sign in sign up
<<
Home , Agricultural science, Aquaponics, Community gardening

Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham

Student Theses 2015-Present Environmental Studies

Spring 5-8-2015 For a Sustainable Future: as a Method of Food Production Richard Ramsundar Fordham University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/environ_2015 Part of the Commons, Agricultural Commons, Commons, Economic Policy Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Commons, Forest Commons, Commons, Integrative Biology Commons, Macroeconomics Commons, Other Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology Commons, Other Forestry and Forest Commons, Other Nutrition Commons, Political Economy Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Ramsundar, Richard, "Fishing For a Sustainable Future: Aquaponics as a Method of Food Production" (2015). Student Theses 2015-Present. 5. https://fordham.bepress.com/environ_2015/5

This is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses 2015-Present by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1

Fishing For a Sustainable Future: Aquaponics as a Method of Food Production

Richard Ramsundar Senior Thesis Environmental Studies May 2015

2

Abstract

This thesis compares and explains the advantages aquaponics farming has over modern industrial . Through a comparison natural capital usage, conservation, recycling and cost, the thesis advocates for the expansion of aquaponics usage in urban settings. The thesis also explains the history of intensive farming and aquaponics in America, the science of how aquaponics operates, the economic and environmental costs of modern intensive farming versus aquaponics farming, and the social implications of aquaponics. Lastly, I propose a policy that reallocates subsidies by modifying the Farm Bill. Then I propose policies that support creating a new standard of farm subsidy eligibility, subsidize renewable forms of energy for urban and sustainable , provide funding for educational facilities, and incorporate modern aquaponics into school curriculums.

3

Table of Contents

Introduction: Fishing for Answers at ...... 4

Chapter 1. Our Appetite’s Strain on The Earth ...... 6 i. and Phosphorus Pollution...... 9 ii. Groundwater Over Usage...... 11 iii. Food Waste...... 14 iv. Gas Emissions...... 15

Chapter 2. How We Farmed Up The Earth...... 18

Chapter 3. Eureka! How Does It Work?...... 26

Chapter 4. How Much Green for Green?...... 39

Chapter 5. Planting the Seeds of the Future...... 49 i. Growing Food For Urban Environment...... 49 ii. Starting in Communities...... 49 iii. Educating Those That Need It Most...... 50 iv. Social Benefits of Community ...... 52 v. Not Just an Idea...... 54 vi. Role of Government and Environmental Politics...... 56 vii. Policy One: Create a New Standard...... 57 viii. Policy Two: Increase Conservation...... 58 ix. Policy Three: Reallocate Subsidies...... 59 x. Policy Four: Introduce Full Cost Pricing...... 60 xi. Policy Five: Change the Roll of Science Education...... 61 xii. Closing Remarks...... 63

Bibliography………………………………………………………...….65

4

Introduction: Fishing For Answers at Growing Power

As the sun rises over the city of Wisconsin, Will Allen starts his day welcoming visitors to the three-acre Growing Power Community Food Center. He walks each individual through the greenhouse, showing them how the facility grows , maintains , cares for , and supports aquaponics systems. Visitors walk single file through the narrow aisles of the facility and look in awe at how almost every inch of space has some purpose that benefits the produce.

Potted plants hang from the ceiling and fans circulate air across rows of plants. The sound of running and splashes echo through the greenhouse as workers tend to stacked shelves of water filled grow beds. The water runs downward through the grow beds from pipes near the ceiling and returns to a tank where the process begins again. swim and splash as workers cast fish weed throughout the tank. As the tour members look around, they notice how young the employees are. Young adults and teenagers educate high school students about how the farm processes such as composting, aquaponics, and cycling operate. Younger children dig their hands in the dirt outside as adults teach them basic concepts of farming. Lastly, Allen takes the tour members outside where workers load the trucks with fresh produce that travel no more than 30 miles to deliver food. Near the entrance of facility, lines of people buy produce directly from the farm and Allen greets each of them individually.

How has Growing Power managed to thrive and compete in a community that relied on produce sold in grocery stores? Similar to earth’s natural processes, Growing Power operates on the three principles of sustainability: reliance on solar energy, promotion of biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. As one of the most notable urban farms in America, Growing Power’s influence in continues to expand and challenge the notion of conventional through sustainable farming methods and community development. The urban farm’s existence and 5 current status has several implications. First, Growing Power exemplifies that urban farming methods such as and aquaponics do have the ability to produce more than enough food for a community. Second, the farms operation revolves around the growing demand for fresh organic food free of produced in a way that respects the environment rather than degrades it. Third, Growing Power demonstrates the concepts of sustainability, such as reusing inputs, producing little to no waste, and using renewable forms of energy, have the ability to bolster a successful business in the current economy. In other words, Growing Power’s nonprofit business model produces revenue that expands the business in ways that help community, which gains the trust of consumers. Fourth, Growing Power exists as a food production system that maximizes and conserves the use of natural capital. For example, Growing Power reuses all of its freshwater instead of constantly using water from nonrenewable sources. The farm uses solar panels to power the facility, which offsets green house gas emissions and reduces their carbon footprint. Fifth, Growing Power empowers individuals in their community through workshops and employment, which allow individuals to learn about aquaponics and other sustainable farming methods and inspire them to continue these methods in the future. Lastly, Growing

Power operates on the principal vision that agriculture exists as an that humans have to care for instead of a machine that generates resources for profit. In doing so, Growing Power encapsulates a new way of operating agricultural processes that feed people in urban environments.

While Growing Power thrives in the small area of Silver Spring, Milwaukee, other parts of America still suffer from environmental degradation due to a different farming system.

Today, modern industrial intensive farming (MIIF) practices consume the majority of America’s energy and causes the highest amount of environmental destruction out of any other industrial 6 sector. The destruction of forests, massive usages of freshwater, utilization of GMO farming, high amount of nutrient pollution, fossil fuel usage and large scale use of pesticides have created a synergistic problem that endangers the very resources humans need to survive.

The negative aspects of MIIFs have elicited concerns for whether the MIIFs have the possibility of continuing. In short, MIIFs use too much of the earth’s resources rendering them unsustainable and too costly. The continuation of MIIFs risks the wellbeing of earth’s natural capital for the future, the planet’s biodiversity, and human wellbeing.

Chapter 1 relies on quantitative data that demonstrates the amount of resources MIIFs use as as the environmental problems that result from resource usage. Chapter 2 delves into the

America’s agricultural history as a means of understanding how the began and led to the origins of aquaponics. Chapter 3 utilizes natural science to explain how aquaponics operates as a circular system, how plants and fish cooperate in an enclosed ecosystem, the types of fish aquaponics supports, the types of plants the system supports, the different models of the system, as well as the system’s ability to operate in an urban environment. Chapter 4 highlights the economic feasibility of commercial aquaponics systems over conventional MIIFs and outlines the monetary and external costs of both methods. Chapter 5 demonstrates how aquaponics has a high chance of succeeding on a large scale through grassroots movements, community development. Chapter 5 also explains potential policies that will jumpstart aquaponics on a large scale.

Chapter 1: Our Appetite’s Strain on The Earth

Modern industrial intensive farming (MIIF) has become the cornerstone of American life supplying a population of 313 million U.S citizens with produce and . Having the largest surplus of food ever recorded in history, America’s agricultural sector has provided citizens with 7 a continuous amount of food. However, most people do not see the external costs of buying produce from sources that utilize modern methods of intensive agriculture. Though all methods of farming impact the environment, MIIFs deplete the within soil, overuse freshwater, and emit the most greenhouse gasses. MIIFs also produce pollution in the form of phosphates, and other nutrients that damage marine . decreases the amount of usable soil and leads to the destruction of more forests and the increase of greenhouse gases.

Basic scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and system types provide a better understanding of the damage and environmental inefficiency behind MIIFs. The first law of thermodynamics states energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In other words, it is impossible to extract more than the initial amount of energy first put into a system. Humans only have the ability to convert energy from one form to another. According to the second law of thermodynamics, when energy is converted, it becomes less usable and the quality degrades. The lower quality form of energy usually enters the environment as heat. Energy manifests in systems, which is a “set of components that function an interact in some regular way.”1 A system needs an input to begin, usually in the form of energy. The energy enters the system and through a series of processes, degrades and becomes an output that leaves the system.2 The rate of that transformation is known as the throughput of a system.

In linear systems, outputs never become inputs whereas in cyclical or circular systems, outputs always become inputs. MIIFs utilize high throughout linear systems to grow . In these systems, inputs, such as sunlight, water, and nutrients, produce the crops as an output.

Plants convert chemicals and minerals in the soil into a source of food or change the energy from one form to another. The converted energy degrades in quality. Therefore, in MIIF, corporations

1 Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1975. 2 Miller, G11 8 must constantly add new inputs to keep the linear system going. Many of the inputs include nitrates, phosphates, pesticides, , and water. Other inputs include land, which requires clearing forests to create space, expensive genetically modified seeds (GMO), and fossil fuel based . The outputs of MIIFs include high yielding crops, excess nutrients, and non- harvestable crops, all of which degrade the environment. On the other hand, aquaponics functions as a circular system, in which the outputs become inputs. The system relies on mimicking processes of nature, otherwise known as biomimicry, to solve the problem of pollution, overuse, and food insecurity.3 In an aquaponics system, fish produce waste that beneficial act upon to create the proper nutrients plants need to grow. A pump transports the wastewater to plants, which absorb the nutrients and filter the water for the fish to use. As opposed to MIIFs, aquaponics functions efficiently as a high throughput circular system or closed loop ecological cycle. Though aquaponics requires the same inputs that MIIFs need such as light, heat, and electricity, renewable sources of energy such as solar panels and turbines have the ability to provide power for the inputs. Moreover, with a renewable source of energy, aquaponics has the ability to function on the three principles of sustainability: reliance on solar energy, promotion of biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. On the other hand MIIFs, produce crops in a highly unsustainable manner, which has various ramifications for the environment.

Nitrate and Phosphorus Pollution

Farmers utilizing MIIF methods monocrops, which saps the soil of nutrients. In order to replenish these lost nutrients and rejuvenate the less-productive soil, often use nitrogen-based fertilizers to consistently grow crops.4 Farming corporations, such as Monsanto, sell certain GMO crops that need large amounts of expensive fertilizers containing nitrates,

3 Miller, (581) 4 Haller, Lee, Patrick McCarthy, Terrence O'Brien, Joe Riehle, and Thomas Stulhldreher. "NITRATE POLLUTION OF GROUNDWATER." NITRATE POLLUTION OF GROUNDWATER. Accessed February 23, 2015. 9 phosphates and ammonium to survive. In most occasions, farmers purchase the GMO seeds and have to buy the associating fertilizers. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) of the United Nations, between 2006 and 2009, the consumed an average of

6.2 million tonnes of nutrients specifically for agricultural usage.5 While fertilizers flood the soil with nutrients and allow more crops to grow in the same area of land over periods of time, the nitrates and phosphates in fertilizers have detrimental effects on marine environments when not handled correctly. These marine environments include coastal , underground aquifers, lakes and streams. Other environments include ponds and reservoirs for drinking water. While

some farms, such as Growing

Power and Nelson and Pade,

practice safe methods of

handling excess nutrients

through reuse, many MIIFS do

not. These excess nutrients in

fertilizers enter marine

environments through runoff

Taken from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and decomposition. Algae within marine environments begin to feed on the nitrates and phosphates leading to an increase of their population. Once this occurs, the algae float on the surface of the water absorbing nearly all the sunlight causing plants below to die off, a phenomena known as eutrophication. When the algae die, bacteria begin to feed on the algae causing an increase in the bacteria’s population. The bacteria need oxygen to survive and begin consuming the oxygen in the water. Once the

5 "FAO's Role in ." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.fao.org/urban-agriculture/en/.

10 population reaches a certain number, the level of oxygen in the water plummets to zero and the water becomes anoxic causing fish and invertebrates to suffocate and die. Anoxic waters manifest where agricultural runoff exists in large quantities such as the Chesapeake Bay region,

Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound.6

Nitrates are the most common pollutant found in shallow aquifers, which people commonly use for drinking water. Increasing amounts of nitrate within these waters causes methemoglobinemia, a blood disorder that affects hemoglobin, in infants and causes stomach cancer in adults.7 Despite EPA regulations, which limit agricultural contaminant levels to

10mg/l, nitrate pollution still poses a problem to aquatic environments. The chemical is difficult to clean and the source of pollution may not always be known. However, extensive research has shown that compared to other industries, MIIFs produce the most nitrates and phosphates through usage, mishandling of decomposing waste, and cultivation of leguminous crops.8 Therefore, MIIFS further increase the amount of organic matter within marine environments leading to eutrophication.9 Scientists consider ecosystems that remain active, maintain stable biological trophic levels, and resist stress healthy. Marine ecosystems that have undergone eutrophication show none of these characteristics. Eutrophication changes the organization, natural ecology, overall health of coastal ecosystems posing a serious threat to biodiversity in coastal environment. Though little research has been done, scientists have found that eutrophication poses a threat to popular fish humans consume because many reside in shallower waters where eutrophication happens most. Moreover, eutrophication negatively affects surface aquifers, which are more commonly used for drinking water, than deeper aquifers

6 Boesch, D. F., and R. B. Brinsfield. "Coastal eutrophication and agriculture: contributions and solutions." In Biological Resource Management Connecting Science and Policy, pp. 93-115. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000. 7Boesh and Brisfield (95) 8 Almasri, Mohammad N., and Jagath J. Kaluarachchi. "Assessment and management of long-term nitrate pollution of ground water in agriculture-dominated watersheds." Journal of Hydrology 295, no. 1 (2004): 226 9 Boesch and Brinsfield, (93) 11 confined in an aquiclude requiring more expensive access.10 In order to curtail nitrate and phosphate pollution, farmers have to use environmentally friendly alternatives to feed the

American population. Because aquaponics reuses water and has the ability to function both indoors and outdoors, farmers have a low chance of contaminating marine ecosystems through waste or runoff water. Moreover, aquaponics naturally produces the necessary nutrients plants need to grow, eliminating the need for fertilizers and the risk of contaminating marine environments. As well as that, aquaponics produces fresh fish free of hormones and diseases

such as pfisteria, that occurs from

unsanitary conditions with .

