USA - "Call To Action" To Reduce Food Waste

The USA held an important summit recently to address the announcements a few months back from the US Government on reducing food waste in the US.

U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator  Mathy Stanislaus announced a "Call To Action" to help meet the U.S. EPA's and U.S. Department of Agriculture's goal to reduce food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030.

Stanislaus issued the Call To Action during the Closing Plenary of the Food Recovery Summit, held November 16-18 in Charleston, South Carolina, USA. "We want to announce an Action Plan to meet the goal on Earth Day 2016," he stated. "What has to be done to meet this goal? What has to change? We are seeking a diverse plan made by representatives of all sectors of the food life cycle."

Stanislaus and other EPA officials participated in sessions and roundtables throughout the summit. They emphasized that EPA is open to new and "disruptive" ideas and strategies to prevent wasted food, increase food recovery, and assist in development of processing infrastructure for nonedible food. "We are pushing all of you to help develop a concrete plan that you can sign on to and commit your resources [to implement]," concluded Stanislaus.

There has also been some acknowledgment in Australia that we also need to also primarily reduce food waste in our country, and to better address  - successfully  - how to deal with the food waste generated.  Technologies are reasonably readily available, only requiring suitable adaptation and scheme specific design.

One can think of concepts such as anaerobic digestion, composting and co-composting of food and other organic wastes [ at home and commercially], even waste to energy schemes as all playing some part in better utilising the wasted foods.  Individual circumstances will drive the options.

It is better to reduce the initial waste where possible and even better management of unused foods in conjunction with food bank groups does help in reducing food wastes.

There has not been the serious and concerted push as seen in the US here in Australia so far to reduce food waste, with most western countries having greater food waste in the post production sector rather than during production. 

We can all do more though, to reduce food wastage, especially now with the festive season approaching and a trend to excess food being available.  Of major importance is the front end of the cycle – the reduction of actually avoiding the proliferation of food available that most people know may often go to waste.

Water - for all. An Infographic

Sanitation Pays Off - BIG TIME for Development in Asia

Globally, the sanitation Millennium Development Goal target is well off track. 

However, many countries in Southeast Asia have made substantial progress, although a number of them will not reach the sanitation MDG target by 2015.

 Many countries have recently revised their sanitation strategies in order to rapidly scale up sanitation and aim for universal access by 2030.

According to a new study from the Water Global Practices Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), sanitation has been shown to have significant economic and social returns in the six countries studied (Cambodia, Yunnan province of China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, and Vietnam) and benefits in both urban and rural settings exceed costs in almost all cases. 

The Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Southeast Asia found that all sanitation interventions examined have benefits that exceed costs, when compared with “no sanitation facility.” Economic benefits of sanitation are at least five times higher than economic costs in rural areas and at least three times higher for urban areas. 

Other key findings include:

- In rural areas, the most basic sanitation type, the pit latrine, had returns of at least five times its costs in all but one country, Cambodia. Across both wet and dry pit latrines, the returns are highest in Lao PDR at over eight times.

- In urban areas, pit latrines remain a feasible, affordable, and efficient sanitation option in some settings where density is low. Septic tanks were also found to be economically viable in all countries, with economic returns of around two or more per unit spent.

In all countries and for most sanitation technologies, health benefits and time savings accounted for the majority of the overall benefits. 

Some intangible benefits not quantifiable  from the above estimates were also shown to be important to households, including dignity, comfort, prestige, security, gender equality, household cleanliness, and aesthetics of the community environment. Because of inter-personal variation in responses, it was difficult to present population level averages for these intangible benefits. 

The benefits of reduced water pollution from improved fecal sludge or sewage management were not fully counted for those interventions that reduced release of fecal matter into the environment because of the methodological difficulties and data constraints involved in such valuations.

The report, which is part of the second phase of the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI) launched initially in East Asia in 2007, provides sanitation decision makers with compelling evidence that directly compares the costs and benefits of alternative sanitation options across multiple contexts and countries.

Read the blog from Guy Hutton: "Why choosing the preferred sanitation solution should be more like grocery shopping."

