"I have visited a plant where human manure is treated by separating the solids and then burning them off in a furnace to kill any remaining pathogens."

Pelican

Your post is worthy of merit and I'm aware of human waste being incinerated for use in agriculture which will indeed enrich soils.

However, when you combine heat, carbon and chlorine, the potential for the formation of dioxins arises. Chlorine is used extensively in Australia to decontaminate public water schemes. It is well known that dioxins like hanging around sewage farms.

Therefore, incineration needs to be strictly regulated. We cannot continue solving one problem by manufacturing another.

Despite statistics showing that farmers have an elevated rate of cancers, which dozens of scientific researchers attribute to the use of chlorinated pesticides, the "Yabbys" in conventional farming continue to scoff.

Dioxins are not regulated in Australia. The last time I checked, one sample testing for dioxins costs in the range of $2 thousand.

Incomplete combustion of waste containing chlorine, such as starting up and shutting down a kiln, can form dioxins which often reside in the ash. The greatest source of human contamination of PCDDs is from the consumption of meat and dairy products - livestock which ingest dioxins whilst grazing. Dioxins have invaded the entire food chain - even the Inuits of the Arctic are now contaminated, a result of their marine diet.

If human waste ash is to be used on pastures where livestock and poultry graze, then I can only say that this practice would be totally irresponsible. I would certainly restrict the use of this product to undisturbed, non-grazing areas.

Australia is signatory to the Stockholm Convention. Over 90 countries have agreed to commence the "Elimination, prevention or reduction of the "dirty dozen" of chlorinated compounds though the "bad boys" of these nations, Australia and America, sought exemptions to continue using some chlorinated chemicals.

Ninety nations with their "knickers in a twist" Yabby? Either you've a conflict of interest or you prefer to operate in the dark ages.

And remember: "First do no harm."

http://www.besafenet.com/Sludge.htm

http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf

Hi dickie and thanks Bronwyn :)

"And remember: "First do no harm."

I agree dickie and thanks for your post - I wasn't aware of the dioxin issue with incineration so I will follow that up.

I should add I do not personally use human manure (from any source) but am open to any new method that might aid organic farmers. But as you rightly say, there is always a risk of creating another negative impact or side-effect while trying to solve another problem.

Yabby I have not found too many proponents of organics the same as religious zealots. In the main they are people hoping that science and governments will focus as much research and funding on more natural methods of farming as they might on, say GMO. I have seen many more a zealous and angry GMO advocate than any organic farmer defending their 'cause'. :)

(Ps. Not saying you are one of those Yabby as I don't know your stance or attitude on this)

Pelican, research for agriculture in general is being cut back,
unless its directly industry funded, as with say GRDC, through
grower levies. Then you as growers have a direct say, as crop
growers do, but it will cost you. People like CSIRO are moving
out of agriculture, into things like climate change etc.

GM certainly has a role to play in plant breeding, but I don't
see it as black and white as others do. If say a newly mutated
rust strain threatens world wheat crops, GM could save those
global crops, unlike any other technology. OTOH the main focus
is on Roundup ready GM at the moment and my problem with that is
that Roundup is such a valuable tool in farming these days, that
growing plants resistant to it is perhaps asking for trouble.

I remind you that in "conventional" plant breeding, it is not
unknown to treat seeds with dna mutating chemicals, as perchance
those mutants might have characteristics that the breeder is
looking for.

So each case has to be examined separately and evaluated. I was
reading today that European organic food processors source a third
of their soyabeans from China, which is the largest organic
farming nation. They prefer Chinese "organic" soyabeans to US
gm soyabeans. Not me lol, I'll let you organic people eat those
Chinese beans :)

Meantimes let's hope that Dickie has found a sludge free organic
shop, so that she could untwist her knickers

cornflower, wow you sure cut me down in flames. ouch.

If you are really asking what I would prefer- allergy or dysentry I'd pick allergy. My observation was simply about allergies and their prevelance, I said nothing about creating unhygienic conditions to combat such.

You were the one who questioned about aboriginal children taking the argument beyond allergies, and then complain when at least some evidence is presented in my favour. Good one.

Are you joking? I said I would not advocate raw milk to anyone, certainly not infants. or at risk people. I grew up before that info obviously. I haven't consumed any for 25 years.

dickie, not ignoring you I'll be back later. I didn't say milk was good for cats and dogs, just that they love it. I don't feed dogs chocolate for that very reason.

First of all we should take care of the health only....
Because if we were healthy we can earn money at anytime...

helen

Alcohol abuse affects millions. This site has a lot of useful information.

http://www.alcoholabusecenter.com

Helen, I am sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of your post. Are you suggesting that drinking raw milk has a link with alcoholism or are you just spamming?