‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food(wsj.com)
wsj.com
‘Farms are failing’ as fertilizer prices drive up cost of food
https://www.wsj.com/articles/farms-are-failing-as-fertilizer-prices-drive-up-cost-of-food-11642770182
234 comments
https://archive.fo/Hvc9L
There are options besides chemical fertilizers. The nodules on legume root are a symbiotic home for nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Farmers traditionally rotate corn and soybeans to reduce their nitrogen costs. Other plants have deeper roots, which pull up nutrients...
My comment about biological nitrogen fixation (15 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29829580
Saw this recently: Black eyed peas could help eliminate need for fertilizer: Popular legume attracts beneficial nitrogen-fixing bacteria - https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/01/20/black-eyed-peas-cou...
One of the problems with holistic agriculture is you have to understand more about what plants actually need to grow, and think more to figure out how to work with what you've got. I used to have a local farm that made a great mulch with wood chips and feathers from their turkey operation. Blood meal [1] (nitrogen) and bone meal [2] (calcium, phosphorous) are also good fertilizers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_meal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_meal
My comment about biological nitrogen fixation (15 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29829580
Saw this recently: Black eyed peas could help eliminate need for fertilizer: Popular legume attracts beneficial nitrogen-fixing bacteria - https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/01/20/black-eyed-peas-cou...
One of the problems with holistic agriculture is you have to understand more about what plants actually need to grow, and think more to figure out how to work with what you've got. I used to have a local farm that made a great mulch with wood chips and feathers from their turkey operation. Blood meal [1] (nitrogen) and bone meal [2] (calcium, phosphorous) are also good fertilizers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_meal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_meal
That vastly underestimates the size of the modern problem. I posted previously of the adage "Modern agriculture is about turning energy in fossil fuels into food we can eat." While not entirely accurate (yes, most of the energy in plants comes from the sun, but it is fossil fuels that power most of the nitrogen fixation needed to unlock that photosynthesis), it does emphasize how so much of modern agriculture is dependent on extractive mining.
Saying "modern agriculture can switch to just planting legumes for nitrogen fixation" is like saying "modern transportation can switch to just using solar power." Of course, modern transportation can switch to using solar power, but most people understand how it will be a gargantuan, multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar process. Switching modern agriculture off its dependence on fossil fuels will be in the same order-of-magnitude difficulty level.
Saying "modern agriculture can switch to just planting legumes for nitrogen fixation" is like saying "modern transportation can switch to just using solar power." Of course, modern transportation can switch to using solar power, but most people understand how it will be a gargantuan, multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar process. Switching modern agriculture off its dependence on fossil fuels will be in the same order-of-magnitude difficulty level.
> most of the energy in plants comes from the sun, but it is fossil fuels that power most of the nitrogen fixation needed to unlock that photosynthesis
Just to build on this, we expend (at least) 7.3 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food (https://sustainability.emory.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/...).
Just to build on this, we expend (at least) 7.3 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food (https://sustainability.emory.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/...).
They only use fossil fuels to make the hydrogen. Which can be made more efficiently with electricity. So it's not really a problem. We only do it now because the costs are hidden. The transition is almost entirely political in nature, since not using fossil fuels for this is the better option, and it's already started.
> They only use fossil fuels to make the hydrogen. Which can be made more efficiently with electricity.
Are we really in disagreement then? Where pray tell do you think electricity comes from? In the US, 60% comes from fossil fuels, about 20% from nuclear. Solar, wind, biomass and geothermal combined is < 12%
My point is that most folks understand that moving our electric infrastructure to renewables is an enormous, long term, extremely expensive undertaking. Whether the hydrogen used in nitrogen fixation comes from natural gas directly, or from electrolysis, it's at its core an energy problem, and transitioning our energy use needed for nitrogen fixation on a global scale is a lot more expensive/complicated than planting some alfalfa.
Are we really in disagreement then? Where pray tell do you think electricity comes from? In the US, 60% comes from fossil fuels, about 20% from nuclear. Solar, wind, biomass and geothermal combined is < 12%
My point is that most folks understand that moving our electric infrastructure to renewables is an enormous, long term, extremely expensive undertaking. Whether the hydrogen used in nitrogen fixation comes from natural gas directly, or from electrolysis, it's at its core an energy problem, and transitioning our energy use needed for nitrogen fixation on a global scale is a lot more expensive/complicated than planting some alfalfa.
Well, similar to the "EVs just burn coal" thing, it seems likely that burning the gas to make electricity and then using that electricity to make hydrogen would be more efficient, so doing it that way would reduce demand, save money, and just generally be better than what we do now.
And then you've a) freed up lots of a storable fuel that you can use to supplement renewables if you really need it (and can be kept and used as a chemical feedstock otherwise), b) created a whole new market for responsively using all the cheap new renewables that we need to build.
So, yeah, I think we still disagree. Fossil fuels are not particularly necessary, useful or cheap, not for transport and not for fertilizer. They have some uses, but they generally get given way more credit than they deserve for political reasons. Generally the faster we replace them, the better off we will all be in many ways. It's "expensive" to do this in the same way that moving to socialized health is "expensive", it'll costs billions, but it'll also save billions, because the alternative costs even more.
And then you've a) freed up lots of a storable fuel that you can use to supplement renewables if you really need it (and can be kept and used as a chemical feedstock otherwise), b) created a whole new market for responsively using all the cheap new renewables that we need to build.