For more information, please visit www.wsp.org

Recycling Water Crucial To NT Water Supplies

In the face of global water supply shortages, recycled water has the potential to help us be more climate-independent. And even though it seems novel, reused water is already cycled back into the supply. If you live in a community downstream of another one, chances are, you are reusing its water.

Australians and Americans have embraced “sustainability” in so many aspects of modern life, but not when it comes to water resources.

Recycled or reclaimed water is water that is used more than one time before it passes back into the natural water cycle. Treated wastewater, including sewage and water used for industrial processing, can be cleanly recycled for agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, toilet flushing, replenishing a groundwater basin and even for drinking water.

Scientifically proven advances in water technology — including reverse osmosis, ultraviolet disinfection, and oxidation — applied to wastewater allow communities to reuse water for many different purposes, treating the water differently depending on the intended use.

And the best part is: there is huge potential for growth in using recycled water. Thirty-two billion gallons of municipal wastewater are produced everyday in the United States but less than 10 percent of that is intentionally reused and the equation is quite similar in the Northern Territory, particularly in the northern areas, as Alice Springs now does have an aquifer recharge program using treated wastewater from the effluent ponds.  

Also, it is known that the NT uses up to four times water per person more than temperate Australia, and much of that extra water is used outside, where non potable water would do.  It is certainly wasteful to treat all water to drinking standards and then use 70% outside as is common in Darwin.

One key reason that water reuse is not a bigger part of the nation’s water supply is that it is still characterized as a waste product in most places. 

In a progressive move, California in the US recently enacted legislation that reclassifies recycled water as a water resource. The state government also recently streamlined the permitting process for using recycled water for irrigation and allocated $200 million in grants to encourage related projects.  While California uses different legislative systems to Australia, the truth is, Australia could do a lot ore with use of appropriately treated wastewater.  AND......such programs would be sensible infrastructure development in a continent as dry as ours.

In other parts of the USA,communities in dry west Texas have used state-of-the-art technology to augment their drinking water supply with reused water; Phoenix in Arizona has had an aquifer recharge program using treated effluent which is subsequently redrawn for use, for about 50 years; the governor of Oklahoma just signed a law to encourage water reuse; and Florida’s most recent water reuse report indicated that 719 million gallons of water is beneficially reused each day in 2013 — the largest amount in the country.  Yet here in north Australia as we discuss developing the north, there is little discussion about reuse of water, in an environment which is totally dry for 6-8 months each year, while in the other few months water flows away freely [ admittedly it is used by the environment!].

The amount of water intentionally reused in both Australia and the USA still quite low and it will stay that way as long as the public regards reuse as an emergency measure. Citizens have embraced “sustainability” in so many aspects of modern life, but not when it comes to water resources.

Conservation cannot meet future water demands alone and other measures that create new sources of water, like desalination, are still more expensive, with some people believing that it is too expensive although newer technologies are encouraging in possibly lower costs.  Desalination has its advocates though, with WA a champion of the technology, with development being driven by the woman who is the Chair of the WA Water Corporation.

In the Top End of the NT the only avenue seemingly being explored for more water is to develop more dams or other above ground storage systems, such as the pumped off river system discussed for an area in hills north of Adelaide River, and the dam above Adelaide River.  Desalination of seawater is also a possible option around Darwin. 

Water reuse is the easiest and most economical fix. It should be included in the water supply portfolio of the Darwin region, and in fact for all  communities.  It at least should be given equal weight in assessing future water resources for the region.

[ partially adapted from an article by Melissa Melker of the US Water Reuse Association in the NY Times 30 June 2014]

UPDATE - http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/20/solar-technology-californias-water/
This is a solar technology to distill irrigation tailwater from agriculture fields using solar technology to heat a oil filled tube and then use the heat to distill the tailwater.  It works and can be scaled up, with a projected cost of about one quarter the cost of desalination of sea water [ many places say a cost for this of $2 per kilolitre].  Search for Water FX online for more details.

Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate. 

Urban Stormwater Management – Smarter Solutions and Better Stormwater Use

While almost no urban sewerage system in Australia is designed to also handle stormwater, as is the case in some older cities, particularly in the USA, the management of stormwater productively is quite a challenge.  With our increasingly hard surfaced cities, the stormwater system has grown, usually channelling away water that previously would have often dissipated within the landscape where it was generated, often even into the ground, or at least nearby.

