Almost as many obese as healthy weight adults in the U.S., and the rest are overweight. Something changed starting about 1980.
Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005) Health, United States, 2005.
Graph source: Wikipedia While the percentage of the U.S. population considered overweight has been stable since 1960-62, the percentage considered obese has more than doubled.What happened? Continue reading
I don’t know how well this actually works, but it’s an interesting idea if it does:
The system’s Canadian inventor Gary Lewis claims that injecting a stream of cooled exhaust gases into cultivated soil will enrich its fertility by boosting carbon and nitrogen levels.That article is from last year. This year, the farm trying this, Ian Linklater, reports success: Continue readingThis will encourage microbes that consume greenhouse gases and convert them into plant nutrients.
In turn, this will reduce fertiliser use, soil acidity and the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.
The Eprida process simultaneously creates value in three markets in this order at today’s prices:I especially like the small scale aspect. Individuals could do this.Unlike other biomass gasification, the Eprida process can operate at small scale, converting waste biomass into fuel and fertilizer. The diesel produced will ultimately be more valuable than ethanol or methanol, and the Eprida process can convert woody plant materials that cannot be cost effectively fermented. Also, unlike virtually all other approaches for biomass to energy, which deplete soil nutrients, the Eprida process restores and enhances soil mineral, carbon and nitrogen content. As a direct result of this new approach to integrated energy and fertilizer production from biomass, the Eprida process effectively removes net CO2 from the atmosphere, and can do so profitably before the value of any carbon credits are even considered.
- Energy: gas-to-liquids diesel, from biomass
- Fertilizer: agricultural soil restoration, carbon enriched with nitrogen
- Carbon Credits: once an agricultural CDM is completed
(And if, like me, you wondered how to pronounce biochar, the ch is like in charcoal.)
Or municipalities like Valdosta or Lowndes County could do this, instead of the current plans for a conventional biomass power plant that looks like it will release more CO2 per kilowatt than a coal plant. Why not go with a homegrown technology that’s cleaner and may also produce diesel as a side effect?
Six Reasons to Vote NO on Ohio’s Issue 2The other four reasons are good, too.
1. Issue 2 seeks to stop animal welfare improvements. Agribusiness interests are trying to change the Ohio constitution so they can continue cruel and inhumane practices on factory farms—confining animals in tiny cages and crates so small they can’t even turn around. Issue 2 proposes an industry-dominated power grab to protect the status quo: hens crammed into cages so tightly they can’t even spread their wings, breeding pigs confined in tiny barren crates and calves chained by their necks inside veal crates. We wouldn’t force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn’t force farm animals to either. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.
2. Issue 2 threatens our food safety and health. Factory farmers have put our health at risk by recklessly telling us that it’s okay to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions. Cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages fosters the spread of animal diseases that may affect people. For example, the American Journal of Epidemiology reported that people who eat eggs from hens confined in cages are 250% more likely to contract Salmonella. The extreme confinement of animals is also a major factor in the emergence of diseases like H5N1 and H1N1 (bird and swine flu). Passing Issue 2 would be bad for animals—and bad for us.
Ah, capitalism run amuck! Big agribusiness is trying to take over an entire state by getting its citizens to legalize the worst aspects of factory farming. I don’t live in Ohio, but if this referendum succeeds there, it will show up in other states.
Randy LoBasso wrote in philly2philly.com on 29 June 2009 that
Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously:
Here’s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.
Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.
That wasn’t the end of it. An appelate court granted Fox a license to lie:
In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”So Fox has legally been able to continue to lie on behalf of Monsanto.
Richard Harris reports on NPR, 21 Oct 2009, about
Prairie Pioneer Seeks To Reinvent The Way We Farm.
Wes Jackson wants to solve
the 10,000 year old problem of agriculture:
The problem, Jackson explains, is that agriculture in most places is based on practices that use up limited resources. The major grains, like wheat and corn, are planted afresh each year. When the fields are later plowed, they lose soil. The soil that remains in these fields loses nitrogen and carbon.The solution will have to be somewhat different for each region, Continue readingThis worries Jackson because vast quantities of soil are washed out of the fields and down the rivers, and the soil that’s left is gradually losing its nutrients.
Trying to figure out how to solve this problem, Jackson realized the answer was right in front of him. It was the patch of native prairie on his own farm — full of grasses from ankle to shoulder height, peppered with white and purple flowers, and surrounded by shrubs and cottonwood trees.
“Here is a steep, sloping bank with a lot of species diversity, featuring perennials,” Jackson says. “This is what I call nature’s wisdom.”
