My thoughts go on and on and the possibilities gain ground the more I think about this wonderful Enzymatic Fluid that can help us with our environmental issues!

I am writing to tell you that we don’t have the only cure, because I believe there are many cures for all situations in life and even with waste, but we do have something that works! Thanks for visiting and I hope you are able to look at the pictures and the great vision sneaks inside of you like it has me.

The reason for the draw back to this blog is because I have been getting a lot of interest and ideas as I have many a opportunity to speak about the amazing enzymatic material that this blog is dedicated to lately. Yesterday I had 3 phone calls with friends who are very excited about what they can do with this enzymatic material on hog farms, turkey farms, dairy farms and chicken farms. We had 2 discussions with the scientists over-seas in Italy and South Africa to decide what is the best application rate and such. It was very exciting!

Even more exciting was an opportunity to speak with a friend today who sells for Morinda Agricultural. They sell products nationwide that are made from the Noni fruit and juice, I believe and their products are supposed to be having a pretty hefty effect on the ag industry. I am rooting for them. They are bringing in a whole different approach with their multi-level set up.
He started me talking about the enzymes and what kind of impact they can and have had and he got excited and I then fed off of his excitement. It was great. He has some sweet contacts and it was fun to hear.

You can find this article at http://www.helium.com/items/1913891-why-agriculture-needs-to-change-with-climate-change.

I would also recommend watching the movie Food Inc. It will help with understanding and awareness of what is happening in society.

Seafood, beef, poultry, pork, etc., are all provided for our consumption, often times at the expense of the animals themselves and/or their surrounding environment. While the disturbing facts relating to the horrid treatment of animals in industrialized livestock operations, and their negative effects on human health (heart disease, drug resistant bacteria, endocrine disruption, increased risk of certain cancers, etc.), are enough to make even the most carnivorous of us reconsider our animal intake, a new study finds that livestock (cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, etc.) are the single largest single source of CO2 emissions on the planet.

Released by The Worldwatch Institute, the comprehensive study found that 51% of global CO2 emissions (32,564 million tons per year) are directly attributable to livestock and their byproducts; making the generally accepted United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 2006 report Livestock’s Long Shadow of 18% (7,516 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents) , though still a high number, look good. It also found that mitigating livestock CO2 emissions is the single most effective, easiest (relative to other GHG reduction measures), and fastest way to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Why such a discrepancy between the two reports? According to The Worldwatch Institute, many of the emission sources are obvious but underestimated, some are simply overlooked, and some are emissions sources that are already counted but have been assigned to the wrong sectors. Data on livestock vary from place to place and are affected by unavoidable imprecision; where it was impossible to avoid imprecision in estimating any sum of GHGs. World Watch strove to minimize the sum so its overall estimate could be understood as conservative.

The report itself is fairly comprehensive, but easily understandable as it’s in laymen terms. I encourage readers to look it over before becoming defensive or guilty of your eating habits. Here are a few excerpts (edited in some places for brevity) which I found interesting:
The Big Picture

We begin with the FAO’s 7,516 million tons of CO2e per year attributable to livestock, an amount established by adding up GHG emissions involved in clearing land to graze livestock and grow feed, keeping livestock alive, and processing and transporting the end products.We show that 25,048 million tons of CO2e attributable to livestock have been undercounted or overlooked; of that subtotal, 3,000 million tons are misallocated and 22,048 million tons are entirely uncounted. When uncounted tons are added to the global inventory of atmospheric GHGs, that inventory rises from 41,755 million tons to 63,803 million tons. FAO’s 7,516 million tons of CO2e attributable to livestock then decline from 18 percent of worldwide GHGs to 11.8 percent. Let’s look at each category of uncounted or mis-allocated GHGs:

Breathing

The FAO excludes livestock respiration from its estimate, per its argument that livestock as as a carbon sink. This is a flawed way to look at the matter. Sequestration properly refers to extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere and its burial in a vault or a stable compound from which it cannot escape over a long period of time. Even if one considers the standing mass
of livestock as a carbon sink, by the FAOs own estimate the amount of carbon stored in livestock is trivial compared to the amount stored in forest cleared to create space for growing feed and grazing livestock.

More to the point, livestock (like automobiles) are a human invention and convenience, not part of pre-human times, and a molecule of CO2 exhaled by livestock is no more natural than one from an auto tailpipe. Moreover, while over time an equilibrium of CO2may exist between the amount respired by animals and the amount photosynthesized by plants, that equilibrium has never been static. Today,
tens of billions more livestock are exhaling CO2 than in pre-industrial days, while Earth’s photosynthetic capacity (its capacity to keep carbon out of the atmosphere by absorbing it in plant mass) has declined sharply as forest has been cleared. (Meanwhile, of course, we add more carbon to the air by burning fossil fuels, further overwhelming the carbon absorption system.)