Groundwater Over Usage

Groundwater plays a

significant role for nature, in terms of

its involvement in the hydrologic

cycle, and for humans, in terms of

water consumption. Groundwater

usage for both parties creates a

conflict. Both the earth and humans use a finite amount of water for different purposes. Within nature, groundwater supplies spring discharge areas, river flow, lagoons, lakes and wetlands.11 Groundwater also “moves dissolved mass in the ground, supports habitats, and serves as a geotechnical factor with regard to soil and rock behavior.”12 In terms of human needs, humans use groundwater as a safeguard during periods of , pollution accidents and technical failure. As well as that, humans use

10 Almasri and Kaluarachchi 11 Custodio (255) 12 Custodio (255) 12 water for everyday living needs such as development, consumption, industries, electricity, and most importantly MIIFs.13 MIIF water usage poses the problem of aquifer exploitation. Aquifer overexploitation occurs when sources withdraw water faster than the aquifer’s average recharge rate.14 Between the periods of 1950 and 2005, MIIFs were the primary factor that led to the increase of America’s water consumption. In 1950, irrigation withdrew 100 million acre-feet of water, a relatively modest amount.15 However, in 2005, irrigation withdrew 143 million acre-feet of water. That same year, the agriculture industry used

70 million acre-feet of and 60 million acre-feet of groundwater to irrigate all the non-dryland and semi-dryland farms in America.16 America’s agricultural sector contributes a staggering 80 percent to the country’s water consumption.17

The combination of climate change and large-scale groundwater usage risks depleting sources of water faster than their recharge rate. During the late 1940’s, “the combination of deep- well pumps, low-cost energy for gasoline, inexpensive aluminum plumbing, new sprinkler technologies, better management of farms and discovery of the Ogallala water-filled beds” began the cycle of aquifer exploitation.18 In some parts of Texas, the Ogallala aquifer, which provides 30 percent of the water used for agricultural irrigation, has a recharge rate of .024 inches per year and has a recharge rate of 6 inches per year in some areas of Kansas.19 The

Ogallala has a slow recharge rate and factors such as evaporation from rising temperatures and erosion deplete the aquifer. Water extraction for agricultural purposes produces the largest overdraft of the aquifer, resulting in a decline of the aquifer’s water table.20 Natural gas

13 Custodio (255) 14 Custodio, Emilio. "Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean?." Hydrogeology Journal 10, no. 2 (2002): 254. 15 Schaible, Glenn, and Marcel Aillery. "Water conservation in irrigated agriculture: Trends and challenges in the face of emerging demands." USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin 99 (2012). (3) 16 Schaible and Aillery (15) 17 Schaible and Aillery (3) 18 Guru (7) 19 Gutentag, Edwin D. "Geohydrology of the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: High Plains RASA Project [Western States (USA); South Central States (USA)]." Geological Survey professional paper (USA) (1984). 20 Guru (13) 13 industries also utilize and compete for water in the Ogallala aquifer, increasing the cost of water extraction.21 In the 1950s, the people extracted enough water from the aquifer to irrigate 3.5 million acres. However today, the Ogallala irrigates 16 million acres of land.22 Increasing groundwater consumption yields various negative consequences for both people and the environment. First, because the amount of water within an aquifer is finite, the water undergoes head drawdown, in which it physically shrinks in size until consumption becomes smaller than the recharge rate. Increasing the head drawdown of an aquifer requires better well pumps and more energy to extract the water from deeper in the aquifer. Such methods lead to higher expenses and raise the price of water.23 Relying on groundwater for agriculture requires pressure irrigation methods, such as sprinkler and drip/ trickle systems. Such methods require larger amounts of energy, usually provided through burning fossil fuels, than conventional gravity methods. Moreover, the amount of farms using gravity irrigation methods has decreased while the amount of farms using pressure irrigation methods has increased.

21 Guru (13) 22 Guru (7) 23 Custodio (256) 14

Food Waste

Food waste has become increasingly prominent in MIIF systems. Most MIIF corporations argue that the world needs the current method of farming in order to feed the population in 2050. However, because of capitalism, food is not distributed equally among people across the world. Unlike aquaponics, MIIFs use a linear high-energy input-output system that creates huge amounts of crops that not everyone has access to buy. People in the developed world, who have more economic wealth, have access to more food than the majority of people in the undeveloped world. Because people in the developed world have more access to more food, they buy and waste food on a much larger scale than those in less developed countries. People in the United States waste roughly 40 percent of food simply by not eating it.24 Echoing the second law of thermodynamics, food degrades at each stage of the supply chain, which includes intensive farming, processing, distribution, storage, retail store operations and in consumer households.25 Depending on the crop, roughly seven percent of America’s farms waste food in the production stage. Moreover, wasted food consumes more than one quarter of the total freshwater used in MIIFs.26 During the production stage, waste manifests in two forms. First, farmers choose not to harvest crops that do not have a high enough yield. Second, food is wasted between harvest and sale due to shipment, rotting, and consumer preference.

Why exactly do MIIF farmers not maximize the usage of all their crops? First, farmers do not have the ability to grow the exact amount of crops demanded due to risks and damages such as disease, weather, pests, and nutrient deficiencies. In order to compensate for these risks, farmers grow more than the public demands often leading to excess amount of crops. Second, the market heavily influences farmers’ decisions about harvesting. For example, farmers do not

24 Gunders, Dana. "Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill." Natural Resources Defense Council Issue Paper. August. This report was made possible through the generous support of The Endowment (2012). 25 Gunders (7) 26 Hall et. al(1) 15 harvest certain crops that have a low value in the market and do not match the cost of transport and labor.27 Laborers practice selective picking, in which they choose some crops to export to the market and leave others to die off. Moreover, because food has become a market commodity, farmers engage in risky speculation and plant large amounts of crops they think will rise in price.

Price speculation often leads farmers to plant , in hopes that the cash crop will help them make extra money. Prior to the MIIF systems, subsistence farmers planted a myriad of crops that contributed to biodiversity and maintained nutrient rich . However, today, farmers plant large amounts of the same crop, which saps nutrients from the soil, decreases biodiversity, and increases the chance of a plant based disease killing off all the crops leading to waste. For example, during the 1830s and 1840s, farmers in Ireland planted monocrop fields of potatoes.

Phytophthora infestans, commonly known as potato blight, infected all the crops and led to the death of roughly 1 million people.28 Peter Reich and David Tilman, two ecologists, conducted an experiment and found that in each case, controlled farms out-produced farms.29 Third, government policies affecting immigration add to labor shortages and decrease the amount of harvested crops. According to the United States Department of Labor, 75 percent of crop workers are born in Mexico while only 23 percent are from the United States.

Immigration laws that restrict Mexicans from the United States create a shortage of crop laborers in the US, some of which cost $140 million in crop waste.30

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Approximately 30-44 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from fertilizer driven agricultural systems. 31 America’s agricultural sector creates one fifth of America’s total

27 Gunders (7) 28 Fry, William E., and Stephen B. Goodwin. "Resurgence of the Irish potato famine fungus." Bioscience (1997): 365. 29 Miller (283) 30 Gunders (7) 31 Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol. 5. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. 16

GHG emissions reinforcing climate change.32 The constant waste of food on the MIIF level enhances the problem of GHG. Though farmers use dead crops to return nutrients to the soil, only a fraction of the nutrients end up in the soil. Anaerobic bacteria within soils and landfills begin to feed on the decomposing plant matter and release methane gas, CH4. CH4 is a greenhouse gas with 21 times more global warming potential than CO2.33 Healthy aerobic soils break down 15 percent of the world’s annual methane production, a method called sink.34 Sink strength becomes inhibited from nitrogen-based fertilizers, which farmers employ heavily on

MIIFs. 35 Ruminant animals, such as cows and have a rumen filled with over 200 species of . Ruminant animals release methane into the environment when fed cellulose based diets such as corn. Large-scale industrial factory farms feed cows cheap cellulose based diets causing them to emit methane. MIIFs also emit nitrous oxide (N2O), another GHG that increases the radiative forcing in earth’s atmosphere. By attaching to hygroscopic sulfates, N2O evaporates to earth’s troposphere and acts as an insulator that traps the heat leaving Earth.

According to the EPA, N2O molecules remain present in the atmosphere for an average of 120 years until a sink occurs. One pound of N2O produces the greater effects than 1 pound of CO2.36

MIIFs contribute roughly 47 percent of N2O to America’s total N2O emissions.

In terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, MIIFs increase CO2 emissions through deforestation for land, soy feed production, and acres of plantation. MIIF tree reduction contributes 34.4 % of GHG, the most GHG compared to other parts of the MIIF sector.37 When

MIIFs clear cut forests, they remove the mechanism responsible for CO2 recycling and the producers of oxygen. Clearing forests also releases carbon from the soil through tillage for

32 McMichael, Anthony J, et al. "Series: Food, Livestock Production, Energy, Climate Change, And Health." The Lancet370.(2007): 1253-1263. ScienceDirect. Web. 31 Jan. 2015. 33 www.epa.gov/foodrecovery 34 Powlson, D. S., K. W. T. Goulding, T. W. Willison, C. P. Webster, and B. W. Hütsch. "The effect of agriculture on methane oxidation in soil." Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 49, no. 1-3 (1997): 59 35 Powlson et. al (59). 36 "Nitrous Oxide Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. 37 McMicahels et. al (1258) 17 intensive feed cropping. On global basis, tillage releases approximately 18 million tons of CO2.

Soil liming releases roughly 10 million tons of CO2 and pasture desertification releases about

100 million tons of CO2.38 In order to curb CO2 emissions in MIIF systems, people must reduce the destruction of forests and cultivate more forests to sequester carbon in the soil.39

Evidence shows that MIIFs do not have the capabilities of operating sustainably. MIIFs rely on fossil fuels instead of solar power. MIIFs cultivate less diversified monoculture culture as opposed to more diversified polyculture. MIIFs constantly use new sources of fertilizers derived from nitrogen instead of utilizing nutrient cycling. Moreover, MIIFs do not utilize natural capital, such as water replenishment, nutrient recycling, and carbon recycling efficiently. On the other hand, aquaponics systems have the ability to rely entirely on solar power, promotes biodiversity through fish and plant cultivation, and recycles all nutrients within the system.

38 Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, and Cees De Haan. Livestock's long shadow. Rome: FAO, 2006. 39 McMichael et al. (1260) 18

Chapter 2: How We Farmed Up The Earth

Though the concept of intensive agriculture has existed since ancient times, using modern industrial intensive agriculture to bolster a capitalistic economy has existed only for a little over two hundred years in America. European colonists planted the roots of MIIF in the 1700’s when they arrived at a new and unfamiliar world. With little understanding of the terrain, they found it difficult to understand the ecology of the land, maintain a steady food source, and take only what they needed to survive the way the Native Americans had done. They did not understand the need to take a minimal amount from the land when the environment around them had plenty of resources.40 Their sedentary nature ensured population growth and the constant supply of resources from land led the colonists to place high values on them. Unlike the Native Americans, who lived a nomadic lifestyle in which land ownership did not exist, the colonists began to value the land as a high yielding commodity. The colonists and the Native Americans had very different ideas of land value. While the colonists valued the land as a commodity, Native

Americans valued the land as a means for survival. Therefore, as opposed to the Native

Americans who used the resources they only needed to survive, the colonists extracted large amounts of resources for the sake of generating a profit.

The European economic system, which the colonists brought to early America, relied on using land to generate profit. The colonists began to export commodities, such as timber and fur, back to for the sake of generating a profit, not surviving.41 They cleared out the forests, often creating conflict with the Native Americans, to build farms and cultivate exportable cash crops such as tobacco. The colonists also cleared forests to harness timber. The Europeans wanted to replace wilderness, which they perceived as chaotic and dangerous, with an

40Cronon, (40) 41Cronon, (21) 19 agricultural settlement that provided a source of revenue.42 Because of its demand in Europe, timber had high value and importance. The combination of a forest shortage in Europe and the demand for timber prompted the colonists to destroy more American forests and export the timber to Europe. The colonists viewed deforestation and resource extraction as progress, not a destructive force that harmed the environment.43 In reality, deforestation destroyed the habitats for many animals and decreased the frequency of trees like the white cedars and white oaks.44

Moreover, deforestation caused various changes in temperature, which led to erosion and increased flooding. The highly dense population of the European colonists, the increasing desire to destroy forests for farms, and the desire to use huge amounts of timber for the market system laid the foundation for intensive farming.