So, yeah, I think we still disagree. Fossil fuels are not particularly necessary, useful or cheap, not for transport and not for fertilizer. They have some uses, but they generally get given way more credit than they deserve for political reasons. Generally the faster we replace them, the better off we will all be in many ways. It's "expensive" to do this in the same way that moving to socialized health is "expensive", it'll costs billions, but it'll also save billions, because the alternative costs even more.
> it seems likely that burning the gas to make electricity and then using that electricity to make hydrogen would be more efficient
I'm not sure why one would think that, the exact opposite is true. Going to electrolysis is only desirable if the energy source is a renewable.
This article has a very good overview of the challenges with moving ammonia production to sustainable energy sources:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.5808...
I'm not sure why one would think that, the exact opposite is true. Going to electrolysis is only desirable if the energy source is a renewable.
This article has a very good overview of the challenges with moving ammonia production to sustainable energy sources:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.5808...
"challenges" and yet it reports the results of multiple studies saying our current options for green hydrogen are better than what we do now with fossil fuels, on multiple metrics and overall.
And like the "EVs burn coal" analogy, I'm suggesting we shift to renewables as quickly as we can, and there's no need to wait for the grid to be 100% renewable before electrifying as much as we can.
The union of concerned scientists has a map that compares the efficiency of an EV to ICE. It's lower in fossil fuel powered areas, but It's better than ICE everywhere today, even if you ignore the future greening of the grid. If you include that it completely demolishes the alternative.
So your document appears to support my point, why do you think it doesn't?
And like the "EVs burn coal" analogy, I'm suggesting we shift to renewables as quickly as we can, and there's no need to wait for the grid to be 100% renewable before electrifying as much as we can.
The union of concerned scientists has a map that compares the efficiency of an EV to ICE. It's lower in fossil fuel powered areas, but It's better than ICE everywhere today, even if you ignore the future greening of the grid. If you include that it completely demolishes the alternative.
So your document appears to support my point, why do you think it doesn't?
>There are options besides chemical fertilizers.
But as it relates to this problem (ie. food getting more expensive), your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Considering that the methods you described aren't widely used, I think it's safe to say that they're more expensive than using synthetic fertilizers. Therefore if we implemented that suggestion we wouldn't have higher food prices... because the food prices would be high to start with, probably much higher than it ever be with synthetic fertilizers.
But as it relates to this problem (ie. food getting more expensive), your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Considering that the methods you described aren't widely used, I think it's safe to say that they're more expensive than using synthetic fertilizers. Therefore if we implemented that suggestion we wouldn't have higher food prices... because the food prices would be high to start with, probably much higher than it ever be with synthetic fertilizers.
In the US, perhaps we could stop the obscene subsidies for petroleum, corn, and meat, and subsidize more sustainable, nutritious and humane crops and farming practices.
If those existed and were cheaper, that would be done
That presumes that those subsidies are for solely practical reasons, when in reality they're at least partially a political tool.
Of course they're not cheaper - they're not subsidized.
If what existed? sustainable, nutritious and humane crops and farming practices? they do exist.
The person you're responding to said "existed and were cheaper," but you seem to have ignored the second conjunct of their claim in your response.
To be fair, that poster injected “and were cheaper” in response to a suggestion that subsidies should be moved away from substitutes and toward these practices, which probably wasn’t done in bad faith, but doesn’t exactly rebut the suggestion that subsidies would need to change to make this economically sustainable.
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..
A no till rotational cover crop system with grazing is better in pretty much every way than monocropping with fertilizer, with the main downside being required knowledge of animal husbandry, along with some additional expenses in terms of fencing and some time investment in care of the animals.
From what I've read, the Haber process sustains well over half of the earth's animal population. Legumes can't provide enough nitrogen to maintain current levels of crop yields. Something has to give.
Too lazy to look up numbers, but in the US corn is a significant crop and much of it is more of an industrial feedstock rather than food for people.
I'm guessing that "more natural" processes could still feed us all but the game is rigged so that it's not economical for to do that (directly, as it's effectively subsidized for the "economical" side).
I'm guessing that "more natural" processes could still feed us all but the game is rigged so that it's not economical for to do that (directly, as it's effectively subsidized for the "economical" side).
My readings were more ominous, that without the Haber process, more natural processes cannot extract enough nitrogen to feed us. That situation is partially alleviated if we stop eating meat, but not completely.
This is just one example of a larger realization, which is that humanity can no longer sustain itself without a complex and sophisticated technological society.
This is just one example of a larger realization, which is that humanity can no longer sustain itself without a complex and sophisticated technological society.
Good thing we are making that as fragile as possible by distributing resource extraction and processing 5,000 miles from where it ends up, with virtually no warehousing to absorb disruptions.
Corn is a very good carbon sink.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016719871...
https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/one-global-warmin...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016719871...
https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/one-global-warmin...
Carbon isn't nitrogen. The nitrogen needed for agriculture comes from the Haber process. What I'm saying is we can't just give up on the Haber process and go back to "natural" farming without figuring out how we're going to feed everybody.
... if it were used as a carbon sink.
But that cellulose "waste" part of the corn is a feedstock for other industries. Keeping those inputs constant means growing more of some other crop and increasing net nitrogen usage. Producing nitrogen fertilizer takes energy, currently from fossil fuels.
