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

321–330 of 575 posts

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#321

Post by zardo »

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.

The only thing worse than a drought year, is another 'Great Flood' year. When an atmospheric river turns the central valley into a lake.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#322

Post by wbsss4412 »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #295
wbsss4412 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but that is an entirely separate line of discussion. Your assertion was that “pretty much all meat comes from grassland”, which is very much incorrect.

If your point here is that manure from pigs and chickens makes up for the grain inputs needed to raise them, you would also be incorrect.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#323

Post by throwaway0a5e »

zo1 wrote: post #284
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…

The problem is government which has an incentive to "feed everyone" which means cheap food by any means necessary. Food prices must go up, let them naturally go up. That means less food for poorer people, which in turn slowly means less people (lower birth rates, poor and bigger families struggling, etc), until we reach equilibrium with our environment under the terms we accept. It's the only fair way to do it, IMO.

>Food prices must go up, let them naturally go up. That means less food for poorer people, which in turn slowly means less people (lower birth rates, poor and bigger families struggling, etc), until we reach equilibrium with our environment under the terms we accept.

Unless there's something in it for them by their own assessment people will not make sacrifices of that magnitude.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#324

Post by nkg »

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…

We waste a third of what we produce. If you take into account what we burn in the process (fertilizer, fuel, water, manpower), you'll realize how bad are our consumption habits.

"In the United States 30 per cent of all food, worth US$48.3 billion (€32.5 billion), is thrown away each year." "The food currently wasted in Europe could feed 200 million people (FAO, 2013)."

Source: https://www.unep.org/thinkeatsave/get-informed/worldwide-foo...

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#325

Post by throwaway4aday »

fsloth wrote: post #19
Asooka wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If eating meat were bad for the environment, all predators who eat exclusively large prey would be extinct. We can have a discussion about how much meat per year production is sustainable, but I'm not going to start eating bugs.

Humans plus agricultural animals are 96% of all the mammalian biomass. In light of these numbers I don't understand the environmental rationalization based on the diets of predators.

You do realize that mammals are the smallest class by biomass right? Well, other than Cnidaria but who counts them anyways.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#326

Post by hinkley »

The fungi guys will tell you that running out of mineral fertilizer is bullshit on roughly 95% of the arable land because all of the minerals your food needs are right there in the sand and clay. I once heard it described that conventional agriculture is essentially a hydroponics system using partially sterilized soil as the substrate.

Nearly every symbiotic relationship fungi make is based on buying sugars from plants by selling them minerals from biological weathering of rock (particles). What happens in conventional agriculture is that we murder all of the fungi.

There are a few places with strange soil compositions that are actually lacking in particular minerals. We could either elect to do something else with that land, or transition everyone but them to a post-green-revolution strategy.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#327

Post by m0llusk »

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.

The truth is more complex than that. Most beef is mostly pastured then finished with grains. And the grains used mostly hulls and other parts of grains considered inappropriate for human consumption.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#328

Post by throwaway4aday »

deltille wrote: post #17
Asooka wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If eating meat were bad for the environment, all predators who eat exclusively large prey would be extinct. We can have a discussion about how much meat per year production is sustainable, but I'm not going to start eating bugs.

Most predators that eat exclusively large prey don't number in the billions. Any reason you are averse to eating bugs specifically?

I don't think it's a matter of "ew gross bugs" it's that there is always a strong undertone of "we should ban beef and replace it with bugs" in these conversations. That kind of thing gets people riled up, and it should.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#329

Post by throwaway4aday »

ryanmercer wrote: post #175
macinjosh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Have you ever been to a farm and ranch? Have you ever been to a feed lot? It is not a pretty little hilly patch of land with cows wandering aimlessly around nibbling on grass. The vast majority of cattle are, at a minimum, finished on a feedlot. A patch of dirt, packed in as much as movement allows, and fed grain via a trough for half (or more) of their weight gain.

That's an argument against feedlots, don't try to frame it as one against consuming beef or meat in general.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#330

Post by vkou »

zo1 wrote: post #284
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…

The problem is government which has an incentive to "feed everyone" which means cheap food by any means necessary. Food prices must go up, let them naturally go up. That means less food for poorer people, which in turn slowly means less people (lower birth rates, poor and bigger families struggling, etc), until we reach equilibrium with our environment under the terms we accept. It's the only fair way to do it, IMO.

Unlike you, neither I, nor the government are keen on seeing bread riots.

Civil wars and regime changes aren't a lot of fun to live... or die through.

Post reply on HN