Sean Searle

Fall 2015

Undergraduate Thesis

The Role of Industrial and Domestic Composting in Alameda County Organic Urban Agriculture

1. Overview

Organic soil amendments such as compost and manure are essential for long-term agricultural ecosystem management in terms of soil and water purity and fertility. Sustainable, organic agricultural ecosystems reduce the global use of non-renewable resources, and help to avoid, as Al Gore says, treating the Earth’s resources as if they were being offered in a fire sale (Jeavons, 2001; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). The importance of organic agriculture is a growing topic in California as facts about the environmental impacts and low produce-nutrient levels of industrial agriculture continue to gather attention. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that large-scale commercial agriculture loses many pounds of arable soil per pound of food produced due to runoff and erosion, and deadens what remains with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, as well as constant cycles of soil compaction and tillage by large machinery (Jeavons, 2001; Pierce, 2010). An increasing number of farmers and consumers are exposed to information that reveals the greater importance of urban agriculture relating to global efforts to reduce petroleum use and environmental pollution. Locally produced compost for amending poor quality urban soils is arguably the most important step in furthering these efforts. When discussing resource conservation, it is relevant to note that biointensive agriculture methods produce up to 20 pounds of fertile soil per pound of food produced (in the form of organic material in compost and root systems) and produces much higher crop yields than commercial methods (Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011; Jeavons, 2001). Using such methods, urban agriculture now feeds around 15% of the world’s population, helping to eliminate the use of chemicals, fossil fuels, monocultures, and irresponsible volumes of irrigation water. As over half of the world’s population now lives in large cities, the proportion of the global population fed by urban agriculture is expected to increase (Pierce, 2010; Harwood, 1990).

The use of soil amendments in the form of high quality compost and humus is very necessary in the process of farming poor urban soils  (Rosenthal and Carpenter, 2011). Composting urban food waste and restoring fertility to the soil for agricultural use is an important step towards sustainability, which, in the context of this paper, is defined as the protection of the Earth against practices that degrade its future ability to support life (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). Developing well informed urban organic farms is a powerful way to bring healthy produce to food insecure community members as well as provide locals with education, occupation, and recreation. Also, sustainable farming systems can increase yields and profits for farmers without endangering the resources and polluting the environment by amending soils with recycled organic waste instead of chemical fertilizers (De Wit, 2014). However, there are far too many factors and diverse scenarios to draw conclusions about urban agriculture’s contribution to the pursuit of sustainability (Harwood, 1990). Instead, this paper focuses on the availability of compost in Alameda County, in the Bay Area of California, and its use by urban farmers as an alternative to chemical soil amendments on small-scale farms.

2. Background

                Urban agriculture in Alameda county almost exclusively uses biointensive, sustainable agricultural methods as they are most space efficient, resource efficient, and high yielding (Pierce, 2010; Jeavons, 2001). Elements of biointensive gardening used in urban agriculture are: deep soil preparation, the use of compost, synergistic planting of crop combinations (i.e. companion planting and crop rotation), close-knit planting formations, carbon efficient crops, high calorie crops, resulting in a whole, interrelated farming system (Herrera, Khanna, and Davis, 2009; Jeavons, 2001). These are practices were discovered by intuition followed by trial and error and are recorded to have been universally used in China up to 4,000 years ago, Greece  up to 2,000 years ago, Mayan regions, Bolivia, and Peru up to 1,000 years ago, and France up to 150 years ago (Harwood, 1990). Biointensive agriculture was designed by Englishman Alan Chadwick by combining knowledge of philosopher Rudolf Steiner’s biodynamic techniques and French intensive methods (named for most recently existing in France) with horticulturist J.I. Rodale’s organic methods. He then brought the method to University of California, Santa Cruz in the 60’s to develop California’s first public agricultural land. John Jeavons further developed and popularized the techniques by publishing “How to Grow More Vegetables”. Now, 40 years of research overwhelming confirm the efficacy of biointensive (Jeavons, 2001). This paper describes biointensive methods, specifically composting, and their benefits.

