Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

bloombergquint.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 575 posts

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#71

Post by PheonixPharts »

mathgladiator wrote: post #31
citizenkeen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) [Thing] is bad for the world (2) But I want it. This is the recipe for the road we are on.

(3) And im willing to pay for it. I only eat 100% grass-fed beef, and I believe the world would be better without corn fed abominations.

> (3) And im willing to pay for it.

If the true externalities of your consumption are not priced into the product then you're not really paying for it.

As a general rule this is the problem with our entire lifestyle. Very few people will deny that we do not life a sustainable life style, and yet almost none consider what this means.

The definition of unsustainable is that you are consuming beyond your ability to pay. If all the true future costs of our industrial life were factored into the products we consume, we could not afford any of them.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#72

Post by throwaway4aday »

citizenkeen wrote: post #12
DiabloD3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop repeating the falsehood that animal pastures can somehow be transmuted into high yield crops for the human food supply: about 1/3rd of farmland in the US can never be transformed into suitable farmland for that task, and this accounts for most of the land used for pasture. If we're having problems maintain soil fertility levels now, imagine if we needed 2-3x the fertilizer to transform unsuitable land int…

I don't believe the argument is that the acreage for animal pastures would be converted, but rather the acreage for the crops they eat would be converted. Or is that in error as well?

Grass fed vs grain fed are two different things. If a cow is at pasture it is generally not eating any crops grown elsewhere, that's the point of the pasture they eat the grass that grows on it. I agree with the argument against feeding cattle a diet solely consisting of grain, this is usually done on a feed lot and it's not good for them or the environment. I'm ok with grain finished with a mixed diet since the animal will spend most of its life at pasture. Cattle do require food during the winter so hay and silage must be made for them but these are made from grasses and vetches that can grow on more marginal land than grain crops and they won't deplete the soil as much especially if they are fertilized using the manure from the cattle. So if you are going to make an argument it should be against purely grain fed cattle, you would actually find some traction among ranchers this way as well.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#74

Post by kickout »

pasabagi wrote: post #60
kickout wrote: post #50

Mostly good comments in here. My take is we have at least 1-2 years of global supply of most grains. This is a completely political problem; its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). Food waste is a problem, yes. Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing. Much better than that synthetic soup of Im…

> its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). I got a shiver down my spine just reading that sentence. Please do not tempt fate. We just had the hottest year on record. I expect we'll break that record in the next few years again. Drought is depressingly likely.

Will likely happen in our lifetime. I'm positive of it. not a damn thing we can do either. If it doesn't rain, no 'genome edited drought resistance' will matter. Crops need water period (be nice if they needed _less_ water though)

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#76

Post by throwaway0a5e »

jessriedel wrote: post #52
citizenkeen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe the argument is that the acreage for animal pastures would be converted, but rather the acreage for the crops they eat would be converted. Or is that in error as well?

Pasture is not just where animals are held. It is land that grows plants eaten directly from the ground by animals, i.e., grazing. So if pasture land isnt suitable to be crop land, then animals fed by grazing pasture is efficient. And according to my reading of this industry website, nearly half of livestock calories come from this: https://www.sacredcow.info/blog/qz6pi6cvjowjhxsh4dqg1dogizno... I think you are talki…

People with little to no experience in industries with razor thin margins don't tend to appreciate how optimized for squeezing out pennies those industries are.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#77

Post by kickout »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #61
kickout wrote: post #50

Mostly good comments in here. My take is we have at least 1-2 years of global supply of most grains. This is a completely political problem; its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). Food waste is a problem, yes. Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing. Much better than that synthetic soup of Im…

> its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). That's very likely in the current climate change scenario. Look at what's happening in the American South West right now. Lake Mead is currently at unprecedented low levels with no evidence that this will change course any time soon. It's possible within a decade there won't be enough water to run the Ho…

Correct, those long tail problems aren't so long when variance is high and time scales are long (50-60 years)

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#78

Post by anthonypasq »

godmode2019 wrote: post #59
_8j50 wrote: post #26

If all the land and resource that goes into feeding cows is used for crops, a lot more people can be supported. It has never been a lack of global food shortage, it is always regional anyways.

When you feed a cow you are essentially trading up. Animal meat is much more bioavailable and nutrient dense. Especially when they are eating grass on land unsuitable for crops.

I dont think so... It takes way more than 1 calorie of plant matter to generate 1 calorie of beef

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#79

Post by krageon »

engineer_22 wrote: post #23
citizenkeen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) [Thing] is bad for the world (2) But I want it. This is the recipe for the road we are on.

If an impact-free human being is the goal, the only solution is genocide.

This would be a pretty interesting point to engage with if you elaborated a little on why you believe this is the case and where you believe the GP said this.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#80

Post by macinjosh »

ryanmercer wrote: post #2

Well, we can feed ourselves a lot better rapidly by: - Drastically reducing food waste. In the United States, food waste is estimated at 30-40% https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs - Shift away from animal based protein rapidly. Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world's supply of calories https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets... . (don't…

Have you ever been to a farm and ranch? A grazing pasture is not the same as a crop field. Pastures are on land not suitable for crops due to size, shape, terrain, soil etc. Sometimes livestock is even put on crop fields to help enrich the soil and to let the animals eat remnants from a harvest.

Land limitations are not a problem.

Post reply on HN