While there are places around Australia where the stormwater is planned to move and actually recharge local aquifers, with Mawson Lakes near Adelaide a good example, as is some stormwater even around Palmerston, recharging the aquifer under the city in the wet season.  Normally, most stormwater runs off, and is lost to local use.

With about 80% of contaminants on hard surfaces, being moved with the first flush of rain [even more in the tropics with the first break storms of the wet season], colleting that and filtering through land and used by plants is a major and distinct improvement to the quality of stormwater discharged into nearby rivers, creeks and ultimately the harbours and oceans.  Most of the pollutants are remediated by soil borne organisms.

But driving that change is difficult as engineering has dominated how urban stormwater has been managed and the usual method has been pipe, or surface hard channel it, away.

More localities are reconsidering this however, through design modification to use plant based drains and detention areas before excess water flows elsewhere.  Volumes handled by expensive engineered solutions are often decreased as is cost, and water is used productively near where it is produced.

Better design can actually increase volumes handled by bioengineering approaches, so often even reducing overall costs.  This type of approach may even be retro fitted at modest cost or with little disruption to existing facilities.

It is more difficult in monsoonal areas with major differences in urban water between the wet and dry seasons, but it is possible to modify designs to at least allow a reduction in irrigation in the early and late wet seasons by better using locally generated surface waters locally with better design of roads and local parklands.

Some projects have been finished in Sydney as well as overseas. There are some smart designs on the web site of www.atlantiscorp.com.au  used in Sydney, an Australian company in this design space.  See more here -  http://www.atlantiscorp.com.au/solutions/civil-engineering/road-solution-drainage .

More are being planned, with some further details here –

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/to_tackle_runoff_cities_turn_to_green_initiatives/2613/

And then there are green roofs, aimed at collecting and using water that falls on buildings and preventing much of that getting to street level – it helps cool buildings too, reducing heat load on concrete roofs.  More of these options are developing.

 

We just do not do enough of these more appropriate solutions here in the NT. 

Yes...Sustainable Rum Production

Let's be a little frivolous today.

Nothing like a shot of rum on a cool or cold evening, especially around a campfire.  Think of outback Australia with a campfire blazing or a sea going sailing ship in the roaring forties.  But did you realise that even rum production is going ........well, sustainable!

While the term sustainable has many connotations, in this case it is about improved water use as well as smart, sustainable biomass energy use.

The Caribbean is well known for rum production, as is Bundberg in Australia.  Two of the biggest rum producers in the Caribbean though, have been embracing much more sustainable options in the rum distilling process from sugarcane.

Rum production produces rather nasty wastewater which needs to be disposed of some how. The Serrallés Rum Distillery in Ponce, Puerto Rico produces DonQ, its main brand of rum, which is the most popular rum in Puerto Rico. It is one of the largest rum distilleries in the Caribbean with an annual output capacity of 15 million proof gallons. The company has spent a decade and $16 million on a new filtration system.

Serrallés used to dump its wastewater into nearby fields, but during rainy season the waste would run off and the distillery would have to shut down when flooding starting which cost the company $200,000 a year. There are claims that Serrallés has turned the "$75 million distillery into one of the cleanest in the world."

The filtration system also saves the company money, as Roberto Serrallés, the VP of business development points out. The wastewater produces biogas which the company uses to run its boilers. Serrallés, who is a sixth generation rum maker with a Ph.D in environmental studies from the University of Oregon, said that the system saves them "as much as nearly 50 percent of annual fuel use."

Serrallés is not the only Puerto Rican rum maker to make its operations more sustainable, with itsmain competitor in Puerto Rico, Bacardi Limited also moving that way.  Bacardi released its 2012 CSR report a few months ago which highlights steps it is taking to reduce energy and water use, reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and source more responsible materials. Bacardi Limited is the largest privately held spirits company in the world.

So next time you have a bacardi and coke........you can claim to be drinking sustainably produced rum!!  Will you remember that after a few rums??  Or care?

Fake Agrochemicals - Farmers BEWARE

It had to happen........the rural and related agrochemical and fertiliser industries are worth many millions of dollars and both agrochemical and fertiliser sales annually are also worth millions of dollars, even in a relatively smallish market such as Australia.

