Composting is the act of recycling organic waste into nutrients for planting soil. The idea behind it is to reuse organic waste in a more sustainable way. There are many methods used to create useful compost and these are the ones that interested me the most.
Bokashi Composting [2]: this method uses a selected group of microorganisms to anaerobically ferment kitchen waste. It takes about 2 weeks to complete the process. Even though the compost is comprised of generally malodorous wastes (dairy, meat, and baked goods), the method uses a closed system so there is no worry about the smell or even the bugs the process may attract. This method also boasts that there is no nutrient loss and the process is easily learned.
Compost Tea [3]: The website that taught this approach broke it down into 5 steps; find a suitable compost tea machine, find a good source of compost (with the desired levels of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes), decide what foods you want to use to grow the beneficial organisms in your tea, transfer the tea into a sprayer, spray the tea evenly over the plant’s leaf surfaces. This method seems more difficult and requires more education about the process, but generally only take 3-7 days to complete.
Humanure [4]: This method creates compost from human urine and excrement; recycling human waste to become nutrients for soil. Direct application of human waste is not what this method is about; there is still a process to turn this waste into nutrient rich compost. There is a special toilet that is used in this process and also a specially constructed bin. The process requires an individual to extract the waste, which is mix with a solution, out of the toilet and carry it to the bin. The bin then processes the waste at high temperatures which attract the proper microorganisms. This method takes months to finish, but it can compost not only human waste, but also anything else that is able to be composted.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THESE COMPOSTING METHODS?
BOKASHI COMPOSTING
<><>
COMPOST TEA
<><>
HUMANURE
·It is versatile. You can compost all of your kitchen waste.
·No nutrients are lost.
·No greenhouse gases are produced.
·No need for a yard or large compost piles.
·The scraps are inoculated with beneficial microorganisms.
·It is easy
·Improve plant growth
·Improve nutrient retention in the soil
·Improve plant nutrition
·Reduce the negative impacts of chemical-based pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on beneficial microorganisms in the ecosystem
·Reduce water loss, improve water-holding in the soil, and thus reduce water use in your system
·Improve tillage by building better soil structure
·Reduces water consumption
·Provides virtually free nutrients for plants
·Easy method to turn compostable trash into compost
·Erases the need for sewage systems in personal house holds
There are some unique benefits but there are also some overall benefits that I believe should be mentioned. Composting reduces solid waste and improves soil quality. It also improves our ground water quality by reducing the need for using chemicals in our soil that produce pollutants. Composting is also a great weapon in our fight to conserve water. Perhaps the most important benefit is that composting fertilizes our soil. Through intense and concentrated agriculture, many farms have nutrient starved soil. Composting can help solve this problem and feed nutrients to the soil, which in turn, feeds those nutrients to our food supply [5].
Innovation is a powerful tool for change. Reducing waste and consumption is something that is accurately measured and can therefore be manipulated. Policies encouraging reduction in these two areas could prove to be valuable in an administration’s effort to become actively involved in moving our society to much more sustainable future.
INNOVATIVE POLICIES TO REDUCE WASTE
Diversion of Waste for the Landfill [1]:This is a UK (United Kingdom) policy that was established in 2007 that aimed at reducing waste that was heading to landfills and to encourage companies to focus on waste disposal plans to reuse or recycle waste first and foremost. The policies impose restrictions on the type and amount of waste that can be disposed of in landfills in England and Wales. This policy ensures that recyclables are going to be recycled and will not have to rot in landfills as waste.
Solid Waste Reduction Program [2]: Fort Collins, Colorado had a city council created a program in 1994 to reduce solid waste. This program enacted Resolution 95-63 that was tasked to reduce the city’s waste stream by 20 percent. The resolution created measurable goals that encompassed all aspect of their waste management. It set goals to increase their residential curbside recycling, reduced their commercial paper waste, and even declared to increase coordination (from the private sector to state/federal government agencies) in their efforts to foster pollution prevention. This policy is ideal in its ability to include everyone in its efforts to reduce waste; which, realistically, requires everyone to participate in for it to be a success.
Dallas Green Building Program Ordinance [3]: This program is focused on making the buildings in the city of Dallas, both the already built ones and the ones that are going to be built in the future, more sustainable. It is broken up into two phases. Phase one focuses on three things; energy efficiency, water conservation, and the reduction of the “heat island effect” (which will be done with creating cooler roofs). Phase two is focused on creating a standard, based on phase one, that will be in place to guide developers to create “green buildings” with all future development. This policy is simple in its goal, modify the buildings that are here to be more sustainable and make future buildings sustainable.
