Carpenter has been studying eutrophication since the mid-1970s, when the high-profile damage to Lake Erie shamed detergent manufacturers into lowering the phosphate content of their products. By the late 1990s, he observes, researchers were finding most of the ongoing eutrophication in North America was due to phosphorus runoff from farms. Most recently he considered what the ultimate planetary boundary might be for phosphorus discharge into the environment, a matter he explores as co-author of a 2011 paper in Environmental Research Letters.
That paper argues that the boundary for the discharge of phosphorus into freshwater has already been exceeded. At the same time, many parts of the world remain in urgent need of phosphorus in order to be able to feed themselves. Carpenter suggests that regions with a surplus of phosphorus could solve two problems at once by packaging that surplus in the form of struvite for markets elsewhere.
“Midwesterners are rich in phosphorus, but they also suffer lots of toxic algae blooms and fish kills,” he says. “Technologies to convert manure to lightweight [high-phosphorus] materials would help cure eutrophication in the Midwest while curing hunger in Africa.”
Bennett maintains that the cost of reducing phosphorus discharge should be weighed against the value of services provided by the environment under threat. As straightforward as that objective might appear to be, it conflicts with the ruthless economics of modern agriculture. According to Carpenter’s co-author, Elena Bennett, large-scale livestock operations can leave little financial room for investing in technology to recover phosphorus, as the expenses associated with recovery equipment will not necessarily be recouped by sales of the resulting product.
“We’ve moved from a system a couple of hundred years ago where you had a couple of cows and a couple of chickens and some corn, and so the manure was a useful resource,” explains Bennett, an assistant professor at McGill University’s Department of Natural Resource Sciences. “Now, things are just out of whack at the scale that we operate.”
That doesn’t mean that phosphorus removal is uneconomical, however. Bennett maintains that the cost of reducing phosphorus discharge should be weighed against the value of services provided by the environment under threat. Depending on the site in question, those services could include clean drinking water, recreational opportunities or hydroelectric power generation.
“This isn’t about the natural world versus the developed world,” insists Bennett. “This is about nature providing us with all these things, and some of those things it provides better when it’s in a natural state and other things are better in a built state. If we can understand which states provide which amounts of which services, then we can start making more informed decisions.”
Wetlands to the Rescue
This principle is being put forward to deal with the specific challenge posed by Lake Winnipeg, which has been touted as the world’s largest eutrophic lake. That dubious honor stems from the lake’s role as a catchment basin for four Canadian provinces and four U.S. states, concentrating soil runoff in this primarily agricultural region. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, based in the city of Winnipeg, much of that runoff travels unimpeded into the lake because coastal wetlands have been drained for farming.
IISD project manager Vivek Voora says that convincing farmers to leave wetlands in place to capture phosphorus and other nutrients from runoff rather than allow them to fertilize the lake amounts to competing with the value of those wetlands as planted fields. Delta Waterfowl, a longstanding Manitoba organization dedicated to preserving marshes for hunting, tries to match that value dollar for dollar with financial compensation to farmers who set aside wetlands. But as the price of some crops rises, this amount may not remain competitive with other uses for the land.
“We need to find a way to show farmers that managing a wetland is profitable,” Voora explains.
Voora has explored how natural wetlands could take part in a novel biological economy. Plants such as cattails could be harvested for conversion into bioplastics, or pelletized to become fuel. Meanwhile, the intact wetland will sop up most of the nutrients that would otherwise reach the lake.
In this sense, Voora points out, wetlands function as important pieces of ecological infrastructure. They may not be as focused and efficient as the kind of infrastructure cities could use to retrieve phosphorus from their wastewater for use elsewhere, but they can provide crucial services on farms where such built infrastructure is unlikely to appear.
“A nutrient that is so fundamental to the economy of this particular region,” Voora says, “for us to be wasting it, for it to end up in water bodies and causing environmental problems, doesn’t make a bit of sense.”
A version of this feature originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of Momentum magazine, Ensia’s predecessor.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
Small scale and organic is already feeding the large majority of the world, probably in the neighborhood of 70% or so. Yet we spend so much time worrying about industrial totalitarian agriculture. Why should this be? Because it is the industrialized countries that mostly eat the food that comes from this system. It's not really the developing world that needs totalitarian agriculture, it's us, the privileged. It's us who would starve because we have become so divorced from where our food comes from and how to go about growing it.
Plus, organic farms per se are not always closed loop nutrient systems. They often depend on manure inputs, usually from conventional farms (often with chemical fertilizers used in the animal feed) down the road. It's rare to find any truly closed nutrient loops in agriculture anywhere, conventional or organic. So, organic is not automatically a solution to all of this, although it is clearly better in many respects.
With that said, major changes in nutrient use is needed, and you identify a great many of the challenges we need to address. It's a big problem.
I agree that Certified Organic agriculture is almost identical to industrial chemical agriculture. It is still a tilled monocultural disaster. It just doesn't have the poisons as an input, and so is marginally better for us and ecosystems. But still disastrous.
As for the 70% figure... I am talking about global food provisioning. Not your food, not my food. Global. We live in the "First World." (I assume you live in a "First World" nation...)
Here is a summary of a report that estimates, because the hard data is not available, that conservatively "70% of the food the world actually consumes every year is provisioned by rural and urban
peasants." Peasants can't afford chemicals or seed, and so have to find other ways to ensure fertility. They may not be Certified Organic, but they are cycling nutrients somehow. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/Who%20will%20feed%20us%20all.pdf
Here is another little tidbit out of Russia that says that small family held farms are producing a sizable quantity of food in that industrialized country. http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/in-1999-35-million-small-family-plots-produced-90-of-russias-potatoes-77-of-vegetables-87-of-fruits-59-of-meat-49-of-milk-way-to-go-people/
Other estimates say that about 15% of food production is in urban areas, 85% of food is "local," and 75% of farmers save seed and grow locally adapted varieties. If you are saving seed, you're probably not dousing it with chemicals.
Like I said before, if the industrial agriculture system were to fail tomorrow, it would be you and I that would probably starve. We are heavily invested in the linear paradigm of food production. Our lives depend on it. The non-industrialized parts of the world would get along pretty well. I humbly propose that we have a lot to learn and the poorest among us should be our teachers. But if we live under the illusion that industrial agriculture is currently feeding most of the people, then we won't be able to visualize what is possible from a different paradigm.
Shouldn't Ensia, a blog about sustainability, have articles that are framed within a sustainability paradigm?
So, help is on the way! (?)