Land

As there is now a global shortage of grassland, practically the only way more livestock and feed can be produced is by destroying natural forest. Growth in markets for livestock products is greatest in developing countries,where rain forest normally stores at least 200 tons of carbon per hectare. Where forest is replaced by moderately degraded grassland, the tonnage of carbon stored per hectare is reduced to 8.

On average, each hectare of grazing land supports no more than one head of cattle,whose carbon content is a fraction of a ton. In comparison, over 200 tons of carbon per hectare may be released within a short time after forest and other vegetation are cut, burned, or chewed. From the soil beneath, another 200 tons per hectare may be released, with yet more GHGs from livestock respiration and excretions. Thus, livestock of all types provide minuscule carbon “piggybanks” to replace huge carbon stores in soils and forests. But if the production of livestock or crops is ended, then forest will often regenerate. The main focus in efforts to mitigate GHGs has been on reducing emissions, while despite its ability to mitigate GHGs quickly and cheaply vast amounts of potential carbon absorption by trees has been foregone.

Or suppose that land used for grazing livestock and growing feed were used instead for growing crops to be converted more directly to food for humans and to biofuels.Those fuels could replace one-half of the coal used worldwide, which is responsible for about 3,340million tons of CO2e emissions every year. That tonnage represents 8 percent of GHGs in worldwide GHG inventories that omit the additional GHGs assessed by this article, or 5.6 percent of GHGs worldwide when the GHGs assessed in this article are included. If biomass feedstocks are chosen and processed carefully, then biofuels can yield 80 percent less GHGs per unit of energy than coal. Therefore, the extra emissions resulting from using land for livestock and feed can be estimated to be 2,672 million tons of CO2e, or 4.2 percent of annual GHG emissions worldwide.

Methane

According to the FAO, 37 percent of human induced methane comes from livestock. Although methane warms the atmosphere much more strongly than does CO2, its half-life in the atmosphere is only about 8 years, versus at least 100 years for CO2. As a result, a significant reduction in livestock raised worldwide would reduce GHGs relatively quickly compared with measures involving renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Using a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 72, livestock methane is responsible for 7,416 million tons of CO2e or 11.6 percent of worldwide GHGs. So using the appropriate time frame of 20 years instead of 100 years for methane raises the total amount of GHGs attributable to livestock products by 5,047 million tons of CO2e or 7.9 percentage points. (Further work is needed to re-calibrate methane emissions other than those attributable to livestock products using a 20-year timeframe.)

Other Sources

Four additional categories of GHGs adding up to at least 5,560million tons of CO2e (8.7 percent of GHGs emissions) have been overlooked or undercounted by the FAO and uncounted in the existing inventory of worldwide GHGs:

First, we calculate that the increase in livestock products worldwide from 2002 to
2009 accounts for about 2,560million tons of CO2e, or 4.0 percent of GHG emissions.

Second, the FAO and others have documented frequent undercounting in official statistics of both pastoral and industrial livestock. Livestocks Long Shadow not only uses no correction factor for such undercounting, but in some sections actually uses lower numbers than appear in FAO statistics and elsewhere. The report also states that 21.7 billion head of livestock were raised worldwide in 2002, while many nongovernmental organizations report that about 50 billion head of livestock were raised each year in the early 2000s. If the true number is closer to 50 billion than to 21.7 billion, then the percentage of GHGs worldwide attributable to under counting in official livestock statistics would likely be over 10 percent.

Third, the FAO uses citations for various aspects of GHGs attributable to livestock dating back to such years as 1964, 1982, 1993, 1999, and 2001. Emissions today would be much higher.

Fourth, the FAO cites Minnesota as a rich source of data. But if these data are generalized to the world then they understate true values, as operations in Minnesota are more efficient than operations inmost developing countries where the livestock sector is growing fastest.