INNOVATIVE POLICIES TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION
Fuel Taxes [4]: Not a very popular policy, but according to a Harvard research group, it may be the most effective policy to reduce transportation GHG emissions (Green House Gas emissions are released into the air from combustion engines that use petroleum fuel as its fuel source). Just to demonstrate the necessary cost per gallon that will be needed to reduce GHG emissions enough to produce an adequate consumption reduction in the U.S., the research group proposed an $8/gallon cost to consumers. This just might be the wake-up call many Americans need to become aware of the dangers our overconsumption does to the environment.
Reducing Plastic Bag Consumption Policies [5]: This policy, offered by The Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and for Sustainable Resource Management (ACR+), suggests that regions take action to control light-weight plastic bag usage by enforcing policies that encourage producers to create a more biodegradable bag for consumer use. Imagining the outrage that would ensue if policies banned retailers from providing their customers with the plastic bags, ACR+ came up with this policy to be more practical. Once developed and mass-integrated, the bags may be more expensive to use. The expense could be charged to the consumer to encourage using fewer bags, or even bringing their own bag, to carry their groceries. This sort of policy could be easily enacted and would have immediate results.
These five policies are aimed at measuring and manipulating change in our current structures. Whether those structures are personal or professional, the idea of sustainable development reaches all aspects of life. Not only creating change in the buildings people live in or work in, but changing what they do also. But first there must be a change in the way people think and these policies encourage that sort of change.
The Urban Land Institute was founded in 1936. They operate in over 95 countries and have over 40,000 members. The institute is mainly focused on researching land use trends and proposing solutions based on their research. They are well respected and utilized around the world for their ground breaking research. According to their website they document best practices and publish books to impart cumulative knowledge to help the development community continuously improve its performance [1]. This means they are committed to being on the forefront of the developing world. Sustainable development is the future, in order for it to be taken seriously an organization like this must believe in pursuing it and work to achieve it. Sustainable development means taking sustainability (positively impacting society, the environment, and the economy all at the same time) and merging it with development (building stuff for us); specifically, building stuff for us that positively impacts society, the environment, and the economy. This is a very difficult way to develop and will take a combined effort of a bunch of experts to make it a reality.
MISSION
The Urban Land Institute’s mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide [1]. Having a mission that directly mentions sustainability demonstrates that this research institute is working hard for our future. It will take a combined effort of experts to achieve sustainable development and thankfully The Urban Land Institute is stepping into that role to push development closer to being more sustainable.
OBJECTIVES
Their objectives focus on making their institute more effective and efficient. In the Strategic Directions section of their website they mention increasing effectiveness locally, creating a strong network of communication, improving coordination, reorganizing staff to increase efficiency, and devising a more enabling leadership structure [1]. These goals are about gaining more from what they already have. These goals will improve their efficiency so they can harness their unique composition and generate solutions with increased speed. Making goals about doing more with what they have will help them to research more efficiently and bring about change in urban development faster. Another goal is to accelerate its global expansion. The more prolific the institute is the more effective they will be at promoting world-wide sustainable development. All of their goals work together to produce a better research institute so they will still be on the forefront of the development community in the future.
WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO HELP PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
Currently the Urban Land Institute is working toward educating city leaders. They are holding forums on sustainable development and on the implementation of this type of development. In one of these forums that will be held in Atlanta on September 28th they will teach about the context of sustainability at the community level, provide policy tools, present business case studies aimed at identifying local sustainable projects that can work in Atlanta, and inform the city leaders on the best practices of sustainable communities [2]. These forums and conferences get the message across to the decision makers. Informing a leader that if they continue to do the same thing they are doing now, their city will not last is a powerful message. But it is a necessary one in order to promote change. After the need for change is established, the Urban Land Institute uses their research and expertise to provide effective solutions.
This video is a forum that was held in 2008 [3]. It demonstrates the passion and drive that the Urban Land Institute is employing to reach city leaders. Many issues are brought up about the tremendous lack of safety and sustainability in our current city structures. A point that was raised was that we, as a society, are “coasting” on these structures. That is not sustainable.
Sustainable development is a vision. Visions need leaders to promote them into the minds of others and leaders need support in order to make those visions a reality. The Urban Land Institute has taken the role of one of the leaders of sustainable development, but they still need support in order to make their vision a reality. Support must come from the people. Their vision is a global one, but also a local one. Don’t be one of the people who rely on others to support their vision. We will never achieve true sustainable development until it becomes our vision, not just theirs.