In the early 1950’s, specific conditions drew the U.S. away from sustainable agriculture. The United States Government and the United Nations, with large contributions from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford foundation, initiated a campaign to end world hunger by increasing production with chemical and mechanical technologies, what later became known as the Green Revolution (Danbom, 1979; Philpott, 2013). Many of these advancements were made possible by the war conditions experienced in the US in the early 1900s. In 1918, Fritz Haber was awarded the nobel prize in Chemistry (before joining the Nazi party) for inventing the Haber-Bosch process, an energy-intensive method of  synthesizing plant-available ammonia from atmospheric hydrogen and nitrogen using high heat and pressure (Philpott, 2013). After the second world war the United States used the German’s research, as well as the war-derived excess of chemical plants, heavy machinery factories, and capital, to industrially produce fertilizers and new technologies for harvesting, planting, and rototilling (the chopping and mixing of topsoil) (Philpott, 2013; Bhagat, 2014). Prior to the Green Revolution, food was produced in the U.S. using many aspects of biointensive agriculture, such as polycultures, composting, and manure application; however, it soon became apparent that small organic farmers would not be able to compete with the lower food prices which these new technologies allowed commercial farms to maintain (Harwood, 1990; Philpott, 2013).

Initially, the American government subsidized the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, hybridized seeds, new irrigation infrastructure, and heavy machinery, simultaneously securing the dependence of global agricultural systems on American markets. This meant that the wealthier farms, with better access to credit and land, greatly outcompeted the smaller farms, which often went into debt and were absorbed by their competitors (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015; Bhagat, 2014). Though this continues to occur, there are not many small, rural farms left to buy out. As the large farms were becoming even larger, more advanced methods were designed to take advantage of enormous monocultures (the practice of growing one single crop over a wide area), and production was successfully increased (Harwood, 1990; Danbom, 1979). Consequently, the United States accumulated a surplus of agricultural technologies and started to give them to other nations as loans. Among the first nations to receive energy inefficient, American agricultural technology were Mexico, India, Brazil, the Philippines, and Malawi (Danbom, 1979). They accepted these commodities in an effort to lower the price of food so as to feed the hungry. As could have been predicted, when most countries transitioned to industrial agriculture across the world, the results were familiar: much fewer farmers on much larger farms (Danbom, 1979; Harwood, 1990; Bhagat, 2014).

Inevitably, most of the world’s agriculture became dependent on expensive heavy machinery, chemicals, and the petroleum required to use and produce them. Socioeconomic class disparities increased as many small farmers were hurt by decreasing food prices; meanwhile, a much smaller number of wealthy farmers acquired their land and profited greatly. In the late 19th century, 70-80 percent of the United States population was employed in agriculture, and today the proportion is less than 2 percent (Danbom, 1979; United Nations, 2014). Consequently, an interregional economic gap began to widen between wealthy agricultural zones and poor, densely-populated urban/suburban areas to which most unemployed farmers were moving in search of new jobs (Danbom, 1979). Globally, mechanized agriculture caused the mass repurposing of rural lands for industrial use and the paradigm of human migration to cities. In 1950, 30 percent of the world’s population was urban; now, over 54 percent of the world’s population is recorded to be living in an urban setting, and by 2050, the “UN World Urbanization Trends” projects that 66 per cent of the world’s population will be urban (Pierce, 2010; United Nations, 2014).

While the trend for urbanization continued to gather momentum, the movement towards environmentally protective practices did not increase proportionally. Urban development and policy continued to neglect the environment; dense human populations were still shipping renewable resources to landfills (paper, plastic, and metals, in addition to organic material) and importing food from all over the world (Plutchok, 2011). As cities expand, their potential for enormous waste and pollution increases; however, as populations grow denser, it becomes possible to feed and inform more people at once (Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011). Urban agriculture has the power to divert the global population away from commercial food systems and reverse the contributions of widespread negligent habits to the accumulation of severe environmental degradation (Wit, 2014).