The commodification of land paved the way for the Green Revolution in America. In the mid 1960s, during the aftermath of World War II, various developing countries, especially and China, were experiencing hunger and malnutrition. In order to combat these problems,

America prioritized a rapid increase of new technological advances to enhance global agriculture. In the early 19th century, scientists argued that the world population would grow to more than 6 billion people by the 21st century and urged governments to take steps towards ending world hunger. Earlier scientific thoughts about human population and food supply influenced the method of tackling the problem of world hunger. Thomas Malthus believed human population grew at an exponential rate while agriculture grew at a linear rate. Therefore,

Malthus argued humans would return to subsistence conditions of living once population outgrew agriculture. Neo-Malthusian thought towards agriculture manifested in 1943, when

Norman Borlaug, an American who sought to end world hunger, visited Mexico and

42 Cronon, (5) 43 Cronon, (126) 44 Cronon (126) 20 began research on GMOs, insecticides, herbicides and pesticides with funding from the

Rockefeller foundation. Using methods of to increase food production, Borlaug discovered how to manipulate the genes of wheat and create dwarf plants in Mexico. By shortening the size of wheat, Bourlag decreased the amount of plants that fell over and broke due to fertilizers and weather. Shorter wheat plants spent more energy enhancing the grains, which farmers extracted and sold. With the help of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides, farmers in

Mexico produced more than half the wheat they normally did in 1 hectare.45 Within 21 years of utilizing Borlaug’s technology, Mexico began to export roughly 500,000 tons of wheat per year.46 Bourlag then visited Pakistan and India, where he gained the trust of the people and urged them to plant genetically modified seeds. As a result, rice production went from two tons per hectare to six tons per hectare from 1960 to 1990.47 GMO technologies began to spread to many other developing countries including China, South Vietnam and Brazil. The application of

American to developing countries began as a method to end world hunger and did indeed produce more food, stimulate the economy and lead to higher population growth. The revolution allowed farmers to sell more crops and increase their profits and with more money, farmers invested in inputs, milling, marketing and new technologies.48 The Green

Revolution stimulated the rural economy and created various types of jobs that employed different people. In , per capita incomes doubled between 1970 and 1995. The number of impoverished decreased from 1.15 billion to 835 million from 1975 to 1995. In 1995, less than one in three Asians suffered from poverty.49 From the 1970s to the 1990s, India experienced a similar phenomenon as the number of rural impoverished fell from 60% to approximately 20%.50

45 Sonnenfeld, David A. "Mexico's" Green Revolution," 1940-1980: Towards an Environmental History." Environmental History Review (1992): 29-52. 46 Sonnenfeld (40) 47 Sonnenfeld (40) 48 Hazell, Peter BR. Green revolution: Curse or blessing?. Internat. Food Policy Research Inst., 2002. (3) 49 Hazell (3) 50 Hazell (3) 21

On a global scale, agricultural growth, declines in food prices, better nutrition, greater caloric intake and better diet allowed people to rise out of poverty and live a healthier life.

While Green Revolution benefitted people across the globe, the revolution did have negative consequences. First, not all people felt the positive effects of the revolution. The GMOs needed plenty of water to survive and a very specific climate. Those in regions with little irrigation, such as some parts of India and China, did not have the ability to cultivate the crops and remained in poverty. In an effort to decrease poverty and maximize profits, many farming companies sold genetically modified seeds and fertilizers to impoverished farmers. The impoverished workers had little experience in planting GMOs and could rarely afford the pesticides and GMOs. The governments within developing countries began supporting the farms that had the ability to purchase the technologies, many of them large farming businesses that hired poor farmers and paid them little. Therefore, mostly large-scale farms in developing worlds profited from the Green Revolution.

On a global scale, government leaders in developing countries sought methods to increase their country’s GDP through food production. Governments in developing countries began forcefully clearing out poor farmers from their land and urging them to move to areas where they could accept a low wage job. As the number of poor displaced farmers grew, people in third world countries began to shift from agrarian and subsistence living to urbanization and wage labor. They allowed foreign investors looking for a way around labor laws in the United

States to buy land that peasant farmers had toiled for years. Governments did not recognize peasant ownership of the land and in many cases, used brutal methods to dispossess the farmers of their land.51 Once the government had cleared the farms, the peasant farmers worked for a foreign investor in exchange for a low wage as opposed to using the land for subsistence living.

51 Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. London: Verso, 2006. (100) 22

Those who did not want to work on the farms vacated the area and travelled to the city in search of unskilled low wage sweatshop work. The high concentration of poor farmers within urban areas combined with extremely low wages from foreign employers forced many farmers into deeper poverty. With no money to buy homes or even adequate forms of shelter, millions of poor workers scraped together makeshift homes on the outskirts of cities giving rise to slums. Those in the slums suffered from overcrowding, informal housing, little access to clean water, and unsanitary conditions.”52 Having a high rate of population growth, the shantytowns and squatter communities merged on the perimeter of cities, creating large mega slums. People in slums compose roughly 78.2% of those living in an urban setting within the developing world.53

Mega slums became the definition of urbanization within the third world. As the urbanization continued, farmers and were disconnected from the land, forcing them to search for work in sweatshops, ultimately destroying the livelihood and psyche of people who symbiotically lived with the land.54 The method of displacing farmers did not produce more food for the people that lived in the area. Instead, land became a commodity and people sold crops to the developing world to bolster the economy. What began as a method to end world hunger turned into a method of increasing GDP. Food was not distributed equally in the developing world so hunger still existed.

The Green Revolution had negative ramifications towards the environment. First, while native plants have the ability to thrive naturally in certain environments, the GMOs grown in labs needed insecticides and other pesticides to survive. Second, GMOs need rich soils to thrive and large amounts of water. In tropical environments, GMOs had serious limitations. The rainy weather of the tropics constantly washed away the nutrients GMOs needed to survive. As well as

53 (Davis, 28) 54 (Davis,9) 23 that, crop farmers understood little about ecology and practiced unsuccessful slash and burn methods to return nutrients to the soil. GMO farms used large-scale and unregulated amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, which often polluted waters, poisoned workers and killed beneficial and native organisms.55 In the 1940s, in the UK began using pesticides on plants without any knowledge of the chemicals’ toxicity. Eight workers died from the chemical , 4,6-dinitro-orthocresol prompting researchers in the UK to begin investigating usage.56 In the 1960s, Americans believed DDT was a miracle chemical that had the potential cure starvation and end famine. The US government funded chemical companies to create and spray DDT on not only farms, but on houses, backyards, schools and . People sprayed each other with DDT at public gatherings as a campaign to frame DDT as a safe chemical. In 1957, planes sprayed DDT on Olga Huckins’ bird sanctuary in Massachusetts.

Huckins noticed that all of the birds showed symptoms of DDT poisoning and immediately contacted her friend Rachel Carson. On September 27th, 1962, large-scale usage of DDT prompted Rachel Carson to publish her famous book Silent Spring, which forever changed the perspective of pesticides in the eyes of the American public. Americans realized they understood very little about how DDT affected humans and began to fear what the chemical might to do them. While fear played a significant role in curbing DDT usage, the observable damage DDT inflicted on the natural ecology of the environment really prompted the change of public perception.57 While the book changed public support for DDT usage, MIIFs continued to degrade the environment. Irresponsible water usage led to imbalanced salinity buildup within farms often causing farmers to abandon the farms. Aquifer overuse became problematic in the

1970s as scientists began to notice water retreating faster than the recharge rate. Monoculture

55 Hazell (4) 56 Gay, Hannah. "Before and After Silent Spring: From Chemical Pesticides to Biological Control and Integrated Pest Management-Britain, 1945-1980." Ambix59, no. 2 (2012): 92 57 Gay (93) 24 cropping increased the potential of plant diseases and decreased biodiversity. Because MIIFs use linear unsustainable practices, the current method of food production cannot thrive in the future simply because the resources to power it will not exist. Moreover, MIIFs deplete natural capital quickly, which increases the financial cost of natural resources.

The combination of these problems and a growing amount of public awareness prompted people to look for alternative methods of farming that had little damage on the environment while still meeting food demand. In 1997, aquaponics became one of those alternatives. Though commercial aquaponics is a fairly recent phenomenon, the first aquatic based existed long before modern MIIFs and modern aquaponics, specifically during the time of the ancient Aztecs.

Around 1,000 AD, the Aztecs lived a nomadic lifestyle and tried to cultivate crops near areas of the freshwater lake of Tenochtitlan58. However, marshes and hills surrounded the area, which meant the soils had little nutrients and the ground did not have the stability to grow crops. The

Aztecs created huge rafts from reeds and other materials, filled them with soil from the bottom of the lakes, planted seeds in the rafts, and cultivated crops. They noticed that once the crops grew, the roots dangled out the bottom of the raft and became submerged in the water below. They called the floating islands . In Peru, the Incas also practiced similar farming methods.59 Near the mountains where they resided, the Incas dug deep ovals, leaving a small plot of land in the middle of the oval. They then filled the oval with water and added fish. Local geese began to visit the ponds to feed and add nutrients to the water via their droppings. The nutrients from the fish and geese saturated the water, which became available for the small island of plants in the middle of the garden to use.60 In the 20th century, other countries in Asia, such as

China, Thailand and Indonesia also began aquatic based agricultural systems. These countries

58 "Aquaponics History." Aquaponics History. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://www.theaquaponicsgarden.com/ap_history.html. 59 Jones, Scott. "Evolution of aquaponics." Aquaponics J 6 (2002): 14 60 Jones (15) 25 were some of the first to grow fish such as loach, eel and carp alongside rice paddies.61 Farmers dug a series of trenches between rice paddies and flooded them with water. They then placed fish inside the trenches, which would create nutrients for the rice paddies. Over the years, these methods became less prominent and conventional agriculture became more widespread.

Modern aquaponics emerged out of the industry.62 Aquaculture farmers sought a method to reduce dependence on land, water, chemicals, hormones and other nonrenewable inputs.63 In the 1970s, early research began on how to grow crops with a limited amount of resources. The New Alchemy Institute pioneered the research. In 1997, Mark

McMurtry, a graduate student at North Carolina State University, and Professor Doug Sanders developed an aqua-vegeculture system in a greenhouse.64 By dripping the effluents from a system to their grow beds, they observed the growth of various plants and noted the benefits of the system. First, water consumption in their system amounted to only one percent of the amount in a pond culture. Second, they found the system could work in arid areas with little water and provide for the demand of food. Third, they found mutualistic , such as plant and , evenly distribute nutrients during flood cycles and improve aeration. Lastly, they found that regulating nitrate concentrations in the system was linked to fish and vegetable production via biofilters.65 McMurtry, Sanders and The New Alchemy Institute contributed the foundational research necessary to begin large-scale aquaponics. Their work inspired others, including Dr. Nick Savidov of the University of the Virgin Islands. Savidov grew expensive foods such as trout and in , based on a system developed at the University of the Virgin Islands. He and his colleagues found methods to rapidly grow plant roots and

61Bocek, Alex. “Introduction to Fish Culture in Rice Paddies”, Water Harvesting and Aquaculture for Rural Development. International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments 62 "Aquaponics History." Aquaponics History. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://www.theaquaponicsgarden.com/ap_history.html. 63 "Aquaponics History." Aquaponics History. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://www.theaquaponicsgarden.com/ap_history.html. 64 Diver, Steve. Aquaponics-Integration of with aquaculture. Attra, 2000. (4) 65 Diver (4) 26 manipulate the system to run well with a low pH, which usually favored plants but not fish.66 Dr.

James Rakocy also earned recognition for pioneering aquaponics research at the University of the Virgin Islands in St. Croix from the 1980s to the present day. Today, aquaponics’ influence and efficiency continues to grow as people begin implementing the system. Nonprofit organizations such as Growing Power, Nelson and Pade, and Whispering Roots utilize aquaponics to grow and sell crops, bolster communities and reduce dependence on MIIFs.

Moreover, while all three aquaponics farms exist in different locations and cater to different audiences, they all rely on the principals of sustainability to keep their business going.

Chapter 3: Eureka! How Does It Work?

Aquaponics operates as a closed-loop food production system that combines aspects of aquaculture, or raising fish and other marine organisms in tanks, and hydroponics, which is the process of cultivating plants in nutrient rich water. The process generates a mutualistic relationship between plant, fish and bacteria. The culmination of fish, plants and beneficial nitrifying bacteria creates a delicate miniature ecosystem that allows for plant and fish cultivation. In an aquaponics system, fish are placed in an aquarium and fed on a daily basis. The fish excrete through their gills, which is toxic to fish. However, the ammonia is necessary to start the nutrient cycling of the system, in which beneficial nitrifying bacteria change ammonia into nutrients the plants use to grow. and nitrospira, two types of bacteria belonging to the autotrophic family of nitrifying bacteria, share the responsibility of creating nitrates in an aquaponics system. First, nitrosomonas create as a byproduct of consuming the ’ excreted ammonium. Next, nitrospira consumes nitrite and gives off nitrate, which is harmless to fish and beneficial for plants. Both of these bacteria reside on the roots of plants and within the grow beds. The bacteria need an oxygen rich environment to thrive

27 and receive oxygen in different ways. First, the constant flood and drain of the grow bed allows for proper watering and aeration. Second, air stones, or tiny porous stones that diffuse air, within fish tanks allow for more oxygen to dissolve in the water. Pumps send the ammonia filled water and oxygen to a grow bed full of plants and nitrifying bacteria that convert the toxic ammonia and nitrite into beneficial nitrate that the plants use to grow and metabolize. Nitrite accumulation above 10 ppm in tank water becomes problematic for fish because the nitrite molecules block the fishes’ proteins from binding to oxygen causing the fishes to die from brown blood disease.67

Dead and decomposing fish within systems lead to an increase of ammonia. If the ammonia

exceeds a certain level, the bacteria may

not have the ability to convert all the

ammonia and nitrite into beneficial

nitrate. The nitrogen cycle occurs on a

larger and much more dangerous scale

in MIIFs when the essential nitrates

enter runoff and cause algal blooms.