Today most of the world uses petroleum to fuel transportation. Petroleum is a fossil fuel, which means that it takes millions of years to form. Since it takes so long to form, it is a finite resource. Needless to say a major part of our way of life, transportation, is being fueled by something that will eventually run out. This is not favorable for the future. So, instead of using fossil fuels till they run out, there are initiatives to find alternative fuel sources that have the ability to replenish. Another major concern with the current transportation fuel source is its negative impact on the environment. An Environmental and Energy Study website states, “…combustion of oil releases fine particulates which can lead to serious respiratory problems, and is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions” [1]. The website goes on to state that petroleum is responsible for 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Not only is it a finite resource it also harms the environment on a global scale. Fossil fuels used as the only fuel for transportation is not sustainable, but there are alternatives in development.
ALTERNATIVE FUELS SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION
The technology for mass utilization of these alternatives is still being developed. Although currently it may not be feasible to use these methods as a world-wide alternative, the technology will come with time and commitment. Initial investment and efficiency is a chief concern according to a website on Transportation and Energy. The website states, “…the main issue concerning the large-scale uses of these alternative vehicle fuels is the large capital investments require in distribution facilities as compared with conventional fuels” [2]. Many companies are focused on the costs of implementing these alternatives on a wide scale, but the fuels are each different and have different effects on cost.
These alternatives mentioned below are just a few of the alternatives that are being developed and may become the secret weapon against fossil fuels fouling our future.
Biodiesel: this fuel is renewable and it is also environmentally friendly. It can be produced from a variety of renewable sources, including soybean oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, cottonseed oil, and animal fats [3].
Electricity: using batteries this fuel source has no harmful emissions, but it does not currently have the range that a fossil fuel combustible engine has and therefore limits its usefulness.
Hydrogen: this fuel source uses hydrogen fuel cells to power cars, but since hydrogen requires more pressure and needs to be cooled it is more expensive than fossil fuels. The price might be worth it in the future because the emissions from hydrogen fuel are practically pollutant free [4].
Hybrid: this technology is widely accepted and used. It is a combination of electricity and petroleum. This is more of a temporary fix to lessen the impact of fossil fuel emissions and not a permanent alternative solution.
Paper: recently Tulane University scientists developed a fuel for cars using newspapers. Specifically the fuel utilizes a strain of bacteria called butanol that is found in paper. The exciting thing about this discovery is that it can be used in current car engines without modification. Also, this fuel source can be found in waste, repurposing this waste to fuel transportation [5].
These alternative fuels may be the deciding factor in paving the way to a more sustainable future with regards to transportation. In effect, it will build a positive shift towards a more sustainable society and cleaner air for everyone.
When considering the big picture, many people do not realize that what they do has an immediate impact on the environment. Even though they are just one person, they have an effect on the environment. If one million “one persons” do the same “slightly negative thing” towards the environment, that “slightly negative thing” turns into a major problem. One example of this is burning trash. Burning one person’s trash means nothing to the environment. That small amount of toxins is easily cleaned out. But it is not just one person doing it… it is millions of people. That makes it a major problem.
HOW DOES BACKYARD TRASH BURING EFFECT OUR ENVIRONMENT?
According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services backyard trash burning is especially harmful because it releases chemicals that are persistent in the environment, polluting our air, food, lakes and streams [1]. The explanation provided by these experts demonstrates that the trash does not “disappear”, it is still present in our environment (we just can’t see it). So it can be reasoned that instead of disposing of trash at the facilities that are created to handle it, burning trash lifts the trash out of the trash bags and into the environment. Polluting the place we live.
I THOUGHT BURING TRASH WAS HOW A PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO GET RID OF IT?
Well, if this was the first thing that came to your mind, you are right. In a sense, burning trash can be a proper form of disposing of some waste. But it still requires professional equipment and assistance to be done properly. In order to eliminate a large portion of the air pollutants temperatures must be at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit [2]. This temperature is required to lessen the effects of the pollutants. A burning barrel for example only reaches about 500 degrees. A person burning 10 pounds of trash, at 500 degrees, is equivalent to a modern well-controlled incinerator, 1,800 degree, burning 400,000 pounds. So instead of just harmlessly burning trash, a person is polluting the air at an alarming rate.