                The trick to urban efficiency is to keep the energy in the system: if a city stops importing food and exporting waste, then it has eliminated a vast proportion of its demand for fossil fuels. Many cities have come to acknowledge this; however, the question becomes what to do with our waste and how to overcome the obstacles to growing food locally (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). In 1990, Alameda County adopted a “75 percent and beyond” landfill diversion goal in an attempt to reduce landfill-bound city waste by over 75 percent. Investigation showed that over a third of Alameda County’s landfill-bound garbage was food scraps and food-soiled paper. Food waste became the primary target for reduction of the county’s landfill garbage, and in 2010 the county projected a goal of reducing compostable waste to less than 10 percent of landfilled waste by 2020 (Plutchok, 2011; Rumble, phone comm., 2015). The county of Alameda has very effectively transitioned to redirecting food waste over the past decade. By 2009, the county was diverting over 12,000 tons of food and yard debris from residences and nearly 6,000 tons of commercial food scraps per year to Recology Grover Environmental Products in Modesto, one of several Recology composting facilities in California (Plutchok, 2011; Kiser, 2010; Rumble, phone comm., 2015). Legislators rightfully considered this a significant victory in terms of preventative environmental protection; however, city composting also had (and still has) the potential to provide the means for widespread city greening (transforming architecture and urban spaces into environmentally oriented landscapes) and urban farming (Pierce, 2010; Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011).

Compost is made by gathering nitrogen-rich organic material (“green waste”) such as food scraps, yard trimmings, and the inedible parts of garden vegetables and mixing it in a pile at least three feet high with carbon-rich organic material (“brown waste”) such as straw, dead leaves, and paper materials; next, it is allowed to decompose and eventually applied to the soil. The goal of this process is twofold: to provide structural qualities aiming to minimize nutrient runoff and soil erosion, and to achieve a carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of roughly 1 to 24, a condition proven to be favorable for plant growth (Rosenthal and Carpenter, 2011; Brady and Buckman, 2007; Pierce, 2010). However, often times even urban soil has enough nutrients; in these cases the main concern becomes the amount of biological activity in the soil (Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011). The ability of organisms to absorb nutrients depends on the presence of soil microorganisms in the form of bacteria and fungi. Creating compost and avoiding chemical soil amendments (which acidify the soil creating conditions unsuitable for microbial life) can foster an environment where these microbes will thrive. Once the organic material in the soil and compost is digested and the microbes die, the existing minerals are in the form that bioaccessible (can be absorbed by plants) (Brady and Buckman, 2007; Jeavons, 2001). Furthermore, microbial life cycles often  include the production of biofilm, a sticky substance that improves soil structures by increasing the formation of beneficial aggregates (clumps of soil that allow for the higher retention of water and the passage of roots and air between them) (Brady and Buckman, 2007; Jeavons, 2001). For these reasons, compost is essential for building soil health and growing nutritious food and can simultaneously repair and increase the fertility of the world's remaining farmable land (Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011). Unfortunately, mechanized, industrial agricultural companies will not adopt this method as of yet because redesigning their infrastructures would be costly, and they are concerned only with profits (Harwood, 1990).

Today there are about 1 billion hungry people in the planet, though scarcity due to lack of production is not the cause. Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, as 1/3 of the planet’s population makes less than $2 a day and many more lack access to land, knowledge, and materials. The world already produces enough food to feed 9-10 billion people, the population peak expected by 2050. 78% of all undernourished children under five inhabit countries with food surpluses, and 1.3 billion kilograms of food produced for human consumption is wasted globally every year, which is enough to feed the entire African continent (Herrera, Khanna, and Davis, 2009; United Nations, 2014; Pierce, 2010). Diversifying food sources and becoming at least partially self-sufficient through urban agriculture is one way to increase the resiliency of food systems, as well as to ensure food security in urban areas. Composting is a simple, low-energy solution to agricultural land fertility issues that increases biodiversity, improves ecosystem health, incentivizes recycling a hefty portion of urban waste, creates job opportunities, and can make small-scale agriculture achievable and sustainable. Therefore, it could prevent inequality of food access and wealth as well as reverse and prevent environmental degradation (Jeavons, 2001; Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011).

3. Major Questions

1. How effective is organic urban agriculture in addressing disparities in food access, health, and wealth between low and high income communities as well as environmental in Alameda county?
2. How is organic soil fertility management, specifically the application of compost and similar organic soil amendments, essential to urban farming and eliminating environmental degradation?
3. In comparing industrial composting and backyard composting in Alameda county (municipal and domestic), is either one superior to the other in terms of nutrient content and bioaccessibility, presence and activity of macro and microbiology, aggregate structure, presence of pathogens/toxicity, or other characteristics that affect overall quality?
4. Do municipal composting services meet the demand of current and potential farmers in Alameda County, or could the urban farming movement benefit from retaining and locally composting more of the city’s organic waste?