Lastly, the FAO leaves uncounted the substantially higher amount of GHGs attributable to each of the following aspects of livestock products versus alternatives to livestock products:
Fluorocarbons (needed for cooling livestock products much more than alternatives),which have a global warming potential up to several thousand times higher than that of CO2.
Cooking, which typically entails higher temperatures and longer periods for meat than alternatives, and in developing countries entails large amounts of charcoal (which reduces carbon absorption by consuming trees) and kerosene, each of which emits high levels of GHGs.
Disposal of inevitably large amounts of liquid waste from livestock, and waste livestock products in the form of bone, fat, and spoiled products, all of which emit high amounts of GHGs when disposed in landfills, incinerators, and waterways.
Production, distribution, and disposal of byproducts, such as leather, feathers, skin, and fur, and their packaging.
Production, distribution, and disposal of packaging used for livestock products, which for sanitary reasons is much more extensive than for alternatives to livestock products.
Carbon-intensive medical treatment of millions of cases worldwide of zoonotic illnesses (such as swine flu) and chronic degenerative illnesses (such as coronary heart disease, cancers, diabetes, and hypertension leading to strokes) linked to the consumption of livestock products. Full accounting of GHGs attributable to livestock products would cover portions of the construction and operation of pharmaceutical and medical industries used to treat these illnesses.

Okay, Okay, So What Can We Do About It?

We are not going to get society to give up meet as a whole. SOlutions Unlimited can give some greater solutions then just the simple “less cattle” idea which is not going to happen. How about the usage of a Ergofit product that will eat the It’s pretty simple; less livestock.

The Bad: This study will most likely not change the eating habits of most people, which is the fundamental source of increasing livestock numbers year after year.

The Bottom-Line: Though this study is environmentally compelling in its argument for livestock reduction as an effective climate change measure, the likelihood of getting people to change what goes into their stomachs is slim to none. But Ergofit can be utilized immediately to be sprayed on the cattle manure and urine. This product will cost effectively turn the cattle sewage into great organic fertilizer which can be used to replace the chemicals sprayed on crops and fields now. Just imagine a world where the sewage problem was cured, the chemicals were all but eliminated off the fields and crops were grown more organically.

That perfect 2″ tall carpet of grass blades don’t just grow like that on their own, it takes a lot of mowers and, subsequently, a lot of gas to keep those lawns cut week after week (600 million gallons annually in the US alone). But aside from the direct energy expenditures from lawn equipment, the indirect energy consumption of lawns, via the processes used to make and transport all of those chemicals we dump on them, is far greater. The US uses over 70 million tons of artificial fertilizer every year on lawns alone. That’s more than the entire country of India uses annually on their agricultural food crops!

One of the most (over) used fertilizers is of course nitrogen. After all, we want that grass to grow as fast as possible so that we can cut it. Most artificially produced nitrogen is derived from converting molecular nitrogen in the air into ammonia; a process known as the Haber-Bosch process. This process is incredibly energy intensive (much like the manufacture of cement) requiring 18,000 BTUs per pound of primary energy input, which often times comes from natural gas. Ammonia production around the globe accounts for 1% of the world’s annual energy consumption.

Let’s not forget either all of the energy needed for the transportation of all of these energy-intensive goodies from not only the manufacturers to the distributors, but the retail stores and end users as well. Though I have no solid total numbers associated with this particular aspect of lawn energy consumption, one can safely assume that the number associated with total annual transport energy usage for lawn related products is enormous.

Lawns Are Expensive And Labor Intensive

In a down economy, do you really need to be spending close to $1000 per year on something that is adverse to your health and your environment? That’s how much the average homeowner spends to maintain and irrigate an acre of grass every year in the U.S. The World Wildlife Foundation has estimated that U.S. homeowners spend a total of $27 billion per year on their lawns; ten times more than we spend on school textbooks.

Plus, do you really want to stand behind a noisy polluting mower every week during the summer inhaling exhaust, toxins, pollen, and getting sunburned all for the sake of a perfect lawn? Why?
The Takeaway

Though most of us all want one, the perfect lawn, on paper and broken down into its components, is completely non-sensisical and counterintuitive in almost every way. And though I only touched on a few of the major environmental and health detriments of lawns (leaving out discussions about their direct negative affect on climate change and reduction of biodiversity), there are a plethora of other sound and rational reasons why lawns simply make no sense in a modern day landscape.

There are a lot of great alternatives to lawns that are lower/zero maintenance, less expensive, less water intensive, require no chemicals or fertilizers, provide more biodiversity and animal habitat, and are, quite frankly, a lot more interesting to look at that a flat stretch of green. However, I am with most Americans when you have that feeling that you just can’t beat a nice lawn to take a nap on. You might also try an edible landscape or a xeriscaped yard that uses native drought tolerant plants. There are lots of great ideas and advice on lawn alternatives on numerous websites. I like the Audubon Society’s ideas as well as some of the ideas over at Lesslawn.com, but there are many others out there to get ideas from.