But that cellulose "waste" part of the corn is a feedstock for other industries. Keeping those inputs constant means growing more of some other crop and increasing net nitrogen usage. Producing nitrogen fertilizer takes energy, currently from fossil fuels.
How readily would this be deployed to coffee farms in Brazil, staple foods in sub-Saharan Africa, watermelon farms in Colombia, coconut groves in Sumatra, palm oil in Malaysia, and rice paddies in the Ivory Coast? (All examples from the article.)
Poorly, but why keep at the Haber process for another century of historic growth and record mouths fed when we can instead try our luck with legumes?
Crop rotation, livestock integration and guild planting can be applied in all of those cases.
Crop rotation? Of perennials?
We could all benefit from eating more legumes in our diets, well most of us at least
[deleted]
Pastures are the future. There's a reason the US Midwest had such great soil — it's not simply a confluence of rivers & luck. The buffalo did their thing, and the grasses they fed on were fed in turn by them. Replacing corn and soy with ruminants will replenish the soil, provide excellent protein for people, and get rid of the cheap, food-like things made from corn, soy, and their chemically-coaxed out byproducts. It's not too late. (A nice effect of this would be the likely (it'll take a while) replenishment of the Ogallala Aquifer.)
"Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories."
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
"So if this system is so ideal, why is it that my cow hasn’t tasted a blade of grass since October? Speed, in a word. Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef calf’s allotted time on earth."
https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
"So if this system is so ideal, why is it that my cow hasn’t tasted a blade of grass since October? Speed, in a word. Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef calf’s allotted time on earth."
https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
Thats a simplification for a feel good narrative. Your source lists all land that grows anything but forest as agriculture land. Yet on large parts of those areas you cant do anything but pastures. Also, much of the cow feed isnt calories humans can process. Think byproducts of soy production.
The youtube channel "What I've Learned" has a great video on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g
What they dont mention is the large part livestock (especially cows an chicken) will have to play in producing soil from the dirt left behind after industrial agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is the term here, with rotating cows and chickens on degraded dirt patches to build top soil.
All of this of course doesnt take away from the madness that is industrial meat production. But nothing has ever been solved by oversimplified narratives and action-ism.
What they dont mention is the large part livestock (especially cows an chicken) will have to play in producing soil from the dirt left behind after industrial agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is the term here, with rotating cows and chickens on degraded dirt patches to build top soil.
All of this of course doesnt take away from the madness that is industrial meat production. But nothing has ever been solved by oversimplified narratives and action-ism.
Is regenerative agriculture the new name for holistic planned grazing? (Pushed by Alan Savory) Or it's different and actually works?
Never heard of holistic planned grazing. Regenerative agriculture encompasses (among increased biodiversity) everything that combats and reverses soil erosion and the effects on ground water. So also stuff like creating silvopasture.
Not sure what you mean with actually works. There is soil erosion (it determines the value of any farmland you buy) and methods to create new topsoil. Same with different levels at which you deplete ground water. Which part do you think to be quackery? Searching a bit it seems Alan Savory made some outlandish claims about carbon dioxide?
Not sure what you mean with actually works. There is soil erosion (it determines the value of any farmland you buy) and methods to create new topsoil. Same with different levels at which you deplete ground water. Which part do you think to be quackery? Searching a bit it seems Alan Savory made some outlandish claims about carbon dioxide?
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.
Do also keep in mind that there are wide swaths of land which can usefully be occupied by ruminants that cannot be farmed without piping in almost all the water and dumping fertilizer on it. Such marginal land is counted as arable so as to further attack animal husbandry.
Do also keep in mind that there are wide swaths of land which can usefully be occupied by ruminants that cannot be farmed without piping in almost all the water and dumping fertilizer on it. Such marginal land is counted as arable so as to further attack animal husbandry.
> 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.
I don't disagree with this part. My point is just that a) livestock are an enormously inefficient way of raising calories and b) that's taking into consideration the horrendous industrial meat system. The US raised 33 million cows to slaughter in 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/194357/total-cattle-slau...). Converting those to be pasture raised would use a vast amount of land (1), a huge reduction of calories already being produced (unsustainably) from corn and soy, and require a lot of additional labor.
(1) https://www.omnicalculator.com/biology/cattle-per-acre -- I don't know if the defaults are generally applicable for the US, but let's say 0.33 cows per acre (which may be optimistic - see e.g. https://www.outdoorhappens.com/how-many-cows-per-acre-in-you...).
A cow raised fully on grass requires around 24 months. So, if the US wants to keep slaughtering 33 million cows per year, 66 million cows need to be alive at any one time. (https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...)
So, minimum land use would be 3 x 66 million = 198,000,000. That's equivalent to the total land used right now for soy, corn AND cotton combined (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/06-30-2021.php).
I don't disagree with this part. My point is just that a) livestock are an enormously inefficient way of raising calories and b) that's taking into consideration the horrendous industrial meat system. The US raised 33 million cows to slaughter in 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/194357/total-cattle-slau...). Converting those to be pasture raised would use a vast amount of land (1), a huge reduction of calories already being produced (unsustainably) from corn and soy, and require a lot of additional labor.
(1) https://www.omnicalculator.com/biology/cattle-per-acre -- I don't know if the defaults are generally applicable for the US, but let's say 0.33 cows per acre (which may be optimistic - see e.g. https://www.outdoorhappens.com/how-many-cows-per-acre-in-you...).