4. Findings

1. How effective is organic urban agriculture in addressing disparities in food access, health, and wealth between low and high income communities as well as environmental degradation in Alameda county?

Urban agriculture, as it currently stands in Alameda county cannot solve food insecurity, health disparities, and poverty, but it can definitely help (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015; Herrera, 2015). Low income urban residents spend in Alameda County between 40 to 60 percent of their income on food each year (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015). Hank Herrera, previously the project manager of New Hope Farms and the HOPE collaborative in Oakland, CA, states that the flatlands of Oakland, compared to the hills, have much higher housing density, higher ratios of seniors and children, fewer transit options, infrastructure deficiencies such as roads and bike paths, public safety concerns, high levels of pollution such as diesel emission, lack of access to parks and recreation (about 20% of the city standard), and the associated health issues (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015; Herrera, Khanna, and Davis, 2009). For this reason, the community stakeholders are searching for a solution involving improved food access and local economic development as well as increased access to healthy forms of activity and play and education about health and nutrition (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015). People in poverty living in low income communities in Alameda county spend between $400 and $600 million annually to buy fresh, healthy food. This money could drive the development of local neighborhood economies, if spent on local farms (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015). Using the per capita expenditure estimate of $1296, every neighborhood of 5000 people would generate about $6.5 million in local food purchasing revenues (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015). Local ownership of all elements in the food system network is essential to maximize the local, sustainable economic development potential of the system. After initial investment for financing startup costs, the local food enterprise network could fund itself through retail sales and increase the effectiveness of UA over time in ending diet related diseases stemming from poverty (Turman, pers. comm., 2015).

1,201 acres of open space 756 tax parcels Oakland’s. 1,201 acres could produce 13.2% of the annual vegetable needs of the City of Oakland. An additional 3,008 privately owned vacant lots totaling more than 800 acres, and an unknown yet large amount of residential land could potentially triple this number (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015; McClintock and Cooper, 2010) . Refer to figure 1 for the size and distribution of open land areas.

Fig. 1 - Potential plots for urban farming in Oakland. Source: (McClintock, 2010)

Additionally, as many more Californians in this millennium pick up gardening as a hobby or occupation, several popular facts about the higher nutrient content and better flavor of organic, small-scale produce are reinforced (Rosenthal and Carpenter, 2011).  Urban agriculture leads to greater dietary diversity and calorie availability, both measures of an improved diet and hence closely related to food security. Some evidence is also found of a relationship between urban agriculture with greater calorie consumption, with fruits and vegetables being the food group more consistently found to contribute (Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011). In the context of the recent trends in food markets and the overall economic crisis, and the fact that the urban poor are the most vulnerable to an increase in food prices, urban agriculture does have the potential to effectively reduce disparities in health and wealth in Alameda County (Pierce, 2010).

Transport accounts for 10-20% of the total energy use associated with the provision of a given food item. The average supermarket food item travels over 1,500 miles from its source and causes yet unmeasured amounts of pollution from petroleum use for airplanes, trucks and refrigerators (Danbom, 1979). “The bulk of industrially produced grain crops goes to biofuels and confined animals. Therefore the call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people” (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015). Urban agriculture denies large corporations this chance by producing and distributing food in the vicinity of where it is needed; it also eliminates the global use of chemical fertilizers/pesticides and mechanical compaction of soils (leading to desertification), both of which contribute to environmental degradation in innumerable ways (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000).

2. Is organic soil fertility management, specifically the application of compost and similar organic soil amendments essential to urban farming and eliminating environmental degradation?

