input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: The benefits provided by no-tillage to predators may lead to larger predator populations, which is a good way to control pests (biological control), but also can facilitate predation of the crop itself. In corn crops, for instance, predation by caterpillars can be higher in no-till than in conventional tillage fields.In places with rigorous winter, untilled soil can take longer to warm and dry in spring, which may delay planting to less ideal dates. Another factor to be considered is that organic residue from the prior year's crops lying on the surface of untilled fields can provide a favorable environment to pathogens, helping to increase the risk of transmitting diseases to the future crop. And because no-till farming provides good environment for pathogens, insects and weeds, it can lead farmers to a more intensive use of chemicals for pest control. Other disadvantages of no-till include underground rot, low soil temperatures and high moisture.Based on the balance of these factors, and because each farm has different problems, agroecologists will not attest that only no-till or complete tillage is the right way of farming. Yet, these are not the only possible choices regarding soil preparation, since there are intermediate practices such as strip-till, mulch-till and ridge-till, all of them just as no-till categorized as conservation tillage. Agroecologists, then, will evaluate the need of different practices for the contexts in which each farm is inserted. I am facing a new situation today: Barb and Jill practiced small scale farming. Jill farmed the conventional way, while barb used the no-tillage method. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farmer caused the predation of the crop itself?
++++++++++
output: Barb

input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Compared to conventional milk production, organic milk production tends to have lower eutrophication potential per ton of milk or per hectare of farmland, because it potentially reduces leaching of nitrates (NO3) and phosphates (PO4) due to lower fertilizer application rates. Because organic milk production reduces pesticides utilization, it increases land use per ton of milk due to decreased crop yields per hectare. Mainly due to the lower level of concentrates given to cows in organic herds, organic dairy farms generally produce less milk per cow than conventional dairy farms. Because of the increased use of roughage and the, on-average, lower milk production level per cow, some research has connected organic milk production with increases in the emission of methane.Animal welfare issues vary among dairy farms and are not necessarily related to the way of producing milk (organically or conventionally). I am facing a new situation today: Two dairy farms were supplying milk and other milk products to the surrounding counties. Sunny farm practiced organic farming and produced organic milk, while Cloud farm was into conventional milk production. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farm leached more nitrates into the water?
++++++++++
output: Cloud

input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Marine pollution is a generic term for the entry into the ocean of potentially hazardous chemicals or particles. The biggest culprits are rivers and with them many agriculture fertilizer chemicals as well as livestock and human waste. The excess of oxygen-depleting chemicals leads to hypoxia and the creation of a dead zone.Marine debris, which is also known as marine litter, describes human-created waste floating in a body of water. Oceanic debris tends to accumulate at the center of gyres and coastlines, frequently washing aground where it is known as beach litter. I am facing a new situation today: Bay city practiced organic farming and used almost no fertilizers. Gulf city practiced conventional farming for it inhabitants, and used vast quantities of fertilizers. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city caused the entry of more livestock waste into the ocean?
++++++++++
output: Gulf

input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Another major cause of extinction is global warming , which is also known as global climate change. During the past century, the Earth's average temperature has risen by almost 1C (about 1.3F). You may not think that is significant, but to organisms that live in the wild and are constantly adapting to their environments, any climate change can be hazardous. Recall that burning fossil fuels releases gasses into the atmosphere that warm the Earth. Our increased use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, is changing the Earth's climate. Any long-term change in the climate can destroy the habitat of a species. Even a brief change in climate may be too stressful for an organism to survive. For example, if the seas increase in temperature, even briefly, it may be too warm for certain types of fish to reproduce. I am facing a new situation today: Ken and Stacy are two engineers discussing their plans about what source of energy they should use to generate electricity in a new city they are helping design. Ken feels that they should use coal since it's reliable, abundant and relatively cheap. Stacy argues that they should use solar power because there is an infinite supply of solar energy. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which person's plan will contribute less to global warming?
++++++++++
output:
Stacy