Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security • Hacker News Board

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#241

Post by Gordonjcp » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #82

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…

>Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing Only in the sense that you can theoretically produce meat that way, but in reality most meat is produced on CAFOs that use grain.

No post body was provided.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#242

Post by hunterb123 » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #239

hunterb123 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, yes, it's true that it would be nicer if they'd rent one instead of impose on you. Whether they rent or borrow one, they still needed a truck. I need mine all the time, as do most others I know. I also listed activities that people like to use them for. > But we also build and deploy way too many of them. Those facts can be true at the same time. How many should we allow then? Who should qualify for them? D…

> Whether they rent or borrow one, they still needed a truck. Yes, but only occasionally! Again, you're thinking we're trying to "take away your truck", when we're just saying (correctly) that most people (like your friends!) don't need them except rarely and are better served by other kind of resource allocation than personal vehicles. > How many should we allow [...] who should qualify [...] banned [...] who gets t…

> Yes, but only occasionally!

Again I use mine all the time. I'm not advocating getting rid of cars because some people don't need a truck. I don't believe there are too many trucks or cars, I feel like the people saying there are too many trucks have the obligation to explicitly give reasons as you why.

> This isn't a good faith argument. No one is advocating for any of that. Please don't.

It is in good faith, I assure you. I'm trying to make you realize that what you view as necessary isn't the same for others. You said there are too many. I would like to know what you view as necessary and what the ideal amount would be for you. What uses for trucks are deemed as necessary and what are frivolous.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#243

Post by n00j » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #237

I don't get this whole fertilizer crunch thing. If you look at the price of Osmocote on Amazon, it's basically not much different than it's always been: https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B00GTDGMHC So basically the cost of enough fertilizer to feed an entire family for a year has gone up by, what, $20? $100? And that's at retail prices; the cost (and cost increase) would obviously be much smaller when purchased in…

It takes a bit of time for old stock to sell out. If you pay attention, you can see a pattern in a lot of items that retailers tend to only increase the prices when their old stick sells out and new stock come in, and then there is a dramatic rise in the price of the item.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#244

Post by Gordonjcp » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

legulere wrote: post #203

kickout wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they do this because its most efficient/profitable, not because of a technical limitation. Those economic incentivizes could be changed rapidly given the proper political capital.

It‘s done because grasslands cannot support meat consumption of the world.

But they can supply the meat consumption of the areas with grasslands.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#245

Post by xboxnolifes » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #222

wincy wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is 200x larger in size (excluding Alaska) but has only 20x as many people as the Netherlands.

The urban cores of New York and Boston are denser than any city in Europe! I mean, yes, it's true that the "empty" spaces are much bigger in the Americas. But you don't need a personal automobile to reach places you go only occasionally, and often for leisure. There's absolutely no reason that kind of lifestyle is impossible here. It's not what we chose[1], but there's certainly nothing about the geography the preclu…

> The urban cores of New York and Boston are denser than any city in Europe!

And unaffordable to the vast majority. I'd love to have plenty of walkable city options in the US, but they aren't going to appear overnight by banning cars when you need them to get around places over half of the people in the US live in.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#246

Post by rootusrootus » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #225

hunterb123 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (insanely oversized “trucks”) are hardly ever necessary. As someone with a truck constantly having to lend it for friends to use, I disagree. Not sure exactly what you meant by insanely oversized, but a lift kit and tires aren't abnormal, they have use for off-roading / mudding which is fairly popular. It's both a style preference and lifestyle preference. Good luck using a car if you have a lot of outdoor hobbies…

Isn't the fact that your friends don't need a truck because they can borrow one occasionally evidence against your point? I mean, yes, it's true that it would be nicer if they'd rent one instead of impose on you. But clearly they don't "need" trucks of their own, because they have access to shared resources. This is the kind of absolutist argument that these threads always fall into. You hear someone say "not everyon…

It seems like a needlessly divisive conversation, every time it comes up. My guess is that 99% of all the people who complain that they see people driving pickups not hauling anything are themselves usually driving a 5 passenger car as the sole occupant.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#247

Post by goatlover » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

mauflows wrote: post #217

kickout wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Go after ethanol if you want wasted corn. We like/need meat, and there is plenty of corn production or grazing land to accommodate that production. Something like 30-50M buffalo lived and grazed in North America before they were all killed. The ecosystem can most certainly sustain 30-50M cattle grazing. They wouldn't be as _profitable_ as corn-finished cattle, but they produce meat.

We don't need meat. And there are many price and institutional barriers to completely grass fed cattle. The primary being that slaughter is centralized to FSIS inspected facilities where most non-poultry spend their final weeks packed in eating soy and corn.

We don't need coffee, tea, spices and a thousand other things you can buy at the store. But people want them, and that's unlikely to change.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#248

Post by Gordonjcp » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

mauflows wrote: post #217

kickout wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Go after ethanol if you want wasted corn. We like/need meat, and there is plenty of corn production or grazing land to accommodate that production. Something like 30-50M buffalo lived and grazed in North America before they were all killed. The ecosystem can most certainly sustain 30-50M cattle grazing. They wouldn't be as _profitable_ as corn-finished cattle, but they produce meat.

We don't need meat. And there are many price and institutional barriers to completely grass fed cattle. The primary being that slaughter is centralized to FSIS inspected facilities where most non-poultry spend their final weeks packed in eating soy and corn.

> We don't need meat.

We do if we want everyone to eat. Grazing animals are a great way to turn stuff we can't eat into stuff we can eat, and stuff we can use to grow crops that we can also eat.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#249

Post by twofornone » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

wrycoder wrote: post #161

mrfusion wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could we use it as a diet food if it’s indigestible?

You aren't going to get thin eating corn chips. That combination of fat and high glycemic carbohydrate is one of the worst.

Dietary fat does not contribute to weight gain any more than any other macronutrient. This long lived myth needs to die. Similarly dietary cholesterol also likely does not contribute significantly to blood levels.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#250

Post by mfer » Mon, May 02, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

EricE wrote: post #184

We've been doing stupid crap - like subsidizing corn production for ethanol - that seriously needs to end. The amount of government/market mismanagement and interference driven by special interests is beyond ridiculous. The rubber band is beginning to snap!

Can the world feed itself is also a matter of asking, which model of food production do we use and are we even able to realistically consider?

A lot of the mismanagement comes from big AG and profit/growth goals.

For example, people in the United States eat about 5 times the amount of meat per person as people did 100 years ago. The population has grown, too. The amount of food grown to produce the calories/nutrients needed to feed the animals which people then eat is far more than for when people eat the produce. It we're talking economies of scale, here.

Big AG has a mass influence on subsidies, regulations, and even recommendations that come out of governments on diet.

If you look at what healthiest for us as individuals and societies with economies of scale taken into account... it's not what Big AG is guiding. Not according to the scientists who study this stuff, anyway.

Big AG is influencing a lot of mismanagement to help with their profits. So far, it's worked well for their bottom lines.