Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

1. “The Big Idea”

In the world of Big Farm, nutrient pollution is a big problem, particularly near farms where fertilizers and manure release excess phosphorus and nitrogen into the environment. This leads to issues like eutrophication, dead zones, and human health impacts. This also leads to losses in other industries such as fishing or recreational activity. Paradoxically, we also frequently see cases of nutrient depletion, particularly in the context of agriculture. Monocropping and poor agricultural practices has led to the depletion of topsoil, making it one of the scarcest resources in the world. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, 90% of our world’s topsoil is at risk by 2050. To combat this, I’m interested in seeing if a circular nutrient economy is possible:

A. Capture nitrogen & phosphorus from the water
B. Convert them to stable bioproducts
C. Capsulize them to regenerate soil

Phase 1 would involve pulling the nitrate and phosphate from the environment. There’s plenty of natural phenomenon that I can take inspiratino from in order to do so, but for this aspect I think I would have ot do more research. Some examples I can think of are just creating microbial biofilms on 3D-printed lattices, or mimicking natural filters.

Phase 2 would involve locking this biomass into soil-safe carriers, which would almost certainly involve microbiome engineering as well. Possible options include simple alginate/cellulose pellets, biopolymer beads, mycelium composites or mineralized granules. These would have to be designed to be slow release so that run-off is minimized and we don’t face the issue that inspired this project. One thing to note is that good soil is not just a few nutrients, and requires a balance of other factors, including microorganism diversity and organic matter. It might be possible that the final product is some sort of mixture rather than a homogeneous assortment of pellets.

I believe the development of Phase 2 would increase agricultural diversity across the globe and could also potentially allow for at-home growth in areas where soil generally is not necessarily suitable for doing so. This could reduce traditional lawns and increase area for people to garden in their yards, which is another added benefit for the environment.

2. Governing “The Big Idea”

There are a few goals I would want to target with this project. They can be further broken down into sub-components.

1. Environmental Protection
   The most optimistic outcome of the project is the hope that there is a beneficial environmental impact, and close to no environmental harm. To achieve this, there needs to be a couple of considerations:
   • Adequate testing
     • There should be field pilots and monitoring over multiple seasons before consideration for deployment
   • Protect biodiversity
     • Installation should not affect sensitive habitats, and any scenario where this could occur, impact assessments should be done
   • Chemicals and components used should not pose a risk to the environment
2. Environmental Justice & Transparency
   Potential risks should be addressed prior to the experiment. The project and its applications should also be placed in the correct cultural and social context.
   • Equitable access for all areas
     • Small farms and low-income areas need to be considered. In that case, affordability is also a concern
   • Transparency in historically polluted areas
     • Communities should be consulted on consent and opinions
   • Public reporting of data
   • Post-deployment monitoring
3. Responsible Innovation
   • Phased approvals
   • Liability frameworks
   • Frequent reassesment
   • Adaptive permitting
4. Long-term Sustainability
   • Maintain the circular economy
   • Ensure long-term benefits

3. Potential Actions

Scenario 1: Mandatory Environmental Performance Standards

1. Purpose
   Rather than self-reporting nutrient removal and soil impacts, minimum thresholds should be required with regards to things like nutrient capture efficiency, runoff/leaching rates, carbon footprint, etc.
2. Design
   • Federal & state regulators set standards
   • Companies certify products before sale
   • Universities and other R&D groups test prototypes under common protocols
   • Independent parties audit field trials
     This scenario could be analogous to emissions standards for vehicles
3. Assumptions
   • Metrics are measurable and cheap to do so
   • Lab results translate to real watersheds
   • Regulators can keep up with new designs
4. Risks of Failure & “Success”

“Success”:

• Firms would try to optimize only for regulated metrics, rather than ecosystem complexity
• Start-ups are crowded out by compliance costs

Failure:

• Innovation is bottlenecked by strict rules
• Loopholes leads to greenwashing
• Slow approvals delay overall benefits

Scenario 2: Transparency & Public Accountability

1. Purpose
   There would likely be limited visisbility into field performance, thus it may be possible to create open data platforms and certification schemes that let different members of the community to evaluate systems
2. Design

• Univerities publish standard test protocols
• NGOs run registries
• Firms disclose performance data
• Local governments host dashboards

3. Assumptions

• Transparency will deter bad practice
• Communities are interested in engaging with data
• Transparency puts pressure on firms to improve

4. Risks of Failure & “Success”

“Success”:

• Pressure of reputation stifles experimentation
• Surveillance burdens small operaors
• Politicization of environmental metrics

Failure:

• Data mishandling or misinterpretation
• Firms selectively report
• Continued public mistrust

Scenario 3: Market-Driven Scaling

1. Purpose
   Nurient recovery would probably struggle economically. To counteract this, there could be subsidies provided, nutrient-credit markets and public procruement to accelerate deployment once systems meet safety threshoulds.
2. Design
   • Governments pay for nutrient removal
   • Farmers get rebates for recycled fertilizers
   • Cities host infrastructure for the capure
   • community boards approve projects
     This system could be analogous to current renewable energy tax credits.
3. Assumptions
   • Price signals will drive adoption
   • Farmers would accept the recyled inputs
   • Monitoring would prevent abuse of the system
4. Risks of Failure & “Success”

“Success”:

• Dependence on incentives
• Nutrient extraction from ecologically sensitive waters
• Monoculture of this technology

Failure:

• Gaming of credits
• Inequitable deployment
• Political instability

4. Scoring

5. Prioritization

I believe the most important to value here would be the environmental performance standards. It seems that none of the other strategies quite work without solid thresholds and protocols. It also most supports my idea of aligning innovation with environmental protection rather than letting it fall into the hands of the market and the public.
By requiring these thresholds, regulators can ensure these technologies genuinely make a beneficial impact in reducing pollution instead of just shifting risks from waterways to soils or communities.

6. References

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1123462 https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/five-reasons-why-soil-health-declining-worldwide https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture

Week 2 HW: DNA READ, WRITE & EDIT

nothing to see here

Week 1 Lab: Pipetting

Individual Final Project

Group Final Project