‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#181

Post by dqv » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 6:48 PM UTC

cjbgkagh wrote: post #167

dqv wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only guess what you mean by this. If it's that people can't get enjoyment out of eating plant-based food, you're wrong. And if it's that people will have less enjoyable lives because they can't eat meat every day, you're also wrong.

No, and clearly that doesn’t mesh with bioreactor food which typically isn’t enjoyable to eat. I’m saying the science on the health relationship with food isn’t great and I don’t trust it. Especially in the ‘healthy at any size’ era we now live in. I eat meat to help cover gaps in understanding, and by careful measurement I can tell that I’m healthier when I eat it, or specifically less healthy when I don’t. If the s…

>Especially in the ‘healthy at any size’ era we now live in

I'm not sure this has anything to do with science. It's turned into a religion, but is there evidence to suggest it is affecting the science of health?

>I eat meat to help cover gaps in understanding, and by careful measurement I can tell that I’m healthier when I eat it, or specifically less healthy when I don’t.

What measurements are those? Anecdotally, eating no animal products for the last year, my blood pressure has gone down, I've lost weight but maintained strength, and I don't have this weird gut pain I used to have. Certainly the qualitative aspects aren't reliably measurable, but I feel that the decrease in blood pressure and weight are directly relatable to these changes.

>If the science can be improved then maybe we could then shift away from meat.

What about the science now do you find untrustworthy? Is it the fact that it's usually funded by companies who have an agenda, or what?

>bioreactor food which typically isn’t enjoyable to eat

This is fermentation right? Like kimchi? Honestly, kimchi smells pretty bad but I like the way it tastes a lot.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#182

Post by bee_rider » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 6:53 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #151

lancesells wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this speed is making both them and the land sick — cows are meant to eat grass, not the grains used to fatten them quickly. Substitute grass for vegetables and I think this applies to humans as well.

No, we evolved to consume prepared food, including meat. Our mouths, jaws, and digestive system have been coevolving for past few tens-to-hundreds of thousands of years with our diets and food preparation methods. Certainly, vegetables have not been a major source of calories for humans in many tens of thousands of years now (because they don’t have a lot of calories in them in the first place, but also because they…

You are essentially right that prepared meat played a big role in our evolution, but we're at a point now where growing seasons are less of an issue due to the global economy, and things like incomplete proteins from eating a single type of locally growing bean can be handled through more diverse sourcing.

If we were really trying to optimize, we might look at tradeoffs WRT locally raised meats vs grains and beans that have to be shipped around due to growing season type issues. But really what we're doing now is shipping meat all over the world, which is like the worse of both worlds.

Anyway, we can get by with a little meat. I'm under the impression that our current diets are pretty weird historically. You don't need meat with every dinner.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#183

Post by flenserboy » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

dqv wrote: post #150

makomk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans cannot survive on calories alone, though, and certainly aren't going to be healthy living on them. Protein has always been one of the most expensive parts of a healthy diet.

That's a great point. I can get a can of black beans for $0.50 (and dried black beans for even cheaper). I can get a chicken breast for ~$2. The black beans still net 98g of protein. But I also get an additional 500 calories more than the chicken beast. And that's with the subsidies for poultry. I'm also going to pre-empt the "not a complete protein source" argument with the fact that we're talking about a healthy di…

Check the DIAAS numbers and you might change your mind.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#184

Post by flenserboy » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:00 PM UTC

dqv wrote: post #155

cjbgkagh wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is more to food than calories. I would love to replace livestock with bioreactors but I don’t think people understand the interaction with food and health well enough yet for me to ‘trust the science’. Plus costs have to come way way down. I eat a decent amount of yeast derivatives so it’s getting part of the way there. I also eat free range meat whenever possible because I hope that it is healthier for me; the…

>pushing everyone into eating cheap to grow grains There is more to plant-based food than grains. Seeds and legumes are full of nutrients. People can and do survive on way less meat.

Seeds and legumes are also filled with anti-nutrients. One has to be careful how much of these are consumed.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#185

Post by Scoundreller » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #123

freeflight wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial agriculture, with the help of chemical fertilizers, has only been a thing since the early 19th century. I find it hard to believe that agriculture, in all the centuries before that, was negative in return. How did sedentary humans feed themselves for these thousands of years before that if not with manual agriculture?

I don't think it's negative, but it's quite marginal. As noted above, in most traditional civilizations, upwards of 90% of the population was engaged just in growing food, generally as unfree labor. The remaining 10% were priests, nobles, and soldiers to keep the peasants in line and working hard. Such societies typically also had famines every few years. We don't have famines in developed countries any more.

They also supplemented their growing with animals.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#186

Post by ethbr0 » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

cinntaile wrote: post #144

dilap wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, there used to be about 60 million wild buffalo roaming north america. We killed them off & have devoted vast tracts of land to monocrop agriculture fueled by petrochemical fertilizers.

You (the U.S. government back then) killed them off just to stick it to the indigenous people, since buffalos played a central role in their lives. That is so messed up. From over 60 million to 541 in less than a century according to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

It's difficult to organize, fund, & perpetrate evil at scale, to the exclusion of a financial motive, so it rarely happens.

I'm sure the anti-indigenous Army leaders at the time were pleased with the side effect, but the reality is that firearms + slow moving bison + horses + railroad shipping = profit. And so people kept doing it until bison were almost eradicated.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#187

Post by walleeee » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

esarbe wrote: post #85

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would also need more land to rotate and water. We are running out of both. Esp in the developing world the article speaks about..

There are techniques to cut down water consumption by quite a lot. As for the land; we'll have to invest quite a bit more in ecosystem restoration in the future.

Can we start now

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#188

Post by WheatM » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #69

nostromo wrote: post #61

Print several trillion dollars to induce demand while shutting down industry worldwide off and on for two years, which reduces supply. It’s obvious this will cause prices to rise dramatically.

Hello! Urea fertilizer has jumped from $400/ton to $1100/ton in a year. This is not consistent with the price jump being caused by inflation, which remains at much more modest rates. The prices are higher due energy prices rising in Europe and China, natural gas supply disruptions in Texas due to hurricanes and floods, and sanctions on Belarus. They are a driver of inflation, not caused by inflation.

No post body was provided.

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#189

Post by Atriptothesea » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #93

Scoundreller wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial is just more energy efficient and who cares about artisanal sugar or cooking oil. Hand-Grow some herbs and tomatoes on the other hand and now you’re making dough.

> Growing by hand for calories is a negative return activity. Industrial agriculture, with the help of chemical fertilizers, has only been a thing since the early 19th century. I find it hard to believe that agriculture, in all the centuries before that, was negative in return. How did sedentary humans feed themselves for these thousands of years before that if not with manual agriculture?

//wiki/Claviceps_purpurea

//wiki/Ignis_sacer

hope this may help... (-:

Re: ‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food

#190

Post by dqv » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

flenserboy wrote: post #184

dqv wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pushing everyone into eating cheap to grow grains There is more to plant-based food than grains. Seeds and legumes are full of nutrients. People can and do survive on way less meat.

Seeds and legumes are also filled with anti-nutrients. One has to be careful how much of these are consumed.

>One has to be careful how much of these are consumed.

You have to be careful about how much are consumed raw [0]. But most people are going to cook beans and grains as they aren't very good uncooked.

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7600777/ In their whole and cooked form, there is currently no strong evidence from human trials to support the claim that lectin-rich foods consistently cause inflammation, intestinal permeability, or nutrient absorption issues in the general population.