The plants and the process are costly due to challenges with the filtering process and it takes longer to produce fresh water. The waste output is another question that more research could solve, but without the science to use reverse osmosis effectively and efficiently right now, it cannot benefit Florida agriculture.

After ruling out the three most practical sources of water in Florida, we can see that something needs to be done to prevent the water shortage from becoming any worse of a problem. On a large scale, the most practical solution would be to use genetically modified crops that require less water overall, but in reality, the fight for or against GMOs is a complicated social and political issue. If agriculture in Florida is going to continue producing as it has been, we will need to invest more in research on how to use less water for farming and where to obtain more water in the future.

Sources:

http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/wri92_4174_spechler.pdf

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae479

https://www.everpure.com/products/Pages/UnderstandingROS.aspx