DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2016, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Less Space, Less Cost, Less Water and Fuel Use [img
width=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280416145345.jpeg[/img]
[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/MPvgkZhrWUA[/center]
Home Town Farms is on a mission to get local food growing in
unconventional ways in cities all over the US. It's a replicable
template for urban, indoor vertical farming. They have a
streamlined format for growing the produce -- and setting up a
retail environment. Consumers can buy on location where the food
is grown.
Move over, Whole Foods: THIS is the store we've been waiting
for! The savings over conventional methods are impressive: These
crops need 70% less land, 85% less water, 80% less fertilizer
and 90% less fuel to get to market.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
The food itself is will cost about half :o
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>what conventionally grown organic food costs.
These farms are not dependent on existing ground soil and can be
set up on open parking lots, rooftops, open land or any unused
space.
This exciting concept may establish itself as a standard in food
production going forward...imagine, we can now grow organic,
inexpensive, safe food...in a downtown parking lot! --Bibi
Farber - See more at:
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/growing-food/the-new-farm-is-right-downtown.html#sthash.dscq8RKV.dpuf
#Post#: 5165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: May 27, 2016, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=7206.msg104602#msg104602
date=1464380652]
[quote author=RE link=topic=7206.msg104531#msg104531
date=1464300708]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=7206.msg104528#msg104528
date=1464294706]
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its
natural gas from cow manure.
[/quote]
If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is
no longer useful as fertilizer.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
You've
burned out the energy content. You can't have your shit and eat
it too. :icon_mrgreen:
RE
[/quote]
I took a tour of one of our three poo-poo treatment plants a
couple of years ago. Settled out product was conveyed to one of
five methane digesters which are huge concrete tanks several
stories tall. Methane is produced for a few weeks and then the
residue is trucked to eastern Washington for use as fertilizer.
It makes wheat grow very well.
On any given day the methane is sold to the gas company or it is
burned to generate electricity and sold to the electric company
to offset the plant electric bill. The methane extracted is
only enough to provide one fifth of the power the plant actually
uses.
This plant receives its raw material from a mixed flow of storm
drain and sewage waters. The area served does not have a
separate storm drain system though there are some street drains
with fish painted next to them that claim to drain directly into
Lake Washington. The relevant fact is that product to produce
methane arrives quite dilute. This may explain some of the poor
efficiency.
I am going to look into how much methane is produced by a single
pig's poop on an annual basis but don't let that stop anyone
from posting what they know about the process first.
I do know an elephant produces enough methane to keep a range
burner on because they process their fodder very inefficiently.
They are not ruminants. Elephant poop is apparently important
to distribute nutrients in their local environment and because
they don't get all the energy they could from their feed
elephants are consequently always full of shit. The Republican
mascot is well chosen.
My point is that like the blood of patriots the waste product of
methane digestion is useful as fertilizer.
But how many therms can a pig toot?
[/quote]
The problem here is the generally accepted notion of "carrying
capacity" that is riddled with false assumptions on the nature
of energy transfer mechanisms in autotrophs (photosynthetic
sunlight eaters).
From the simplistic application of Hess's Law to the cherry
picking of the fossil fuel funded Charles Halls of this world,
we get an amazing array of studious peer reviewed bullshit about
"carrying capacity", caloric intake requirements and required
nutrients.
The fact is, K-Dog, that nitrogen fixation and other plant
health and growth (NOT the same thing!) processes are complex.
The thermodynamics of soil microbes is not well understood
because off their enzyme mediated energy transfer systems.
The reductionist and moronic 20th century Big Ag assumptions
that all you needed to grow a healthy crop are phosphates,
potassium and nitrogen are based on FALSE assumptions about
autotroph energy (AND HEALTH) requirements.
NOBODY has quantified ERoEI in soil microbes, of which there are
several MILLION per cubic INCH (including thousands of DIFFERENT
SPECIES). When they do, we can begin to understand carrying
capacity. Until then, assumptions about energy from fertilizer
are not based on the important, and sine qua non, thermodynamic
mechanisms of the soil microbes.
#Post#: 5182--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: May 29, 2016, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=7264.msg104722#msg104722
date=1464539072]
Our recent discussion of methane digesters led me here.
HTML http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-shocking-carbon-footprint-of-compost.html
HTML http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-shocking-carbon-footprint-of-compost.html
The Shocking Carbon Footprint of Compost
Most people think of composting as a very "green" thing to do,
but few realize that composting actually generates a significant
amount of the potent greenhouse gases (GHG), methane and nitrous
oxide. Under current landfill regulations, requirements to
exclude water minimizes the breakdown of organic matter and
requirements to capture and burn methane mean that even that
option has a better carbon footprint than composting (thanks to
Fred Krieger for pointing out this advance in the landfill
arena). The even better option is anaerobic digestion which I
will describe at the end of this post.