A recent scam involved sales of dirt.......yes common soil.......as a marketed and manufactured fertiliser from an overseas source, with the material actually making it to a rural location before detection. That also was a major biosecurity concern, as well as a straight out scam.

With input costs a major factor in producing crops, shaving these by a few dollars can be important. But the new scam is to produce suspect agrochemicals for sale. They do not perform as expected and often on investigation, formulations are just plainly wrong, or they even are made using dodgy liquid ingredients including tainted and dangerous wastewaters, or may not even contain the active technical ingredient, or contain by product chemicals that could damage crops.

Yes, there are successful low cost reputable formulators, capable of offering suitable agrochemicals at discounted prices, and supplying to Australia. But it is very necessary to be sure about who you are dealing with and their reputation, both technically and financially.

Needless to say, China seems to be a source, but some eastern European operators are also involved.

The old maxim applies .......if it seems to good to be true, it probably is too good to be true!!

This is expanded further in a recent on line article:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/grains-and-cropping/general/fake-chemicals-pose-risk/2299664.aspx?storypage=0

It should also be remembered that any agricultural chemical used in Australia should have been assessed and given the okay by the relevant Australian authorising agency, the APVMA.

If in doubt have a look at their web site, www.apvma.gov.au and this statement is off the web site -
'Before an agricultural or veterinary chemical product can be legally imported, supplied, sold, used, promoted or advertised in Australia, the APVMA must register it. Part of the APVMA's role and responsibility is to monitor and enforce compliance of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in the market place."

SO BE AWARE.

Stormwater Management - Green Roofs Play a Part

The concept of using green roofs has more been around overall city heat mitigation, reduced heat absorption on concrete roofs, more oxygen in the city, even reuse of waste water.

Recent work has indicated that the 'green roof" may be significant in stormwater management, a slightly different outcome than was expected.

While Australia and many other regions do not have a single stormwater and sewer pipe system, some cities do. There the collection of stormwater on green roofs appears to greatly reduce the amount of stormwater entering the sewer system, and thus reduces the potential overflow, quite a problem for these types of systems.

In the areas with separate storm water and sewer disposal systems, it would seem that the collection of especially higher intensity storm rain, the event that often overloads streets and stormwater disposal designs, would also be enhanced, and less stormwater would flow through the system. And, even if it was partially reduced, it would most likely time shift and reduce the major flows, after the rain had flowed down through the green roof and then out down a drainpipe to the ground. The green roof would also assist with removal of pollutants, often in the rain in cities.

More details of the study here -http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/42701

Green roofs lend themselves well to regions with some regular rainfall, year round. Has not been much development here in the NT, due to our very strongly seasonal rainfall - wet for half the year, generally totally dry for the other half, so plants require watering then.

There is a good example of a green roof in Singapore, at the Botanical Gardens. It seems to work well.

Food Prices WILL Go Up

Mankind has enjoyed several decades of falling food prices, and relative abundance. Some even say that food prices have really been trending down ever since about the mid 1800s, although there have been some periods where that has not been so clear.

Modern agriculture has improved productivity of most farm animals, crops and even trees and enhanced efficiency of the use of inputs such that more is produced for less.

Recent trends in agricultural productivity increases are much lower, a lot of the productive land is used already, some even disappearing into urban sprawl, and new areas are far less available, or have other constraints eg clearing of rainforest, and may even be less productive intrinisically.

Malthus and his predictions are back in the spotlight.

A recent short article from the Lowy Institue in Australia, a respected academic institue has examined this issue more critically.
link is here - http://lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1565 and the publication can be downloaded as a pdf.

We need 71% more food production to feed the world population of 9.1 billion [estimated] by 2050.

So far, it does not seem to be recognised as a serious issue, with R and D expenditure on agriculture still declining, and some are suggesting that it will be difficult to again obtain the agricultural productivity gains of the past 60 years. These are years in which use of hybrid crops, the development of the "green revolution" in Asia with both wheat and rice, etc etc all took place.

Genetic modification has been embraced by some.......and strongly rejected by others.