A cow raised fully on grass requires around 24 months. So, if the US wants to keep slaughtering 33 million cows per year, 66 million cows need to be alive at any one time. (https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...)
So, minimum land use would be 3 x 66 million = 198,000,000. That's equivalent to the total land used right now for soy, corn AND cotton combined (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/06-30-2021.php).
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.
Those 60 million Bison lived ~15 years on average. Cattle on the other hand rarely make it past adulthood, so those 33 million cattle slaughtered every year requires significantly more food.
That’s the core reason we are feeding cattle with farmed corn, you simply get more beef from the same land.
That’s the core reason we are feeding cattle with farmed corn, you simply get more beef from the same land.
Sure, I'm shooting from the hip.
But I think the broader point is true -- there's nothing wrong/unsustainable/unnatural about having a bunch of ruminants running around. That's how it used to be!
What's unnatural, and, I think, unsustainable, is vast fields of intensively-grown monocrops, propped up by petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.
But I think the broader point is true -- there's nothing wrong/unsustainable/unnatural about having a bunch of ruminants running around. That's how it used to be!
What's unnatural, and, I think, unsustainable, is vast fields of intensively-grown monocrops, propped up by petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.
Having ruminants running around is very stable, but if we are then harvesting them for meat you start depriving that ecosystem of various nutrients. It’s significantly more stable, but still not “sustainable” indefinitely. On the other hand if we aren’t harvesting them it’s arguably kind of pointless.
Why do slaughtered cattle require more food? Naively I'd guess that the big adult bison eat at least as much as the young cows in the same timeframe.
It’s the same reason eating to much makes you gain weight. Roughly speaking a 1300 pound adult cow needs ~9,700 calories per day to maintain it’s weight. Where a 770 lb calf only needs 6,230 calories per day to maintain body weight, but growing 2.2 lb per day, requires an additional 4,130 calories per day. So, 6,230 + 4,130 = 10,360. Thus between around 700 lb and full body weight they need more calories than an adult. With feedlot cattle being both close to adult body weight and adding more pounds per day.
A newborn 80lb calf doesn’t its self need that many calories directly, but it both grows very rapidly gets its calories from it’s mother which turns grass calories to turn into milk calories at about 3:1 efficiency.
A newborn 80lb calf doesn’t its self need that many calories directly, but it both grows very rapidly gets its calories from it’s mother which turns grass calories to turn into milk calories at about 3:1 efficiency.
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.
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.
Definitely multifactorial, but the US army really did have a policy of killing buffalo w/ the aim of depriving the indians they were fighting of their primary food source.
Do you have a citation? Because Wikipedia explicitly mentioned 'This was said, but it's not clear if implementation went beyond someone dreaming out loud.'
My apologies, I think you are correct! At least per Atlantic.
https://archive.is/WeFj2
They hype up the Army aspect a lot in the first part of the article, but readering further it becomes clear that commerical hunting really was the main driver.
https://archive.is/WeFj2
They hype up the Army aspect a lot in the first part of the article, but readering further it becomes clear that commerical hunting really was the main driver.
The truth is probably lost in time, or in dead tree diaries, but economics and apathy with regards to conservation do seem the more probable causes, at least for near species-wide extermination. People will do for $1 more quickly than they will for an ideal.
Yes, extremely tragic.
It’s only inefficient if you continue to ignore the points being raised by the parent post.
The only point I see that wasn't addressed was that we can use land unsuitable for agriculture for grazing, but in that case all the supposed top-soil benefits are going to the wrong place anyway.
"The wrong place" can become "the right place" in a relatively short period of time if we change the way we think about agriculture, is the point. For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is agricultural subsidies - they completely distort the market. Calories are cheap due to this, true, but the result is completely unsustainable agricultural practices, poorer health, a more fragile economy, and less variety and higher prices for unsubsidized goods.
Agreed. There’s another thing that must change as well: our (the US specifically) focus on profits above all else. We act as if our actions and decisions have no consequences and continually mortgage the future for profits today.
If we don’t change this, we’re dooming ourselves.
If we don’t change this, we’re dooming ourselves.
> For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is agricultural subsidies - they completely distort the market.
Yep. In the discourse surrounding this there's a call to reduce or eliminate meat consumption, but simultaneously we have market incentives for meat consumption through legislation. This is untenable.
Yep. In the discourse surrounding this there's a call to reduce or eliminate meat consumption, but simultaneously we have market incentives for meat consumption through legislation. This is untenable.
> 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.
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 are only available in narrow window of the growing season.
> No, we evolved to consume prepared food, including meat.
You're not wrong, but IMHO it should be noted that humans don't need a lot of meat to meet their dietary needs. There has probably been excess cultural focusing on it in recent decades.
The necessary daily portions one needs—unless doing body building—isn't a lot to get the required protein and amino acids.
You're not wrong, but IMHO it should be noted that humans don't need a lot of meat to meet their dietary needs. There has probably been excess cultural focusing on it in recent decades.
The necessary daily portions one needs—unless doing body building—isn't a lot to get the required protein and amino acids.
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.
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.
>but we're at a point now where growing seasons are less of an issue due to the global economy,
We should go back to a point where growing seasons are more of an issue, due to environment and sustainability.
We should go back to a point where growing seasons are more of an issue, due to environment and sustainability.
> So if this system is so ideal, why is it that my cow hasn’t tasted a blade of grass since October?