These Emissions Are Not A Scientific Surprise
To a microbiologist, it is not surprising that these gases would
be generated during composting. Methane and nitrous oxide are
formed by certain microbes when there is not enough oxygen
available (anaerobic conditions). In the middle of a large-scale
compost pile there are micro-sites without oxygen. This occurs
even in a pile turned frequently for aeration. This is
particularly true during the "hot" phase of the composting
process which kills pathogens and weed seeds. During the period
of very high oxygen demand, some parts of the pile will run
short and the anaerobic organisms will make methane and nitrous
oxide.
An Example
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HQlO_cXpT2U/UO297IEWbfI/AAAAAAAAAZE/WZmhJbSsgKM/s1600/Hao+et+al+2001.jpg
The graph above is based on one typical study of GHG emissions
during composting (Hao et al 2001). This was from active
composting of cattle manure - a common procedure in which the
pile is aerated by turning it frequently using a tractor (its
fossil CO2 emissions are shown in green above.)
The first column represents how much carbon or nitrogen was
emitted in various forms per metric ton (Mton) of manure. We
can't even see the 0.19 kg nitrous oxide-N at this scale.
Methane is 8.1 kg C and the fuel is 4.4 kg C.
The second column shows how much the emissions contribute to a
net increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Carbon
dioxide is "carbon neutral" because it was recently pulled out
of the atmosphere by a plant - thus no net GHG contribution.
Methane and nitrous oxide are multiplied by 21 and 310
respectfully because of their higher radiative forcing
potential).
The third column shows the GHG contribution per metric ton of
finished compost (after 21% loss of mass - much as water). The
total "carbon footprint" of the compost is now 233.4 kg
CO2-C/Mton. For those more familiar with English units and
expression as CO2 this would be 2167 lbs CO2/Ton.
How Much Compost Is Typically Used?
When compost is used in farming, it is normally applied in large
quantities. According to the University of California, Davis
cost and return studies, a typical organic crop would receive
between 2 and 10 tons of compost per acre. Thus a mid-range use
of 5 tons/acre would represent a carbon footprint of 10,833
pounds (CO2 equivalents). This is without including the fuel
footprint of hauling the compost to the field and spreading it.
How Big Is That Footprint?
To put this in perspective, the carbon footprint of this amount
of compost used on one acre of a crop would be equal to the
various other carbon footprints described below:
The carbon footprint of manufacturing 2,580 pounds of synthetic
urea-nitrogen fertilizer (at 4.2 lbs/CO2 per lb)
The "embedded carbon footprint" of that urea for fertilizing
12.9 acres of corn at 200 lbs/acre
The complete carbon footprint of producing 5.7 acres of
conventional corn (including fertilizer, crop protection
chemicals, seed, fuel, nitrous oxide emissions from soil...)
The carbon footprint of burning the gas to drive a typical car
13,982 miles (at 25 mpg).
The carbon footprint of all it takes to produce 985 pounds of
beef
The carbon footprint of growing, handling and transporting 9,641
pounds of bananas from Costa Rica to Germany
In other words, the footprint of the applied compost is
shockingly large. It is certainly not a practice one would want
to see on a large scale.
[i]
Waste Is A Terrible Thing To Waste
Why bring this up? Because there is a superior use for manures
and other organic waste streams. When waste is processed in an
anaerobic digester, most of the carbon in the is intentionally
converted to methane, and then the methane is burned as a form
of renewable energy. The emissions are carbon neutral and the
energy generated offsets fossil carbon use. As with compost,
the remaining fiber that is left after digestion can still be
used for soil improvement or other uses.
Anaerobic digesters require a substantial, initial capital
investment and are non-trivial to operate, but they are clearly
the best way to deal with most organic waste streams. They also
pay for themselves over time. Modern municipal water treatment
facilities tend to have these digesters as do some large-scale
dairies and CAFOs (confined animal feed operations).
The largest onion processor in California (Gills Onions)
installed a digester for its substantial stream of trimmings.
Gills eliminated a troublesome odor and disposal issue, they now
offset much of their energy demand, and they are ahead
financially after paying back the initial investment. This is a
great example of how "doing the right thing" from a greenhouse
gas perspective can also be a sound, bottom-line option.
