The problem with labor intensive agriculture is that it’s just that: labor intensive. Greensolutions would have us all be farmers, which would hurt productivity and growth. Not to mention it’d be a serious buzzkill. So, instead of turning into a nation of Jeffersonian yeoman farmers, we should look for workable solutions for reforming our current agricultural system. Industrial agriculture and monoculture cropping may be inefficient and emissions-heavy, but it’s the only we’ve right that will feed the country and let you, Greensolutions, spend your day commenting on blog message boards. Is that a shovel I see in your hand? Didn’t think so. One of those solutions is Kanellos’s cow power. Another is better fertilizers and organic inputs and chemicals. The promise of green technology is that it will let us make these sustainable improvements to our world without sending us back to nature.

Industrial ag is “cheaper” only in a very narrowly defined sense of the word and, even then, peak oil and natural gas will quickly see an end to any perceived economic benefit.  Take away the massive subsidies and cheap fossil fuels and the whole house of cards collapses.  The good news is that these rising costs lead industrial ag to price parity with a more labor-intensive system.  Ecosystem services are priceless and the ecosystems that provide them are being destroyed by industrial ag and other crimes against humanity.  Yes, it’s difficult, and it’s not like “switching computers” but I think we can all agree that transforming our current system into a sustainable one is necessary and the sooner we get to work on that, the better off we’ll be.

While we’re on the topic of bullshit ....

Michael Kanellos said, “....but getting rid of industrial agriculture will take a few generations, if ever. Think of it. how are you going to feed chicago or new york city without it? The food produced in a hundred mile radius of either would leave millions starving.”

This notion of industrial agriculture somehow being more productive than small-scale organic ag is one of the most sinister and pervasive myths of our time.  Industrial agriculture, whether we’re talking about feedlots or vast monocrops, is woefully inefficient and produces far more problems than solutions.  Peak oil and natural gas will ensure a massive downsizing of these practices as farmers and laypeople-turned-farmers realize that local, organic agriculture (especially permaculture) uses a tiny fraction of the fossil fuels (if any) and a tiny fraction of the water that industrial “farming” does, while producing more than enough food and fiber for everyone.  The biggest obstacle to be overcome is ignorance and a mechanistic mindset that sees nature as a machine to be controlled rather than a living partner to synergize with.  This mindset is being perpetuated ad nauseum by the major agribusiness interests who would not survive a transition to real farming, despite the benefits to society.  A second major challenge is the shortage of farmers.  Since WW2, “farms” have gotten ridiculously large and farmers ridiculously few.  Real farming requires more people (read: jobs) which simply cannot be replaced with machines.  These can be high quality jobs with lots of fresh air, sunshine, exercise and biodiversity to please the senses.  Yes, it’s hard work too, but the alternative is unacceptable.  I think that solving the ignorance problem will help to solve to labor shortage because I believe that people have an inherent desire to contribute and make the world a better place.  When it becomes apparent that real farming will create jobs and make the world a better place, its only a matter of time until it becomes known as “conventional” agriculture.

The solutions will therefore not involve tacking on green looking bandaids to this big brown mess.  The problems are systemic and nothing short of a systemic approach will solve them.

Well, there is a big debate on that. the world population has increased drastically since WWII so has life expectancy. Even people like Michael Pollan of the omnivore’s dilemma cough up that iindustrial agriculture is cheaper. Sad, maybe, but true.

On other notes, even if you assume that organic farming and a return to grasses would be possible, it would take years. It just couldn’t happen overnight. it would be a gargantuan effort and involve overturning well over 50 years of practice. It’s not like switching computers.

How to do it. The cows stay outdoors, but the manure is shoved into things called thermophillic digesters. it then bakes for three weeks. Some methane (i.e. that directly from cow’s butt) gets into atmosphere but most sucked in.

As for expenses, unsure. Microgy says it works, but it’s not like we have the fine-grain details. But it is tricky. In the past, they sold digesters to farmers. But they realized the farmers didn’t want to absorb the capital costs. Overall, though, it should work. farmers now have to pay to truck their manure to manure pits anyway, so those costs are already being spent. they also have to pay the manure pit to take it, so this actually cuts costs for the farmer. the question then is whether the cost of the digester over time is less than than the money raised from the gas and how that compares to traditional processing. considering there isn’t much benefit from traditional ways (only so much gets used for fertilizer) this is likely a win.