Plants, organic material, and microorganisms are interdependent. Soil microorganisms deliver nutrients in solution to the plant, while feeding off of organic matter and the carbohydrates exuded by the plant roots (Brady and Buckman, 2007). Organic soil fertility management creates a supportive environment for these interactions by following three broad conventions: First, avoid chemical fertilizers and pesticides that will kill or disrupt populations of organisms that are desirable. Second, apply decomposed compost and manure to the soil so as to maximize the nutrients available to the plants. Third, disturb the soil as little as possible after developing the beds; this allows the formation of sought after soil structure and mycorrhizal systems (fungi that grow symbiotically in association with plant roots). Further goals are to minimize soil disturbance and to keep the soil covered as much as possible (Jeavons, 2001; Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011; Pierce, 2010). Overall, the use of cover crops and mulch (a layer of straw or cardboard) to protect topsoil and return nutrients to the soil, avoiding soil tillage and compaction, and maximizing diversity of plants to increase diversity of soil organisms are the factors that, once combined, contribute to the high production of urban agriculture. However, consistently composting throughout the year is the practice that preserves the most of the soils organic material and nutrients (Jeavons, 2001; Carpenter and Rosenthal, 2011). Addition of composted plant matter and manure promotes soil health by improving soil structure, porosity, and density; doing so, it allows for larger root systems and improves water-holding capacity, thus reducing water loss and leaching in sandy soils (Brady and Buckman, 2007). Figure 2 shows how much larger maize root systems are when treated with compost rather than chemical fertilizers. Composting and the use of compost also supplies macro and micro nutrients which improves the soil’s cation exchange capacity (the ability of soil to pass essential nutrients to plants). Furthermore, compost is effective in suppressing plant diseases and soil toxicity because it acts as a diluent for soils with the presence of these issues (Pierce, 2010).

Fig. 2 - Root systems of maize plants treated with (from left to right): compost, liquid sewage, chemical fertilizer

It is feasible to simultaneously achieve waste reduction and the promotion of urban farming by composting organic waste generated from residential areas near urban farms and returning it to the soil, producing more arable soil (Pierce, 2010). This is vital to reverse and prevent environmental degradation because of the current rate at which arable soil is disappearing. Seventy-five percent of the Earth’s surface is water, and two-thirds of the remaining surface of the Earth is unfarmable land (mountains and deserts). Therefore, only eight percent of the Earth’s surface is potentially farmable land. However, roughly three-fourths of the soil on this land has been desertifed by wind and water erosion due to industrial farming practices (Brady and Buckman, 2007; Turman, pers. comm., 2015). By using compost in agriculture, chemical nitrogen fertilizer use can be eliminated, and with it, the majority of negative environmental effects due to commercial agriculture (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015). Figure three shows the overall trend of increased use of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States over time.

Fig. 3 - Estimated nitrogen fertilizer use. Source: USDA.

Currently, world cities generate about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year, according to the report. In 2000 there were 2.9 billion urban residents who generated about 0.64 kg of MSW per person per day (0.68 billion tons per year). Today these amounts have increased to about 3 billion residents generating 1.2 kg per person per day (1.3 billion tons per year). By 2025 this will likely increase to 4.3 billion urban residents generating about 1.42 kg/capita/day of municipal solid waste (2.2 billion tons per year) (United Nations, 2014).

3. In comparing industrial composting and backyard composting in Alameda county (municipal and domestic), is either one superior to the other in terms of nutrient content and bioaccessibility, presence and activity of macro and microbiology, aggregate structure, presence of pathogens/toxicity, or other characteristics that affect overall quality?

Risks of composting and compost use in agriculture include adding heavy metals to soils: Zn and Cu (supplied in animal feed) and the risk of spreading pathogens from rotten food and livestock feces. Recent work found antibiotics and antibiotics resistance genes in manure amended soils and on harvested vegetables (Brady and Buckman, 2007). For these reasons, it is important to have standards and screening technologies in place when composting. It also is essential that the compost pile or windrow (long row of compost 3 feet wide and tall and however long) is biologically active enough that it’s temperatures climb sufficiently to kill pathogens and eliminate toxicity (Rumble, phone comm., 2015). Therefore, industrial composting facilities can claim higher probability of meeting these standards, as they have the monetary means of acquiring and maintaining technologies and professionals (Turman, pers. comm., 2015).

On the other hand, Hoffman of the UC Gill tract claims that he prefers to manage the inputs of his compost personally in terms of green and brown waste proportions and that the compost that he produces has a more desirable texture (and smell). Hoffman also has said that the compost produced on the farm that he manages has never been a disease vector or carried any toxicity. Furthermore, Hoffman states that producing compost locally encourages community members to participate in repurposing food waste and gardening with the resulting compost, because the process is more engaging and rewarding this way (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015).