You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at
savage.sd@gmail.com. For notifications of future posts you can
follow me on twitter ( @grapedoc )
References on GHG emissions during composting:
•Hao, X., Chang, C., Larney, J., Travis, G. 2001. Greenhouse gas
emissions during cattle feedlot manure composting. Journal of
Environmental Quality 30:376-386. •Osada, T., Kuroda, K.,
Yonaga, M. 2000 Determination of nitrous oxide, methane, and
ammonia emissions from swine waste composting process. Journal
of material cycles and waste management 1:51-56 •Hellebrand,
H.1998. Emission of nitrous oxide and other trace gases during
composting of grass and green waste. Agric. Engng Res.
69:365-375 •Sommer, S., Holler, H.2000. Emission of
greenhouse gases during composting of deep litter from pig
production – effect of straw content. The Journal of
Agricultural Science 134_327-335 •Hao, X., Chang, C., Larney,
F. 2004. Carbon, nitrogen balances and greenhouse gas emission
during cattle feedlot manure composting. Journal of
Environmental Quality 33:37-44 •Jackel, U., Thummes, K,
Kampfer, P. 2005. Thermophilic methane production and oxidation
in compost. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 52:175-184. (looking for
microbes which might help reduce the methane emissions from
composting) •Hellmann, B., Zelles, L., Palojarvi,A, Bai, Q.
1997. Emission of climate-relevant trace gases and succession
of microbial communities during open-windrow composting.
Applied and Environmental Microbiol 63:1011-1018[/i]
What I got from this is that composting, a process most of us
think of as being pretty green, has a big carbon footprint. The
author makes the case that methane digesters are carbon neutral
and a far superior way to deal with the carbon waste stream.
Palloy said, as I understood him, that methane digesters produce
a lot of CO[sub]2[/sub].
So, from a carbon emissions standpoint, what is the trade-off on
these practices? I'd like to know.
I suppose one has compare composting and methane digesting to
the carbon footprint of the dominant agricultural practices of
the day, which we all know, have a huge carbon footprint. It
gets a little complicated to get to the real facts.
Help, anyone? JD? Palloy? AGelbert?
[/quote]
I take absolutely everything Palloy says with a grain of salt.
Palloy is, after all, that fine fellow that said Greece had a
"valuable" resource with all that COAL they have, back when
people were talking about Greece getting carved up by the
oligarchic neoliberal greedballs. The last time I checked, coal
is a terribly polluting substance that emits a lot of CO2, among
other pollutants. So, to even bring it up as an "energy
resource" evidences a deliberate lack of perspective on the real
costs for we-the-people of pollutants from energy sources.
Eddie, where I am going with this is that we MUST engage in
apples to apples comparisons here when we talk of Methane
digesters. As you probably know already, methane harvesters
don't just use animal feces as the input; they can use other
waste material from crops and food waste that is generally used
in composting. The fertilizer residue from a methane harvesting
operation is perfectly usable as high quality fertilizer. So,
there is a synergy going on between methane harvesting and
composting. It does not have to be an either/or situation.
Back to Palloy's perspective free point ("methane digesters
produce a lot of CO[sub]2[/sub]" ::)) about methane and
CO[sub]2[/sub]".
Eddie, as you said, "The author makes the case that methane
digesters are carbon neutral and a far superior way to deal with
the carbon waste stream".
In order to understand where the author is coming from, you must
look at the same land use situation involving crops and animals
WITHOUT a methane harvesting operation.
THAT is the apples to apples comparison required that fossil
fuelers cleverly avoid like the plague. When you DO NOT harvest
that truly NATURAL (as opposed to Fracked gas methane product)
gas, it goes up into the atmosphere unburned as a GHG
(greenhouse gas) and stays there for about a month or so before
it degrades. During that month or so, it is over 80 times as
powerful as a GHG as the CO[sub]2[/sub] and water vapor that
would BE THERE in its place if it had been collected and then
burned for energy at ground level.
The fossil fuelers will calmly bean count every f u c k i n g
BTU of fossil fuel energy you use in farming and animal
husbandry to, OF COURSE, LOWER the ERoEI of Renewable Energy
products like ethanol. Never mind the MUCH GREATER energy inputs
required to make the world's 5% of ethanol obtained at oil
refineries... Oh, but to them, ethanol is ethanol. Just look at
Hess's Law and we can all go back to sleep. LOL!
Back to CH[sub]4[/sub] (methane), IF you do NOTHING on your farm
or with your herd's feces, you are ADDING to global warming. SO,
when you set up a methane harvesting operation, you are
SUBTRACTING from the GHG carbon footprint of your farm.
This is just CFS (common F'n Sense)!
As to getting to the "Carbon Neutral" or "Carbon Negative" point
we all need to get to, the hairsplitters defending the fossil
fuel industry will drive us all bananas with bean counting about
the FOSSIL FUEL BASED energy to make every screw, panel, tank
and pipe in the methane digester to try to talk their way around
the FACT that CH[sub]4[/sub] from those harvesters requires NO
FLARING and is therefore CLEAN and CHEAPER than CH[sub]4[/sub]
from oil and gas operations.
