How manure can save humanity

[n2doc]

High oil and gas prices are driving up the price of chemical fertilizer. One man believes manure management could save humanity from the crisis.

"We once had a virtuous cycle: Grazing animals, letting them fertilize the land," Ohio farmer Gene Logsdon told PRI's Here and Now. People once valued manure -- in fact, wars were once fought over bat droppings. Now we cram animals into small spaces and cart the product off as "waste."

That process may be changing back to value traditional manure, as the price of chemical fertilizers continues to go up. "We must have fertilizer to put on the land to grow more crops," Logsdon says. He writes in the book "Holy Shit, Managing Manure to Save Mankind" that manure may become a more valuable product than much of what is currently produced on farms.

One of the problems facing farms today is that "animals are all kept in barns that are too small, so the manure builds up quickly," according to Logsdon. People don't know what to do with it. And the chemical fertilizers that farmers use instead may actually be hurting the land they're fertilizing. Logsdon says they're "lessening the amount of organic matter in the soil, and manure puts it back in."

more
http://www.pri.org/business/social-entrepreneurs/how-manure-can-save-humanity3878.html

[buddysmellgood]

1. Around here, we have to issue bans to keep farmers from

spreading manure on fields when conditions aren't right. It runs off into lakes and streams.

[nosmokes]

2. That's because animal waste from Industrial feeding operations is full of drugs

and other stuff that isn't nearly so nice to the environment as shit.

[izquierdista]

4. Simpletons that know no better

The guy who spread dioxin around Times Beach, MO had absolutely no clue either. This is why a good EPA, along with a good cooperative agricultural extension program, is needed to advise farmers about the proper usage and application of manure based soil amendments.


But that would quickly fall victim to the Reagan lie that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" are fighting words.

[kestrel91316]

7. That's because they are using raw liquid manure from manure pits,

which pool urine and feces together and store it in its soupy state in ponds where farm hands sometimes drown.

The proper way to raise livestock involves pasturing part of the day at least, where they urinate and defecate, and then when they are house inside you take the manure (urine and feces mixed with abundant straw bedding usually) and compost it.

You only spread fully composted manure on fields, NOT raw liquid manure, which IMHO is hazardous waste.

[MuseRider]

3. It takes careful management.

I now use the manure from my 7, now 6 horses and the goats as either mulch or compost tea for the garden and I give it away to neighbors and friends for their gardens. It gets used.

Spreading it across pastures really does take careful management both because of run off but also because of the chemistry of the crop and how it uses it.

[Terry in Austin]

5. Absolutely. All it has to do is not hit the fan...

:evilgrin:

[kestrel91316]

6. Logsdon is one of my favorite writers!

[cognoscere]

8. By burying Republicans under a few thousand tons of it? N/T

[Permanut]

9. Dang, I thought this was going to be about Newt

but instead it's about how to be an empremanure.

[Confusious]

10. There ain't enough shit in the world

to feed 5 billion, or is it 6 billion people.

There'll be even less, if people would stop eating so much meat like we're told we need to do.

Anyone who thinks this will work is off in a fantasy world, and can become the next meal for the millions who starve.

[nosmokes]

11. You're wrong. The USDA and theFAO have both stated organic farming can

feed the world with an excess.

[Confusious]

12. We used organic farming up till the 19th century

Which at that point, Europe was facing a famine, but the invention of artificial fertilizers saved them.

So, since your post does not jive with history and you provided no links, you're full of it.

And this link says you're full of it:

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq7/en/

Can organic farmers produce enough food for everybody?

In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields; the range depends on the intensity of external input use before conversion; ( we can't feed everybody now, decrease yields and more people will go hungry just to prove your pet project)

You're living in a fantasy land.

[nosmokes]

13. And you're showing your ignorance of agriculture and hunger, as well as

well as the reality of food independence and sustainability.

[Confusious]

14. Still no links, just a lot of words

I'm not asking for a whole lot here. If you know as much about as you seem to think you do, then a few links is nothing much to ask. Since you don't come forward with them, I have to assume you're full of shit.

[kestrel91316]

15. How long did you say you've been working for Big Ag?

[Confusious]

16. I've never worked for them.

Why do you have a problem with facts? That's a republican stance.

[kristopher]

17. Sometimes the dishonesty is so overt it is incomprehensible...

The quote (underlined) from the link in context...

Organic agriculture and yields. The performance of organic agriculture on production depends on the previous agricultural management system. An over-simplification of the impact of conversion to organic agriculture on yields indicates that:
In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields; the range depends on the intensity of external input use before conversion;
In the so-called Green Revolution areas (irrigated lands), conversion to organic agriculture usually leads to almost identical yields;
In traditional rain-fed agriculture (with low-input external inputs), organic agriculture has the potential to increase yields.

