Filed under: All, Blog Posts for Class | Tags: alternative energy, autos, Bio-fuel, Biodiesel, Biofuel, cars, diesel, gasoline, petroleum industry
Money might not grow on trees, but diesel could according to Gary Strobel, a professor at Montana State University.
Strobel discovered that fungi growing in the Patagonian forests of South America are capable of producing gaseous diesel. The fungus, G. roseum grows on the Ulmo tree, and produces toxic fumes used to kill off competing species of fungus. Upon closer study, Strobel discovered that these fumes are “virtually identical” in structure to diesel. In fact, it’s a sufficiently close match that he claims the fumes would be adequate to power a diesel engine.
What makes the fungus a potential source for diesel is that the fungus is able to turn cellulose – the fibres in plant material – directly into diesel. This skips the fermentation process that normally occurs during the production of biodiesel, saving time and money. While G. roseum is found on the Ulmo tree in the wild, it could create fuel on any form of cellulose, be it trees, wood, sawdust or leftover husks after harvests.
Given its potential as a truly renewable source of energy, this fungus is certain to be a hot topic in the coming months and years.
Coutoure, J. The New Diesel Fuel… From Fungi? Sympatico/MSN autos. Nov. 10, 2008. http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/GreenCentre/article.aspx?cp-documentid=12544462#toolbar Accessed Nov. 12, 2008.
Filed under: All, Just For Fun | Tags: Chicken, Comics, Farming, Gary Larson, The Far Side
Filed under: All, Blog Posts for Class | Tags: Alumni Stadium, Football, Greg Layson, Gryphon Athletics, Guelph Gryphons, Guelph Mecury, Guelph Turfgrass Institute, OUA, OUA football, University of Guelph, Yates Cup
According to its website, the Guelph Turfgrass Institute (GTI) was established in 1987 to conduct research and extension and provide information on turfgrass production and management to members of the Ontario turfgrass industry. The GTI is located approximately at the intersection of College Ave. And Victoria Rd. right here in Guelph, Ontario. I don’t really know what its actual address is, and it doesn’t really matter for the context of this article, all that matters is that you can tell when you’re passing by it because of the beautiful, sprawling greenery leading up to its front door. It’s some of the most beautiful grass I have ever seen. This summer there was even two gorgeous soccer fields that were there to test the latest in high traffic turf quality. Even in August, the soccer pitches were still immaculate. One of my friends from home mistook it for a high-end golf course because of how nice the grass looked. Let’s rewind the tape for a second and go back almost exactly one calendar year.
“When a university is born out of the Ontario Agricultural College and is home to the world class Guelph Turfgrass Institute, to have anything less than a beautifully groomed and manicured football field is almost inexcusable.”
The above is the lead from the article “Kicking Grass”, written just before last year’s 100th Yates Cup football championship. The article goes on to explain how a carefully orchestrated team of grounds workers and athletics staff worked feverishly to prepare the football field so that it looked it’s best for the first playoff game hosted by the University of Guelph in 21 years. I work for athletics and even had a small hand in preparing the stadium for that game.
I do have one small concern though. And I want you to know, the context is not lack of pride, rather it is excessiveness of pride, if excessiveness is a proper English word. To be blunt, the turf wasn’t beautifully groomed and manicured, and that, is inexcusable, because it could have been better. The field could have been just as immaculate as those soccer fields. Failed potential always irritates me. From what I understand, in the midst of the live telecast during last year’s Yates Cup, one topic of the colour commentary was the dismal state of the turf. And it was pretty dismal again this year, with the exception of the Home opener, since the field hadn’t been played on since that game.
The solution the athletics crew came up with to solve this problem was simple – Let the GTI take care of the football field. I don’t mean to suggest that the grounds crew is incapable of caring for the field, or that they don’t have pride in their field, because believe me they do. It is the most precious couple of acres to them on the entire campus, but they just don’t have the capacity to give it the attention it deserves. Think of how good our field might look under the care of the GTI. Think of how good all the athletic fields might look under the care of the GTI. I’ll say it again; the fields could have been just as immaculate as those soccer fields. And, it could be like a co-op kind of thing. The GTI could set aside placements for its students to learn firsthand what it takes to keep turf looking the best it possibly can, while earning credits! If I were a GTI student, I think it’d be pretty cool to have the oppourtunity to brag about how good my field looked on TV. Such a program would undoubtedly have positive benefits for the GTI. For starters, when the colour commentators say “Wow, this field sure looks great, I wonder who maintains it?” on national TV, the answer would be “The Guelph Turfgrass Institute”. Publicity, publicity, publicity. Hopefully the next time the Gryphons host the Yates Cup, the commentators can say “Wow, Check out that grass… It looks great!”.
Filed under: All, Just For Fun | Tags: Comics, Cows, Gary Larson, The Far Side
I decided to search for a funny farm-related comic because documentaries about Monsanto are such a downer. I found a whole lot more good “The Far Side” comics but I have to decide which ones are my favourite. apparently Gary Larson liked cows!
This Comic was originally run on March 23rd 1989. that’s all the bibliographic info I could find on it.
Filed under: All, Blog Posts for Class, Just For Fun | Tags: on-the-street interview, Organic Farming, Organics, streeters
While diving into the depths of research for one of my blog posts, I cam across this streeters video. since we’re doing a streeters video for class and the topic is very relevant, I figure I’d share!!
Filed under: All, Blog Posts for Class | Tags: Agriculture, Environmental Policy, FDA, Genetic Engineering, Genetics, GMOs, Monsanto, PCBs, Roundup, Syngenta
I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase “that’s just the tip of the iceberg”, referring, of course, to the observation that the majority of an iceberg remains hidden from view below the surface of the water it floats in. I feel like I may be slightly subject to this ‘iceberg’ phenomenon. The proverbial Iceberg is a single line in the speech I presented in class in mid October.