Simply put, the fossil fuel industry CANNOT COMPETE on a dollar
for dollar AND ERoEI basis with truly NATURAL gas. SO, they make
up a lot of studiously sounding bullshit bean counting stuff to
snow people into believing the reverse.
Eddie, apples to apples carbon footprint calculations aimed to
justify a "carbon neutral" award to CH[sub]4[/sub]+ fertilizer
equipment (you can compost without capturing the CH[sub]4[/sub]
but it makes more ERoEI sense to compost AND capture the
CH[sub]4[/sub] while you compost) requires that you a priori
state that you will have X amount of animals, Y amount of crops
and Z amount of machinery.
Once you have that, you have to compute what amount of
CH[sub]4[/sub] and CO[sub]2[/sub] would be emitted by all the
life forms down to the microbial level on your land if you, your
animals and your machinery were not there.
THAT is your baseline for Carbon Neutral. It is possible that,
if your spread is mostly grassland, that it would be Carbon
Negative, as the autotrophs there would actually be sucking more
GHG(s) out of the atmosphere than the microbes and other life
forms there are putting into it.
THEN, with all your stuff in position, you do the math. You CAN
give the fossil fueler bean counters the finger by NOT using
gasoline for your machines. E85 or Renewable Energy based
ethanol would be throw a wrench in their claims that you NEED a
lot of fossil fuels to do your stuff.
Methane digester plastic parts CAN be made from carbohydrate
based, rather than hydrocarbon based, feed stock. That would
also help towards your goal.
I realize all this detail is boring. [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif[/img]
But I add it here because I am weary of seeing so many context
and perspective free statements tossed around by supporters of
the unsustainable dirty energy status quo every single time real
world Renewable Energy, carbon neutral, cost competitive THREATS
to the fossil fuel industry products, like methane digesters,
are discussed.
The bottom line for methane digesters/harvesters is that, all
things being equal, they LOWER your carbon footprint massively
because you will eventually BURN the CH[sub]4[/sub] that would
have floated into the atmosphere.
And if every farm in this country did that, the Fracking
industry would go BELLY UP.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
ANY argument from the fossil fuelers (whether they claim to
support Renewable Energy or not) about methane digesters "not
being cost effective for energy production or environmentally
friendly" trotted out as a excuse to avoid putting in these
Renewable energy, pollution free CH[sub]4[/sub] capturing
devices is total, unadulterated bullshit.
I'll dig up some info on truly NATURAL gas collecting devices
(like the ones the Germans are using) to justify the points I
have just made. 8)
#Post#: 5184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: May 29, 2016, 7:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Methane Capture and Use[/center]
Because methane can be captured from landfills, it can be burned
to produce electricity, heat buildings, or power garbage trucks.
Capturing methane before it gets into the atmosphere also helps
reduce the effects of climate change.
Methane can also be captured from farm digesters, which are big
tanks that contain manure and other waste from barns that house
livestock such as cows and pigs.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CIIanxSUpRY/Tie49wfI2jI/AAAAAAAAAsw/yCdukZoQfQ8/s1600/digester.jpg[/img][/center]
Putting waste to good use. More than 500 landfill–to–energy
projects are currently operating in the United States, and
another 500 landfills are good candidates for turning their
methane into an energy resource, which would produce enough
electricity to power nearly 688,000 homes across the nation.
Top producer. In 2009, Germany produced enough electricity from
biogas to power 3.5 million homes.
A world first! Sweden has been operating a biogas-powered train
since 2005. It shuttles passengers between two cities that are
75 miles apart.
HTML https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/solutions/technologies/methane.html
HTML https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/solutions/technologies/methane.html
There is a HUGE difference between Renewable Energy based
methane and the highly polluting fossil fuel industry produced
methane. Renewable Energy BIOGAS based methane IS, when all the
carbon cycle math is done, Carbon Neutral.
[center]Methanogenesis: The Biological Production of Methane
Gas[/center]
Half of all species on Earth are microbial, and many of these
organisms inhabit anaerobic environments such as in soil,
freshwater and ocean sediment, and the digestive tracts of
eukaryotes. Studying anaerobic prokaryotes represents a
technical challenge. However, the payoff is great: their genomes
contain a high proportion of unknown genes that belie exotic
biochemistry, and they produce unusual secondary metabolites
that could be used for human benefit.
Currently, European countries (Switzerland, Germany) use
renewable methane extensively, and are projected to steadily
increase their use of biologically-produced methane in order to
phase out consumption of fossil methane derived from geological
sources.