Aquaponics makes sure the nutrients are Bernstein, Sylvia. Aquaponic gardening: a step-by-step guide to raising vegetables and fish together. New society publishers, 2011. (176) constantly contained and reused, which prevents nitrate pollution. Once the bacteria remove and convert all the ammonium and nitrite from the water, the water drains back into the fish tank where the process begins again. All aquaponics systems are examples of recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) because they clean and reuse water.

67 Bernstein, Sylvia. Aquaponic gardening: a step-by-step guide to raising vegetables and fish together. New society publishers, 2011. (188)

28

Moreover, all aquaponics systems operate on the three principles of sustainability in that they can rely entirely on solar power, promote biodiversity, and cycle nutrients.

Bernstein, Sylvia. Aquaponic gardening: a step-by-step guide to raising vegetables and fish together. New society publishers, 2011. (176)

While aquaponics systems differ in design, all systems operate on the same principles of biology, ecology, chemistry and sustainability. Most systems also utilize the same types of equipment: fish tank, grow bed, pump, and PVC pipes. The fish tank simply holds the water and fish for the system and creates an environment for the fish to live in. The grow bed is simply a container filled with material that act as soil such as expanded balls, gravel, expanded shale or river stone. Aquaponics grow beds generally utilize these materials over conventional soil because soil clogs the plumbing between pipes, causes messy systems and fills the fish tanks with dirt. As well as that, the other materials allow for better aeration meaning the roots have more access to oxygen. Most systems require a 1:1 ratio between grow bed and fish tank, though some systems have the ability to handle a 2:1 grow bed to fish tank ratio. The fish tank volume should be the same as the volume of the grow bed. For example, a 50-gallon or 225-liter tank supports up to 225 cubic meters of grow bed. The ratio is based on how much waste the fish produce, which also depends on the food they’re fed.68 Tanks have to be at least 50 gallons to support fish primarily for human consumption. However, growers can use a smaller size tank as

68 Bernstein (75) 29 long as they keep the ratio in place and grow smaller fish, such as . By adding worms, the grow beds act as mechanisms for removing solid fish waste. Grow beds also help break down solids, return beneficial nutrients to the water, and serve as a . The grow bed holds the plants and the soil material keeps the roots of the plants in place. Inexpensive PVC pipes transport water between the grow bed and fish tank and a water pump powers the transport.

Aquaculturalists and scientists have tried various designs, however, the Basic Flood and

Drain system makes creating a balanced system relatively simple. Most people construct a Basic

Flood and Drain system with two shelves,

a fish tank, and a grow bed made from

plastic or other containers. In a Basic

Flood and Drain design, the grow beds are

placed on top of the fish tank. A pump

from the fish tank below the grow bed

sends water to the grow bed through the

PVC pipes. The grow bed fills with water

Bernstein, Sylvia. Aquaponic gardening: a step-by-step guide to raising vegetables and fish together. New society publishers, 2011. until it reaches the height of a standpipe (59) and trips a siphon, which is a simple vacuum made out of PVC pipe that quickly drains water.

An electronic timer stops the flow of water and allows the excess water in the grow bed to drain back into the fish tank via gravity. Using the Basic Flood and Drain system has the advantage of simplicity. With proper setup and location, the Basic Flood and Drain system has the ability to exist indoors and outdoors. More complex designs can be stacked vertically on walls to maximize space. Basic Flood and Drain systems are best suited for small setups and home systems, though they can be used on a commercial scale. However, the Basic Flood and Drain 30 system handles up to a 1:1 ratio of grow bed to tank meaning each fish tank can only support one grow bed.

The constant height in fish tank pump in sump tank (CHIFT PIST) system overcomes the limitations of the Basic Flood and Drain system through its ability to support more than one grow bed per fish tank. A CHIFT PIST system incorporates a sump tank that captures water from the grow beds and with the help of a pump, constantly sends water back to the fish tank to maintain the water level. The water level in the fish tank stays constant because excess water drains through a standpipe back into the grow beds via gravity. Auto-siphons control the water level in the grow bed and send the water back into a sump tank. The CHIFT PIST system eliminates the risk of completely draining a fish tank of all its water and endangering the fish.

CHIFT PIST systems have the advantage of maintaining water levels, supporting more than one grow bed, and only utilizing one pump to conserve energy. The CHIFT PIST system is best for creating a large system with little energy usage. However, CHIFT PIST systems also have certain disadvantageous. First, the sump tank has to be placed below the grow beds and fish tanks for draining to occur properly. Second, the fish tank has to be placed above the grow beds to allow gravity to send water to the grow beds. Lastly, the sump tank has to hold more volume of water than both grow beds, meaning the system takes up more space. Adding a second pump to the system allows the grow bed to be higher than the fish tank but uses more electricity.69

Barrel-ponics is another design that has become more common in developing countries.

Barrel-ponics has three components constructed entirely out of recycled plastic barrels: a flood tank, the grow beds and a fish tank. Barrel-ponics transports water via PVC pipes. Pumps transport water from the fish tank to a flood tank. When water fills the flood tank and reaches a certain level, a siphon fills a counterweight which pulls a valve open allowing the nutrient rich

69 Bernstein (60) 31

water to drain into the grow bed.70 The remaining water at the

bottom of the flood tank enters the grow bed through a small

drain. The water then moves from the grow bed to the fish tank

via gravity and the cycle continues. Barrel-ponics has several

advantageous. First, the entire system can be constructed out of

recycled plastics. A grower can easily modify the flooding of

the grow beds for the plants, the pump has a longer lifespan

because it runs continuously, and the system has the ability to function on a flow as low as 10 gallons per hour, meaning the system consumes little energy.71

With all the capabilities of a Basic Flood and Drain system, Barrel-ponics has the only disadvantage of not being aesthetically pleasing.

Other systems, such as (NFT) and raft systems do not place plants directly into a grow bed. Rather, these methods constantly submerge the roots in nutrient rich water. In an NFT system, growers place plants in long narrow channels, held in place via containers, and pump a thin layer of nutrient rich water below the plant roots. The roots take up the nutrients and oxygen while removing toxins from the water. However, without a grow bed, solid fish waste the potential to build up on the roots of the plants. Therefore, in the NFT system, the grower has to place a filter in the system that captures the solid waste. Similarly, in a raft system, growers put plants in containers and place them in rafts that float above nutrient rich water. The water continuously flows from the fish tank to the raft tank. The roots of the plants grow directly into the water to absorb nutrients and oxygen. Nitrospira and

Nitrosomonas bacteria live in the rafts and in other parts of the system. Raft systems have many

70 Bernstein (62) 71 Bernstein (62) 32 advantages. First, the extra water in the raft tank dilutes other parts of the systems and acts a buffer to protect fish from toxins that may build up in the water.72 Second, the raft system operates well outdoors in a greenhouse. Third, growers can remove the plants very easily from

the system. Fourth, growers can

easily add plants to the system via

transplanting. Fifth, growers can

easily separate mature plants from

young plants by rearranging the

rafts. For example, foliage plants can

be transplanted into a raft after 28

days simply by placing the plant in a

container.73 Sixth, a grower also has the ability to reuse rafts after harvesting plants, which saves space and money. Raft systems also have certain disadvantages. First, they require a large amount of space. Second, unlike media based systems, raft systems cannot grow plants such as vines and banana trees because these plants require more space and are too heavy for rafts.74 Third, raft systems also need filters to remove solid fish waste from the water. Fourth, the bacteria and waste have a higher chance of clogging the NFT system’s pipes.75

While MIIFs generally grow monocrops, aquaponics systems support a variety of plants and fish. Aquaponics supports nearly all plants that grow in soil. Because most fish do not thrive in acidic waters, aquaponics does not support plants accustomed to acidic soils, or anything that

72 "Nelson & Pade Aquaponic Technology, Systems and Supplies." Different Methods of Aquaponics. Accessed March 18, 2015. http://aquaponics.com/page/methods-of-aquaponics. 73 Bernstein (64) 74 Bernstein (63) 75 "Nelson & Pade Aquaponic Technology, Systems and Supplies." Different Methods of Aquaponics. Accessed March 18, 2015. http://aquaponics.com/page/methods-of-aquaponics. 33 grows in an environment with a pH below 7.0. These plants include blueberries, , and cranberries. Aside from acidic loving plants, aquaponics supports all , salad greens, peppers, tomatoes, strawberries and banana and papaya trees.76 Aquaponics also supports root vegetables such as carrots and potatoes. By recirculating water, aquaponics systems ensure that each plant constantly receives the necessary amount of water it needs to thrive.

Unlike aquaponics, MIIF crops depend on either or sprinklers, which overuse freshwater.

Moreover, not every plant receives the proper amount of water it needs to survive, rendering many crops unharvestable adding to waste and methane emissions. Plants in MIIFs also depend on soil to retain both nutrients and moisture. However in aquaponics, grow beds fill up with water once an hour with a timer or several times an hour with a siphon, ensuring each plant receives proper amounts of water, nutrients and oxygen. Moreover, the plants in an aquaponics system become accustomed to the environment and spend less energy growing roots to search for nutrients. Instead, the plants direct energy towards head growth, providing growers with more produce.77 Through reusing nutrients, aquaponics produces more plants while obeying the principle of sustainability. Placing aquaponics systems in large greenhouses or buildings as opposed to turning the land into MIIFs produces more crops per acre and consumes less power and resources.78 Given the right conditions, plants in aquaponics system mature faster and grow more than those in MIIFs.79

Aquaponics systems also support various types of freshwater fish including trout, tilapia, carp, , and goldfish. Each fish thrives in a certain temperature, so the grower has to ensure they have methods of cooling and heating the water in their tanks. Due to its low oxygen consumption, ability to thrive in warm waters, and growth cycle of 9-12 months, most growers

76 Bernstein (154). 77 Bernstein (155) 78 Chapman (42) 79 Chapman (42) 34 opt to grow tilapia. Goldfish are the second easiest fish to grow because of their low price.

Goldfish also grow quickly, thrive in various waters and produce large amounts of waste for bacteria to convert into nitrates. However, growers cannot sell goldfish for human consumption.

Aquaponics also supports catfish, which thrive in waters similar to tilapia. Aquaponics supports fish, which people breed and sell for a profit. The system supports pacu, , perch, trout, oscars and freshwater lobsters.80 Growing fish has several advantages over growing meat.

Because fish are cold-blooded creatures, they rely on the temperature of the water, which the grower controls, to keep their body warm. Therefore, fish spend much less energy maintaining body temperature and more on growing body mass.81 On the other hand, cows and pigs use roughly 80 percent of the calories they ingest to maintain homeostasis.82 Fish have lower feed conversion ratios compared to that of and sheep, meaning fish consume less food for body mass than mammals. Due to their cold-blooded nature, fish do not contract diseases such as E. coli and Salmonella.83 Cows consume between 2.2-2.5 percent of their body weight in dry feed.84

In an aquaponics system, full-grown commercial fish “eat roughly only one percent of their body weight in feed per day.”85 To reduce stress on fisheries, growers may also feed carnivorous fish a special food containing all the essential nutrients and proteins the fish would get from being in the ocean. Fish food is an input that does not get reused in aquaponics systems. However, commercial aquaponics companies such as Oberon FMR sign deals with beer companies to convert beer sludge to fish food.86 Growers may also feed their fish homegrown food, such as duckweed, soldier fly larvae, and kitchen and garden scraps to decrease their environmental footprint and save costs. Growers can grow one pound of fish per 5-7 gallons of tank water,

80 Bernstein (137) 81 Bernstein (139) 82 Bernstein (139) 83 Bernstein (139) 84 "How Much Feed Will My Cow Eat - Frequently Asked Questions." How Much Feed Will My Cow Eat - Frequently Asked Questions. December 10, 2003. Accessed March 20, 2015. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/faq7811?opendocument. 85 Bernstein (147) 86 Bernstein (149) 35 meaning growers produce more fish than meat within a given space. Fish within aquaponics system become much less prone to disease than those within fisheries because of the constant bio filtration occurring in the system.

MIIFs and aquaponics systems consume water very differently. MIIFs consume 80 percent of the United States’ freshwater and do not reuse the water. Aquaponics sustainably reuses both water and nutrients. Most of the water in MIIFs evaporates, enters runoff or seeps into ground water tables and pollutes the source. In aquaponics, water loss only results from, evaporation, evapotranspiration and leaks, all of which can be prevented. Per acre, aquaponics loses less than a fraction of the water lost in MIIFs. Traditional home gardens use twenty times

the amount of water compared to the water

use of aquaponics.87 Growers may use

municipal water with zero chlorine or

rainwater as a source of water for the

system. From there, growers must

maintain the temperature of the water depending on the fish and ensure the water remains at a pH of 7.0. They must also ensure the water in the system contains between 3ppm-6ppm of dissolved oxygen. Because growers never remove the water from the system, they ensure that water operates as a reusable input in the circular system and that no nutrient waste enters the environment, obeying the principle of sustainability.

Aquaponics must have an electrical power source to power the pumps, heaters and lights to keep the system working efficiently. Heating a system utilizes the most energy so the most

87 Chapman, Chris, et al. "Collaboration for Aquaponics ." Milwaukee School of Engineering. PDF (40)

36 energy efficient systems thrive in warm environments. First, 1 watt equals 3.4 BTUs, or the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 lb. of water by 1 °F. One gallon of water weighs roughly 8.3 lbs., which requires 2.4 watts to raise the temperature of the gallon by 1 °F.88

Therefore, an aquaponics system with the minimum amount of water needed to operate, which is

5 gallons, weighs 41.5 lbs. and requires 12 watts of electricity to raise the temperature of the 5 gallons of water by 1 °F. Smaller systems use little electricity. However, larger systems, such as a 500 gallon system requires roughly 1600 watts, or four 400 watt heaters, to raise the temperature of the total amount of water by 1 °F in one hour. In an aquaponics system, 1.6 kilowatts is equivalent to .001 metric tons of CO2.89 In one year, the energy required to heat 500 gallons of water generates 8.8 metric tons of CO2, which is 10 times less than the amount MIIFs generate each year. To limit the carbon footprint resulting from heating tank water, growers may use solar panels as a form of power, use swimming pool heaters with titanium heating, or erect the system in a greenhouse with hydronic heating.90 Growers ought to prioritize maintaining a water temperature between 77-86 °F to ensure the nitrifying bacteria thrive and generate nitrates for plant growth.