If you insist on having a lawn, at least maintain it organically. There are a lot of store bought products now, as well as lawn services such as Ergofit Grass products, that offer organic alternatives to many, if not most, of the chemically derived lawn maintenance products currently used and sold today. If you don’t want to do that, then select a turf that naturally crowds out weeds, requires less water, and is more adapt to poorer soil conditions. And if you don’t even want to do that, then just don’t spray or spread anything on it and live with a few weeds; most of which cannot tolerate frequent mowing anyhow.

The Good: Lawns control erosion and filter stormwater runoff to an extent.

The Bad: Pretty much everything aside from the two good things listed.

The Bottom-Line: The starting point for truly going green, and ensuring you and your family’s health, is getting rid of chemical fertilizers, letting your lawn grow longer, cut it less often and utilizing methods that will allow you to water your yard less.

This heading is an understatement. Last year, 30% of municipal water usage in the eastern United States went to landscape irrigation; in the west it was 60%. It is estimated that a typical 1,000 sqft lawn requires over 10,000 gallons of water every summer. This is clean drinking water being poured onto lawns and landscapes in order to keep them alive in some areas of the country that are expected to run out of drinking water in the next decade. Not to mention the fact that all of that valuable drinking water washes all of the toxic chemicals listed above and synthetic fertilizers into our waterways that supply us with said drinking water. Landscape runoff is the single largest source of water pollution in the U.S. with 40-60% of all nitrogen applied to lawns ending up in our waterways.

3. Air And Noise Pollution

Though they are making a resurgence of sorts, the days of the manually powered push reel lawnmower have largely given way to noisy greenhouse gas emitting mowers; both riding and push alike. These belching behemoths are not only exceedingly noisy at 140db+ (as loud as a jet plane engine), but they also account for more than 5% of the nation’s air pollution each year.

Though small in size in comparison to an automobile, lawn maintenance equipment, particularly mowers, give off far more emissions than a car! A typical 3.5 horsepower gas mower emits about the same quantity of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in one hour as a late-model car driven 340 miles (550 km), according to the California Air Resources Board and produces four times as much CO2. Also,the EPA estimates that owners of such equipment spill 17 million gallons of fuel each year; which is more than the Exxon Valdez oil spill…every year.

To be continued…

What does summer mean? Grass cutting, more fertilizing, and the heat (which means sprinklers and lots of water.)

I found this article on our lawns and watering and all the fun (and not so fun that goes into them and I am going to take plenty of liberty of rewriting, quoting or flat out just taking from it juicy bits of information. Although, I don’t agree with the author completely, in concept they have very valid points.

Many of us in the U.S. are gassing up our mowers, buying our insect killer, spraying our chemical synthetic weed pre-emergants/killers and spreading pelletized artificial fertilizer all in preparation for the picturesque perfect green grass lawn. Three words of advice this year for anyone looking to become a better steward of their immediate environment and own personal health: Be careful with the lawn.
The Urban Green Lawn Myth Starts Here:

Though many of us have been brought up to believe that the allure of a well manicured monoculture of grass is something to be desired and sought after in America, the truth is grass lawns are a lot like tanning. While many people may assume a person who is tanned or enjoys tanning is actually healthy, the fact remains that even mild sun exposure has been proven to increase skin cancer risks and accelerate the aging process of your skin. Similarly, the prevailing assumption that someone with a lush green/weed free lawn has a healthy yard is also almost always completely backwards. Here’s why.

The entire idea of a well manicured lush green grass lawn, as we’ve come to know it today, comes from England where cool season grasses like fescue grow quite well, and naturally in many places, in the cooler wet climate of the U.K. and surrounding areas. Many of these grasses are native to the region and have developed their own set of adaptive coping mechanisms over thousands of years to grow and thrive without the need of any human input or supplementation. The problem with translating this ‘English lawn’ aesthetic to every home with a yard in America should be quite clear; America isn’t England (in more ways than one). Although, there is nothing I love more then to lay in the shade on a beautiful well manicured lawn and just let the day lazily float away.