The Buan Lab is interested in the physiology of strict anaerobes
in order to understand how these organisms grow, what role they
play in the environment and in the human microbiome, and in the
unique or unusual metabolites and enzymes they produce.
We use methane-producing archaea (methanogens) as a model system
to understand biological methane production. methanogens are
strict anaerobic archaea that obtain all their energy for growth
and reproduction by reducing fermentation endproducts like
acetate, H2 CO2, formate, methanol, methylamines, and
methylsulfides to methane gas.
Methanogens are the dominant archaea in anaerobic sediment where
sulfide concentrations are low, and are also dominant archaea in
the rumen of cattle, in the termite hidgut, and in the human
digestive tract.
Methanogens produce 2 gigatons of methane gas annually,
representing 4% of the global carbon cycle. Methane produced by
methanogens can be harvested and used as a heat and energy
source.
Large dairy farms and wastewater treatment plants commonly
harvest methane produced in anaerobic digesters and offset
nearly all of their heat and energy needs using renewable
methane.
HTML http://unlcms.unl.edu/biochemistry/buanlab/research-overview
HTML http://unlcms.unl.edu/biochemistry/buanlab/research-overview
Yes, we know there are a lot of termites doing their thing out
there and capturing their methane is not very cost effective.
HOWEVER, city dumps and animal feces based methane harvesters
ARE COST COMPETITIVE with fossil methane.
One gigaton equals one billion tons.
The conversion calculator below gives you a figure in hundreds
of cubic feet. You must multiply that by 100 to get cubic feet,
then divide the product by one million.
HTML http://www.convertunits.com/from/tons/to/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natural+gas
One gigaton of methane equals 3,848,417,954 million cubic feet.
That's HALF of what those microbes produce worldwide each year.
We CAN harvest that efficiently.
In 2015, approximately 29,000,000 million cubic feet of fossil
fuel methane was produced in the USA.
HTML https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm
HTML https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm
As those who can add and subtract can plainly see ;D, Natural
Processes are quite capable of supplying Renewable Energy
NATURAL methane without the "help" of our "dear loyal servants"
in the fossil fuel Industry.
You can see why the fossil fuel industry is not in any hurry to
have methane digesters adopted on a worldwide scale in every
city dump and farm animal location.
[center] [img
width=100]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
Below is an example of fossil methane that CAN be captured
WITHOUT flaring and other assorted pollution piggery the oil and
gas corporations love to engage in.
The Germans are capturing methane from abandoned coal mines.
[center]Production of Coal Bed Methane in Germany - Springer
[/center]
by O Langefeld - ‎2013 - ‎Related articlesProduction
of Coal Bed Methane in Germany ... Abandoned Mine Methane (AMM)
and Coal Mine Methane (CMM) projects are now prevalent in
several sites in ... Energy Harvesting · Geoengineering,
Foundations, Hydraulics · Hydrogeology ...
HTML http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-37849-2_15#page-1
HTML http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-37849-2_15#page-1
Finally, as you can read about below, the Germans have figured
out a way to strip methane collected from digesters from
producing ANY CO2 whatsoever.
The fossil fuel industry is probably trying to jump on this with
both claws, of course
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp.<br
/>The problem for them is that Fracked gas wells LEAK methane in
to
the atmosphere, along with FLARING about one third by volume of
toxic and carcinogenic poisonous gases just to get their
methane.
Also, every single hole drilled into the ocean bottom that has
produced oil and gas LEAKS methane.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Truly NATURAL gas from methane harvesting is the only practical
use of this new German technology.
[center]German researchers crack the code for carbon-free
methane to hydrogen conversion[/center]
12/07/2015 under News, Renewable Energy
German researchers have “cracked” the code for breaking down
methane from natural gas without creating carbon dioxide, and in
the process dealt a blow to climate change. Gizmag reports
scientists at the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies
(IASS) and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) have
created a process that lets them extract the energy content from
methane, in the form of hydrogen, without emitting any CO2.
The process, known as “methane cracking,” separates the hydrogen
and carbon elements found in methane by subjecting them to
temperatures of more than 1,382 degrees Fahrenheit and avoids
previously problematic carbon emissions via a unique design.
HTML http://inhabitat.com/german-researchers-crack-the-code-for-carbon-free-methane-to-hydrogen-conversion/
HTML http://inhabitat.com/german-researchers-crack-the-code-for-carbon-free-methane-to-hydrogen-conversion/
Apart from capturing the methane at unused fossil fuel drill
sites and abandoned coal beds to capture it before it leaks into
the atmosphere, we need fossil methane like a hole in the head.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
[hr]
[hr]
[hr]
Eddie, this is relevant to the methane harvesting operation.