“Are Monsanto and Syngenta bad companies that make bad products?” is a rhetorical question I posed in my speech. At the time I simply considered it fodder to pad my illustrations that supported my message about leadership in agriculture, nothing more. In fact, the only reason I even included it was because my roommate had alluded to scandals involving Monsanto and I thought it would make a good illustrative reference if I mentioned I knew nothing about Monsanto. But, apparently there are a few people in this world who would vehemently answer “yes” despite the rhetorical nature of the question. The World According to Monsanto is the title of a documentary that puts Monsanto in the hot seat and examines the negative impacts the company has had on the world.
It starts off with a few ‘did-you-know?’ facts that establish Monsanto’s origin as a chemical company rather than a biotechnology company. Interestingly, Monsanto originally produced chemical additives for foods before entering the plastics market and finally the herbicide market. Monsanto is most famous for developing Roundup (Glyphosate); the most widely used herbicide world wide. After a brief history of the company, the movie explains negative impacts of Monsanto-produced chemicals, followed by allegations of a “revolving door” involving the United States Food and Drug Administration that hurried the introduction of biotechnology and transgenic crops that might not have been as safe as advertised; the film attacks recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and Roundup-Ready soybeans in this segment. A segway into transgenic crops provides the digression into patenting seed stock, and prohibiting seed saving, and ends with a discussion suggesting conspiracy theories where Monsanto is systematically converting all the crops in the world to their genetically modified crops. The use of global examples does an exceptional job of addressing the breadth of Monsanto’s influence on agriculture worldwide.
I took the message the movie had with a grain of salt because I had trouble believing it was the absolute truth. While I believe there is some truth in the stories, the film was fraught with anecdotal evidence and cynical musing that can’t possibly portray an accurate picture of Monsanto and its products. The apparent misrepresentation annoyed me, and I was disappointed with the audience who attended. Everyone took the bait, hook, line and sinker. Don’t get me wrong, Monsanto has been involved in some questionable business, but I think the film illustrated Monsanto as a sinister, mysterious corporation with as much to hide as Area 51. Something which I can’t fathom as being true. Check out the whole film on Google Video at:
Filed under: All, Blog Posts for Class | Tags: Agircultural Communication, Agriculture, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, City Slicker, Communication, Farmer, Ontario, Toronto, Toronto Transit Commision, TTC, Urban
Agricultural Apathy: Lack of interest, emotion or concern, or feelings of indifference relating to agriculture and farming
As an ‘urbanite’ enrolled in an agricultural communications class I feel more and more of a responsibility to encourage my urban friends to become more engaged with agriculture. I get the impression the agricultural apathy runs rampant in the urban world. I can’t really give a good explanation why this is the case, but I do believe a lack of exposure is a large factor. The urban demographic needs to have their eyes opened to such an important sector of the Canadian economy.
An urbanite might ask why they should care about agriculture, and my answer to that person would be “If for no other reason than because farmers produce the food on you eat”. Another good reason might be because upwards of 13 million acres of land in Ontario are farmland. That’s 13 times the size of the Greater Toronto Region which includes the City of Toronto, Peel Region, Halton Region, York Region and Durham Region. In otherwords, from Burlington, Ontario eastward to Oshawa, Ontario and as far north as Newmarket, Ontario. I might also ask this person if they can trace the path their food takes from the farm to their table. When they can’t, I’ll suggest that that might be another good reason to be more concerned about agriculture.
Last week Michael Whittaker from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) gave a guest lecture in our class, and I couldn’t help but think to myself ‘this might be a mainstay of the agricultural apathy problem right here’. But allow me to explain. He described his role as the Deputy Minister of Communications and Consultations, and went on to describe exactly what that means. Believe me, Mr. Whittaker is a pretty important and busy man. Mr. Whittaker even provided us some samples of press releases the might find their way to his desk for a stamp of approval before being sent to the major media outlets. And in my opinion, that is where the problem lies. Press releases are boring. So automated and formulaic, that if any of them did find their way to an important place like the first few pages in a newspaper, that they’d be skimmed over and forgotten about. I wanted to ask what the main media outlet he dealt with was, but never found the proper oppourtunity. What about the radio or television? Press releases don’t really jive with the glitz and flash of TV, and they sure don’t have the proper lingo to translate well to mainstream urban radio. But maybe it’s not his job to care about how effectively the messages he approves are being conveyed. I do wonder if that thought crosses his mind from time to time.
I can think of a couple ways to fight agricultural apathy. My first idea is to keep agricultural learning in the city classroom. When I was in elementary school, agricultural trips and learning experiences were common. As I got older, they inexplicably stopped. That’s a pretty simple way agricultural knowledge could be brought into focus.
Another idea I have, but can’t really claim as my own, is an excessive advertising campaign. The Toronto Transit Commision (TTC) allows whole train cars (Domination packages) to be bought out for advertising purposes. Anyone who has been on a subway train at rush hour can attest that exposure to a large number of people is not a problem. If independent companies can afford to buy out whole subway trains, I’m sure AAFC can scrounge up some change from the couch in the lunch room to help out their cause.
Maybe I’m wrong, but those seem like fairly simple and logical ways to increase urban exposure to agriculture. Maybe AAFC needs to re-evaluate the modes of communication that are employed to invigorate agricultural communication and give it the two-handed ‘shove-in-the-right-direction’ it needs. I think stopping acricultural apathy isn’t as big of a problem as I originally thought, whoever is in charge of agricultural marketing just needs to take 10 minutes and brainstorm a couple of new ideas. Pardon my rant, but I think it has been some what of a catharic experience.
NB: CBS Outdoor is the advertising agency contracted by the TTC to manage advertising on their vehicles