Because aquaponics systems are a controlled ecosystem, growers need to simulate sunlight via specific light bulbs when growing indoors, especially in an urban setting. The types of bulbs that support plant growth in aquaponics systems include light emitting diodes (LEDs), high-intensity discharge (HIDs), and fluorescent T5 bulbs. LED lights use very little energy and produce little to no heat so growers never replace the bulbs. As technology in LEDs advance, this will become the most cost effective and energy efficient option. HID lights utilize either metal halide (MH) bulbs, which helps vegetables grow, or high-pressure (HPS) bulbs that help

88 Bernstein (49) 89 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results 90 Bernstein (119) 37 mature fruits grow. HIDs penetrate the canopy of most gardens ensuring all plants receive the proper amount of light. Growers have the ability to swap the bulbs out anytime.91 However, one

HID light uses 400 watts of electricity, which generates .0003 metric tons of CO2 in one hour. In one year, one HID bulb generates 2.6 metric tons of CO2, which is a fraction of the amount compared to that of MIIFs. HIDs also give off large amounts of heat, which may affect the temperature of the system’s water and cost more than LEDs and T5 bulbs. T5 bulbs have a wide spectrum to give all plants the necessary wavelengths of light they need. They do not give off much heat and do not utilize a lot of electricity. Moreover, T5 bulbs efficiently utilize indoor space because the bulbs are thin and can be placed into a fixture. However, T5 bulbs do not penetrate plant canopies of more than 18 inches and growers must replace the bulb every six months.92 One 400 watt HPS HID has the same power output as ten 54 watt T5 bulbs.

Water pumps consume the second largest amount of energy in the system. As the distance between the grow bed and fish tank increases, the energy needed to pump the water increases. For example, a PP40006 400 gallon per hour (gph) water pump consumes 24 watts of electricity and pumps less water as the distance increases from fish tank to grow bed. Larger systems need stronger pumps that consume more electricity. The electricity usage of water pumps, heaters, and lights varies depending on the size of the aquaponics systems and necessities of the plants. However, it is evident that aquaponics systems consume much less than half of the power and resources compared to that of a conventional garden and a fraction of the power and resources compared to that of MIIFs. In aquaponics, growers do not use tractors or other gasoline powered equipment to plow soil because the system does not use soil. Weeds do not grow in aquaponics systems meaning growers do not have to use harmful herbicides. Moreover, because

91 Bernstein (54) 92 Bernstein (53) 38 fish provide natural fertilizers for the plants, growers do not have to rely on petroleum-based fertilizers and gasoline powered irrigators. Because aquaponics systems have the ability to thrive in nearly all environments, provided growers artificially set the right conditions for the plants and fish, the system eliminates the need to ship crops and produce from farms to cities further reducing CO2 emissions. To completely eliminate the carbon footprint of aquaponics systems and operate sustainably, growers can power the system using renewable forms of energy such as solar panels. Solar panels work extremely well in sunny areas and with a grid tie inverter, growers have the ability to convert the DC power to AC power and provide energy to the pumps, heaters and lights. In areas with cloud coverage, newer solar panels have the ability to diffuse light and generate power.93 Growers may also store the energy generated from solar panels in a battery, though there are energy losses. Through its reliance on solar power, promotion of biodiversity via fish, plant, and cultivation, aquaponics has the ability to operate on a fully sustainable basis whereas its MIIF counterpart relies entirely on nonrenewable and expensive fossil fuels. Moreover, through its sustainable existence, aquaponics indirectly helps conserve natural capital that humans may need for the future.

93 Mohamad, N. R., A. S. A. M. Soh, A. Salleh, N. M. Z. Hashim, MZA Abd Aziz, N. Sarimin, A. Othman, and Z. A. Ghani. "Development of Aquaponic System using Solar Powered Control Pump." IOSR Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IOSR-JEEE) 8, no. 6 (2013): 2. 39

Chapter 4: How Much Green for Green?

Because of their complexity, scholars have difficulties analyzing the total economic and environmental cost of MIIFs. MIIFs rely on fossil fuels for energy. The prices of fossil fuels have become extremely volatile from 2001 to 2012. For example, from January of 2001 to June of 2008, oil prices increased by 262 percent, which resulted from failing domestic oil productions in the U.S combined with rising global demand and speculation.94 In 2012, oil prices remained 126 percent higher than the price in January of 2001.95 Natural gases also have highly volatile prices. Just like the price of oil, natural gas experienced a huge price increase from 2001

to 2012, but decreased due to

domestic hydraulic fracking, which

also has various environmental

costs.96 From 2001 to 2012, the rising

costs of nonrenewable energy

increased the input costs for farmers

on the production level.97 For example, natural gas prices dictate 70 percent of the cost for making plant fertilizers.98

Therefore, the cost of fertilizers increases as the cost of natural gas increases. “The fertilizer price index (base year = 1990-92) increased from 135 in January 2001 to 253 in December 2007, and peaked in September 2008 (at 479).”99

94 Beckman, Jayson, Allison Borchers, and Carol Adaire Jones. "Agriculture's Supply and Demand for Energy and Energy Products." USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin 112 (2013). (2) 95 Beckman et. al (2) 96 Beckman et. al (2) 97 Beckman et. al (3) 98 Beckman et. al (3) 99 Beckman et. al (3) 40

Though the cost of natural gas declined due to domestic fracking, the cost of fertilizers have remained high because of increased global demand and a decrease in supply due to regulatory constraints.100 MIIFs also have high electricity usage and costs. The cost of power in the commercial sector of conventional farming from 8 cents per kilowatt per hour to 8.5 cents per kilowatt per hour from 2001-2008.101 In the residential sector, the cost of electricity rose from 8.5 cents kilowatt per hour to 9.5 cents kilowatts per hour from 2001 to 2009. In the short term, these changes are miniscule because of the fixed price from electrical companies.102

However, in the long run, the average electrical costs of MIIFs have increased. Today, MIIFs use about two percent of the total energy in the United States. In 2011, MIIFs spent $15 million on fuel, $4 million on electricity, $26 million on fertilizers and $12 million on pesticides.103

Crop production has a significant impact on the input costs for MIIFs. From 2005 to

2011, the input prices for all crops increased. Expensive crops include corn, sorghum and rice, which comprise more than 30 percent of total production costs.104 In 2011, fertilizers for corn production cost $34 million, pesticides cost $14 million and fuel, and lube and electricity cost $7 million.105 For rice, fertilizers cost $30 million; pesticides cost $20 million and fuel, lube and electricity cost $12 million.106 Fertilizers for sorghum cost $32 million; pesticides cost $22 million and fuel, lube and electricity cost $17 million. Depending on the farm, MIIFs have responded to the price increases differently. Some simply use fewer fertilizers on wheat while others manage the fertilizers on corn more efficiently.107 In total, MIIFs cost over $300 million each year, with environmentally damaging fertilizers comprising most of the bill.108

100 Beckman et. al (3) 101 Beckman et. al (4) 102 Beckman et. al (4) 103 Beckman et. al (14) 104 Beckman et. al (9) 105 Beckman et. al (14) 106 Beckman et. al (14) 107 Beckman et. al (14) 108 Beckman et. al (14) 41

Aside from the monetary input costs, MIIFs have monetary hidden costs, which include harm done to the environment and human health associated with plant production.109 The various forms of bacteria and viruses that occur within MIIFs that harvest both plants and meat cost the

UK the equivalent of $252,705,700 in one year.110 In the UK, the farmers visiting doctors for pesticide related illnesses cost the equivalent of $224,295,000.111 Within the US, the cost of damaging human health via pathogens and compliance with HACCP rules cost between $416.4 and $441.5 million. The cost of treating patients with pesticide poisoning cost $1009 million.

MIIF production also comes at the cost of water pollution. In 2002, the combined cost of treating water for pathogens, nitrate pollution and pesticides cost the U.S $419.4 million.112 MIIF pollution of soil resources cost water industries between $277-831.1 million. Treating the overuse of reservoirs cost $241.8-6044.5 million and treating flood damages cost $190-548.8 million.113 Treating areas of water used for recreational activities cost $540-3183.7 million and treating covering conveyance cost amounts to $268-790 million. MIIFs also damage water through shipping crops and dredging for fishes. The damages cost between $304-338.6. pollution cost between $224.8-1218.3 million and pollution from steam power plants cost

$197.6-439.7 million.

MIIF greenhouse gas emissions from crops cost $283.3 million while emissions from livestock cost $166.7 million.114 Pesticide usage impacts the death of honeybees and leads to the loss of pollination, amounting to $409.8 million. Pesticides also poison and kill native fish and birds costing $85.6 million.115 In 2002, the total cost of all negative external costs from MIIFs in

109 Miller (621) 110 Pretty, Jules N., Craig Brett, D. Gee, R. E. Hine, C. F. Mason, J. I. L. Morison, H. Raven, M. D. Rayment, and G. Van der Bijl. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture." Agricultural systems 65, no. 2 (2000): 118. 111 Pretty et. al (118) 112 Tegtmeier, Erin M., and Michael D. Duffy. "External costs of agricultural production in the United States." International Journal of agricultural sustainability 2, no. 1 (2004): 4. 113 Tetemeier et. al (4) 114 Tetemeier et. al (4) 115 Tetemeier et. al (4) 42 the U.S costs approximately $7-$16 billion dollars. In 2002, environmental related agencies in the U.S such as the EPA, USDA, USEPA and FDA spent roughly $4 billion to cover the cost of pesticide pollution, pesticide poison, pathogens, and damages to biodiversity.116 Clearly, these agencies do not have the budget pay for much larger damages, which amplifies the fact that economically, MIIFs do not have the capability of operating sustainably.

The highest hidden cost of the MIIF industry manifests as government subsidies provided by taxpayers, totaling to $20 billion per year.117 From 1995 to 2013, the U.S government paid a total of $292.5 billion in farm subsidies.118 Government subsidies help provide income to farmers, give farmers extra money for their crops, and establish a price floor, or a guarantee that the price of certain crops will not drop below a certain amount. The 2002 farm bill serves as a perfect example of how subsidies provide farmers with extra money for their crops. 119 The bill ensured that for each bushel of wheat sold, the government paid farmers 52 cents and held the price of wheat at $3.86 from 2002 to 2003.120 From 2004 to 2015, the U.S government paid most subsidies to farmers in the form of commodity subsidies. However, in recent years, the cost of payments in the form of crop insurance has increased dramatically, which may be a result of failing crops due to the rising cost of water and fertilizers. MIIFs receive the most crop subsides to grow corn. In 2005, corn subsidies, in the form of price support payments, reached an all time high of $10,138,944,101.121 In 2012, corn subsidies, in the form of crop insurance, lowered to

$2,702,462,268. In 2012, the government provided Iowa, Illinois, and Texas the most farm

116 Tetemeier et. al (4) 117 Cohen, Sarah, Dan Morgan, and Laura Stanton. "Farm Subsidies Over Time." Washington Post. July 2, 2006. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html. 118 "The United States Summary Information." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000. 119 "The United States Summary Information." 120 "The United States Summary Information." 121 "The United States Summary Information." 43 subsidies. Iowa received $486,668,513, which composed 9.1% of all state farm subsidy payments. Illinois received $410,766,449 and Texas received $379,089,240.122

Government subsidies do not reach all farmers within the U.S. In fact, only ten percent of farms collect 75 percent of all subsidies, which amounts to $178.5 billion over 18 years.123 Those receiving crop subsidies have no direct association with farming and have a collective net worth of over $316 billion.124 These members include Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, Charles

Egen, the co-founder of DISH Network and S. Truett Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-a.125 These billionaires own farm properties and grow crops that federal subsidies tend to insure, which includes corn, soybeans, wheat cotton and sorghum. From 1995 to 2012, the government paid

$44 billion in subsidies towards these crops.126 Federal law prohibits unveiling the identity of crop subsidy insurance policy holders, making it unclear who receives the most funding for crop insurance. American taxpayers pay 62% of crop insurance premiums costing taxpayers $14.1 billion.127 Data suggests the largest and most profitable MIIFs, owned by billionaires, receive the majority of the subsidies. In 2011, the largest one percent of MIIFs received $227,000 in crop insurance premium while the bottom 80 percent received $5,000 each.128 Because the farm subsidy system creates a disproportionate amount of wealth, does very little to help the farmers that need it most, and supports MIIFs that continuously pollute the environment, governments ought to begin funding alternative methods of farming such as aquaponics.