STEP ONE in all farming operations, even those that are more
about animal husbandry, is environmentally friendly soil
microbes. We HAVE TO HAVE THEM if we are to have a carbon
neutral or carbon negative civilization. The fossil fuel and
chemical industries have been busy killing soil microbes sine
qua non for sustainable soil for over a century. This is stupid.
[center][img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300515145220.png[/img]
[/center]
Soil testing, for over a century, has WRONGLY used a chemical
analysis approach instead of a biological health approach. :o
The reason they went that way is because chemical analysis is
SIMPLER and favors MONOCULTURE and INDUSTRIAL FARMING
destructive soil management. IOW, PROFIT OVER PLANET
agricultural practices ARE RUINING THE SOIL. AND THE SCIENCE HAS
BEEN TAILORED TO FAVOR THAT DESTRUCTIVE MODUS OPERANDI.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Instead of using a host of acids the soil NEVER ACTUALLY SEES to
test soil, WATER should be used and ORGANIC ACIDS should be
measured. WHY? Because THAT is what the soil microbes ACTUALLY
interact with to aid plants in growing.
IOW, the LIFE of the microbes is the LIFE of the soil and the
KEY to soil productivity, sustainability AND MORE IMPORTANTLY,
the sine qua non for restoring degraded soil. USABLE carbon,
phosphates and potassium (K) have also been measured
incorrectly.
In 1935 they were on the right track. But the industrialized
monoculture agriculture of profit over planet twisted soil
testing methods which overruled the soil LIFE approach. >:( As
an example of how faulty the tests are, since 1965 HALF the
biologically available nitrogen has been ABSENT from the soil
tests.
They had to try to mimic natural systems in the lab. They
didn't.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
The abysmal
stupidity of that approach is that INORGANIC minerals were being
measured as "assets" for the soil
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
when
plants cannot do SQUAT with inorganic minerals when a depleted
soil microbe population cannot turn them into ORGANIC minerals.
Cover crops (land without a crop for sale but grown with some
type of plant - not bare soil - in order to enhance microbial
life proven to restore the soil) are a BIG DEAL in soil
restoration. This has been proven by the proper soil testing
science as detailed in the video.
Here is the PROPER way to measure soil health: [img width=100
height=65]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif[/img]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/behAQzwdnzs
HTML https://youtu.be/behAQzwdnzs[/center]
[center][embed=640,380]<iframe width="640" height="390"
src="
HTML https://www.youtube.com/embed/behAQzwdnzs"
frameborder="0"
allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed][/center]
#Post#: 5320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: June 18, 2016, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Finally! Somebody realized how cost effective and
environmentally friendly feeding duckweed to fish is! Excellent!
Duckweed is the tiniest angiosperm known to science. It is the
fastest growing macroscopic plant there is. It can double its
mass in a couple of days and is a nearly perfect photosynthetic
machine that, because it floats, spends very little energy on
woody roots or stalks. This mean that the low lignin, high
starch content makes it great, not just for food, but also as
ethanol biofuel feed stock, far more cost effective than corn.
These Brooklynites are on a ROLL!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> They are going SMART, SUSTAINABLE bonkers with DUCKWEED
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
(plus some supplemental
feed) fed tilapia aquaponics to grow tuned LED lighted and fish
poop fertilized veggies in low to no water demand (it's almost
100% recycled!) for New Yorkers!
[center] Aquaponic Farms in Brooklyn Killing It [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191456.bmp[/img][/center]
Lorraine Chow | June 17, 2016 1:16 pm
Aquaponics is an emerging urban farming trend that’s ideal for
big cities since it’s relatively low-maintenance and can be set
up just about anywhere, from rooftops to formerly abandoned lots
and buildings.
[move]And Brooklyn is now home to not one, but three aquaponic
farms: Verticulture, Edenworks and OKO farms.[/move]
Aquaponics, simply, is a combination of aquaculture and
hydroponics. Fish waste becomes a nutritious fertilizer for the
plants growing in a soil-free, recirculating water system. In
turn, the plants help purify the water for the fish. This
agricultural method has plenty of sustainable attributes.
Because the water recirculates, it uses 90 percent less water
compared to conventional farming methods and eliminates the need
for pesticides and other synthetic chemicals.
“The only input into an aquaponics system is food which the fish
consume, resulting in a completely organic system,” Oko Farms
points out. “As the fish grow and the system ages, the number
and variety of crops you can grow also increase so long as you
maintain a neutral pH, maintain high oxygen levels, and honor
temperature requirements for both fish and plants.”