POLLUTANTS THAT ARE RELEASED FROM BURNING TRASH
This is a small list of some of the pollutants released into the air if these items are burnt without using an incinerator:
·Batteries - heavy metals like cadmium, lead, mercury
·Plastics - dioxins, volatile organic compounds and halogenated hydrocarbons
·Treated wood - arsenic and heavy metals, plus the ash is very toxic. (Treated wood includes deck lumber, railroad ties, and telephone poles treated with chromated copper arsenate, creosote or pentachlorophenol)
·Petroleum products - dioxins, volatile organic compounds and halogenated hydrocarbons
·Styrofoam/polystyrene - benzene, dioxins and furans
AIR POLLUTION AND THE REAL ENVIRONMENT IT HARMS
These pollutants are very harmful to the environment. Not only are they harmful, but they persist in the environment for long stretches of time. Included in this use of the word environment is us humans. We are the direct cause of this air pollution and we are also directly harmed by it. According to the American Lung Association, “Natural defenses protect our lungs from germs and large particles like dust and pollen. Air pollution harms lung tissue directly and bypasses or weakens those important defenses” [3]. Not only does air pollution harm us, but it makes us more susceptible to becoming harmed in the future. The American Lung Association’s website also has a long list of health issues that are caused by air pollution and poor air quality. If you need more convincing you should click the link [3] at the bottom and read about some of the harmful effects air pollution has on the lungs.
If you or someone you know is burning trash, they should be educated about the harm they are causing. It may be their lack of knowledge about the effects of burning trash that keeps them from stopping. Something needs to be done to keep our air quality from becoming more of a concern.
Webster’s dictionary defines prairieland as “land in or predominantly in grass” [3]. The definition goes on to mention examples of this type of land.
Mississippi River Valley
Mississippi River valley that in its natural uncultivated state usually has deep fertile soil, a cover of tall coarse grasses, and few trees [3]
The Rocky Mountain Plateaus
One of the dry treeless plateaus east of the Rocky Mountains that merge on their east side with the prairies proper and are characterized by shorter grasses and drier less fertile soil [3]
I think that a picture is better than any definition I can provide. Prairielands are beautiful landscapes and the most beautiful prairielands, in my opinion, are the ones in the United States. This natural beauty is in grave danger. In the U.S. only about 1 percent of the tall-grass prairie remains [4]. This is why conservation is vital for the lands to remain untouched and preserved.
What is land conservation?
Land conservation is preserving the land by stopping anything that would jeopardize its continued existence. That simply means keeping the land exactly how it is and keeping it that way in the future. Usually this effort needs support from many different agencies. For example, government, private, non-profit organizations partner together with private citizens to preserve the target areas. These organizations believe in conserving land against development, because of the tremendous negative effects that development has on its surrounding environment.
There are hundreds of organizations worldwide that preserve all types of land and forestry. I am going to focus on prairieland conservation and discuss three different initiatives that have had a positive effect on conserving U.S. prairielands.
Coastal Prairie Conservation Initiative:
The Coastal Prairie Conservation Initiative (CPCI) is a Texas organization that is comprised of many different federal and state entities, private organizations, and private landowners. The CPCI started in 1999. Their goal is to conserve Texas coastal prairieland at a scale that is meaningful to the indigenous wildlife populations [1]. Currently there is less than 1 percent of untouched coastal prairieland [2]. The CPCI is pushing to change that. They are providing incentives to the private land owners to encourage them to keep their lands privately owned.
They have made tremendous strides in their efforts to save the Attwater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri), which would have easily been extinct if not for their efforts. Even though the species is still alive in the wild, it simply does not have enough untouched coastal prairieland to live on. As of fall of 2010, there is an estimated 90 Attwater Prairie Chickens alive in the wild. But those numbers will increase in the future as long as the CPCI stays involved.
Midewin Tallgrass Prairie Restoration:
The National Forest Foundation started this program in 1996 [5]. The program is committed to conserving and restoring prairielands in Illinois. The prairie they are focusing on conserving and restoring is about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. The reason why the term “restoration” is used is because they are determined not only to preserve, but also to restore the land to its former abundance. Since the land is dominated by aggressive, nonnative weeds, they would need to replant seeds that belong to the indigenous plant life in order to restore it natural ecosystem.
