| #15 |
You have to remember, this is just one study and science is always a work in progress. This study will be used as a basis for the next study and so on, and the findings will be improved upon.
The newspapers have made a big deal out of this like they do with a lot of studies. Newspapers want clicks and their science reporting is often poor, one week coffee is good for you and the next week it's carcinogenic.
In my view the study has a few flaws: they relied on self-reporting and made a lot of assumptions. Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable, and they have assumed that everyone's compost piles are anaerobic and that gardeners replace their raised beds and sheds every 5 years. They also only analysed one growing season.
The researchers actually discuss the limitations of their work at the end of the study and suggest how it could be improved:
"Collaboration with citizen scientists was fundamental to achieving our large sample size... These tools, however, require reliable data on farm inputs and outputs, the collection of which was hampered by the turnover of personnel and volunteers at UA sites. For example, incomplete recordkeeping made it difficult to collect reliable data on water consumption. "
"Better data are needed on carbon fluxes of composting at UA sites. We found composting contributes substantially to the carbon footprint of UA. Despite this, little is known about differences in GHGs from various composting techniques"
"Furthermore, we only analyzed the 2019 growing season. Future work should include multiple years to develop a more representative snapshot of UA."
My takeaways from the study are positive: you should reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible, and anything new should be used for as long as possible.
The newspapers have made a big deal out of this like they do with a lot of studies. Newspapers want clicks and their science reporting is often poor, one week coffee is good for you and the next week it's carcinogenic.
In my view the study has a few flaws: they relied on self-reporting and made a lot of assumptions. Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable, and they have assumed that everyone's compost piles are anaerobic and that gardeners replace their raised beds and sheds every 5 years. They also only analysed one growing season.
The researchers actually discuss the limitations of their work at the end of the study and suggest how it could be improved:
"Collaboration with citizen scientists was fundamental to achieving our large sample size... These tools, however, require reliable data on farm inputs and outputs, the collection of which was hampered by the turnover of personnel and volunteers at UA sites. For example, incomplete recordkeeping made it difficult to collect reliable data on water consumption. "
"Better data are needed on carbon fluxes of composting at UA sites. We found composting contributes substantially to the carbon footprint of UA. Despite this, little is known about differences in GHGs from various composting techniques"
"Furthermore, we only analyzed the 2019 growing season. Future work should include multiple years to develop a more representative snapshot of UA."
My takeaways from the study are positive: you should reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible, and anything new should be used for as long as possible.
![[-]](https://gardenandgossip.org/images/zen/collapse.png)