Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#11

Post by Out_of_Characte »

namaria wrote: post #7
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the economy, food is a zero sum game. Most produce has a limited lifespan, unless you opt to freeze everything, which is not something all consumers desire or buy. This means that most food that leaves the farm must be consumed within a narrow window. Only exporting and importing food from diverse regions will allow you to minimise food waste and therefore have an efficient low-cost market. This also creates c…

That is a narrow view. A lot of foodstuff gets processed into stable products with a shelf life, and grain can be stored for years.

Even in the hypothetical scenario where all vegetables and meat have shelf lives of a year, it still wouldn't make that much of a difference when it comes to food security. Products with long shelf life are sold with that long shelf life. This does mean that any kind of failed harvest means that those products will either disappear out of the selection or a different formula is used to maintain availability. Companies dont store anything, governments only store rice and grains at most since they are the only economically feasable types. Citicens will actively induce food shortage once there is one.

All you're left with is figuring out how much food is between the harvest and the supermarket. And that's not alot. Demand matches the consumption of citizens and time to market is optimised to be short. This is before considering how unhealthy the most durable foods are since sugar is the main ingredient in all of them, from chips and chocolate to processed cans.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#12

Post by Retric »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #11
namaria wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a narrow view. A lot of foodstuff gets processed into stable products with a shelf life, and grain can be stored for years.

Even in the hypothetical scenario where all vegetables and meat have shelf lives of a year, it still wouldn't make that much of a difference when it comes to food security. Products with long shelf life are sold with that long shelf life. This does mean that any kind of failed harvest means that those products will either disappear out of the selection or a different formula is used to maintain availability. Companie…

Food security != food choice. If there’s zero avocado’s worldwide people can still cheaply eat a healthy diet. However, what normally happens is prices rise in one food and people then substitute something else.

There’s also huge food stockpiles worldwide simply because crops like North American corn get harvested in the fall and then supplied over the next year. At which point we can cut biofuel production should an actual shortage occur.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#14

Post by Ekaros »

balderdash wrote: post #13

Isn’t this fairly intuitive? Wouldn’t this be somewhat akin to being surprised that the most productive workers are most affected by power/fuel disruptions?

The high yields are reached because of those inputs. So without them yields go lower. The lower yields likely have much less of these inputs thus are not impacted as much by them.

Compare sustenance or near to highly industrialized farming. The first might use some inputs, but the later will almost certainly use them and in much efficient manner.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#16

Post by gruez »

mikewarot wrote: post #6

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

>while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil

Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"?

>and growing livestock in the same areas.

Isn't this canceled out by the lower yields you're getting on the crops, to the extent that the overall yield is lower than if you used normal farming practices for the crops and dedicated pasture areas?

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#17

Post by gruez »

aaron695 wrote: post #3

The only lesson here is having a local source of nitrogen, which is natural gas and a way to process it for national security. Or the alternative, bulldozer more ecosystems. This is the modus operandi of the CO2 disciples. Zero respect for the environment and people and only the worship of a future rapture ~ a century away. It's also why food waste is feature not a bug. Only in real extremes people starve. Not sure h…

>This is the modus operandi of the CO2 disciples. Zero respect for the environment and people

And what is "showing reflect"? letting animals, plants and humans be displaced because of climate change?

> only the worship of a future rapture ~ a century away.

So to be clear, you are saying climate change is real, but it's fine because it's "~ a century away"? What are we going to do in a century then?

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#18

Post by RetroTechie »

mikewarot wrote: post #6

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

The basic problem is one of non-closed loops:

Each harvest takes minerals out of the soil (as well as some soil). Regenerative farming may help the soil to replenish some of those minerals by freeing them from the rock portion of soils. But not at the rate harvest-after-harvest removes those.

So you need to replace minerals taken out. Industrialized farming does this through minerals mined elsewhere. Which is hardly sustainable or eco-friendly.

A solution would be to recover minerals from poop & urine. Probably this is done in the case of animals (their poop & urine back onto fields). But not in the case of human food.

Human excrements are processed in wastewater facilities, and -due to a variety of reasons- minerals may be recovered, but rarely end up back on fields.

Small substinence farmers can close those loops. Modern industrialized society can't (or at least, doesn't have good ways to do so).

This is ignoring nitrogen. Which can be produced on-site if needed (eg. by rotation with nitrogen-fixating crops). Or specific trace minerals that may require a different approach.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#19

Post by RetroTechie »

gruez wrote: post #16
mikewarot wrote: post #6

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

>while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? >and growing livestock in the same areas. Isn't this canceled out by the lower yields you're getting on the crops, to the extent that the overall yield is lower than if you used normal farming practices for the crops and dedicated pasture areas?

> Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"?

Take a (hand) shovel. Put it into a corn field, and have a look at the soil.

Now go to a forest, and do the same.

Compare, and you will understand the mechanism, and the extent. Hint: in natural ecosystems, a good portion (if not majority) of all carbon is in the soil not above it. And much of that carbon stays in the soil for a looooong time.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#20

Post by bluGill »

RetroTechie wrote: post #19
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? >and growing livestock in the same areas. Isn't this canceled out by the lower yields you're getting on the crops, to the extent that the overall yield is lower than if you used normal farming practices for the crops and dedicated pasture areas?

> Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? Take a (hand) shovel. Put it into a corn field, and have a look at the soil. Now go to a forest, and do the same. Compare, and you will understand the mechanism, and the extent. Hint: in natural ecosystems, a good portion (if not majority) of all carbon is in the soil not above it. And much of that carbon stays in the soil for a looooong time.

I.have done that, the.forest was unfertile sand just a few cm down while corn fields arw black dirt for as deep as I can dig. The real lesson above is location, I did the above in locations 1000km apart with very different soil profiles.

Modern corn farming is mostly done in former tall grass prairie. (Corn is a grass) forests are mostly in former forests you cannot compare anything about them.

Post reply on HN