Aaron Rumble, a former sales representative Recology Grover Environmental Products and soil fertility consultant, guarantees that in terms of nutrient content and biological activity, industrial methods used in the Recology industrial composting facility has no disadvantages. He states that industrial composting is superior because the smell is not offensive to urban dwellers, and the containment of all municipal compost on one large property allows for mechanized, time-efficient processing (Rumble, phone comm., 2015). However, Turman when prompted with this statement, replied that compost does not smell bad when processed correctly, and that widespread, domestic composting could manage much higher volumes of municipal, organic waste than it currently does if more urban residents were to dedicate their backyard space and personal time to this task (Turman, pers. comm., 2015).

4. Do municipal composting services meet the demand of current and potential farmers in Alameda County, or could the urban farming movement benefit from retaining and locally composting more of the city’s organic waste?

Jon Hoffman claims that the most limiting factors in the production of a local, organic food system are education (how to farm, the importance of urban farming, and health/nutrition), land access, and urban soil fertility (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015). Setting aside land access and education, compost is a big deciding factor in the initiation of urban agricultural projects. Currently, Alameda county urban agriculture relies heavily on the Recology Grover industrial scale composting facility that sells the vast majority of its product for profit (Turman, pers. comm., 2015). This system requires a large fleet of trucks and a lot of fossil fuel to ship the material out of the city and the compost back in. Furthermore, to survive as a business, Recology can only afford to return a portion of the compost to the city (Rumble, phone comm., 2015). Turman, Hoffman, and Herrera thought that ten percent of Recology compost produced from municipal waste was returned to Berkeley, but Rumble stated that the company agreement was to return anywhere between five and ten percent of the municipal compost to the county as a whole, and that he wasn’t sure of the exact figures being imported (Rumble, phone comm., 2015; Turman, pers. comm., 2015; Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015).

There are at least 25 people on the waitlist to participate in each of the community gardens in Alameda county, Turman claims. For this reason it is apparent that current urban farmers need more compost, and larger quantities are also required to start up new farms. The city of Berkeley organizes a compost giveaway on the last Saturday of every month, February through October, in which county residents are allowed to take as much compost as they want until it is gone. Turman is set aside 15 yards of compost (5 truck loads) to deliver to school and community gardens as part of her job for the Ecology Center; however, she and Hoffman both attest that people arrive at the giveaway as early as three-thirty in the morning to take their share of compost, and it is all gone by around mid-morning (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015; Turman, pers. comm., 2015). The UC Gill Tract Community Farm for which Hoffman is a farm manager requires 320 yards of compost twice a year, and the farm has roughly 85,000 square feet of garden beds. The farm produces its own compost, picks up free municipal compost, and still is required to spend around $315 on purchased compost a year (Hoffman, pers. comm., 2015). Unfortunately, Recology Grover Environmental Products cannot afford to give more compost to Alameda County, Rumble claims (Rumble, phone comm., 2015).

5. Discussion

Hank Herrera used a profound analogy to describe the importance of urban agriculture to the cultivation of food equity, public health, and socioeconomic disparities. Herrera explained that local, organic food production, once established in a city as the majority food provider, would affect diet related diseases (such as diabetes and obesity), social inequality, and environmental degradation much in the same way that removing the handle of a public water pump eliminated the London Cholera outbreak of 1854. removing the handle of the pump of nutrition-deficient, processes, commercial food (Herrera, pers. comm., 2015). Mechanized, conventional farming methods has negative health effects on the environment and humans everywhere; they also widen socioeconomic gaps and contribute to urbanization and unemployment. Urban agriculture is essential to reversing these negative effects on the Earth and on underprivileged communities in Alameda county, and compost is essential to doing urban agriculture in an environmentally responsible way. Therefore, Alameda County is better off sending less organic waste to the Grover industrial facility, and composting more domestically and on urban farms so that more urban agriculture may be practiced.

