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

361–370 of 575 posts

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#361

Post by motohagiography »

jimbokun wrote: post #313
motohagiography wrote: post #281

This is an engineered problem. Fertilizer shipments were interrupted by a labour attack by rail workers unions limiting and delaying shipments during planting season, and who are co-ordinating with other groups to create scarcity as a means to impose stronger government social controls. There is an active disinformation campaign about attacks on food processing plants as a means to sow popular panic as well. Yes, fer…

> We have the most sophisticated data collection and logistics networks in the history of the world, and you think we just accidentally run out of a fundamental economic factor at a key moment in the natural economic cycle, and that risks mass starvation? Absolutely. There is no omniscient Illuminati pulling the strings for the entire planet. Just people, corporations, governments, and other corporate entities making…

Maybe you're right, it's probably nothing. Of course there is no omniscient illuminati, as even just for the omniscience part, first you would have to somehow subordinate all the principled thinkers working at companies like google and facebook, of which there are at least dozens. This is after stacking entire sectors of academia and their appendant policy arms with what would essentially be intellectual zombies who did nothing to resist the agenda of said plot.

That's hundreds of fellowships and thousands of adjunct jobs. Even if you funded most of them, it would take several millions of dollars. Journalists are far too curious, and we can rely on them to object to any falsehood and propaganda such a scheme would require to survive. Really, all 6 or 7 media conglomerates working together to push the same messages or to kill stories that would expose said plot seems pretty far fetched. The logistics alone would be baffling.

The only plausible way that could happen would be through a kind of religious hysteria of people who imagine themselves as enlightened through an awakening, and on a path to redemption that requires them to efface themselves, dismantle their formerly sinful lives and prevent others from sinning in a similar way. It's absurd in a modern era. It would have to be wrapped in a political agenda, which educated people are basically immune to, especially ones who are largely agnostic. The amount of effort they would need just to suppress naturally occuring logical questions that would imply a conspiracy which would unravel under the most minor scrutiny would be so immense as to not be in the realm of serious consideration.

There are however, movements and ideologues reading from the same script that do things like creating a rail workers strike during planting season. It doesn't take a conspiracy, just the logic of an idea.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#362

Post by yabones »

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…

Despite growing up in a prosperous nation, as part of a middle-class family, this is always something I've been acutely aware of. Most likely because both of my parents came from backgrounds with their own struggles.

Every time I see a garbage can, I see money that was spent on waste. And when I see money, I see time that was spent. And time is something you can't get back, it's gone for good once you spend it. Every garbage can is a waste of life. Minutes and hours thrown away.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#363

Post by fredgrott »

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…

Are you familiar of why India and China move to fertilizer in them 1980s saved the from starving?

I assure it is not BS. without fertilizer you do not the explosive yields that we get all over th world including the United States.

And it is in fact well documented in a huge collection of science journals.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#364

Post by CraigJPerry »

thinkcontext wrote: post #145
CraigJPerry wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In defence of ethanol, producing it from plants and then burning it as fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions vs extracting, refining and burning dino juice.

This is disputed. The GAO issued a report that cited research which claimed its worse when taking land use effects into account. In regards to your other question about why its a bad way to produce alcohol, from an EROI perspective, a frequently cited figure is its around 1.5:1 (invest one unit of energy, get 1.5 back). Making it from Brazilian sugar cane on the other hand is 8:1. Whatever the exact numbers are, the…

>> This is disputed

Credibly disputed?

We’re talking about “big oil” here, you’ll forgive me if my first reaction is to imagine a pre-completed study with all the right conclusions and a big fat cheque hidden under page 3, being shopped around academia looking for someone willing to sign their name to it :-)

From a layman’s point of view the claim just smells weird.

On one hand, we take carbon out of the atmosphere over millennia, compressing it tightly under the surface of the earth for even more years until it turns to a thick sludge. Then very quickly, in comparative seconds to the millennia of oil deposits formation, we release all that into the atmosphere again.

And it’s alleged that causes less greenhouse gas emission than the other idea: extract carbon floating around in the atmosphere today (i.e. grow a plant of some sort today), process it then instead of shipping it across the world from the oil wells to the consumers, instead just distribute it locally where it is grown and processed.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#365

Post by CraigJPerry »

qeternity wrote: post #178
CraigJPerry wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know the story, what’s bad about it? My understanding so far is that the corn used for ethanol isn’t the kind you eat (sweetcorn) it’s a cheaper to produce and more hardy plant but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed and ethanol production. Ages ago i read something that said in the US, corn was the optimal source but in other parts of the world, sugar cane could result in a more energy effic…

> but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed Spoiler: most agriculture goes to supporting industrial livestock farming. It doesn’t change the economics. The ethanol mandate is horribly stupid.

I’m open to that, I was looking for more information rather than a pre-determined opinion though :-)

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#366

Post by tagami »

giantg2 wrote: post #344
etrautmann wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Nitrogen fixing bacteria (i.e. R. leguminasarum, s. meliloti) love the sugar exchange legumes offer. Cover cropping and inter cropping have potential to rethink the 113-year old haber-bosch solution.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#367

Post by tagami »

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…

this is the same challenge we have with fossil fuels. It will only get more difficult the longer we delay

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#368

Post by CraigJPerry »

maxerickson wrote: post #301
CraigJPerry wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know the story, what’s bad about it? My understanding so far is that the corn used for ethanol isn’t the kind you eat (sweetcorn) it’s a cheaper to produce and more hardy plant but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed and ethanol production. Ages ago i read something that said in the US, corn was the optimal source but in other parts of the world, sugar cane could result in a more energy effic…

Field corn is used to make corn flour. Most people probably eat way more corn chips and similar than sweet corn. And then there is corn syrup, but we probably shouldn't eat more of that.

That makes sense. It’s not something that would solve itself then if that’s true - i don’t know that my demand for fuel is driving up the cost of my corn based foods and vice versa. I’m not deciding to drive less miles or take alternative transport because i want cheaper food - because i don’t know that connection exists.

Tricky problem.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#369

Post by KarlKemp »

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…

Prices going up doesn’t mean everyone can continue to consume as much as before if they are willing to pay for it. Nor is food perfectly fungible across continents. Your American family may just be able to outspend someone in Senegal, even if they waste half of the food while the other guy is starving. And even if they somehow buy less, they may just buy less beef, which is still to expensive for the world’s poor to buy, may not even be raised, and a;l that’s saved is some animal feed unfit for human consumption, rotting in Iowa.

Sure, it’ll all adjust, just not at the timescale necessary.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#370

Post by throwaway894345 »

gopher_space wrote: post #319
honkdaddy wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah but thirty years ago they were all little 2WD Nissans and Toyotas with a few bales of hay in the back. The trucks you're talking about were kind of family tractors and would rarely be used for distance. They all got like 9mpg and just needed to run when something got stuck.

Huh? 30 years ago Nissans and Toyotas had negligible pickup marketshare (at least in the US, not sure about Canada?). Anyway, the average retail price of gas back then was ~$1/gallon, so 9mpg wasn't a major deal (considerably cheaper than a 30mpg sedan today).
Post reply on HN