The article was more about the UT paper, so not a financial one. but will follow up on financial issues in future.

A

How do the infrastructure solutions for handling this look like? Keep the cows indoors and separate the methane from the air? Will this be another argument for confining cows indoors? Or can the cows be dressed up with some kind of mobile “hotpants” units that will collect the stuff when they are out enjoying the nature? Seems non-trivial for the cow-friendly layman.

This is a non-solution if I’ve ever seen one.  Using manure for this purpose necessitates the use of industrial feedlots which cause way more problems than they solve.  All we would be accomplishing is capturing a tiny fraction of the gargantuan amount of energy that is WASTED on industrial agriculture.  We would save trillions more kilowatt-hours with a permaculture based system than we could possibly produce with methane capture off the back end of industrial ag.  The ecological, energetic and agricultural ignorance of this country is staggering.

A percentage of the manure from a small-scale farm feeding a biogas cogenerator that serves electricity and hot water to efficient buildings would be sustainable.  Industrial feedlot manure feeding an inefficient power plant delivering electricity to inefficient houses is not sustainable.  With 10 calories of fossil fuels, mainly in the form of natural gas, being used to produce a single calorie of food that is fed to a cow, how much natural gas did we use to create that manure that we then turn into…...natural gas?  Think, people!

I think you are missing something. Industrial feedlots, along with their manure, already exist. So this won’t mean building more. It will mean getting rid of the manure that is coming anyway.

small scale agriculture is a nice idea, but getting rid of industrial agriculture will take a few generations, if ever. Think of it. how are you going to feed chicago or new york city without it? The food produced in a hundred mile radius of either would leave millions starving.

This along with thousands of other small changes will make a huge difference in our overall production of power. This example is a pure win/win. For a small investment, the farmer produces distributed power which either provides income or at least offsets costs and deals with an existing waste product. No infrastructure is required. In fact the goverment does not need to be involved at all which means it has a pretty good chance of working!

Notice the article didn’t talk about dollars?  These things always sound nice when you talk about tons of manure and mmbtu of gas output.  It’s a wonderful environmental solution.  When you start to attach the dollar values to transportation of manure, process, capex, operating expenses, G&A, etc., oddly enough tons of these things aren’t getting built.  I wonder why? They said Microgy is operating one, (they’re operating several, actually), they didn’t say they’re raking in the dough doing it.

I don’t know what it means when I find myself agreeing with most of the posts above considering they are disagreeing with each other. But I do hope to be involved in this industry in some way in the future, so you can now count on me defending it here. I’ll try to break down how I see the benefits.

Currently manure is spread over fields with decreasing benefits to the soil due to over applications over the years. Mixed in the ground it naturally breaks down into carbon dioxide, methane and other gases in addition to the most valueable minerals and nitrogen compounds that make of the NPK. This is done by both aerobic anaerobic bacteria.

Now if the manure is treated in biodigesters the aerobic bacteria can’t get at it to make the carbon dioxide, so the anaerobic bacteria have more feed stock to make more methane which would be bad if it was vented to the atmosphere. But the idea is to use this biogas for a fuel for some type of generator of mechanical power or electricity. The engines that produce this power will emit carbon dioxide (but very little methane ++)  but the sourse of this carbon was from the top layer of the earths crust rather than from a fossil fuel which was acting as a sequestering median until we “dug” it up.

I am relieved that the article gives specific numbers and then down sizes those to be conservative. It bothers me when various technologies are over sold. What ever impact it can make will be incresed by a concerted effort to conserve, or reduce energy consumption in the first place.A topic that gets displaced with the talk of solar, wind and bioenergy in all its forms (by the way it is my opinion that biogas is one of the better forms.)

Lets say we can some how go to free grazing farming for cattle and what ever the alternative is for hogs. Biodigesters could certainly help us to process human waste.

Well I have more opinions on the matter than I should considering my lack of direct farm experience. But that won’t stop me from trying to share them with you should you care to read: http://www.inventhp.com/ bioenergy-pros-and-cons.html

Finally, I thank all of you for taking the time to make thoughtful posts.