Many scientists do think that some form of major genetic advance will be needed to ensure this food will be produced, and that there will be significant changes in how and where food is produced. Will we see more food produced within cities? Many think so, grown in novel ways too.....even vertically on walls, replacing the lawn with a food garden, food grown on building rooftops and there will be greater use of recycled water and nutrients including organic materials eg compost. These are happening in some way already around the world.

At present there is a nett movement of nutrients from farms to cities, and it just about all goes down the sewer or into landfill. That might have to change.

Science might be capable to develop new food production systems but social and cultural adjustments might be needed too. They might be more difficult.

Less Water Use Reduces Energy Too

Water use and water loss is a major energy cost in many countries.

If just 1% of US homes replaced older, inefficient toilets with dual flush models, the country would save more than 38 million kWh of electricity, the equivalent of 43,000 households’ monthly electrical supply.

While in Australia, dual flush and reduced flush toilets are very common, they are much less common in other countries. As an example, 25 years ago most Australian toilets were single flush, 12L per flush. Best models today are 6L/3L flush with a redesigned efficiently flushed pan, or the more common 9L/4.5L dual flush models. Practically, volumes less than these levels can create congestion problems in sewer lines as the liquids level has diminished so much..........but most countries are nowhere close to the reduced flush volumes now common in Australia.

Big water use reductions are possible, and an important issue, rarely considered is that less water used means much less energy is used. Think electricity for pumping and purifying water as the most obvious point.

Solving leakage is also important in reducing energy use, as a side benefit of reducing water losses. Same issues as above.

Switching to dual flush low volume toilets is a big factor in driving reducing energy use.

More information here -http://www.waterefficiency.net/march-april-2011/detecting-the-unaccountable-1.aspx

Separation Toilet for Liquids and Solids - Practical or Not?

Europeans rally behind the 'NoMix-tech' toilet
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore


The NoMix toilet, which rather appropriately collects urine in the front and faeces in the back, has gained wide support by consumers throughout seven countries in Europe as a means of reducing pollution and conserving water, according to a new paper by scientists in Switzerland.

"NoMix" toilets, collect urine and faeces separately.

The just-publicized article, which calls on authorities to push for early adoption of the high-tech toilet, appears in the semi-monthly journal Environmental Science & Technology by ACS Publications.

Of the 2,700 people surveyed in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, 80 percent say they support the idea behind the technology, and between 75 and 85 percent report that the design, hygiene, smell, and seat comfort of the NoMix toilets equal that of conventional ones.

Moreover, roughly 85 percent say they are open to the idea of using stored urine as fertilizer.
Researchers Judit Lienert and Tove Larsen write that the toilet collects urine separately, with the main advantage being that urine contains 80 percent of the nitrogen and 50 percent of the phosphorus that arrives at wastewater treatment plants. Those two elements trigger such things as algae blooms that can enter waterways and threaten fish.

Apparently, a full decade into the 21st century, the rather simple NoMix model is a relatively novel technology whose acceptance (beyond the NoMix-loving Swiss) had not been scientifically measured until now.

partially sourced from www.news.com
--------------------------------------------

This all sounds wonderful, except that in countries like Australia where low flow units are common, it is already an issue that total liquid flows down the sewer pipes can be too low for effective effluent transfer. That is, liquid is needed to get the waste from your place to the treatment location.

Maybe in hilly Switzerland it all goes downhill..........

These systems sound wonderful, but practical issues like that above need to be considered too.

There are systems that use on site composting with liquids separation........that would be a suitable option too, that avoids waste transfer. There are many other options, and most are practical and fit in with existing technology.

One of these is the Gough Hybrid Toilet. A low flow unit originally designed for small island communities with poor water supply, it has also been extensively used in toilet facilities designed for roadside and resort use in remote areas, as well as holiday homes or in areas with low water supplies. On site treatment is used, the output is predominantly liquid and can be reused for irrigation. See www.gough.com.au

The concept of better toilets is not new, but is a separation model the best option? Not always the ideal would be my view, and there are many options.

The current Australian concept of a dual option, low volume flush [ commonly 6L/3L with a suitable pan design] would seem a simple solution when combined with low health risk effluent treatment and recycling.

It is Time to Recycle the Organics

Organic recycling will be vital to recover the vast amounts of nutrients that come to the city in food.