MIIFs have high natural capital costs; they remove essential services the earth provides free of charge. In other words, MIIFs ignore the importance of natural systems such as water recharge, nutrient cycling and population control, which creates environmental problems and

122 "The United States Summary Information." 123 "The United States Summary Information." 124 Rindler, Alex. "Forbes Fat Cats Collect Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies." Environmental Working Group. November 7, 2013. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://www.ewg.org/research/forbes-fat-cats-collect-taxpayer-funded-farm-subsidies. 125 Rindler, Alex. "Forbes Fat Cats Collect Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies." Environmental Working Group. 126 "The United States Summary Information." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000. 127 Rindler, Alex. "Forbes Fat Cats Collect Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies." Environmental Working Group. 128 "The United States Summary Information." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000. 44 increases the likelihood of losing a natural service. Clearing forests to create farmland removes trees that compact soil to prevent erosion, mudslides, and river sedimentation, all of which lead to higher monetary costs in the future and degrade important ecosystems. MIIF nitrate pollution destroys the balance of marine life in aquatic environments and disrupts services such as carbon sequestration in coral reefs and population control in rivers, lakes and streams. As a result, ecosystems collapse and other species lose major ecological services. For example, popular farming states such as Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas,

Mississippi, and Louisiana have high amounts of MIIFs that dump fertilizers and other forms of excess nutrients into the Mississippi River.129 The river carries the nutrients down to the Gulf of

Mexico, where large-scale eutrophication occurs making the water hypoxic. The hypoxic waters cover a range of 6,000-7,000 miles and have less than 2 ppm of dissolved oxygen, meaning that aquatic life do not have the oxygen they need to survive. These areas become dead zones, or areas where aquatic life simply cannot thrive and die. MIIFs sacrifice the Gulf’s major ecological services such as its coral reefs’ ability to recycle carbon, maintain diverse ecosystems, and provide nutrient cycling for crop production. The eutrophication process in the Gulf of Mexico also hurts the because fisherman must work harder and spend more money to find new methods to provide shrimp and other for the industry. Consumers have to pay higher prices for seafood. Pesticide usage leads to unnatural genetic resistance and unintended consequences that disrupt the delicate balance organisms in ecosystems. For example, in 1955, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced dieldrin, a relative of DDT, to kill mosquitoes in a small village of Borneo. The dieldrin worked but also poisoned and killed cats in the village.

Because the cat population decreased, the rat population flourished and introduced a new flea

129 Bruckner, Monica. "The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone." Microbial Life, Educational Resources. Accessed April 20, 2015. http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html.

45 disease, which the WHO did not anticipate. The WHO had to buy more cats and pay the shipping costs of sending them to Borneo to offset the disease.130 How do we calculate the monetary value of ecological systems? The solution lies in placing other values on ecosystems with an associating monetary price. For example, assigning an existence value on old growth forests places a monetary value on it simply for existing. Any party that harms the forest must then be held responsible for covering the damages and paying that monetary value. Other values include the aesthetic value, which places monetary value on aspects of the environment based on its natural beauty. Option values determine monetary costs based on how much people are willing to pay to protect natural capital for future usage.

Because aquaponics systems vary depending on location and equipment and because it is difficult to gather an estimate about the yearly costs for all systems, I will analyze a 750-gallon aquaponics system growing lettuce and tilapia. First, a grower must cover the developing cost, which includes all facets needed to build the system. Depending on the state, the cost of land and indoor areas varies. Liners, wood, fittings, and a pump cost $983.131 Piping, heater, thermometer, and grow lights cost $805.132 Refrigerator, hoses and other equipment cost $750.133 In total, the developing costs of a 750-gallon aquaponics system are $2,538. Next, growers have pay for the aquaponics systems’ annual operating cost, which varies. Labor costs approximately $13,650 per year. The general cost of labor amounts to $15 per hour to maintain the system 2.5 hours per day.134 Electricity for pumps and grow lights cost $1,016 per year. For a 750-gallon system, powering the pumps and grow lights costs $.10 per kilowatt-hour. Powering the water heater via natural gas costs $2,252 annually. The initial cost of water is $68, but because growers reuse water, the proceeding annual cost of water diminishes to zero. Fish food, seeds, fingerlings and

130 Miller (300) 131 Goodman, Elisha Renee. "Aquaponics: community and economic development." PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011. (67) 132 Goodman (69) 133 Goodman (69) 134 Goodman (67) 46 other agricultural materials cost $1,745 annually. Replacement costs, transportation, shipping, insurance and marketing cost $4,000 per year. Tax filing, accounting and operation reserves cost

$1,520 per year. In total, development costs for a 750-gallon aquaponics system cost $24,250 for the first year of operation.135 Due to inflation, the cost of operation rises each year. After 10 years, the operation cost increases to $35,083 per year. Due to the expensive costs and relatively small size of the system, a 750-gallon aquaponics system growing only lettuce and tilapia carries a net present value loss of $185,867 over 10 years.136 Evidence shows that upgrading the size of the 750-gallon tank to two 3,750-gallon tanks growing lettuce and yellow perch yields different results. Both the development costs and operating costs increase. The development costs include liners, wood, fittings and pumps, which equals $8,686.137 The development costs also include piping, a water heater, a thermometer and grow lights, which amounts to $7,590.138 The system needs a refrigerator, hoses and other equipment, which adds up to $2,700.139 Labor, water and permits cost $2,820 while site prep, plumbing, electrical setup and incorporation payments add up to $3,300.140 Lastly, legal setup, taxes and a websites cost $1,000.141 In total, the development cost of a 7,500-gallon aquaponics system growing yellow perch and lettuce is $26,096. In the first year of operating the 7,500-gallon system, labor costs $54,600, assuming employees receive

$15 per hour for four hours per day.142 Electricity for the pumps and grow lights, including the cost of natural gas, costs $31,692.143 Water, fish food, fingerlings, seeds, and other agricultural material cost $18,125.144 Replacing costs, operating reserve, marketing, insurance, accounting

135 Goodman (69) 136 Goodman (68) 137 Goodman (71) 138 Goodman (71) 139 Goodman (71) 140 Goodman (71) 141 Goodman (71) 142 Goodman (71) 143 Goodman (71) 144 Goodman (71) 47 and tax filing cost $12,820.145 Lastly, transportation costs $4,000 and the total operation costs amounts to $119,237 for the first year of operation. After 10 years, the cost goes up $188,955.146

While the 7,500-gallon selling only yellow perch and lettuce will not profit on a small scale, a large-scale business yields a profit return of $106,404 after 10 years.147

Lastly, to truly rely on the principles of sustainability, aquaponics must operate on solar power or another form of renewable energy. The average initial cost for a solar panel system lies between $30,000-50,000 for a 6.25-kwh system at $8,000/kwh installed.148 This price includes the pre-federal and local tax incentive. The upfront costs of solar panels have a high price, however, within ten years, a commercial aquaponics business will gain a profit return. Moreover, many states offer incentives that cover the cost of installing solar panels in homes and businesses. For example, combining New York's incentives with federal tax credits has the ability to cover 50 percent or more of solar power installation.149 By 2050, the price of solar panels will decrease to as low as 2.0 to 7.4 pence per kilowatt-hour.150 While it does cost more to raise crops in a greenhouse, the costs of greenhouse-produced crops have decreased in recent years due to the higher input and environmental costs associated with MIIFs. With the help of government subsidies, both large and small-scale aquaponics businesses have the potential to flourish on competitive markets. Aquaponics systems cost much less pear year that conventional

MIIFs and because systems greatly reduce the cost of environmental damage, growers can use money in more efficient ways, such as increasing , lowering prices, improving green technologies and hiring more workers. Currently, the dominant MIIF system, which gains

145 Goodman (71) 146 Goodman (71) 147 Goodman (71) 148 149 "Which Type of Energy Will Be the Cheapest Source of Power?" Environmental News Network. February 24, 2015. Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.enn.com/business/article/48285.

150 48 support from taxpayers and government subsidies, has high direct costs, hidden costs, and ecological costs. On the other hand aquaponics has much lower direct costs, no hidden costs, and no ecological costs. While both systems provide food for urban environments, MIIFs use high amounts of water, energy, and chemicals without regard for the environmental costs of agriculture that will affect humans in the future. In short, unlike aquaponics, which is cheaper and follows the principles of sustainability, MIIF food production is simply financially unsuitable and more importantly, ecologically unsustainable.

Chapter 5: Planting Seeds For the Future

Growing Food for Urban Environments

While aquaponics has become popular over the past ten years, it has remained accessible to very few, mostly those within the middle or upper class.151 Globally, 54 percent of earth’s population resides in urban environments and by 2060, social scientists estimate that 66 percent of the human global population will live in urban environments.152 has the highest urban population as 80 percent of its population resides in non-rural areas. Eighty percent of people in Latin America and the Caribbean reside in urban environments. The growth of cities and the growth of the human population have placed even more demands on food supply.153

However, MIIFs simply cannot feed the world’s population without degrading the natural environment. Therefore, aquaponics systems operating on the principles of sustainability have the potential to curb food insecurity while ensuring people respect the environment’s wellbeing.

151 Smith, Vincent, Robert Greene, and Janet Silbernagel. 2013. "The social and spatial dynamics of community food production: a landscape approach to policy and program development." Landscape Ecology 28, no. 7: 1415.Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015). 152 United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. UN, 2014 153 United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World urbanization prospects: The 2009 revision. UN, 2010.

49

Starting in Communities

To truly make an impact, aquaponics has to start within communities and progress to a national scale. Communities, neighborhoods and everyday people have the ability to grow food on a scale that will feed their families and by turning to community gardens instead of supermarkets; people have the power to boycott MIIFs by growing their own food. Within urban environments, “junk food jungles”, which are areas with high amounts of unhealthy fast food chains and little access to cheap, healthy organic vegetables, concentrate in low-income areas.

The majority of people living within these areas tend to be either African American or Hispanic.

In 2009, the Center for Disease Control reported that African Americans have a 51 percent higher chance of obesity than Caucasians while Hispanics have a 21 percent higher chance of obesity than Caucasians.154 Racial stereotypes attribute obesity and diabetes in African

Americans and Hispanics to nothing but preference towards fast food. However, studies have shown that minorities receiving a low income buy unhealthy fast food because of the food’s low price, not because of preference. The price of food is one of the strongest influences on low- income minority food purchases. Moreover, people buying the food are aware of the food’s detrimental effects on health; however, they simply cannot afford healthier alternatives.155

These low-income minorities need community gardens and more access to cheap healthy foods.

Therefore, promoting aquaponics within these areas pushes individuals to participate in community politics, isolates money in the community, provides food to the undernourished and increases the likelihood of spreading aquaponics to other communities. Tackling the problem in developing communities with aquaponics manifests as a form of environmental justice, which the EPA defines as “ the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of

154 Flachs, Andrew. "Food for thought: The social impact of community gardens in the Greater Cleveland Area." Electronic Green Journal 1, no. 30 (2010). EBSCOhost (accessed on March 23, 2015). 155 “DiSantis, Katherine Isselmann, et al. "What “price” means when buying food: insights from a multisite qualitative study with black Americans." American journal of public health 103.3 (2013): 516 50 race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”156

Educating Those That Need It Most

Because the aquaponics does not rely on soil, growers can set up aquaponics systems in all environments, especially in poor urban environments. When Stephen Ritz first came up with the concept of the to help provide food for minorities in South Bronx, he did so in his classroom with the help of his students. Following in the footsteps of the most successful urban farmers, the foundation of spreading aquaponics begins with basic hands on education, especially within the educational institutions of developing communities. Because the aquaponics systems act as miniature ecosystems, aquaponics systems provide hands on learning opportunities for children and adults. Utilizing aquaponics helps people understand ecological literacy, basic biology, basic chemistry and farming techniques.157 Growers have the ability to establish the system in all types of buildings, including schools, churches, community centers and greenhouses. Doing so creates employment opportunities, training programs, community centers, and neighborhood activities.158

Establishing aquaponics systems in schools holds the highest priority. Schools offer children and teenagers the most access to learning about and using aquaponics for the simple reasons that schools operate as a communal learning center. College students form outside the community can visit schools and hold workshops where children and teenagers build aquaponics systems out of inexpensive material, such as PVC pipe, shelving units, wood and recycled plastic barrels. Training sessions do not require much time and money. Teens can build basic aquaponics system with material from Home Depot on budget of $70 or less. For example, in

156 "Environmental Justice." EPA. Accessed March 24, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/. 157 Goodman (13) 158 Goodman (13) 51

Ethiopia, the members of SmartFish hosted two three day training programs in which they taught

40 members of a poor Ethiopia community how to build, manage, and harvest a barrel-ponics system.159 After completing the course, the members of the community built small systems in their homes, monitored the growth of plants and fish, and had fresh food to eat in a water scarce area. Starting aquaponics programs similar to the one in Ethiopia has huge potentials for educating and employing students. Similarly, schools may host programs that train teachers and students how build aquaponics systems. Once teenagers understand how to build, operate and maintain the system, the teens can teach younger children the methods through school programs.

Doing so helps curb nature deficit disorder and introduces children to nature and ecology. The school can harvest the produce and fish and have the cafeteria staff prepare food for the school, which lowers the school’s costs and ensures children receive healthy food. Students also have the ability to establish small farmers markets and community supported agriculture (CSA) in their neighborhoods selling the produce and fish from their aquaponics system, which helps keep money in the community and eliminate the need for people to buy junk food. After gaining experience, students and teachers can spread aquaponics to other parts of the community, including community centers, churches and .

