Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Organic farming better to conventional farming


Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming

The differences between organic and conventional foods stem directly from the farming methods that were used during the food’s production. Many people are unaware of some of the differences between the two practices. Agriculture has a direct effect on our environment, so understanding what goes into our agriculture is important. Below is a list of some of the key differences between organic and conventional farming. One of the biggest differences that is seen time and time again across all research between the two farming practices is the effect on the land. Organic farming works to increase sustainability, biodiversity, and to encourage good soil and air quality. This is maintained by the use of natural growing practices, the avoidance of harmful chemicals, and the continued practice of crop rotation and other natural farming methods.
Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming

Organic Farming

  • Organic farming minimizes chemical usage
  • Organic farming promotes biodiversity
  • Soil health is improved with organic farming practices
  • Only natural methods are used in organic farming

Conventional Farming

  • Conventional farming makes use of chemicals, synthetics, and other materials to manage weeds and pests
  • Conventional farming uses unnatural farming methods
  • Conventional farming use of pesticides has garnered attention towards acceptable levels of toxicity, and whether there should actually be an acceptable level
  • Pesticides used in conventional farming can be damaging to your health.
There are many other differences between organic and conventional farming, but these seem to be the most spoken of in regards to consumer health. There have been arguments around whether or not conventional farming methods are safe for one’s health. This is because of the pesticides and GMO’s used in the conventional farming practices. Many people are concerned that those growing practices promote unsafe chemical use, especially because the level of toxicity is said to be under a “safe” level, but what is really safe?
Luckily, many places make it easy to get ahold of seasonal, local and organic products. There are many CSA’s, grocery delivery services and organic markets that promote a more healthy way of eating.

Brahmtej.blogspot.com: GOTRA vs DNA Science of Spirituality by Pt Krish...

Brahmtej.blogspot.com: GOTRA vs DNA Science of Spirituality by Pt Krish...

Brahmtej.blogspot.com: GOTRA vs DNA Science of Spirituality by Pt Krish...

Brahmtej.blogspot.com: GOTRA vs DNA Science of Spirituality by Pt Krish...

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Comments on Biochar

  • Biochar Soil Technology.....Husbandry of Soils

    Biochar Soil Technology.....Husbandry of whole new orders of life

    Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.
    Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel.

    Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

    Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

    Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
    Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

    Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
    "Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
    "Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
    Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
    Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
    As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat".
    By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

    One aspect of Biochar systems are Cheap, clean biomass stoves that produce biochar and no respiratory disease. At scale, the health benefits are greater than ending Malaria.
    The biochar Fund is also doing amazing work in the developing world;
    terrapretapot.org…

    The Biochar Fund
    biocharfund.org…
    and to explain their program;
    biocharfund.org…index.php

    Biochar data base; TP-REPP
    terrapreta.bioenergy…

    NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.
    arxiv.org…0804.1126.pdf

    Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards Committee. Hosted by Monsanto, this group of diverse interests has been hammering out issues of definition, validation and protocol. The past week, this group have been pressing soil sequestration's roll for climate legislation to congress.
    www.novecta.com…Carbon-Standard.pdf

    Along these lines internationally, the work of the IBI fostering the application by 13 countries for UN recognition of soil carbon as a sink with biochar as a clean development mechanism will open the door for programs across the globe.
    www.biochar-internat…biocharpolicy.html.

    Reports:
    This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
    assets.opencrs.com…R40186_20090203.pdf .

    This is the single most comprehensive report to date, covering more of the Asian and Australian work;
    www.csiro.au…poei.pdf

    Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
    Cheers,
    Erich
    The first North American Biochar Conference, in Boulder Aug 12-15, 
    Keynote speaker Secretary Tom Vilsack & Dr. Susan Solomon (NOAA's head atmospheric scientist) at.
    www.regonline.com…Default.aspx
  • 2
    erichjJun 14, 2009 3:51 AMMcGaheysville, United States

    Asian Biochar conference

    There is real magic coming out of the Asian Biochar conference.
    15 ear per stalk corn with 250% yield increase,
    Sacred Trees and chickens raised from near death
    Multiple confirmations of 80% - 90% reduction of soil GHG emissions

    The abstracts of the conference are at
    www.anzbiochar.org…20BioChar%20Confer...

Biochar boosts crop yield most for weathered soils - environmentalresearchweb

Biochar boosts crop yield most for weathered soils - environmentalresearchwebchallenges – like discovering exactly how it works.

