Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security • Hacker News Board

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#551

Post by mythrwy » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

MadSudaca wrote: post #317

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…

While people try to figure out how to feed themselves, it'd be a good opportunity to blame you for their problems and get some political capital :)

The cynic is me thinks this might help explain the ethanol mandate insanity.

Ethanol Mandates == Higher Food Prices == Arab Spring Scenarios.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#552

Post by cryptonector » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:24 PM UTC

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…

That reminds me of my mother telling me to eat all of what she served me because there were children starving in Africa. That was nonsense -- not that Africans were starving, but that I should eat more than I wanted or needed because of it. Avoiding food waste is more about serving what you need than about eating everything in front of you.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#553

Post by cryptonector » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

tagami wrote: post #367

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…

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

We have enormous reserves of fossil fuels. The U.S. has 1200+ years' energy needs' worth of natural gas alone. We have less _oil_, sure, but as far as energy goes, we have plenty.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#554

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:31 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#555

Post by cryptonector » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

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".

Maybe rising corn prices is all that's needed to help bring an end to ethanol in gasoline! (Except I don't want to starve people just to fix political problems, or, really, at all.)

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#556

Post by wbsss4412 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #546

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.

It's possible to graze chickens. They will eat grass (along with insects and anything else they find). Search Joel Salatin for more info. He has a number of sustainable local systems for chickens, pigs etc.

It may be possible, but that doesn’t mean we could maintain anywhere near our current levels of output if we were to switch chickens over to grazing.

The only way to sustain this level of meat consumption is by utilizing the current industrial practices.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#557

Post by mythrwy » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #556

mythrwy wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to graze chickens. They will eat grass (along with insects and anything else they find). Search Joel Salatin for more info. He has a number of sustainable local systems for chickens, pigs etc.

It may be possible, but that doesn’t mean we could maintain anywhere near our current levels of output if we were to switch chickens over to grazing. The only way to sustain this level of meat consumption is by utilizing the current industrial practices.

There _may_ be other ways but in general ya, I agree. Organic small plot won't feed the world at these levels and price points. No argument.

I just thought it was interesting that possibly chickens could be run on more marginal land as cattle are now.

This might become more attractive if fertilizer prices keep going up.

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#558

Post by guessbest » Tue, May 03, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #538

rdevsrex wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I think it's hard for us non-farmers to grasp the scale of industrial agriculture. I would love it we switched over to another way of doing things, but with 8 billion people, there is no feasible way back to an earlier, organic way of life. How are we going to feed another 2 billion people let alone those that we have without fossil fuel inputs? Maybe biotech will save us, but I am skeptical.

Stop eating cows & dairy. Immediately you've reduced the scale by 75%. If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares [ https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets ]. Stop employing people in bullshit jobs. Immediately you've got 75% workforce on basic income, and I think some of them would like to work on small scale local farms. [ https://en.wikipedia…

Cows make fertilizer through manure.

> https://www.finegardening.com/project-guides/gardening-basic...

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#559

Post by kickout » Tue, May 03, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #513

kickout wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been eating meat _far_ longer than houses, phones, tech, etc. Will be _much_ harder to give that up. Been eating meat for hundreds of millennia

I for one have been eating meat for less than 20 years. Lots of people (not only individually, but culturally) live mostly vegetarian. There is no problem with it.

True, but again, carnivore diets seem to be more popular historically speaking. Rightly or wrongly

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#560

Post by blingscramble » Tue, May 03, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

rmah wrote: post #470

hinkley wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gabe Brown manages about 5000 acres, with a skeleton crew. On paper Mark Shepard seems to have about 106 acres around his house, which I think is a gross branding mistake, because he farms a lot more land than just his homestead. I have to find this interview again because it was kind of shocking and I'm afraid I may be misquoting it. One interviewer got him talking about all of the land he owns elsewhere, leases, or…

Not to sound contrary... but if their techniques are better, why haven't they been replicated widely? If they can output just 20% better financial return, they will double the profits for most farmers. Understand that it is my wish and hope that these sort of low/no fertilizer organic techniques can work better than "traditional" heavy-fertilizer/irrigation farming the west now mainly employs. It's just that vaguely…

Entrenched interests would be a driver as well as conventional wisdom here to date imo. That said there are indeed millions of acres in the mid-west (US) and beyond operated by commercial growers whom leverage the benefits of inoculating their acres with beneficial microbes. Ultimately mother nature dictates yield mainly thru moisture availability (acres under a pivot excluded) so growers focus on risk mitigation and nutrient efficiencies to achieve profitability. The paradigm is shifting away from heavy synthetics due to costs, generational transitions in operation management and our understanding of the rhizosphere. Beneficial microbes are not the only answer but leveraging their inherent capabilities is an effective tool and currently available.