This is a fascinating graph and a pretty confusing one. On the left is the mass yield value of humanure treated in different ways. On the right the value to a farmer for a ton of those different treatments. You can see for the producer on the left the 500C reduces yield, but for the farmer on the right they see higher value due to the cheaper material having a higher nutrient density. You can see below how the nutrient density increases with temperature in the graph below, so while the farmer needs twice as much 500C material as 200C, they see a higher value because of that increased nutrient density. At least that’s my understanding… watch the video below and decide for yourself.
Compost though? Seems like a pretty poor way to recover nutrients. Perhaps they’re more bioavailable though? Seems to me if you’re the producer and consumer the 300C may be the best option yield and CEC wise unless you lack potassium, but which actually produces the highest plant yield? I need to watch the video again, she talked and stumbled too much for my brain when I watched at 1AM in the morning and fell asleep. [To be continued]
Leilah Krounbi: Biologically and thermochemically altered human waste as fertilizers