Articles by Maywa Montenegro

A new study puts the old canard to rest

One of the most common arguments against organic farming is that it can't possibly provide enough food to feed the planet's burgeoning population. Low yields and lack of organically acceptable nitrogen sources, it's been said, will always confine its production scale to the realms of specialty groceries and farmer's markets. Now researchers at the University of Michigan have decided to examine these claims with some scientific scrutiny. Their findings?

"Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land."

If this is surprising, the authors say it's because many people in developing countries can't afford to buy the fertilizers that hybrid seeds require in order to produce top yields. So they're better off bypassing the biotech system altogether, instead using traditional seeds and so-called "green manures." These manures are cover crops planted in-between harvests and then plowed back into the soil. The authors found that this method provided sufficient nitrogen to farm without using any synthetic fertilizers.

Said one of the study's lead authors, "Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies -- all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food."

The great biologist offers thoughts both hopeful and harrowing

In a great interview with Bill Moyers, Wilson talks about his new Encyclopedia of Life project, and what it will take to spark a new green revolution. "We desperately need leadership," he says.

Great idea or load of crap?

In Minnesota, a state that produces more turkeys than any other (some 44.5 million birds per year), a new power plant that burns turkey litter just began operations. According to the article in today's NYT, operators of the plant, which is the first in the country to run on animal waste, is environmentally friendly. But critics say the manure is more valuable "just as it is, useful as a rich, organic fertilizer at a time when demand is growing for all things organic."

They also say the electricity is expensive -- that it requires a lot of energy for a relatively small output. It would take 10 turkey-powered plants, they say, to churn out the juice of one medium-sized coal fired operation.

Though it does mention particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen sulfide as some nasty fallout of biomass burning, the Times article offers no hard numbers on the energy balance that poultry-power yields. Since know too well by now that all biomass is not created equal, that would have been some helpful info.

Perhaps you Gristmillers know some stats?

Or is that geoengineering at work?

A new study shows that geoengineering should work. Just not exactly how we imagined:

Geoengineering could indeed cool the atmosphere, ecologist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, and colleagues conclude in their new analysis. The team examined the impact of 11 possible projects over the next century using computer simulations and assuming trends in greenhouse-gas emissions will continue unchecked.

The good news is such measures would be effective even if undertaken decades from now, the researchers report online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The bad news is that in all cases studied, reducing solar radiation would also shift global rainfall patterns, potentially drenching some areas and parching formerly productive agricultural land. Worse, the simulations predict that if the atmospheric fiddling suddenly stopped, the warming would accelerate dramatically -- possibly to 20 times the current rate -- because CO2 would still be accumulating.