Now as for maintaining a large city in the desert (Las Vegas), growing the green grass lawns we’ve all come to expect for our yards in most places in the U.S., and other countries, takes a lot of constant attention, effort, time, water, money, and energy. And though a lush green lawn is quite possible and routinely achieved by millions of homeowners season after season, the environmental and health costs haven’t been properly weighed into effect and may surely far outweigh any benefit a lawn may bring. Here is the start of 5 reasons why getting rid of your lawn or cutting way back on quite a few things could be one of the easiest, cheapest, healthiest and greenest things you can do for your home.
1. Lawn Chemicals Are Toxic To You And The Environment

Yes, despite what lawn care companies like TruGreen or lawn chemical manufactures like Monsanto (makers of RoundUp) or Ortho (a subsidiary of Scott’s) tell you, almost all lawn pesticides contain a vast array of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Here are a few fun facts courtesy of Beyond Pesticides (a 30 year old non-profit organization dedicated to educating and combating the misuse and overuse of pesticides) about what over 78 million people spray on their lawns and gardens every year :

* Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides 19 have studies pointing toward carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants, and 11 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system.
* Inert ingredients make up 95% of most lawn and garden pesticides and can be more toxic to humans than the active ingredient. Ethylene chloride, a nerve poison, is an example of an inert ingredient linked with damage to the heart, eyes, liver, and adrenal glands.
* A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute finds home and garden pesticide use can increase the risk of childhood leukemia by almost seven times.
* Children ages children ages 6-11 have higher levels of lawn chemicals in their blood than all other age categories. Biomonitoring studies find that pesticides pass from mother to child through umbilical cord blood and breast milk.
* Studies find that dogs exposed to herbicide-treated lawns and gardens can double their chance of developing canine lymphoma and may increase the risk of bladder cancer in certain breeds by four to seven times.
* Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides: 16 are toxic to birds, 24 are toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, and 11 are deadly to bees.
* Scientific studies find pesticide residues such as the weedkiller 2,4-D and the insecticide carbaryl inside homes, due to drift and track-in, where they contaminate air, dust, surfaces and carpets and expose children at levels ten times higher than preapplication levels.
* Suburban lawns and gardens receive more pesticide applications per acre (3.2-9.8 lbs) than agriculture (2.7 lbs per acre on average).

To be continued….

The sewage spill that has created an infection hazard in bay water from Bal Harbour down to the JFK Causeway is now creating a nuisance for neighbors who are living with the stench of feces, flies and dead fish floating in a nearby canal.

Just east of I-95 is the Biscayne River Canal. It’s a canal that leads from where the main sewer line broke on Friday, all the way through Miami Shores and finally Biscayne Bay.

“I smell sewage and dead fish, said Biscayne Gardens resident Joyce Remey.

Remey first noticed the stench in the air Saturday. She looked out over the Biscayne River Canal and she found not one, but dozens of dead fish floating along. Some of them are more than a foot long.

“It makes me very sad,” said Remey. “As a nature lover I value everything.”

The fish are floating in a mixture of brackish water and an estimated 20 million gallons of raw sewage that escaped the busted sewer line. Neighbors say the problem is getting worse.

“I was here during a party and we came up, and we saw this mess,” said handyman Luis Hudson. “There wasn’t that much. Now I see more fish.”

In the hours following the massive spill the fish appeared to be suffocating, gasping for air, but now they’re no longer breathing.

Stephen Blair, with The Department of Environmental Resource Management says it might not be directly related to the spill. “Not directly, but we do have coincident information that states it may well be associated,” said Blair.

DERM is tasked with cleaning up the sewage spill in South Florida. While they can’t definitively link the sewage to these fish, they are tasked with cleaning the mess up.

“At this point the best method for handling is time,” said Blair. “Unfortunately the types of materials that they would use to disinfect the area or disinfect the contaminated water would also have very severe impacts on any fish and wildlife that are in the canal.”

They are waiting for rain water to flow and dilute the contaminated mess. Homeowners are not pleased with this makeshift sewage plant in their backyard.

CBS4′s David Sutta contributed to this report.

Unfortunately it is comments like those in bold that we see all the time.  Responsibility is not in their vocabulary and definitely not in their minds.
Why is it time is the only thing that will help? I will tell you and Stephen Blair will tell you, the process that is most commonly used in sewage cleanup today is with chemicals more toxic then the sewage itself. At least the sewage is organic. Most of those chemicals, which I can’t even spell, are as inorganic as you get.

I won’t tout my own horn with our product, but I will say we need to figure out a way to stop the sewage overflows and spills which are becoming rampant. (Don’t believe me, just go type in keyword “sewage” in search.twitter.com and see all the results. We also need to stop the chemical cleanup. Chemicals are not the only way. I believe nature has had it figured out since the beginning of time. Let’s let nature tell us.
Tomorrow we discuss biosolids and the process used to eliminate them and what we think is the right way.