I posted some material from Singapore in 2009, a place where organic recycling is a joke, and where incineration is the norm. YET.........some commentators wax lyrical about using organic food, and how wonderful it is, in a city that imports over 95% of its food, and then burns the residuals. One needs to be a little bit real about the issue.

So many nutrients, so much carbon is in the food we eat, and in the city, most is wasted.........wasted.

In Australia, particularly in southern cities this issue is slowly being addressed. It fits with the emerging potential technologies of vertical wall and roof top gardens as well, potential city sites for food and green production, currently being developed and enthused over by for example, Prof Julian Cribb of Sydney.

the following article has been lifted from "Inside Waste" and was written by Gerry Gillespie, an ardent advocate for carbon and nutrient recycling and recovery.

Unfortunately, I think it will be a considerable time before it happens in the Northern Territory in any modest fashion, even. But it should, as local soils scream out for better soil carbon levels to both hold water and nutrients, as well as needing a great boost in soil nutrients to aid production in both agriculture and horticulture.

It is a important story...........

The organic base
Tuesday, 19 January 2010

As Australia’s waste industry gears up for 2010, the president of Revolve - Canberra, Gerry Gillespie, urges people to focus on the root issues of organic waste management. He argues valuable organic materials must be returned to soils, and experience shows this can be done very effectively when communities are empowered to become part of local solutions.

Every individual, regardless of their social standing, produces organic waste as long as they continue to eat.The true value of this product, both in terms of its nutrient value and its value as a catalyst for the soil to generate more food, has never truly been capitalised on in western society.

It is only in Asian communities that the true value of returning organic materials to soils has been appreciated and developed.

Yet even in western societies, where the public (with the exception of gardeners) has long been seen as ignorant of the value of this material, a substantial shift has begun to take place with the advent of new programs focussed on food.For the first time in its modern history, western society has begun to truly look at its waste organic outputs.

In the first instances this was mainly from the western perspective of wasted food as a waste of money, but now also and more importantly, for its value to the food chain.This in turn has lead to a consideration of the value of clean, quality organic products as a catalyst in the production of quality food from quality soil.The Groundswell project in NSW has clearly demonstrated that, given the right tools and information to act, the public will respond with enthusiasm to the collection of food waste for reuse in agriculture.

This project, using the City to Soil collection system, has demonstrated that at our very animal base we fully grasp the importance of soil as our mother, in the sense that it feeds and clothes us.As individuals, parents and grandparents, we see that the security of future generations is firmly based in the soil. The response to this project has seen the collections of organic waste with extremely low contamination rates of less than 0.5%.

This project has clearly demonstrated the public wants to be involved. Indeed it has demonstrated the collection of organic waste, once it is embraced by the community, will not only empower them to become part of the solution but will also provide the basis for a link into a much bigger picture of behavioural change.

Compost and carbon

In developing the City to Soil process, the project managers needed to reduce the cost of compost manufacture and so designed a new system where the organic waste requires no shredding and very little turning. This process importantly also produces no odour.

Material is sprayed with water and a two part biological inoculant, covered with tarpaulins and left for six weeks without turning. The material can achieve temperatures in excess of 70 degrees in the first week. It then settles back to around 55 degrees for the remainder of the process.

The material produced in this compost process, returned to the soil, provides the basis for supported land management change which dramatically reduces fertiliser use, improves moisture retention water in soils, increases yield and increases soil carbon.

If the legacy emissions currently in the atmosphere are to be addressed, improving our soils worldwide is the only way of doing it. While climate change may be the largest threat we have brought upon humanity, the generation of carbon in agricultural soils and the opportunities for change that it brings could be one of the greatest benefits humanity has ever given to the world. We have at our fingertips the means to end poverty, we have at our fingertips the means to feed the world, we have at our fingertips the means for a new world economy.This new direction, this new hope, is based on the simplest and most disregarded of the products of humanity – our organic waste.

Source-separated organic waste provides the tools to link the community back to its food supply, it provides the tools for us to rebuild our relationship with out soils, it provides the means to support local regional economies. The only thing we need to do to be part of this great revolution is to maintain ownership of our own organic waste.

Conclusion

The greed of the global economy has forgotten that you can’t have a labourer in China make cheap clothes for the world market without food. And you can’t feed that labourer without soil.