Social Benefits of

Like Stephen Ritz’s students, students who learn how to build aquaponics have the ability to take on jobs that require them to build systems in peoples homes and in city centers. Through aquaponics, students “have the potential to diversify revenue, establish merchandise, fundraise, create training programs, partner with universities and partner with businesses.”160 Community gardening generates revenue to supplement ’ income and trends have shown that most

159 "Small-scale aquaponics launched in Ethiopia by FAO under the SmartFish project." FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 51, (June 2013): 52-53. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 25, 2015). 160 Goodman (76) 52 gardeners gain a positive return on investment.161 Aside from monetary gain, community gardening has various social benefits. First, community gardens improve people’s self-image of themselves. Negative social stigmas against African Americans and Hispanics have modified the way people of these races view themselves. Such stigmas embrace the notion that blacks and

Hispanics tend to be unemployed, poverty stricken and homeless. People of these races internalize these stigmas, which negatively affects their self-esteem and self-image.162

Community gardens offer minorities employment, a sense of purpose and the chance to impact their community in a positive way that has observable results. For example, at the 2100 Lakeside

Garden in Cleveland, “male gardeners recognized their efforts and understood that despite their low socioeconomic status, they positively impacted their community. In doing so, they improved their self-image and challenged the stigmas against them.”163 Similarly, Growing Power in

Milwaukee employed underprivileged teenagers who helped others in their community through food production, giving them a sense of purpose.

Community gardens teach people how to handle and grow fresh produce. They also offer healthier food alternatives, which stifle food insecurity and promote community activism.164

Community gardens have health benefits such as reducing heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, all of which help people spend less on medical costs and save money to increase their socioeconomic status.165 Contrary to what some studies suggest, community gardens bolster individuals’ sense of within underprivileged communities.166 Community gardens also beautify urban areas with little to no green spaces. Various psychological studies have shown urban environments increase peoples’ stress and anxiety levels while elements of

161 Flachs (2) 162 Flachs (8) 163 Flachs (8) 164 Flachs (8) 165 Flachs (3) 166 Flachs (7) 53 nature reduce those very effects.167 Therefore, creating green spaces, such as community gardens or indoor urban farms with elements mimicking nature reduces people’s stress. Community gardens establish trustworthy relationships between the gardeners and community members because consumers understand the origin of their food and realize their business transactions bolster the community.

Many case studies have shown aquaponics systems in underprivileged communities only perform well on a large-scale because larger businesses can attain a profit to cover the expensive development costs of starting an aquaponics system.168 Members in underprivileged communities must cover the cost of materials to build the system, water and electricity.

However, as the efforts of Will Allen and Majora Carter have shown, with proper fundraising, marketing, and usage of grants, small communities have the potential to raise money and start community based urban farms. Aquaponics as a form of community gardens brings all the social, health and economic benefits together into one location. The system needs daily maintenance meaning more availability of job spaces. Moreover, aquaponics demonstrates the balance of ecosystems and teachers have the ability to use aquaponics for educational purposes. Aquaponics businesses can employ people and provide urban communities with fresh, organic food while reconnecting people with nature and teaching people how to cultivate food. People have the ability to build aquaponics nearly anywhere with various types of material giving people around the globe new opportunities to have access to food.

Not Just An Idea

While some may call the idea of changing the current MIIF system of agriculture to urban aquaponics too idealistic, I argue that such a change has already occurred and continues to

167 Berto, Rita. 2014. "The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness." Behavioral Sciences (2076-328X) 4, no. 4: 394-409. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 26, 2015). (402) 168 "Small-scale aquaponics launched in Ethiopia by FAO under the SmartFish project." (53) 54 occur in America. Growing Power exemplifies the most successful aquaponics based nonprofit business devoted to growing food in an urban setting while helping developing communities.

Will Allen’s three-acre farm based urban farm began in 1993 in a small Milwaukee community.

With the help of teenagers, most of them from low-income families, Allen changed his farm into one of the most successful aquaponics based greenhouses in America. Growing Power serves the community and offers teens employment, education workshops, composting lessons, horticulture lessons, paid internships, and tours. Growing Power’s success comes from their concrete model that revolves around sustainability and hands-on education. By exposing individuals to nature and the science behind farming, Allen inspires people to want to learn how to farm and grow produce through natural systems. The farm’s success manifests through its efficiency and capabilities. At the Milwaukee location, Allen’s farm has 25 growing spaces for plants. The farm also grows fish, goats and chickens, supplying roughly 10,000 people with food. Through composting and vermicomposting, the farm annually turns 40 million pounds of waste into soil, which follows the third principle of sustainability. The greenhouse operates entirely on solar power and has an extremely low carbon footprint. As for funding, Growing Power relies heavily on donations, grants and the money from selling produce to local people. For example, Will

Allen received the “Genius” fellowship from that totaled $500,000, which all went to expanding and improving Growing Power. Over the years, Growing Power has reinvested money to provide more services for the people. Growing Power exemplifies that aquaponics businesses do indeed have the ability to operate on the principles of sustainability while still providing healthy food to meet demand. Moreover, Growing Power exemplifies the power urban agriculture has on local people in terms of employment, cooperation, and education.

With proper policy changes, more people will have the opportunity to create aquaponics 55 agribusinesses very similar to Growing Power. Other successful figures associated with urban farms include Majora Carter and Steven Ritz. Both helped change the South Bronx in New York

City through establishing green roofs, green walls, community gardens, farmers markets and organizations. The work of Will Allen, Majora Carter and Stephen Ritz all exemplify that urban farming, specifically aquaponics, has the ability to succeed in urban environments while operating on the principles of sustainability to meet food demand.

Role of Government and Environmental Politics

Humans have to wean their dependence on MIIFs. Unless they do so, MIIFs will increase water over usage, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and habitat destruction. The current MIIF system causes environmental damage and extreme wealth insecurity. Despite these facts, MIIFs still influence policies through lobbying and have the assistance of other non-governmental organizations. For example, in 2008, Monsanto spent roughly $8 million in lobbying efforts to persuade Congress to create policies that favored the

MIIF status quo, the highest out of any other .169 Moreover, in order to gain positive public opinion, Monsanto spends millions in advertising campaigns that frame MIIF farmers as heroes who aim to bolster the American economy and provide America with food. In the past,

Monsanto spent $6 million to gain the approval of Roundup Ready crops that rely on Roundup pesticides. Monsanto gave over $400,000,000 in gifts to politicians during the 2010 election cycle in an effort to influence their political decisions. In 2011, the company lobbied for a

“modern agriculture” caucus, or the creation of a group within the legislative body that shared

Monsanto’s concerns. In 2011, Congress created the caucus.170 Monsanto’s tactics persuade

169 "Lobbying and Advertising." Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed April 23, 2015. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food- system/genetic-engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.VTlRWK1Viko. 170 "Lobbying and Advertising." Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed April 23, 2015. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food- system/genetic-engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.VTlRWK1Viko. 56 politicians to enact policies that favor the current MIIF system, which degrades natural capital, does not follow the principles of sustainability, and is too costly to maintain.

The USDA and Congress spend huge amounts taxpayer money on farm subsidies that do not benefit the majority of farms because the top ten percent of farms lobby to receive the funding. Therefore, to mitigate these problems, the U.S government, specifically Congress and the USDA must work together to create new policies that favor urban farms instead of conventional MIIFs. While doing so is no easy task, understanding and changing politics from the ground up has a huge impact on future policies. People have to vote and understand the true motives of the politicians they vote for. Communicating with political officials and supporting those that want to expand environmentally friendly policies have great potential for jumpstarting the use of aquaponics in urban communities. People also have the power to start environmental movements and influence politics by starting aquaponics gardens in their community. For example, Stephen Ritz’s decision to build the green wall with his students caught the attention of the media and gave Ritz and his students the opportunity to meet and influence political officials.

In short, to truly make a difference, the people must elect officials that hold their best interest into power. Through the usage of social media, petitions, protests and bringing issues to public attention, individuals can make a huge difference.

Policy One: Create a New Standard

First, countries have to mitigate the damage MIIFs have on the atmosphere, forests, and aquatic environments. To decrease the negative effects of climate change, farmers, corporations and the government must prioritize curtailing greenhouse gases. The large-scale use of nitrogen- based fertilizers releases the greenhouse gas NO2, which has 20 times more potential to retain heat than CO2. MIIFs within the United States contribute 37 percent of total global methane 57 emissions and emit 670 tons of CO2 on an annual basis. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the government must reallocate subsidies from crop insurance and farm programs to conservation, which receives the second least amount of funding. Moreover, the USDA and Congress must create stricter guidelines that force MIIFs to generate less nutrient waste rather than waiting to fix the problems from non-point sources. As opposed to the current standard that revolves around high yield and efficiency, the USDA must create a new environmentally conscious standard farms must follow to attain funding. Such a standard recognizes the dangers of fertilizer pollution, habitat loss, water over usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. MIIFs that follow the new standard and convert their linear high waste methods to more sustainable ones will become eligible for subsidies. Examples include MIIFs that practice polyculture cultivation, water reuse, little to no fertilizer and pesticide usage, and proper waste management. To ensure MIIFs reach the standard, Congress and the USDA have to send hydrologists, ecologists, , botanists, chemists and engineers to assess the farms based on biodiversity, waste production, water usage, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Doing so ensures that farms with the best practices receive the most funding to continue better farming methods and improve minimizing their carbon footprint.

Policy Two: Increase Conservation

Congress and the USDA have to funnel more funding towards conservation efforts.

Currently, conservation receives the second lowest amount of funding in the form of subsidies.

Some methods of improving conservation include expanding and providing more funding to the organizations devoted to conservation causes such as the Wildlife Conservation Society and

Audubon Society. Other methods include reducing deforestation by banning clear cutting as a method of extracting trees from old and second growth forests. Clear cutting completely 58 eradicates ecosystems that have high biodiversity and work efficiently at recycling CO2. Clear cutting forests to create land for pastures contributes 34.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, the most GHG emissions compared to other parts of the MIIF sector.171 Politicians have to understand, recognize, and avoid the dangers MIIFs and logging companies pose to forests.

Congress has to create policies that hold MIIFs more responsible for water pollution. The

Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico serve as examples of how MIIFs heavily degrade the environment. While the Environmental Protection Agency has the superfund program to help cleanup pollution, the superfund program does not serve as an incentive for MIIFs to stop pollution. Therefore, to increase conservation, Congress and the USDA have to fund more conservation efforts with subsidies, create stricter guidelines in terms of water pollution, create an organization that monitors MIIF pollution, and support aquaponics and other sustainable agribusinesses that do not emit pollution. In order to do so, we have to increase lobbying efforts that persuade members of Congress to change the Farm Bill and siphon more of the budget to conservation efforts.

Policy Three: Reallocate Subsidies

Congress, the USDA, and municipal governments have to create a separate subsidy standard for urban farms. To ensure people have the ability to create and maintain aquaponics businesses that adhere to the standard, Congress, the USDA and municipal governments must extend farm subsidy eligibility to aquaponics businesses and other urban farms. The urban farm standard must revolve around the three principles of sustainability and ensure aquaponics businesses meet the criteria of producing healthy fish and crops. The standard must include zero use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and GMO crops. The standard must include zero use of fertilizers and nearly zero water waste. Aquaponics facilities that meet these requirements will

171 McMicahels et. al (1258) 59 have eligibility for farm subsidies that help cover the expensive upfront cost of renewable forms of energy such as solar panels. Additionally, aquaponics facilities that have programs meant to educate and employ members of a community ought to have more access to farm subsidies.

Commercial aquaponics businesses need financial support to flourish and compete against large- scale MIIFs that have plenty of funding. Diverting subsidies from the top 10 percent of large- scale MIIFs to aquaponics facilities will cover the cost necessary to maintain the businesses. In order to do so, Congress and the USDA must create stricter eligibility guidelines that favor urban and sustainable farms, not MIIFs. The USDA has to distribute subsidies more equally as opposed to placing 90 percent of funding towards the top 10 percent of MIIFs. To allow aquaponics to flourish, Congress must include funding for aquaponics based businesses in the Farm Bill. Doing so will bring down the cost of organic and sustainably produced crops and make it easier to promote consumerism.

Policy Four: Introduce Full Cost Pricing

MIIFs have managed to thrive in the current market because government subsidies pay for MIIF production costs. The subsidy coverage acts as an incentive to ensure consumers purchase the produce from MIIFs. Therefore, when consumers buy food from a supermarket or a store that gets products from MIIFs, they pay lower than the full price. The full price of a product includes the cost of the item without subsidies, the costs of environmental damage, and the costs of harmful health maladies resulting from the product’s production.172 While some argue full cost pricing hurts businesses, I argue the benefits of full cost pricing are more beneficial than the short-term price increase of MIIF products. While it is true that full cost pricing will make current MIIF produce more expensive, shifting crop insurance and crop payment subsidies to will lower the price of crops produced via aquaponics and other

172 Miller (622) 60 sustainable systems. As a result, people will buy from sustainable agribusinesses instead of environmentally harmful MIIFs. As well as that, full cost pricing gives consumers much more information about the origins of the produce. The process of introducing full cost pricing begins with placing monetary value on all aspects of the environment through an assessment, which include an aesthetic value, existence value, and option value. Next, MIIFs damaging ecosystems that have an assigned value must include the cost of environmental damage in their product price. Such a tactic increases the price of MIIF products and forces consumers to deviate away from MIIF produce. Lastly, reallocating subsides to aquaponics farms lowers the price of crops produced in a sustainable manner and pushes consumers to buy these crops over those of conventional MIIFs. To ensure that full cost pricing becomes the norm, the people have to elect public officials that do not give into MIIFs’ lobbying efforts. As well as that, the people have to raise public awareness and petition Congress to change the Farm Bill that subsidizes MIIF produce. Taking away subsidies and placing monetary value on the environment will force

MIIFs to raise the price of their crops and push people to buy healthier sustainably produced crops.