Keep in mind this is absolutely not true in even the rest of the Western world. American-style cattle factory farms are almost unheard of in the UK, and practically all beef here would count as grass-fed, because that's just how we raise cattle. There is some supplementation over winter when grass doesn't grow (and even that depends on location), but otherwise pasture is the standard.
Keep in mind this is absolutely not true in even the rest of the Western world. American-style cattle factory farms are almost unheard of in the UK, and practically all beef here would count as grass-fed, because that's just how we raise cattle. There is some supplementation over winter when grass doesn't grow (and even that depends on location), but otherwise pasture is the standard.
I can’t remember the last time I’ve had a great steak in the UK. The beef is just very low quality compared to what is sourced in the USA. Far too lean in the UK. I and I generally find them a bit tougher too possibly due to more roaming by the cattle.
Now, UK pork on the other hand is tremendous.
Now, UK pork on the other hand is tremendous.
For whatever reason, unless you go super high end, beef in the UK tends not to be great. Given that it's much better in Ireland, which has the same climate, I don't really understand it.
Likely due to the conditions I described, I think meat here tends to be more "gamey", a bit leaner and all that. Like, steak is popular here but we don't have steak culture like I've seen described in the Midwest, or Texas. A lot of our beef ends up in pies, or sauces, or stuff like that.
Are you comparing at similar price points? I wonder if there's just more (too much) interest at the cheap (plumped up with water, for one thing) end here.
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 fact that it is less cruel is definitely a bonus. I get that not everyone can afford it. So instead of pushing everyone into eating cheap to grow grains I would rather have the science improve so even the poor can eat healthier bioreactor food.
Edit: the poor and I. I also want healthier bioreactor food. Food fraud is a problem that’s getting worse with inflation and avoiding it is getting expensive.
Edit: the poor and I. I also want healthier bioreactor food. Food fraud is a problem that’s getting worse with inflation and avoiding it is getting expensive.
>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.
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.
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.
Eating in general does a lot of mechanical and chemical damage to the body that has to be repaired. Most foods seem to contain some portion of proteins that can be harmful (red meat is a WHO Group I carcinogen to gut tissue). Even fructose is damaging to the liver and triggers an immune reaction. Cooking pre-digests many problematics but some portion will remain. It's the role of the immune system to deactivate the damaging proteins so that the damage doesn't accumulate. Eating and digestion are a constant balance between sustenance and wear, and problems begin when the rate of wear outpaces the rate of repair.
Like there is more to food than calories, there is more to life than survival.
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 science can be improved then maybe we could then shift away from meat.
>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.
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.
I’ve always been distrustful of food science, ever since the food pyramid (grain suppliers) was introduced to me as a child, and the quadrant of tastes (funded by umami suppliers in the condiment wars). More recently the CSIRO prostrated themselves you the lamb lobby. I picked the healthy at any size example as it’s the most obviously wrong and early death has to be the clearest indication of poor health. I’m not a fan of corn, I don’t even like the cows that I eat eating it.
I have a genetic disorder (one of the genetic anxiety disorders) that requires careful monitoring. I monitor strength, endurance, and a panel of blood work every 3 months. Everyday day I play a competitive ranked FPS game to see how my cognitive functions are going. Drops in ranks clearly correspond to changes in diet and behavior.
Yeah, yeast is a good bioreactor also Cyanobacteria. Promite is pretty good. Cyanobacteria taste like fish food. I’d like to see more options here.
I have a genetic disorder (one of the genetic anxiety disorders) that requires careful monitoring. I monitor strength, endurance, and a panel of blood work every 3 months. Everyday day I play a competitive ranked FPS game to see how my cognitive functions are going. Drops in ranks clearly correspond to changes in diet and behavior.
Yeah, yeast is a good bioreactor also Cyanobacteria. Promite is pretty good. Cyanobacteria taste like fish food. I’d like to see more options here.
What changes in blood work did you notice after not eating meat? And how long did you go without it?
I went through elimination diets that included periods of no meat. About 2 weeks into it I’ll start seeing lower reaction speeds, the games are very sensitive to changes so it shows up there first, much later I’d see lower T3 and Free Test. I immediately feel much more vital after I break the no meat periods with a big stake.
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 diet and no one is eating only beans or only chicken in their diet.
Plant proteins are always going to win in terms of cost efficiency over meat. There is always going to be a cost for the increased protein density of meat.
Plant proteins are always going to win in terms of cost efficiency over meat. There is always going to be a cost for the increased protein density of meat.
Check the DIAAS numbers and you might change your mind.
I think it would have to be a lot more drastic to change my mind.
'Humans cannot survive on calories alone' - that made me smile...
To add diseases, Ustilago maydis [1]: likes warm, moderatly dry, seeds spore-forming from and over wind transport, ya'll know fast driving cars on motorhighways or even the mechanic tail-spinning of modern 200m wind turbines, now i am not someone who may collect (realy) every physical fact (or the political ones) in a modell (hobbyist), but it sounds -financially-rewarding-(crossed out) -interesting-looking- interesting for me...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustilago_maydis
To add diseases, Ustilago maydis [1]: likes warm, moderatly dry, seeds spore-forming from and over wind transport, ya'll know fast driving cars on motorhighways or even the mechanic tail-spinning of modern 200m wind turbines, now i am not someone who may collect (realy) every physical fact (or the political ones) in a modell (hobbyist), but it sounds -financially-rewarding-(crossed out) -interesting-looking- interesting for me...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustilago_maydis
Flavor too. Corn fed beef is preferred in many applications. You’d never smoke a grass fed brisket for example.
