Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Wednesday June 22, @04:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-pea-yield dept.

Testing the use of human urine as a natural fertilizer for crops:

Humans have known for thousands of years that their urine is an excellent fertilizer for crops. It contains phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium—many of the same ingredients as commercial fertilizers. But because of the squeamishness associated with using urine to grow crops, its use has been limited. [...]

The first step in the experiment involved renaming urine because its common name was considered offensive. They settled on Oga. Next, they separated the farmers into two groups; one ran their farms in the traditional way, the other fertilized their wheat using Oga. Over two growing seasons, crop yields were measured for both groups. The Oga for the second group of 27 farmers was provided by the farmers themselves, who were taught how to pasteurize, store and dilute their urine for use as fertilizer. They also added small amounts of animal manure.

The data collected from the farms showed that those that had been fertilized using Oga produced on average 30% more grain than the traditional farms. The researchers note that the differences were so great that other women in the region began emulating those in the experiment. Two years after the experiment, they found that more than a thousand women farmers were using Oga to fertilize their crops.

Journal Reference:
Moussa, Hannatou O., Nwankwo, Charles I., Aminou, Ali M., et al. Sanitized human urine (Oga) as a fertilizer auto-innovation from women farmers in Niger [open], Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-021-00675-2

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @08:12PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @08:12PM (#1255669)

    "The first step in the experiment involved renaming urine because its common name was considered offensive."

    This, children, is what they call "science" in 21st century A.D.
    Everything we once had, we have pissed away. Now, even literally.

    "Having a dirty name bother people is illogical, so it can't be true." Is that better "science?"

    Or maybe the suggestion is to not properly document ALL the steps of an experiment?

    I'd say that science is observing and understanding the universe around you. Moreover, it is pretty clear that names matter (hence things like renaming "rapeseed oil" to "canola oil"). So, yes, I would consider this "science," no matter when it was done.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @09:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @09:31PM (#1255686)

    City dwelling snowflakes imagining that "a dirty name" can "bother" villagers in Africa, is SO beyond merely illogical, my illogic-meter is on fire like the damn lp0.
    Have you seen a villager once in your sheltered life? Have you ever talked with one? Have you? I guess not.