Oko Farms is located on a formerly vacant lot in Brooklyn’s
Bushwick neighborhood and, at 2,500 square feet, is the largest
outdoor aquaponics farm in New York City. The farm raises edible
fish (tilapia, catfish) and ornamental fish (koi and goldfish)
and cultivate vegetables, herbs and flowers, co-founder and farm
manager Yemi Amu told the GRACE Communications Foundation. The
fish are raised at a ratio of 1 fish per 5 gallons of water and
eat a combination of commercial pellets and duckweed cultivated
on the farm.
For dwellers living in the trendy NYC borough, getting fresh
local food is as easy as looking up. Edenworks is a such
sky-high farm operating off the roof of a East Williamsburg
metalworking shop, as TechCrunch reported.
The farm utilizes vertical farming methods—in which tomatoes,
arugula, basil and more leafy greens grow in stacked tiers.
(picture at article link)
The plants are nourished from the nutrient-rich waste food
created by tilapia and freshwater prawns swimming nearby in
250-gallon water tanks.
What’s unique about Edenworks is its “LEGO, or Ikea-like”
infrastructure that’s prefabricated and can be flat packed and
shipped to site, according to TechCrunch.
Edenworks will be moving to Long Island City to launch a
full-scale commercial growing system, and Green said he’s in
talks with a number of international institutional clients who
are looking to install their own modular greenhouses.
[quote]
“We can deploy in New York and we can deploy in Saudi Arabia,”
Green said.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif[/quote]
At an old Pfizer manufacturing plant in Bedstuy, Verticulture is
raising food such as kale, micro basil and Brooklyn-born tilapia
and looking to tap into the Big Apple’s $600 million in unmet
demand for local produce.
According to The Verge, the startup is producing about 30 to 40
pounds of basil a week thanks to the help of 150-180 tilapia.
The venture is currently in pilot mode and has been
experimenting with blue, red, and white LED lights which consume
less energy than fluorescent lights and help the plants grow
faster, The Verge explained.
The goal of the project is to make aquaponics a sustainable and
profitable way to provide local produce to cities all over the
world, as co-founder Miles Crettien told The Verge.
“I believe strongly in the ecological design,” he said. “We can
build this anywhere. We can build it in the desert. We can build
it in Antarctica.”
Crettien told Edible Brooklyn that the harvest is being sold to
retailers such as Foragers, Brooklyn Kitchen, Fresh Direct and
Farmigo.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/17/aquaponic-farms-brooklyn-killing-it/
And those party hounds in Brooklyn are figuring out ways to
party on their roofs UNDER solar panels!
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
[center]
Brooklyn SolarWorks PV Canopy[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/3RSe4rtm8fs
HTML https://youtu.be/3RSe4rtm8fs[/center]
HTML http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/solar-canopy-allows-even-most-crowded-city-roof-go-solar.html
HTML http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/solar-canopy-allows-even-most-crowded-city-roof-go-solar.html
#Post#: 5326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: June 19, 2016, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]700-year-old West African soil technique could help
mitigate climate change[/center]
June 16, 2016
A farming technique practised for centuries by villagers in West
Africa, which converts nutrient-poor rainforest soil into
fertile farmland, could be the answer to mitigating climate
change and revolutionising farming across Africa.
A global study, led by the University of Sussex, which included
anthropologists and soil scientists from Cornell, Accra, and
Aarhus Universities and the Institute of Development Studies,
has for the first-time identified and analysed rich fertile
soils found in Liberia and Ghana.
They discovered that the ancient West African method of adding
charcoal and kitchen waste to highly weathered, nutrient poor
tropical soils can transform the land into enduringly fertile,
carbon-rich black soils which the researchers dub 'African Dark
Earths'.
From analysing 150 sites in northwest Liberia and 27 sites in
Ghana researchers found that these highly fertile soils contain
200-300 percent more organic carbon than other soils and are
capable of supporting far more intensive farming.
Professor James Fairhead, from the University of Sussex, who
initiated the study, said: "Mimicking this ancient method has
the potential to transform the lives of thousands of people
living in some of the most poverty and hunger stricken regions
in Africa.
"More work needs to be done but this simple, effective farming
practice could be an answer to major global challenges such as
developing 'climate smart' agricultural systems which can feed
growing populations and adapt to climate change."
Similar soils created by Amazonian people in pre-Columbian eras
have recently been discovered in South America - but the
techniques people used to create these soils are unknown.
Moreover, the activities which led to the creation of these
anthropogenic soils were largely disrupted after the European
conquest.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
Encouragingly researchers in the West Africa study were able to
live within communities as they created their fertile soils.
This enabled them to learn the techniques used by the women from
the indigenous communities who disposed of ash, bones and other
organic waste to create the African Dark Earths.