In fact, many multiple cropping systems, such as those developed by small holders and subsistence farmers, show higher yields in terms of total harvest per unit area. These yield advantages have been attributed to more efficient use of nutrients, water and light and a combination of other factors such as the introduction of new regenerative elements into the farm (e.g. legumes) and fewer losses to pests and diseases. It can be concluded that increased yields on organic farms are more likely to be achieved if the departure point is a traditional system, even if it is degraded. Results will vary depending on management skills and ecological knowledge, but this can be expected to improve as human capital assets increase. However, it is important to have a good land tenure system because an individual is not likely to invest in improving the land if his/her future there is not secure.

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq7/en/

[Confusious]

18. With you, it's just projection

My point was "In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields;"

I quoted the entire sentence that you have underlined, so I really don't know what your point or problem is. The rest of what you posted has no bearing on the facts, as usual.

The rest talks about subsistence farmers, who probably already do "organic" farming.

Maybe it's just your limited ability to understand.

Oh, Sometimes the self delusion is so overt it is incomprehensible.. kinda like the rapture people who sunk all of their money in billboards. You just seem to ignore basic logic, facts and common sense in favor of ideology.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm

21 year study. organic farms have smaller yields. Will you ignore that also in favor of ideology?

To top that off, the need to let the soil replenish in organic farms causes a drop in production by a quarter in 4 years.

A quarter drop in production would be 1 Billion+ starving.

[kristopher]

19. Sometimes the dishonesty is so overt it is incomprehensible

Prequote: Organic agriculture and yields. The performance of organic agriculture on production depends on the previous agricultural management system. An over-simplification of the impact of conversion to organic agriculture on yields indicates that:

Quoted portion: In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields; the range depends on the intensity of external input use before conversion;
Post quote: In the so-called Green Revolution areas (irrigated lands), conversion to organic agriculture usually leads to almost identical yields;
In traditional rain-fed agriculture (with low-input external inputs), organic agriculture has the potential to increase yields.

New paragraph: In fact, many multiple cropping systems, such as those developed by small holders and subsistence farmers, show higher yields in terms of total harvest per unit area. These yield advantages have been attributed to more efficient use of nutrients, water and light and a combination of other factors such as the introduction of new regenerative elements into the farm (e.g. legumes) and fewer losses to pests and diseases. It can be concluded that increased yields on organic farms are more likely to be achieved if the departure point is a traditional system, even if it is degraded. Results will vary depending on management skills and ecological knowledge, but this can be expected to improve as human capital assets increase. However, it is important to have a good land tenure system because an individual is not likely to invest in improving the land if his/her future there is not secure.

[Confusious]

20. Obtuse

Adds nothing. "industrial countries" grow most of the food in the world.

http://news.agforinsight.com/2011/04/organic-farming-reduces-energy-use-and.html

Organic farming in canada produces lower yields. 12 year study.

Population only going up, not down.

ideology is more important to then people to you.

[kristopher]

21. Your own link says that you aren't correct about the value of organic farming

This is the paragraph you must have read to get to the quote you used. I'll breakdown the single paragraph into individual sentences so that they sort of jump out at you to help convey their meaning:

Food security.

Food security is not only a question of the ability to produce food, but also of the ability to access food.

Global food production is more than enough to feed the global population, the problem is getting it to the people who need it.

In market-marginalized areas, organic farmers can increase food production by managing local resources without having to rely on external inputs or food distribution systems over which they have little control and/or access.

It is to be noted that although external agricultural inputs can be substituted by organic management of natural resources, land tenure remains a main constraint to the labour investments needed for organic agriculture.

Organic farms grow a variety of crops and livestock in order to optimize competition for nutrients and space between species: this results in less chance of low production or yield failure in all of these simultaneously.

This can have an important impact on local food security and resilience.

In rain-fed systems, organic agriculture has demonstrated to outperform conventional agricultural systems under environmental stress conditions.

Under the right circumstances, the market returns from organic agriculture can potentially contribute to local food security by increasing family incomes.

______________________

So, the equation is already more complicated than you've presented it, since we need to factor in distribution as well as intensification with chemical fertilizers.

The calculus is also impacted by the use of food crops from industrial counties for non-sustaining uses. How much of our agricultural production goes into the maw of industrial civilization to produce plastics, fuel or the fat around my midsection. When you speak of feeding the worlds hungry, I think all of that would need to be taken into account before you could assert with any degree of certainly that your view of the agricultural potential for organic farming is more than just an economic artifact.

A corporate drive for efficiency doesn't produce the same outcome as a sustainable drive for efficiency.

[Confusious]

22. So your point was something completely different

Then what I was talking about, and what you posted the last time. I am so surprised. I said nothing about organic farming in those countries, and they might even introduce techniques that would help. It would still not feed the world.

My point again, since you seem to want to make up the points I was talking about: Organic agriculture creates lower yields in industrialized countries. Those would be the Canada, the United States, Europe, etc

A 25% drop in food production in those countries would be bad. They are the largest producers and exporters of grain, with the United States and The European union in the top three every year.

"How much of our agricultural production goes into the maw of industrial civilization to produce plastics, fuel or the fat around my midsection."

And so you propose to just cut people off? Sink or swim sucker!