Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security • Hacker News Board

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#341

Post by kristjansson » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

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…

So many assumptions about smooth substitution in this stat.

* How much of that land is pasture, and cannot be viably used for other purposes?

* How much of the remaining arable land is suitable for growing plants humans will consume directly?

* How much of the corn/soy/etc that can be viably grown on the balance would humans choose to eat?

We're very, very good at growing bulk crops, but not so excited about eating them. Feeding the excess to animals, and eating the animals makes ~1/3 of that productive capacity available (and appetizing) to humans. Modulo environmental impacts of CAFOs and such (which need to be addressed) that's a pretty efficient use of excess productive capacity for bulk crops beyond demand for human consumption.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#342

Post by kwhitefoot » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

nkg wrote: post #324

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-in…

There are 330 million people in the US so that means the waste is only worth 130 USD per person. Or to put it another way a years worth of food in the US costs only an average of 260 USD, less than a dollar a day.

That seems unlikely to me. I'm pretty sure that even poor people in the US pay more than a dollar a day for their food. So where does all the money go?

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#343

Post by throw-nocoiner » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

Beached wrote: post #263

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 $/ac…

An interesting trivia:

Dividing the available arable land by global population leaves only a 100x100m plot per person - and that's before barns, silos, houses or warehouses. That's not a whole lot - as a city dweller, I'm confident I'd starve the first winter if not earlier

Modern agriculture is really impressive - farmers manage to feed around 10-20 people from such a plot

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#344

Post by giantg2 » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

etrautmann wrote: post #335

hinkley wrote: post #326

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 plan…

That's interesting, but a slight oversimplication since nitrogen isn't coming from the minerals. As long as nitrogen fixation can still occur (via decomposition of something organic, etc), I think the general principle seems reasonable, though not an expert.

Or from crop rotations of legumes with nitrogen fixing microbes. But that too would require a move away from intensive industrialized agricultural practices.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#345

Post by tomrod » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

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.

Do you support social Darwinism?

It is "dismal" but unnecessary through good governance. We really do have enough resources to ensure moderate standards of living.

Political upheaval would be appropriately considered a market failure.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#346

Post by giantg2 » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:08 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #336

sergiosgc wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synthetic fertilizers do not deplete soil fertility. Some agricultural practices do, with a strong emphasis on mono-culture, but it is wrong to throw everything in the same bag. Growing without synthetic fertilizers appeals to the symbiotic Nature living, I get that. It's an ideal like any other, maybe worth of pursuit. But we first need to make peace with the fact that we'll either: a) Be able to feed about a billio…

Synthetic fertilizer does have negative impacts, but saying they have negative food impacts borders on oxymoron. Runoff to freshwater inducing toxicity is one major impact from over fertilization, which is not an implication of the product itself, but it's over use. I'm told. IANA farmer but I know many and worked with ag and water quality researchers for a few years in MN, USA.

Not just overuse, but use on land that is too close to bodies of water without riparian buffers.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#347

Post by riversflow » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #154

ryanmercer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Another 14% come from grains and other food that could have been eaten by people. But altogether this less than a quarter of the calories livestock consume. Are you wholly unfamiliar with feedlots? 50% + of the bodyweight of the bulk of cattle in the world comes when they live on a feedlot, where they get 5.5 to 6.5 pounds of feed, via trough, to raise them from 600-900 pounds up to the slaughter weight of 1250-1350…

Are you disputing the numbers I gave above or just choosing to concentrate on a particular subset of cattle? I don’t believe what you’re describing is representative of livestock in general.

What he’s describing is absolutely standard practice, and is how beef you buy from a typical grocer is raised.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#348

Post by giantg2 » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #287

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…

Of all corn grain grown in the US, 45% is used as animal feed, and just 12% for human food (the rest is turned into ethanol for fuel) [1]. If it was just a 50% decrease in yield we could offset most of it by only having grass-fed cattle and cutting our meat consumption accordingly. Of course an instant switch would be inconvenient because we don't plant the gourmet variant when we intend to feed it to animals, but wi…

A lot of the grain fed to cattle is actually spent mash from the ethanol production. I wonder how those overlap numbers are accounted for.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#349

Post by true_religion » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

jiveturkey42 wrote: post #172

true_religion wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but I don't think anyone of us are part of the information sector that's commoditizing food production. OP said we are unaware of agriculture, and I mostly agree unless you're in an agrarian area or country, you simply won't learn about these things. Additionally what you're talking about sounds more like actions prompted by business 'leaders' and not IT staff making databases.

I don't blame the individual IT staff or engineers for being foot soldiers of corporate mandate. I do blame the mindset of 'every problem can be solved with enough data'

It seems you have a broader compliant, so let me ask you: What's the alternative to using scientific process to solve problems?

Agriculture effects the environment, uses shared resources, and is necessary for the continuation of human life. I would be really wary about going with a gut feeling to solve such a large important problem.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#350

Post by thinkcontext » Mon, May 02, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #290

thinkcontext wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the numbers you've selected are germane to the conversation. The point of the discussion is how much land substitution there is between animal feed and human feed. The USDA said that in 2013 48% of the US corn crop was used for animal feed, which translates to unbelievably vast acreage. Your numbers indicate that the corn calories are not 100% of the calories consumed by animals. https://www.usda.gov/si…

Well, what it tells us is that corn is a large fraction of the crops fed to animals but a significantly smaller fraction of crops fed to humans. Indeed, it looks like there are 915M acres of agricultural land in the US, and of which 89.5M ( Here’s a pretty good chart: https://www.arespectfullife.com/2018/08/05/41-of-u-s-land-is... So if we accept that the pasture range cannot be used for crops, then what we are looki…

Again, I don't like the way you are using numbers. Your 915M acres figure lumps pasture into cropland, which you are using to make the corn for feed number look smaller.

> So if we accept that the pasture range cannot be used for crops, then what we are looking at is the animal feed area (which is both fodder and crops that could be eaten by humans but is eaten by animals). It’s 125M acres, I think, or ~14% of all ag land.

The Bloomberg article that is the source for your source, disagrees with you and categorizes the livestock feed acreage as cropland. So again, you are distorting the picture to make the animal feed number look smaller. Your own source is saying that more acres of cropland are used to feed animals than people.