The global economy has forgotten that it is nothing without soil. Every cheap shirt, every cheap car, every cheap tool, represents some part of a nation’s soil. We are nothing without soil. We don’t exist without soil.

Peak phosphorus spells the death of chemical agriculture. There is a new way. There is a better way – for humanity and for the planet.

Owning your organic wastes in your home and in your community provides you with the power to help local farmers produce food and to generate local wealth in the emerging carbon market.

No economy, rich or poor, exists without food – because no economy rich or poor exists without soil. The soil is your mother – you are nothing without your mother.

The issues of ‘peak oil’, of ‘peak phosphorus’ and other matters of assumed criticality are all indicators of our humble human need to replace one problem with another by addressing only the symptoms of our disease. In the same way that ‘peak oil’ tells us that we have been too reliant on an unsustainable supply of oil, ‘peak phosphorus’ tells us that we have relied for too long on industrial chemical farming.

Good quality soil and soil carbon can provide humanity with the direct link back to its very basic roots. It can be part of our individual responsibility to ensure that the farmers are given the right tools and the capacity to utilise their soil based on the experiential management skills of themselves and past generations. In linking personal behaviour with soil carbon we will be weaving the tapestry of soil quality into the reality of our daily existence. To achieve this we need to have a community understanding and response to the ability to grow our soils. The only place this can be achieved is on the farm.

It is that same place that grows our food and is the home and heart of our repeatable economic base.

In the world voluntary carbon market we have been presented with the first opportunity in human history to include our environment in our economy. We as humans have finally reached that same point that every monkey, bird and bee awoke to as it was born new into its circumstance, its natural economy. Every species lives within its economy because to do otherwise is to perish.

We can now join the evolution of economy by including the obvious in our accounts. Everything we now do and make can be predicated on its carbon value. You as an individual in this place are at this exciting starting point.

We must begin.

[partially sourced from Inside Waste]

Recycled Effluent Safe - Public Health Study Finds

Recycling of water is now a major effort in Australia, a very dry continent.

Serious drought over about 10 years has driven urban water users and the various urban water authorities to invest in a range of water recycling schemes. Some are very sophisticated, others less so.

The Ministerial Council on the Environment has promulgated new Guidelines to Using Recycled Water and many jurisdictions have started to use these guidelines to develop recycled water schemes too.

The following is a media release that reports on a public health examination of recycled water use and abuse in a major scheme NW of Sydney, Australia.

It is generally good news..........treated recycled effluent was ok, even with some misuse and abuse of the water.
-----------------------------------

As purple taps become an increasingly common sight in new Australian suburbs, a study has found no corresponding jump in gastro cases linked to the recycled water they deliver.

Researchers checked two years' worth of patient records from GPs located in Australia's largest residential recycled water scheme, in Sydney's northwest, and they found nothing out of the ordinary.

More than 18,000 homes are in the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Scheme and residents are told the extra water they have on tap, coming from a nearby waste-water plant, is not for drinking.
Similar schemes have been rolled out in new suburbs across the country, but the Monash University study was the first to check for any related impact on public health.

"They have recommendations on how the water should be used but (authorities) obviously can't police that," says Associate Professor Karin Leder, of the university's School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine.

"But what we can say ... in practice, we were unable to identify any observable health risks."
Dr Leder says the recycled water was "very heavily treated" and "any health risk would be very unlikely" but there was still a chance, in the event of a treatment failure, that it could contain pathogens or bacteria capable of making people sick.

The study did uncover some well-meaning households which used recycled water to top up their swimming pool, against advice.

"Even if people are using the water exactly as recommended there is the potential for ingestion - drinking very small amounts of water - during activities like car washing," Dr Leder says.

Researchers reviewed 36,000 patient visits across 11 doctors' clinics to check for any spike in acute gastroenteritis, acute skin complaints or acute respiratory conditions. Rates of illness were no different to surrounding suburbs with no access to recycled water and, Dr Leder says, this was a positive sign for the water-saving scheme. "Australia should continue to pioneer ... these kinds of recycled water schemes," she says. "When properly managed, they are a safe option that can be considered among the many options that might be available for recycling water."