Even cattle raised on grass do best for steaks if they’ve been fed grain the last few months before slaughter.
Even cattle raised on grass do best for steaks if they’ve been fed grain the last few months before slaughter.
So in summary, there is no way around higher food prices. Either through higher fertilizer prizes or a more sustainable, albeit slower, food production.
Only about ~10% of corn is used to make food consumed by people. Of the remainder, roughly ~30% is used for animal feed, ~30% for export, and ~30% for fuel ethanol.
Replacing the cheap processed food production with grazing land will not do much to increase the amount of animal protein available to the population. If our goal is to have more pasture, it would make more sense to eliminate ethanol production, reduce the amount of corn we feed to animals, and reduce the amount of corn we send to the world.
Replacing the cheap processed food production with grazing land will not do much to increase the amount of animal protein available to the population. If our goal is to have more pasture, it would make more sense to eliminate ethanol production, reduce the amount of corn we feed to animals, and reduce the amount of corn we send to the world.
I’d add “fuel ethanol” to the list of things worse than Bitcoin.
A little bit of it is good for various reasons. Trying to solve a substantive part of our liquid fuel problem with it is madness.
What is the export percent used for? I don't think it's true, but if that export 30% were all used for food for people then it'd be disingenuous to say only 10% is used for human food.
I don't know, but maybe it is being exported for use as cattle feed like the alfalfa in California:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989
Yes. Replace the corn with cows.
The midwest has great soil because billions of organisms died millions of years ago in a shallow sea that covered most of the central united states today.
A theory I heard as a child was that glaciers pushed topsoil down from Canada during the ice ages? A superficial search did not turn up more info so maybe that has long been discredited and nobody told me.
I thought the soil was great because of the Yellowstone Caldera Supervolcano dropping huge amounts of volcanic ash every 650,000 years.
How long has it been? Oh, right around 650,000 years..........
How long has it been? Oh, right around 650,000 years..........
You aren't wrong. All the life sustaining minerals/elements we have in the earths lithosphere are being renewed by volcanism. It is why the plant life was able to exist in the first place.
I’m not sure that’s correct, or at least is not complete. There were many cycles of grasses and wildlife involved in building up the soil.
No, it's correct. The plains states are so fertile because of hundreds of millions of years of shallow ocean water led to huge amounts of plankton to die and settle. That's also why there's oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
Before artificial fertilizer, world famines were commonplace and the base rate of starvation was very high compared to today. I hope that anyone truly advocating for a return to that world has studied history and understands the consequences.
What % of global population will have to expire for a fertilizer free future possible?
Population of US in 1780 was 3 million. Today it’s 300 million.
Population of US in 1780 was 3 million. Today it’s 300 million.
Food prices rising means hunger means social unrest. The developed world is not entirely out of the woods.
With low natural gas prices and heavily subsidised food, the poor of the US should hopefully come out relatively unharmed.
It's going to be worse in the EU and its periphery:
- High dependence on Russian natural gas.
- Lots of fertiliser depends on Belarussian potash here.
- The natural gas crisis is halting lots of energy intensive processes all over Europe already.
With low natural gas prices and heavily subsidised food, the poor of the US should hopefully come out relatively unharmed.
It's going to be worse in the EU and its periphery:
- High dependence on Russian natural gas.
- Lots of fertiliser depends on Belarussian potash here.
- The natural gas crisis is halting lots of energy intensive processes all over Europe already.
We over-produce a lot of food in the west. I think there's very little risk of hunger.
It's not about there not being food. It's about people being too poor to buy it, many of them in the eastern EU.
Some anecdotal evidence that might sound extreme, but actually isn't.
I know an old lady over 80 from Latvia. She worked all her life as a university trained economist. Like almost all people her age, her savings were eaten by the socio-economic chaos of the '90s. She has a <400€/month net pension (considered high locally!) and owns her apartment. She mainly pays for utilities, medical care and food. Without her vegetable garden and her family's financial support, she'd be living in abject poverty. What do you think happens when her utilities double, and her food becomes >10% more expensive?
Reality is much bleaker than that for the majority of Latvian pensioners. Not all have a "high" pension of almost 400€. Not all are in good health. Not all have financial support from younger generations. Some of them are going to go hungry.
Some anecdotal evidence that might sound extreme, but actually isn't.
I know an old lady over 80 from Latvia. She worked all her life as a university trained economist. Like almost all people her age, her savings were eaten by the socio-economic chaos of the '90s. She has a <400€/month net pension (considered high locally!) and owns her apartment. She mainly pays for utilities, medical care and food. Without her vegetable garden and her family's financial support, she'd be living in abject poverty. What do you think happens when her utilities double, and her food becomes >10% more expensive?
Reality is much bleaker than that for the majority of Latvian pensioners. Not all have a "high" pension of almost 400€. Not all are in good health. Not all have financial support from younger generations. Some of them are going to go hungry.
There is also a slightly different way to grow food using a less intense fertilizer called "square foot gardening".
https://squarefootgardening.org/
There is a best selling book about it and it works surprisingly well. The secret fertilizer for this, affectionately known as "Mel's Mix" recipe is available for anyone to make their own. It's not even terribly hard if you're willing to do a bit of composting outside on your own.
https://squarefootgardening.org/
There is a best selling book about it and it works surprisingly well. The secret fertilizer for this, affectionately known as "Mel's Mix" recipe is available for anyone to make their own. It's not even terribly hard if you're willing to do a bit of composting outside on your own.
