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

291–300 of 575 posts

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#291

Post by mywittyname »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #256
slfnflctd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, I agree. However, this is only currently true for small parts of the beef supply chain in the US. The vast majority of meat tissue growth people eat here comes from factory farms. I don't have a major problem with meat eating when it's done sustainably and humanely. The real issue is that this is not the case for way too much of it now, and current meat production practices are yet another example of unsus…

> in the US So a truly microscopic fraction of the world's agriculture?

Depends on your definition of microscopic. The USA is a world-leading producer of a number of agricultural products, including corn, soybeans, beef, and in the top 10 producers of a staggering number of other crops.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#292

Post by jimbokun »

bob1029 wrote: post #288

I feel like the economics will sort this out automatically, at least for the average first-world citizen. Most consume way more than they actually utilize for nutritional value. In America, food is entertainment more than anything else. Once the price of this "entertainment" becomes prohibitive, people will start looking at it with the proper perspective. Simply switching from daily takeout to weekly meal prep can sh…

How about the majority of the world's people who are not first world citizens?

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#293

Post by Gordonjcp »

titzer wrote: post #275
Gordonjcp wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if that land can be used for growing crops. Nearly all of it can't be used for growing crops.

We don't have to convert cattle farms into cropland, just eat the grain we feed the cows, and if we get sick of that grain, then grow something else where we are growing that grain.

But we don't feed grain to cows, unless it's stuff like brewery mash where it's already been used to make human food.

You cannot necessarily grow different stuff in the same field. Not all crops do well in the same kind of soil. For example, you need totally different soil for potatoes than you do for cereal crops if you want them to actually grow.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#294

Post by triceratops »

honkdaddy wrote: post #224
leokennis wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two counter points. - Where I live (The Netherlands) you don’t have to live in a city to have good PT. There are places that you cannot reach by train or bus but they are few. - While sometimes a car is necessary, the cars many people prefer (insanely oversized “trucks”) are hardly ever necessary.

The 'insanely oversized "trucks"' are necessary for reasons probably not evident if you grew up in a country like NT. I'm from a small town in rural Ontario, Canada where most people drive a 4WD vehicle largely because they'd never get out of their snow-filled driveway in a tiny European style car. Lots of country roads are literally impassable without a large machine; having a truck of some kind is more or less a ne…

What explains the abundance of trucks that I see here in suburbia? Or in places like the Bay Area, where there's never, ever any snow.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#295

Post by Gordonjcp »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #278
Gordonjcp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No, the most commonly consumed meats do not come from ruminants. Pigs and chickens are the most commonly eaten animals in the world by a substantial margin and they aren’t feeding on grass.

You can still use pig and chicken shit to grow crops, and indeed that's what they use a lot of round here.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#296

Post by Gordonjcp »

kickout wrote: post #254
Gordonjcp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I mean, this comment is wrong. The US has some of the world most stringent food standards in the world. FDA, USDA, OSHA etc. wield immense regulatory power. Is it perfect? No. You can't sell meat at scale in the USA without the government signing off. It may not be up to your or mine standard, but it has proven successful at getting _quality_ meat into the mouths of millions. Also, I would bet there aren't any cattle…

No post body was provided.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#297

Post by Beached »

hosh wrote: post #274
Beached wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 $/ac…

Yields for a specific crop goes down in polycropping. Yield across the entire portfolio goes up. Plus, crop failure and marker failure of any one crop doesn’t mean complete failure — the other crop still yields something. It becomes less of betting the farm. And, soil rebuilding takes time. No-till won’t really start becoming advantageous until about year 4 or 5. But like I said — the Cubans had to do this. They were…

from what I understand / have read. yields go down per acre when moving from synthetic fertilizer to organic / natural fertilization. not just in the immediate, but forever. soil health, nutrition, crop resilience all go up, input and input cost go down, but so does overall yield per acre.

from all the reading I have done, and in my own experience with a shitty 3acre hobby farm, overall yield per acre never reaches an equivalent to modern destructive farming practices.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#298

Post by maxerickson »

marklubi wrote: post #257
thinkcontext wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard of the seal issue but never seen any numbers on how widespread the damage is. Got any numbers?

This is anecdotal, but just wanted to give an example that I've personally experienced. We used to race go karts with Rotax engines, and the local series organizers decided to mandate 91 octane pump gas ("cost saving measure") as opposed to the VP racing fuel that the engine was designed to use. The end result was that all the racers ended up having excessive carbon buildup in the cylinder, and would go through sever…

I mean, the need for engine compatibility was part of the push for ethanol, it isn't some big secret, and there are millions of vehicles that have no issues with ethanol gasoline. Blame the organizers, not the ethanol.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#299

Post by downrightmike »

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…

Even Toyota who developed the JIT system realized that you can't JIT everything.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#300

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #256
slfnflctd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, I agree. However, this is only currently true for small parts of the beef supply chain in the US. The vast majority of meat tissue growth people eat here comes from factory farms. I don't have a major problem with meat eating when it's done sustainably and humanely. The real issue is that this is not the case for way too much of it now, and current meat production practices are yet another example of unsus…

> in the US So a truly microscopic fraction of the world's agriculture?

The US produces 12 million metric tonnes out of the world's 60 million metric tonnes of beef[1] or 20%. Hardly microscopic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef#Global_statistics

Post reply on HN