Perennials are plants that put down strong roots 10 feet or more into the ground and hold the soil in place. Perennials live year-round, unlike annual crops that get planted every year. In Kansas, perennials survive the harsh winters and the blazing hot summers.
Richard Manning writes in Harpers, February 2004,
The oil we eat: Following the food chain back to Iraq,
that most plants live in diverse stands of many species,
because that way they protect each other and provide services to each other.
There is a very narrow group of annuals, however, that grow in patches of a single species and store almost all of their income as seed, a tight bundle of carbohydrates easily exploited by seed eaters such as ourselves. Under normal circumstances, this eggs-in-one-basket strategy is a dumb idea for a plant. But not during catastrophes such as floods, fires, and volcanic eruptions. Such catastrophes strip established plant communities and create opportunities for wind-scattered entrepreneurial seed bearers. It is no accident that no matter where agriculture sprouted on the globe, it always happened near rivers. You might assume, as many have, that this is because the plants needed the water or nutrients. Mostly this is not true. They needed the power of flooding, which scoured landscapes and stripped out competitors. Nor is it an accident, I think, that agriculture arose independently and simultaneously around the globe just as the last ice age ended, a time of enormous upheaval when glacial melt let loose sea-size lakes to create tidal waves of erosion. It was a time of catastrophe.And what’s the net benefit? Continue readingCorn, rice, and wheat are especially adapted to catastrophe. It is their niche. In the natural scheme of things, a catastrophe would create a blank slate, bare soil, that was good for them. Then, under normal circumstances, succession would quickly close that niche. The annuals would colonize. Their roots would stabilize the soil, accumulate organic matter, provide cover. Eventually the catastrophic niche would close. Farming is the process of ripping that niche open again and again. It is an annual artificial catastrophe, and it requires the equivalent of three or four tons of TNT per acre for a modern American farm. Iowa’s fields require the energy of 4,000 Nagasaki bombs every year.
Catherine Brahic writes in New Scientist that
Organic farming could feed the world:
Numerous studies have compared the yields of organic and conventional methods for individual crops and animal products (see 20-year study backs organic farming).
Now, a team of researchers has compiled research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems.
Ivette Perfecto of the University of Michigan in the US and her colleagues found that, in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.
So developing countries don’t need Monsanto to feed themselves after all. Quite the opposite: they can do much better with organic methods.And if their crops fail, they can replant, because they can save seeds. And if they don’t all use the same seeds, there’s less chance their crops will all fail at once.Perfecto points out that the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible to farmers in poor countries.
Those poor farmers may buy the same seeds as conventional farms use in rich countries, but they cannot afford the fertilisers and pesticides needed for intensive agriculture. However, “organic fertiliser doesn’t cost much – they can produce it on their own farms”, says Perfecto.
Getting certified as organic is another story.
Rob Goldstein writes in Conservation Maven:
A new study finds that organic farming promotes biodiversity compared to conventional agricultural practices. While past research has found similar results, this particular study is groundbreaking in that it detected ecological benefits from organic farming at both a local and a landscape level.It’s always good to see research validate what we see on the ground (pun intended).Researchers looked at the uncultivated, semi-natural borders between organic and conventional agricultural fields in Sweden. They found that the borders between organic fields had significantly higher plant species richness and abundance. The researchers hypothesize that this is likely due, at least in part, to the unintentional impact that herbicides can have on non-target species.
This is good news and not just for plants. Increases in plant species diversity likely trickle up the food chain benefiting the insects that eat plants (and the birds that eat insects).
Dr. Mercola points out that the Obama administration apparently isn’t immune from Monsanto influence:
But while health care reform is finally on the table, and an organic farm has, for the first time, been planted on the White House lawn, there are an unsettling number of foxes being appointed to guard the U.S. health care and food industry hen houses … foxes that have entirely too many connections to Monsanto, the chemical manufacturer turned agricultural giant that is slowly gaining control over the world’s population, one seed at a time.Many more details follow.The New Secretary of Agriculture is a Fan of Factory Farms, GM Crops and More
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is now the Secretary of Agriculture, an appointment that took place despite massive public outcry. What was needed for an effective Secretary of Agriculture was someone who would develop and implement a plan that promotes family-scale farming and a safe and nutritious food system with a sustainable and organic vision.
What we got was yet another politician who’s already made room in his bed for the industry lobby. As the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) points out:
It’s going to take more than just a new president to break the grip of big agribusiness on government. As FDR said:
I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.