Edit: "wheat" -> "corn"
"Square foot gardening" with hand labor isn't going to replace the 772 million metric tons of wheat and 1 billion metric tons of corn produced annually. Sorry, it just isn't.
Given that it's January, why not try the experiment of producing all the food you personally consume this year using the techniques in this book?
Growing a few tomatoes and a bit of lettuce is pretty easy, and is a fun and rewarding hobby. Producing every single calorie you consume using only hand labor and no chemical fertilizer is an entirely different kettle of fish.
We actually ran that experiment for several millennia. It produced societies in which 90+% of the population were slaves, serfs, or other unfree agricultural laborers.
I'd rather we not go back to that, personally.
"Square foot gardening" with hand labor isn't going to replace the 772 million metric tons of wheat and 1 billion metric tons of corn produced annually. Sorry, it just isn't.
Given that it's January, why not try the experiment of producing all the food you personally consume this year using the techniques in this book?
Growing a few tomatoes and a bit of lettuce is pretty easy, and is a fun and rewarding hobby. Producing every single calorie you consume using only hand labor and no chemical fertilizer is an entirely different kettle of fish.
We actually ran that experiment for several millennia. It produced societies in which 90+% of the population were slaves, serfs, or other unfree agricultural laborers.
I'd rather we not go back to that, personally.
When historians looked into details, it turned out a serf worked less than 40 hours per week on average in the Middle Ages in France, less than modern workers. And he needed to feed both own family and his master.
Umm... hours worked isn't the only metric for quality of life. I'm pretty sure that 40 hours spent in agricultural stoop labor is not the same thing as 40 hours sitting in a comfy chair in front of a computer.
Also, you're just shining off the fact that they were serfs. I wouldn't want to be a serf even if I had to work only 10 hours per week. Would you? Not free to leave the land on which you were born, living in a hovel with no running water, toilet facilities, or central heating, maybe one change of clothes, fully subject to your master in all aspects of your life, including who (and even if) you were allowed to marry...
> And he needed to feed both own family and his master.
His master had to have 9 or 10 serfs doing that to produce enough surplus to support him. That was rather the point.
Also, you're just shining off the fact that they were serfs. I wouldn't want to be a serf even if I had to work only 10 hours per week. Would you? Not free to leave the land on which you were born, living in a hovel with no running water, toilet facilities, or central heating, maybe one change of clothes, fully subject to your master in all aspects of your life, including who (and even if) you were allowed to marry...
> And he needed to feed both own family and his master.
His master had to have 9 or 10 serfs doing that to produce enough surplus to support him. That was rather the point.
I am not arguing about quality of life. The point is that less than 40 hours per week (it can be in fact close to 30 as less than 40 is a conservative estimate) was enough for a single person to feed a family and have some extra using manual labor.
The number of hours per week wasn't even a factor in the original statement. You're trying to drag the conversation off on a tangent.
> was enough for a single person to feed a family and have some extra using manual labor.
No, that was ten serfs each working 30 hours a week to in aggregate grow enough food to subsist on and generate the master's demanded surplus. That was also only true in good years. In bad years a portion of serfs just died.
A serf's life sucked in every dimension. Even if they only "worked" 30 hours they spent the rest of their time in squalor. If you think working in a field is so attractive there's lots of farms looking for day labor. Try it out.
No, that was ten serfs each working 30 hours a week to in aggregate grow enough food to subsist on and generate the master's demanded surplus. That was also only true in good years. In bad years a portion of serfs just died.
A serf's life sucked in every dimension. Even if they only "worked" 30 hours they spent the rest of their time in squalor. If you think working in a field is so attractive there's lots of farms looking for day labor. Try it out.
Come on, a "modern serf" would have access to (Civil liberties discussion aside):
- power tools
- solar/wind/battery for power independence
- internet for entertainment
- running water in the house
- cheap goods (clothes, etc are WAY MORE cheap and efficient to make now)
So I'd say the day-to-day job is theoretically even easier.
- power tools
- solar/wind/battery for power independence
- internet for entertainment
- running water in the house
- cheap goods (clothes, etc are WAY MORE cheap and efficient to make now)
So I'd say the day-to-day job is theoretically even easier.
I don't think a modern serf would have any of those things, because a society in which 90% of the available human capital is devoted to manual agriculture does not have the available labor to produce any of those things. At least, not for anyone other than the 10% of "lords".
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.
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.
Could you explain what this means? Does this imply animal husbandry was necessary for agriculture?
Could you explain what this means? Does this imply animal husbandry was necessary for agriculture?
> 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?
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.
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.
//wiki/Claviceps_purpurea
//wiki/Ignis_sacer
hope this may help... (-:
//wiki/Ignis_sacer
hope this may help... (-:
With ag automation, paradigm shift.
Most things grown in home gardens don't have a significant number of calories. Here's a planting schedule from that site:
https://squarefootgardening.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/S...
None of those are significant sources of fat or protein, and a few are at best moderate sources of carbs.
https://squarefootgardening.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/S...
None of those are significant sources of fat or protein, and a few are at best moderate sources of carbs.
Potato and sweet potato can be produced in a local garden and provide enough calories and nutrients. For example, if one eats enough potatoes to get 2500 kilocalories (about 6 pounds), one get more than enough protein.