 There are many opportunities and potential solutions to composting locally; however, they all include removing a large portion of business from Recology Grover Environmental Products, and possibly causing the company to go out of business. Perhaps there is a solution that involves manipulating county or state policy to divert funds towards paying Recology Grover Environmental Products employee wages and producing compost specifically for small-scale urban agriculture. As of now, 90% of Recology compost is sold as a product called Black and Gold WonderGrow to large agricultural industries, such as vineyards and wineries in Napa and Sonoma, California; yet, these industries export the majority of their products out of state and out of country. This translates to, essentially, the export of recycled, valuable urban organic material and nutrients out of California, so that the state must import nutrients and organic material in the form of foreign vegetables and “fresh” produce. The result is two-fold pollution of the environment due to high volume imports and exports, as well as widespread diet related health problems, since populations must settle for unhealthy processed foods that can keep from rotting during their journey all around the world. For all these reasons, organic urban agriculture, and likewise locally produced compost, is essential for the health of life on this planet.

6. Abstract

This paper illustrates the many benefits found in the intersection of compost production and urban agriculture in Alameda County, California, as a model for the global reduction of food insecurity, poverty, diet related illness, and environmental degradation. This paper cites interviews with various stakeholders: an Alameda county urban farmer, an ex-salesman for industrially produced municipal compost, an employee of the Alameda county Ecology Center, and an educator and activist in favor of local produce. Using these sources, in addition to many scholarly journals, articles, books and websites, this paper attempts to address the importance of compost to urban agriculture and, transitively, to community and environmental wellbeing, as well as the contributions of local and industrial sources to the accessibility of compost.

References

Interviews:

Turman, Beebo, Coordinator of the Berkeley Community Garden Collaborative, Ecology Center, interview in person, October 9th, 2015, 1 hour, 15 minutes.

Herrera, Hank, Senior Partner building local food enterprise networks, tela d’arweh, llc; Researcher for the Food Dignity Project, Center for Popular Research, Education, and Policy. In person interview, September 1st, 2015, 30 minutes.

Hoffman, Jon, Garden Manager, UC Gill Tract Community Farm. Interview in person, November 11th, 2015, 1 hour.

Aaron Rumble, previously a Sales Representative for Recology Grover Environmental Products. Phone interview, November 27th, 2015, 40 minutes.

Other Resources:

Bhagat, Dushyant. Textbook of Agricultural Marketing and Co-operation. New Delhi: Oxford Book, 2014. Print.

Brady, Nyle C., and Harry O. Buckman. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 14th ed. New York: Macmillan, 2007. Print.

Carpenter, Novella, and Willow Rosenthal. The Essential Urban Farmer. New York: Penguin, 2011. Print.

Danbom, David B. The resisted revolution: Urban America and the industrialization of agriculture, 1900-1930. 1979.

Deelstra, Tjeerd, and Herbert Girardet. "Urban agriculture and sustainable cities." Bakker N., Dubbeling M., Gündel S., Sabel-Koschella U., de Zeeuw H. Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (ZEL) (2000): 43-66.

Harwood, Richard R. "A history of sustainable agriculture." Sustainable agricultural systems (1990): 3-19.

Herrera, Hank. "Urban Agriculture in the East Bay." New Hope Farms (2015). Occupy the Farm. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Herrera, Henry, Navina Khanna, and Leon Davis. "Food Systems and Public Health : The Community Perspective." Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition (2009). Print.

Jeavons, John C. "Biointensive Sustainable Mini-Farming: I. The Challenge." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 19.2 (2001): 49-63.

Kiser, Amy. "Compost Confidential." Ecology Center. Ecology Center, 3 Mar. 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

McClintock, Nathan, and Jenny Cooper. "Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land." (2010).

Pierce, Pam. Golden Gate Gardening: The Complete Guide to Year-round Food Gardening in the San Francisco Bay Area and Coastal California. 3rd ed. Seattle: Sasquatch, 2010. Print.

Plutchok, Robin. "Food Waste for Thought." Successful Food Waste Composting in Berkeley, California. Penton, 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Philpott, Tom. "A Brief History of Our Deadly Addiction to Nitrogen Fertilizer." Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress, 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

Wit, Maywa Montenegro De. "A Lighthouse for Urban Agriculture." Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies 14.1 (2014): 9-22. Print.

"World Urbanization Prospects." Economic and Social Affairs (2014). 2014 Revision. United Nations. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.