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

261–270 of 575 posts

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#261

Post by animal_spirits »

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…

People also forget that Europe has had continuous non-nomadic people living in most places for thousands of years already, while the US has only had that for a few hundred years. Many things that have already been figured out in Europe for centuries (roads, dams, levies) are still in progress developments in the US

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#263

Post by Beached »

hosh wrote: post #238

I mean, we have been depleting soil fertility through the use of synthetic fertilizers for decades. It’s been a self-destructive cycle. Perhaps some farmers might switch to practices that are not so dependent upon as much to external inputs … but even switching to things like no-till or using local inputs like manure, or using soil-regenerating practices like polycropping or integrated pest-control is going to take t…

this is possibly, but yields go way down, in some cases by 50% or more. the amount of land that will need to be utilized for food growth will have to drastically increased.

not saying this is a bad thing. soil regeneration and more sustainable farming practices are a good thing Imo. it's just that we can't switch to that instantly. yield goes down, takes time to switch, cost likely will increase to make the same $/acre of land, etc.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#264

Post by PakistaniDenzel »

cerol wrote: post #107

Food security always makes me think about food waste. When I was 17 years old I went to Sweden as part of a cultural exchange program (I'm from South America). One of the first things that shocked me was the sheer amount of food being wasted for no reason whatsoever. In my country, even though I come from a privileged family, you can't shield yourself away from poverty. Throughout my entire life living with my parent…

When food prices double/triple/quadruple in the next few years I think people will quickly adapt simply because they won't be able to afford to throw out any food.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#265

Post by hosh »

Aperocky wrote: post #176
disambiguation wrote: post #162

This is a story about supply chains and inflation, but the real story is that we're in the century of "peak resources". Fertilizer depends on phosphorous which cannot be renewed or substituted once its gone. Without fertilizer we can't support the multi-billion person population we have today. We're not running out tomorrow, or even this decade, but we may experience peak phosphorous within our lifetimes.

> Fertilizer depends on phosphorous which cannot be renewed or substituted once its gone. Can you elaborate? It's not like phosphorous in fertilizer are leaving Earth after being used as fertilizer.

It doesn’t leave earth, but commercial farming practices lets all those nutrients run-off to pollute the water systems instead of being retained in the soil. Where they end up is difficult to recover.

Furthermore, soil needs to be alive, and commercial farming practices kills it every year. So instead of building up soil fertility year after year, external inputs is added year after year in a self-destructive cycle.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#266

Post by goatlover »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #37
zqmall wrote: post #20

In 2012 you could feed 570 million people with the crops that go into the "green" ethanol scam: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/01/162127460/do... I'm not opposed to farm subsidies as part of food independence for national security, but please do not call it "green".

I was reading the journals of Gareth Jones about his time spent in Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and find remarkable similarities to this sort of thing. The government took over, for example, the manufacture and maintenance of tractors, and also selected people nearly at random to maintain them. The one guy he interviewed said something to the extent that the tractors barely last a year before breaking. The people who d…

And how would you go about halving the population? Who should die?

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#267

Post by kristjansson »

catchclose8919 wrote: post #109

Quoted post unavailable.

Per TFA, the story is not really about an insufficient production capacity, but an increase in the cost of the inputs. The product is (literally in some cases) on the shelves, but at a price that impairs or breaks the farmer's unit economics.

Nitrogen fertilizers are, basically, a fossil fuel product. The dramatic increase in price reflects the increase in the price of natural gas. Agricultural phosphate is competing with more profitable application in LFP batteries [1], so prices are rising.

More resilient production for agricultural inputs and support of farming that builds on local conditions to require fewer inputs would be nice.

[1]: https://www.producer.com/news/china-cuts-phosphate-exports-t...

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#268

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

jiveturkey42 wrote: post #157
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this show how out of touch the average person is with how much waste is involved in animal products - particularly beef. We can so easily grow enough food to feed everyone. Livestock takes up >80% of land, yet produces The The apocalypse is nowhere near close. The Earth's crust is ~2.5% potassium. A lower supply of Potash is not going to cause the end of the world.

How much arable land does livestock take up?

Nearly everywhere cattle can graze, you can grow other crops.

As a percentage of all livestock land usage, there is not much chicken, goat, or pig grazing left in the world.

It is true most other livestock CAN utilize land that can't be used efficiently for other forms of agriculture. In practice, less so.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#269

Post by tastyfreeze »

disambiguation wrote: post #162

This is a story about supply chains and inflation, but the real story is that we're in the century of "peak resources". Fertilizer depends on phosphorous which cannot be renewed or substituted once its gone. Without fertilizer we can't support the multi-billion person population we have today. We're not running out tomorrow, or even this decade, but we may experience peak phosphorous within our lifetimes.

In healthy soil phosphorous is released by fungi and bacteria from the sand, silt, and clay. Nobody fertilizes forests or native prairies and they are doing just fine on phosphorous.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#270

Post by samatman »

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.

You don't get to make decisions for me on the basis of what is necessary from your perspective.
Post reply on HN