Dr Dawit Solomon, the lead author from Cornell University, said:
"What is most surprising is that in both Africa and in Amazonia,
these two isolated indigenous communities living far apart in
distance and time were able to achieve something that the
modern-day agricultural management practices could not achieve
until now.
"The discovery of this indigenous climate smart soil-management
practice is extremely timely. This valuable strategy to improve
soil fertility while also contributing to climate-change
mitigation and adaptation in Africa could become an important
component of the global climate-smart agricultural management
strategy to achieve food security."
The study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council,
entitled "Indigenous African soil enrichment as a climate-smart
sustainable agriculture alternative", has been published in the
journal Frontiers in Ecology and Environment can be found here.
HTML http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/60072/
HTML http://phys.org/news/2016-06-year-old-west-african-soil-technique.html#jCp
#Post#: 5791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2016, 6:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Does Composting Remove Toxins?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif[/center]
[center]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i_aa0kpKsRQ[/center]
[center]
Bad Turns To Good in the Compost Pile [img
width=100]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif[/img]<br
/>[/center]
Geoff Lawton, one of Australia's premier permaculture experts,
explains how it is that fruits, vegetables and plant waste that
has been sprayed with a toxin will still come out perfectly
clean on the other end of the compost cycle.
"All the life- potentially 50 million genus of bacteria and 50
million genus of fungi lock up the toxins to the carbon molecule
- and it becomes inert."
So 100 million entities, potentially, are hard at work in the
compost pile to make small amounts of toxin... just disappear!
Learn about this marvel of earth's healing ability in this
video!
--Bibi Farber
[center] This video was created by Permaculture.org.au and
WorldwidePermaculture.com [/center]
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/permaculture/does-composting-remove-toxins.html
#Post#: 5792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2016, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/h_-fPGcnDyE[/center]
[center]Geoff Lawton - Soils (FULL MOVIE) [img
width=150]
HTML http://www.bativert.ma/images/image3.jpg[/img]
[img
width=110]
HTML http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/xig/ojx/xigojx6KT.png[/img][/center]
Published on Jul 30, 2016
www.EarthCraftPermaculture.com - Geoff Lawton presents his
outstanding movie, "Soils", helping you to have a better
understanding of soil creation and maintenance, making soil
healthier and optimal.
#Post#: 5793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2016, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=559.msg113810#msg113810
date=1476142615]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg113807#msg113807
date=1476141928]
[center]Does Composting Remove Toxins?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/i_aa0kpKsRQ[/center]
[center]
Bad Turns To Good in the Compost Pile [img
width=100]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif[/img]<br
/>[/center]
Geoff Lawton, one of Australia's premier permaculture experts,
explains how it is that fruits, vegetables and plant waste that
has been sprayed with a toxin will still come out perfectly
clean on the other end of the compost cycle.
"All the life- potentially 50 million genus of bacteria and 50
million genus of fungi lock up the toxins to the carbon molecule
- and it becomes inert."
So 100 million entities, potentially, are hard at work in the
compost pile to make small amounts of toxin... just disappear!
Learn about this marvel of earth's healing ability in this
video!
--Bibi Farber
This video was created by Permaculture.org.au and
WorldwidePermaculture.com
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/permaculture/does-composting-remove-toxins.html
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/permaculture/does-composting-remove-toxins.html
[/quote]
I don't believe this is completely true, actually. If cows and
horses eat hay grown with the typical herbicides used in meadows
these days, it takes at least five years for it to leach out of
their manure. That's why I had to give up on my plan to use
manure from horse farms to build soil on the stead.
[/quote]
No disrespect intended, Doctor, but I think Geoff Lawton knows a
bit more about this than you. In the 2 minute video which I hope
you watched, ;), he specifically said that this was conditional
on the amount of toxins present (he referenced pesticide sprayed
vegetable residue being added to a compost pile). Obviously, if
the percentage is high, it would not be effective in removing
all the toxins. So, you are partially right. But Geoff is
totally right. Some time ago I learned that horse manure is much
poorer than cow or chicken manure for composting. I hope you are
aware of that. I suggest you watch the full soils movie. It will
help you expand your knowledge on this subject. 8)
[move][font=courier]Proverbs 18 (NIV) 1 An unfriendly person
pursues selfish ends and against all sound judgment starts
quarrels. 2 Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight
in airing their own opinions.[/font][/move]
#Post#: 5794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sustainable Farming
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2016, 8:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]Proverbs 17:
9 Love prospers when a fault is forgiven, but dwelling on it
separates close friends.
10 A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than
a hundred lashes on the back of a fool.[/font]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page