Live data from Hacker News

Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

bloombergquint.com

571–575 of 575 posts

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#571
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. The vast majority of US cattle are grain fed/finished. "If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montr…

And I suppose the soil unsuitable for crops ( too much clay, etc) but OK for wild grasses, or rocky terrain would just magically fix itself. Maybe we should blast to level it, and make new soil then? Around here, Quebec Canada, few cattle are grain fed, and the land they graze on is rocky, hilly, non crop land. But, even more importantly, is that there is no food shortage . None. Zero. Nada. In fact, all around the w…

Frankly, yes, they do fix themselves. You'd be utterly shocked at what landscapes look like if we leave them. Having been part of forest regeneration efforts across the UK for the past 8 years - from southern heathlands to rocky Welsh and Scottish outcrops, good for "nothing but sheep" - I can say with all certainty that every part of the country except the most extreme alpine regions is suitable for reforestation or some form of plantation dense rewilding, mooring, wild flower meadow, etcetera. The same can be said of much of Canada and America, with my peers over there having the same results when grazing stops. Hell, the Mongolian steppes are turning to results of goat herding, and the Gobi desert is though to have been cause by the same.

In the UK for example, people are completely ignorant to how the place looked before we levelled it for grazing, viewing the 70% ecologically barren agricultural land (of which 80% of that is used for grazing or agriculture to feed cattle) as the norm and the 2.5% old growth forest as a more novelty, and something strangely "unique to that area". The country was 60-80% temperate rainforest before human habitation, depending on what research you go by.

This video is especially poignant, and really shows the dramatic impact simply doing nothing has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#572
post #538

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…

I agree.

There's another thing that comes to my mind, when people suggest the adoption of a plant-based diet.

Protein quality [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_quality#Protein_source...]

Why?

In our modern society where many people require less calories than our ancestors, because most don't do as much physically intensive labour, it's somewhat tricky to get enough protein from food _without_ taking in too many calories.

Yes, plants do contain protein. But sort the above linked table for "complete protein" and you'll see of the 9 "complete protein" foods, only 5 are plant foods. And of those 5, only Quinoa appears to have no limiting amino acid.

It seems that animals have had an important role in recent times of concentrating plant protein to levels such that humans can get enough protein without taking in more calories than they require per their lifestyles.

Let people who are used to meat/dairy diets adopt plant-based diets and I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to more of them becoming overweight.

Imo it's a good thing when people try to eat less meat/dairy but they shouldn't think it's an easy thing to do that comes without caveats.

David Raubenheimer is said to have conducted an experiment where people's behaviour showed that protein content is what disproportionately determines how much people eat until they feel saturated.

Some references: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01956... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12131

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#573
post #572
post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree. There's another thing that comes to my mind, when people suggest the adoption of a plant-based diet. Protein quality [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_quality#Protein_source... ] Why? In our modern society where many people require less calories than our ancestors, because most don't do as much physically intensive labour, it's somewhat tricky to get enough protein from food _without_ taking in too man…

> Let people who are used to meat/dairy diets adopt plant-based diets and I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to more of them becoming overweight.

I think that the exact opposite is true. Most new vegans lose weight quickly.

There are no overweight fruitarians (imho - not my cup of tea). And not many vegans. But there are many ways how to do things - if you're eating a lot of fats, processed foods, junk food ... you'll be overweight, vegan or not.

Also, you can't replace meat/dairy with single protein source (e.g. tofu) and think that you're ok. That's not the way it works with the plants.

For me vegan diet means whole foods, minimum fats, as diverse diet as possible, almost no junk/processed food, 30-50% raw vegetables. It's not easy to gain weight this way.

> Imo it's a good thing when people try to eat less meat/dairy but they shouldn't think it's an easy thing to do that comes without caveats.

You're making it sound scary :) It is easy, certainly not hard, but you're right, new vegans have some things to learn.

The only supplement you'll certainly need is vitamin B12.

In the end what you'll want is fruits, vegetables and lentils of various kind. If you have a diverse diet, you'll have no problems.

Yes, it means trying (a lot of) new things and recipes and some learning (how to substitute meat/dairy with plant-based alternatives), but it's not hard and in the end it's very satisfying process. I'm always hunting for new recipes.

> David Raubenheimer is said to have conducted an experiment where people's behaviour showed that protein content is what disproportionately determines how much people eat until they feel saturated.

Yes, lentils & beans. Satiety guaranteed :)

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#574
post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll have to pry Western farming methods from the cold dead hands of Indian farmers. Even the urban intelligencia has shut up about organic/traditional farming after seeing what's happening across the Palk Strait. The indian itelligencia? I'd like to hear more about the commonalities here between equivalent folks in the uhmmm "west"

I think he means people like Vandana Shiva ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva ). She's been on plenty of western interviews, talks, etc. advocating organic farming.

well how many are there and how much do their opinions matter? And do they really represent the "intelligentsia"?

Re: Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security

#575
post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure Meiji anti-Buddhist propaganda. Read up.

The idea was pushed by the buddhist leadership of a buddhist country - Japan. Can't claim it was anti-buddhist when buddhists were behind it. It wasn't anti-buddhist, it was anti suboptimal diet. It's something that is true everywhere - US, Europe, Japan, etc. As people ate a healthier diet with meat, the people grew taller and smarter on average.

Meiji leadership Buddhist? You seriously need to remove your blinkers. The "Meiji Buddhist Reform" was sweeping and extremely violent and 40,000 Buddhist temples were lost to riots or repression over the period. The new syncretic state-sponsored religion of Shinto was made to replace Buddhist and cut Japan from its Chinese cultural ties and demonstrate to the West that Japan could belong to their club.

Eating mostly polished rice or wheat is not optimal from a health perspective, so quite logically people transitioned from eating miserly diets to eating enough they started becoming taller, etc. That has very little to do with the meat itself and much more with the fact that people would previously mostly eat enough carbs to get by and children would never receive the best share in nutritional terms. Solve that and you probably can explain almost all of that effect. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rice-disease-mystery-e... gives some insight on how primitive prescriptive dietary approaches were around the Meiji period. You can see the same magical thinking around the power of rice and meat in contemporary Madagascar and it's not pretty.

Post reply on HN