Policy 5: Change the Role of Science Education

In order for aquaponics to continue in the future, educational facilities have to have a place for aquaponics. Therefore, the United States Department of Education must incorporate aquaponics into the national science curriculum. However, such a process takes time, so schools in urban communities must start the process on their own. In elementary schools, teachers and students should work with experienced aquaponics gardeners to build low budget aquaponics systems in school classrooms and monitor the progress of plant growth. Teachers should encourage young children to observe the process and the concept of nutrient reuse and 61 sustainability. In doing so, schools provide children with the basis of basic biology, chemistry and ecology in a visual and interactive way. A study conducted at Troy State University found that students who learned subjects through visual and interactive methods as opposed to simply reading about subjects retained much more information and did better on exams.173 Schools have the ability to create programs that employ teenagers to teach children how to build and understand aquaponics systems. Schools can become community centers of learning sustainable agriculture and host food drives to provide people with healthy food. Schools that require funding may apply for grants provided by third party organizations such as GrantsForPlants.

Once subsidies become reallocated, educational institutions can apply for subsidies through the

USDA. In short, aquaponics has great potential for helping elementary school students understand the basic principles of sustainability, agriculture, and science while providing a space for community nourishment through food drives.

As for middle and high school students, high school science courses, specifically biology and chemistry classes must incorporate aquaponics as a long-term assignment. Science laboratories provide excellent spaces for fostering aquaponics systems. First, science teachers should create their own laboratory assignments that mandate teenagers to start, monitor and record the progress of the school aquaponics system. To help start such programs, high schools and universities can create internship opportunities for college students. The college students can assist with creating and implementing a lab assignment that incorporates aquaponics. Once teachers create the assignment, high school students must analyze the water, monitor plant growth, introduce helpful to combat pests, and the plants receive proper amounts of light and heat. Teachers may then collect the assignments and provide them to the United States

173 Marzano, Robert. "The art and science of teaching." (2007): 14.

62

Department of Education as evidence and incentive for changing high school lab manuals to include aquaponics. Aquaponics in urban high schools helps change students from consumers to sustainable producers that provide more for the community.

On the collegiate level, some universities, such as the University of Arizona and

University of the Virgin Islands offer aquaponics workshops and allow students to conduct research. More universities in urban communities need access to aquaponics. First, in order to fund aquaponics research and endeavors, the municipal government and other organizations must try to create more university grants for students to conduct research on improving aquaponics systems. Other methods of funding include federal grants and third party organizations. More universities should establish programs allowing college students to visit schools in urban communities and help establish aquaponics systems in elementary, middle and high schools to help children and teens obtain healthy food they normally would not have. By incorporating aquaponics on all education levels, urban communities have a much higher chance of consuming healthy food, creating employment opportunities, and reducing their carbon footprint.

Closing Remarks

For too long, we have relied on MIIFs to generate our food because we feared that resources would run out. We have allowed MIIFs to poison our foods with pesticides and other dangerous chemicals. We have allowed MIIFs to overuse freshwater depleting sources such as the Ogallala aquifer to levels that have long lasting effects on other ecosystems. We have allowed MIIFs to pollute and destroy beautiful such as the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico. We have allowed MIIFs to produce the highest amount of greenhouse gases compared to any other sector of America. We have allowed MIIFs to amass billions of dollars each year through taxes while our political officials give into the lobbying efforts of corrupt 63 corporations such as Monsanto. How much longer will we let such an unjust system benefit only those at the top at the expense of our planet and our communities? We have to realize that changing the current MIIF system is not purely about money. Changing the system is about providing for our communities, breaking dependence on large MIIF corporations, improving the health of our people, and helping heal the damage done to our planet. As human beings who live in the earth’s biome, we have to take responsibility for our actions and protect not only the people in our communities from harmful food, but we must also protect the earth from environmental degradation. Though the demand of food continues to rise and our population continues to increase, we have the ability to feed everyone in a sustainable manner. Aquaponics has the highest potential to provide members of an urban community with not only fish and produce, but also social services such as employment, community cooperation and livable green spaces. Through aquaponics, everyday people have the power to change the predominant planetary management vision of agriculture, which justifies overexploitation of the earth for human purposes, to a vision of stewardship and environmentalism, in which we humans take responsibility for the earth’s conditions and provide care to rehabilitate our planet. Therefore, aquaponics is more than just a method of food production; it is a way of inspiring others to appreciate what the earth has to offer, it is a way of providing nourishment to those that need it most, it is a way of creating better and more independent communities, and most importantly, it is a way of producing a sustainable future.

64

Bibliography

Almasri, Mohammad N., and Jagath J. Kaluarachchi. "Assessment and management of long-term nitrate pollution of ground water in agriculture-dominated watersheds." Journal of Hydrology 295, no. 1 (2004): 225-245.

"Ambient Water Sees Market Opportunity as Gains Popularity." Internet Wire 2 Dec. 2014. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

"The need for vertical farms why we can have them now." Resource: Engineering & Technology for a Sustainable World 20.2 (2013): 8. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Angelsen, Arild, and David Kaimowitz. 2001. Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation [electronic resource] / edited by A. Angelsen and D. Kaimowitz. n.p.: Wallingford, Oxon, UK ; New York, NY, USA : CABI Pub. in association with Center for International Forestry Research, 2001., 2001. Fordham Libraries Catalog, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015).

Beckman, Jayson, Allison Borchers, and Carol Adaire Jones. "Agriculture's Supply and Demand for Energy and Energy Products." USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin 112 (2013).

Bernstein, Sylvia. Aquaponics gardening: a step-by-step guide to raising vegetables and fish together. New society publishers, 2011.

Boesch, D. F., and R. B. Brinsfield. "Coastal eutrophication and agriculture: contributions and solutions." In Biological Resource Management Connecting Science and Policy, pp. 93- 115. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000.

Brown, Lynn. 2003. Food Security. n.p.: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. Gale Virtual Reference Library, Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources(accessed February 2, 2015).

Bruckner, Monica. "The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone." Microbial Life, Educational Resources. Accessed April 20, 2015. http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html.

Chapman, Chris, et al. "Collaboration for Aquaponics Sustainable Energy." Milwaukee School of Engineering. PDF

Cohen, Sarah, Dan Morgan, and Laura Stanton. "Farm Subsidies Over Time." Washington Post. July 2, 2006. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html.

65

Cronon, William. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Macmillan, 2011.

Custodio, Emilio. "Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean?." Hydrogeology Journal 10, no. 2 (2002): 254-277.

Dahan, O., et al. "Nitrate from intensive organic farms to groundwater." Hydrology & Earth System Sciences Discussions 10, no. 7 (July 2013): 9915-9941. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 22, 2015).

DiSantis, Katherine Isselmann, et al. "What “price” means when buying food: insights from a multisite qualitative study with black Americans." American journal of public health 103.3 (2013): 516-522.

Diver, Steve. Aquaponics-Integration of hydroponics with aquaculture. Attra, 2000.

Dunn, Rob. 2011. "Toward the New Garden of Eden: A university professor becomes a reluctant revolutionary of hope." Natural History 119, no. 7: 16. Biography Reference Bank (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015).

"FAO's Role in Urban Agriculture." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.fao.org/urban-agriculture/en/.

Filson, Glen C., ed. Intensive agriculture and sustainability: a farming systems analysis. UBC Press, 2005.

Fry, William E., and Stephen B. Goodwin. "Resurgence of the Irish potato famine fungus." Bioscience (1997): 363-371.

Gay, Hannah. "Before and After Silent Spring: From Chemical Pesticides to Biological Control and Integrated Pest Management-Britain, 1945-1980." Ambix59, no. 2 (2012): 88-108.

Glaeser, Bernhard, ed. The Green Revolution revisited: critique and alternatives. Taylor & Francis, 2010.

Goodman, Elisha Renee. "Aquaponics: community and economic development." PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011.

Gruia, Romulus, I. Visa, A. Duta, and C. Jaliu. "Study on energy resources integration and sustainability of the new modular agriculture pattern." InEnvironmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1213-1219. Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Gh. Asachi Technical University, 2011.

Gunders, Dana. "Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill." Natural Resources Defense Council Issue Paper. August. This report was made possible through the generous support of The California Endowment (2012). 66

Guru, Manjula V., and James E. Horne. The Ogallala Aquifer. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2000.

Gutentag, Edwin D. "Geohydrology of the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: High Plains RASA Project [Western States (USA); South Central States (USA)]." Geological Survey professional paper (USA) (1984).

Hall, Kevin D., Juen Guo, Michael Dore, and Carson C. Chow. "The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact." PloS one 4, no. 11 (2009): e7940.

Haller, Lee, Patrick McCarthy, Terrence O'Brien, Joe Riehle, and Thomas Stulhldreher. "Nitrate pollution of groundwater." nitrate pollution of Groundwater. Accessed February 23, 2015.

Hancock, Roger. "Water and Energy Conservation Grow System: Aquaponics and with a Cycle Timer." (2012).DigitalCommons@CalPoly

Hazell, Peter BR. Green revolution: Curse or blessing?. Internat. Food Policy Research Inst., 2002.

Hornbeck, Richard, and Pinar Keskin. "The historically evolving impact of the ogallala aquifer: Agricultural adaptation to groundwater and ." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6.1 (2014): 190-219.

Jones, Scott. "Evolution of aquaponics." Aquaponics J 6 (2002): 14-17.

Khan, M.Z., Y.L. Sim, Y.J. Lin, and K.M. Lai. 2013. "Testing biological effects of hand- washing grey water for reuse in irrigation on an urban farm: A case study." Environmental Technology (United Kingdom) 34, no. 4: 545-551. Scopus®, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015).

"Lobbying and Advertising." Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed April 23, 2015. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic- engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.VTlRWK1Viko.

Love, David C., et al. "Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey." Aquaculture 435 (2015): 67-74.

"Major U.S. Land Uses 1978-2007." Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Online Collection. Detroit: Gale. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources. Web. 31 Jan. 2015.

Marzano, Robert. "The art and science of teaching." (2007): 30-50. 67

Masser, Michael P., James Rakocy, and Thomas M. Losordo. "Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems." Management of recirculating systems. SRAC Publication 452 (1999).

McMichael, Anthony J., John W. Powles, Colin D. Butler, and Ricardo Uauy. "Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health." The lancet370, no. 9594 (2007): 1253- 1263.

Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1975.

Naylor, Rosamond L. 1996. "ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ON INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION." Annual Review Of Energy & The Environment 21, no. 1: 99. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost(accessed February 2, 2015).

"Nelson & Pade Aquaponics Technology, Systems and Supplies." Different Methods of Aquaponics. Accessed March 18, 2015. http://aquaponics.com/page/methods-of- aquaponics.

Orr, Steve. "Solar Rising: Rochester Looks to Sun Power." Democrat and Chronicle. April 26, 2015. Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/ story/news/2015/04/25/solar-energy-popularity-rising-rochester/26334501/.

Peoples, James, and Garrick Bailey. Humanity: An introduction to cultural anthropology. Cengage Learning, 2011.

Powlson, D. S., K. W. T. Goulding, T. W. Willison, C. P. Webster, and B. W. Hütsch. "The effect of agriculture on methane oxidation in soil." Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 49, no. 1-3 (1997): 59-70.

Pretty, Jules N., Craig Brett, D. Gee, R. E. Hine, C. F. Mason, J. I. L. Morison, H. Raven, M. D. Rayment, and G. Van der Bijl. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture." Agricultural systems 65, no. 2 (2000): 113-136.

Rindler, Alex. "Forbes Fat Cats Collect Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies." Environmental Working Group. November 7, 2013. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://www.ewg.org/research/forbes-fat-cats-collect-taxpayer-funded-farm-subsidies.

Robertson, G. Philip, Eldor A. Paul, and Richard R. Harwood. 2000. "Greenhouse Gases in Intensive Agriculture: Contributions of Individual Gases to the Radiative Forcing of the Atmosphere." Science, 2000. 1922. JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015).

Schaible, Glenn, and Marcel Aillery. "Water conservation in irrigated agriculture: Trends and challenges in the face of emerging demands." USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin 99 (2012). 68

"Small-scale aquaponics launched in Ethiopia by FAO under the SmartFish project." FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 51, (June 2013): 52-53. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 25, 2015).

Smith, Vincent, Robert Greene, and Janet Silbernagel. 2013. "The social and spatial dynamics of community food production: a landscape approach to policy and program development." Landscape Ecology 28, no. 7: 1415-1426.Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015).

Sophocleous, Marios. 2012. "Conserving and Extending the Useful Life of the Largest Aquifer in North America: The Future of the High Plains/Ogallala Aquifer." Ground Water 50, no. 6: 831-839. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost(accessed February 2, 2015).

Sonnenfeld, David A. "Mexico's" Green Revolution," 1940-1980: Towards an Environmental History." Environmental History Review (1992): 29-52.

Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, and Cees De Haan. Livestock's long shadow. Rome: FAO, 2006.

Taylor, John, and Sarah Lovell. 2014. "Urban home food gardens in the Global North: research traditions and future directions." Agriculture & Human Values 31, no. 2: 285- 305. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2015).

Tegtmeier, Erin M., and Michael D. Duffy. "External costs of agricultural production in the United States." International Journal of agricultural sustainability 2, no. 1 (2004): 1-20.

“The National Agricultural Workers Survey.” The United States National Department of Labor. Accessed May 7, 2015

"The United States Summary Information." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000.

Tilman, David, Kenneth G. Cassman, Pamela A. Matson, Rosamond Naylor, and Stephen Polasky. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices." Nature 418, no. 6898 (2002): 671-677.

United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. UN, 2014

"Which Type of Energy Will Be the Cheapest Source of Power?" Environmental News Network. February 24, 2015. Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.enn.com/business/article/48285.

Worster, Donald. Nature's economy: a history of ecological ideas. Cambridge University Press, 1994.

69