Simon Shackley, lecturer at the newly formed UK Biochar Research Centre (UKBRC), explained that this is no small task. Biochar is a natural product and as such is hard to characterise. Its behaviours are hard to predict and the benefits are context-specific.
Variable fixing 
The main challenge, he explained, is the number of variables. The feedstock for the pyrolysis process, which can range from kitchen waste to manure to forestry cuttings, determines many of the mineral and structural characteristics of the resulting char. Heating time and temperature also affect the final properties. There is as yet no dominant engineering design for pyrolysis units, so different equipment also produces different results.
What's more, different biochars react in different ways in different soil types and climates – and offer benefits to different crop types. The carbon-fixing performance of a biochar product depends on whether the fuel by-products are used effectively to replace fossil fuels; and the issue of whether a greater emissions reduction is achieved simply by burning the feedstock or whether it should be converted to biochar and a fuel is also dependent on a number of factors – including which fossil fuel is used for comparison.
Shaping the debate 
There is widespread agreement that biochar must be used appropriately if it is to be of measureable benefit – but much work is still needed to define "appropriately".
"It's difficult to provide a generic definition of appropriate as it's very context specific," explained Shackley. "The indirect effects on land-use are of course very important; the controversy about biofuels has already reframed the debate in this area. We can't rule out the possibility of dedicated biofuel crop systems with a biochar element – for example sugar cane plantations where the waste is turned into biochar – but we consider that extreme biochar farming would be deeply problematic – in terms of its effects on biodiversity, water and other ecosystem services.
"The biofuels debate told us that a focus on a single issue entails a high risk. And public perception [of the risk] is important – as important as the reality.
"However the risk of over-commercialisation at this stage is unlikely. The real challenge is convincing farmers and industry to take it up – they need lots of evidence."
No to carbon-negativity 
The first step to gaining public and industry trust, Shackley thinks, is to avoid presenting biochar as a "free lunch". He has particular reservations about the term "carbon-negative," often touted in biochar circles. "This is not a very useful concept," he observed. "There are too many assumptions and approximations."
Subsequent steps entail gathering the evidence that will guide cost- and carbon-effective production and use of biochar. The UKBRC research team is currently establishing what makes a good biochar – in terms of its stability, its agronomic benefit to soils, and its ability to control and contain contamination. Pilot biochars will then be tested in situ.
"Over the coming years there will be increasing numbers of small field trials across the country," revealed Shackley. "Of course we won't know the long-term effects – but we can't afford to wait for 10 years to find those out."
There are some applications that he described as "no-brainers" – for example for small-scale use in developing countries, where farm or forest waste products are transformed into biochar together with fuel that replaces diesel for off-grid electricity generation.
On the other hand, Shackley pointed out that building a pyrolysis plant in the US to process 70,000 tonnes of corn stalks per annum would require significant demand for the biochar as a primary, high-value product, since electricity generated from the fuel by-products may not be in enough demand to attract a high price. Biochar prices vary greatly; market conditions may exert the strongest influence on the scale and rate of adoption of biochar.
Shackley also noted that if deployment on a global scale is to be managed responsibly, it will be essential for governments to work together to ensure that land-use changes are included in carbon accounting methods.
The challenge for scientists though, emphasised Shackley, lies in characterising and classifying the biochars. "It's not proper science if you can't control the variables. Ultimately we'll probably want to design different biochars for different properties and applications," he reflected.

About the author

Vanessa Spedding is a contributing editor toenvironmentalresearchweb.
 

Biochar boosts crop yield most for weathered soils - environmentalresearchweb

Biochar boosts crop yield most for weathered soils - environmentalresearchwebchallenges – like discovering exactly how it works.

Simon Shackley, lecturer at the newly formed UK Biochar Research Centre (UKBRC), explained that this is no small task. Biochar is a natural product and as such is hard to characterise. Its behaviours are hard to predict and the benefits are context-specific.
Variable fixing 
The main challenge, he explained, is the number of variables. The feedstock for the pyrolysis process, which can range from kitchen waste to manure to forestry cuttings, determines many of the mineral and structural characteristics of the resulting char. Heating time and temperature also affect the final properties. There is as yet no dominant engineering design for pyrolysis units, so different equipment also produces different results.
What's more, different biochars react in different ways in different soil types and climates – and offer benefits to different crop types. The carbon-fixing performance of a biochar product depends on whether the fuel by-products are used effectively to replace fossil fuels; and the issue of whether a greater emissions reduction is achieved simply by burning the feedstock or whether it should be converted to biochar and a fuel is also dependent on a number of factors – including which fossil fuel is used for comparison.
Shaping the debate 
There is widespread agreement that biochar must be used appropriately if it is to be of measureable benefit – but much work is still needed to define "appropriately".
"It's difficult to provide a generic definition of appropriate as it's very context specific," explained Shackley. "The indirect effects on land-use are of course very important; the controversy about biofuels has already reframed the debate in this area. We can't rule out the possibility of dedicated biofuel crop systems with a biochar element – for example sugar cane plantations where the waste is turned into biochar – but we consider that extreme biochar farming would be deeply problematic – in terms of its effects on biodiversity, water and other ecosystem services.
"The biofuels debate told us that a focus on a single issue entails a high risk. And public perception [of the risk] is important – as important as the reality.
"However the risk of over-commercialisation at this stage is unlikely. The real challenge is convincing farmers and industry to take it up – they need lots of evidence."
No to carbon-negativity 
The first step to gaining public and industry trust, Shackley thinks, is to avoid presenting biochar as a "free lunch". He has particular reservations about the term "carbon-negative," often touted in biochar circles. "This is not a very useful concept," he observed. "There are too many assumptions and approximations."
Subsequent steps entail gathering the evidence that will guide cost- and carbon-effective production and use of biochar. The UKBRC research team is currently establishing what makes a good biochar – in terms of its stability, its agronomic benefit to soils, and its ability to control and contain contamination. Pilot biochars will then be tested in situ.
"Over the coming years there will be increasing numbers of small field trials across the country," revealed Shackley. "Of course we won't know the long-term effects – but we can't afford to wait for 10 years to find those out."
There are some applications that he described as "no-brainers" – for example for small-scale use in developing countries, where farm or forest waste products are transformed into biochar together with fuel that replaces diesel for off-grid electricity generation.
On the other hand, Shackley pointed out that building a pyrolysis plant in the US to process 70,000 tonnes of corn stalks per annum would require significant demand for the biochar as a primary, high-value product, since electricity generated from the fuel by-products may not be in enough demand to attract a high price. Biochar prices vary greatly; market conditions may exert the strongest influence on the scale and rate of adoption of biochar.
Shackley also noted that if deployment on a global scale is to be managed responsibly, it will be essential for governments to work together to ensure that land-use changes are included in carbon accounting methods.
The challenge for scientists though, emphasised Shackley, lies in characterising and classifying the biochars. "It's not proper science if you can't control the variables. Ultimately we'll probably want to design different biochars for different properties and applications," he reflected.

About the author

Vanessa Spedding is a contributing editor toenvironmentalresearchweb.