Katy Prairie Conservancy:
This is another prairie conservation effort in Texas. They are a conglomerate of professional individuals that were founded in 1992 as a non-profit organization dedicated to conserving prairieland and prairie wildlife in the Katy Prairie [6]. The organization uses many negotiation tools to conserve the land that is a fraction of its former size. Another tool they utilize is education. The have an award winning education staff that works with the youth to educate them about the importance of preserving Katy Prairie.
These organizations, along with many others, have a difficult task ahead of them. As the population grow, there efforts will become more difficult. Their passion alone is not enough, they need support. I encourage you to get involved and do whatever you can to show your support for prairieland conservation, because with no support prairieland will be a thing of the past.
___
The defining of Sustainable Agriculture is a very difficult task. According to the Sustainable Table, a website dedicated to educating consumers on sustainable food choices, the difficulty is there because sustainable agriculture is a philosophy and not a set of rules that could easily be interpreted [2]. Earlier in their site they offered a definition provide by the U.S. government:
Public Law 101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1683
“…an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole” [2].
This definition is long, but it does emphasize one very important factor of sustainable agriculture; it is unique to its environment. That means that where the farm is located is the most important factor. No sustainable agriculture practice is going to be useful in every farm location across the globe. In the title of this blog, I mentioned three practices of sustainable agriculture and I am going to define these terms and compare and contrast them so that the complexities and unique values of the practices will be better understood.
HYDROPONICS
Hydroponics is growing plants in a medium other than soil. It requires more water per plant, but in places where there is no soil this is a plausible solution to the lack of food production. Commercial use of this has only caught on recently [3].
There are many different options for hydroponics [3]:
·Aggregate Culture: in which a material such as sand, gravel, or marbles supports the plant roots
·Aeroponics: in which the plant roots hang in the air and are misted regularly with a nutrient solution
·Continuous Flow Systems: in which the nutrient solution flows constantly over the plant roots. This system is the one most commonly used for commercial production.
The diversity of this type of agriculture is astounding, but as the details emerge the complexities make this unviable in most farms around the world. The overall utilization of this practice is to provide agriculture to parts of the world where farmable soil is rare.
PERMACULTURE
A wonderful definition of permaculture is given on a website dedicated to the Holmgren Design Services, who are pioneers of the field [4]. They define it as “'Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fiber and energy for provision of local needs” [4]. The nature of this agricultural practice is to do what nature is doing and do those things better. To make the most of what nature provides. It is very complex and requires vast amounts of research, but in the end there is no limit to the possibilities.
They also provide a video about permaculture at this link:
Most farms worldwide are monoculture farms. That means they grow only one type of crop. They maximize the farmland to provide more yields of that one crop and specialize in the crop. This method has led to farmland being deprived of nutrients and rampant in disease, since the same crop year after year needs the same type of nutrients and is vulnerable to the same types of diseases. So an alternative method has been established, polyculture farming. Polyculture farming is a method that requires different crops to grow on the same farmland. The different crops use different nutrients and allow the other nutrients to replenish. Polyculture agriculture is a more realistic imitation of the natural environment. Not only does it benefit the soil nutrients, but is also can decrease plant disease [5]. Decreasing plant disease translates into decreasing fungicides as well, which is a win-win for the environment.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST
Now that the terms are defined we can compare them easily.Sustainable Development is general defined as, meeting the present’s needs without hindering future generations to meet their needs [1]. So, it could be reasoned, that sustainable agriculture is developing ways to meet our agricultural needs without hindering future generations to meet their agricultural needs. These practices of sustainable agriculture are steps in the right direction, but they are only beneficial in particular circumstances. Hydroponics needs more water and man power to produce results. That means that it would not work very well in a part of the world where soil is abundant. Hydroponics is a very specialized way of producing crops and therefore would be a unique solution for unique regions. When compared to permaculture, hydroponics seems as though it would not align with it well since it is not technically “natural”. Permaculture is complex in the beginning and requires lots of research to begin the process, but in the end would require very little relative man power. Polyculture and permaculture are very similar. They are localized and are determined to mimic the environment where they are being used. Polyculture though, does not take the time to fully integrate into the surrounding ecosystem, like permaculture does, and may have negative effects on the environment that sneak under the radar. Permaculture seems to be the best solution for most regions, but that does not mean “every” region. There are many population centers that cannot produce enough food and permaculture would not help them because of their great lack of agricultural resources available locally. These are the considerations that are needed when determining what sustainable agriculture means to a particular region. The practices are diverse, but so is our world. As long as we take the time and make the effort a solution will present itself.
___
[1] Brundtland Commission. (1987) United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