6 pounds? I'm skeptical that anyone can sit down and eat 6 pounds of potatoes. You should probably check your arithmetic here.
And no, you're not going to produce enough potatoes in a "local garden" to feed our cities, much less all of the people in the rest of the world who are fed by our croplands.
And no, you're not going to produce enough potatoes in a "local garden" to feed our cities, much less all of the people in the rest of the world who are fed by our croplands.
I checked the math, they are correct.
For one serving sure it is not trivial to eat that, but spread it over 3 meals and it is very OK
My grandmother told me that during WWII in Belarus many people in villages for 3 years eat pretty much only potatoes plus few berries/mushrooms and little fish. It was pointless to keep any animals as those would be taken either by Germans, local police folks or partisans. And all potatoes were grown with pure manual labor as the were no horses and petrol for any kind of machinery was simply not available.
Despite such diet people were not malnourished or underweight and even sold potato to get money for other stuff.
My grandmother told me that during WWII in Belarus many people in villages for 3 years eat pretty much only potatoes plus few berries/mushrooms and little fish. It was pointless to keep any animals as those would be taken either by Germans, local police folks or partisans. And all potatoes were grown with pure manual labor as the were no horses and petrol for any kind of machinery was simply not available.
Despite such diet people were not malnourished or underweight and even sold potato to get money for other stuff.
A rural village in Belarus in WWII (with available fields) is an entirely different thing from a city of 25 million in 2021 China.
And nearly a kg of potatoes at a meal? While that might be possible, I'm not sure I could manage it.
Also, I've noticed that the stories of the hardships that one's grandparents faced do not become less impressive as the years go by. :-)
And nearly a kg of potatoes at a meal? While that might be possible, I'm not sure I could manage it.
Also, I've noticed that the stories of the hardships that one's grandparents faced do not become less impressive as the years go by. :-)
I'm picturing a 5 pound bag of potatoes one might find at a grocery store. I think it might be larger than my torso.
The US food system at least is designed to generate a lot of food efficiently. This could definitely work, and the food is probably better. But being able to generate cheap calories on demand is a major priority.
[deleted]
Efficiency arguments aside, the best thing about home gardening is the buffer it provides for supply uncertainty, since we don't warehouse anything anymore or plan for disruption.
How actionable do you think this is to a farmer growing staple crops in sub-Saharan africa?
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.
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.
Inflation is never evenly distributed. That doesn’t dispute the cause for widespread inflation.
Inflation is higher than it’s been in 40 years, and that timeframe includes several energy cost spikes, many of which were worse than the current spike.
Inflation is higher than it’s been in 40 years, and that timeframe includes several energy cost spikes, many of which were worse than the current spike.
For this specific discussion, why focus on inflation (price increases in a broad basket of goods) at all, when it's a specific subset that is causing the issue, and the reasons for price increases in that subset is dominated by specific causation, disconnected from the purported reasons for the broader basket.
Because any fixes for the broader inflation problem would have relatively little effect on this specific subset.
Because any fixes for the broader inflation problem would have relatively little effect on this specific subset.
...can you completely discount that rising energy prices may be due to inflationary monetary policy? A higher money supply means more competition for less resources, and if the ultimate resource in nearly every supply chain is energy than it would be sensible to think this could be the starting point of a vicious cycle, rather than sanctions on Belarus or floods in Texas.
We can't completely discount a price rise due to inflationary policy, but we most certainly can discount the portion that's over the 5-7% that most goods have seen — so, like, something like 5% of the increase due to monetary policy, and 270% due to other causes.
Is that ridiculous? Hmm. Maybe try again. We can afford to be generous, after all! Let's say that it's 10% due to monetary policy, and 265% due to other factors.
... Nope, we're still not really there.
Is that ridiculous? Hmm. Maybe try again. We can afford to be generous, after all! Let's say that it's 10% due to monetary policy, and 265% due to other factors.
... Nope, we're still not really there.
To be clear, I don't completely discount it, but I think there are clear and large non-monetary influences that dominate.
I don't think the printed money induced food or fertilizer demand. It's not like laptops or dumbbells. The article calls out higher input prices due to energy and mineral costs. The pandemic didn't induce energy demand (it did cause it to yoyo), and the mineral costs are due, in part, to sanctions (the 2, 3, and 4th producers are Russia, Belarus, and China). Non-fertilizer uses are only 15% of demand, so this really wasn't driven by monetary policy inducing demand.
> I don't think the printed money induced food demand
Food purchases are way up since Covid.
https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/united-states
Food purchases are way up since Covid.
https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/united-states
Do you have a source that isn't paywalled?
Their "Net sales of US Foods from 2012 to 2020" wasn't, but it also said sales were down in 2020.
What makes comparisons tricky is people didn't eat out as much, so that cuts spending on some metrics. On others, commercial kitchens are more efficient and buy from wholesalers, so that lowers a different metric. But people consume fewer calories when cooking for themselves.
My main point is that for everyone but the lower 5%, I'd be surprised if they got a stimulus check and ate more calories because of it. I work in tech and make decent money. Maybe I buy the organic berries instead of the regular ones, but I'm not buying twice as many baskets because I have more money. I still only needed 3.
Their "Net sales of US Foods from 2012 to 2020" wasn't, but it also said sales were down in 2020.
What makes comparisons tricky is people didn't eat out as much, so that cuts spending on some metrics. On others, commercial kitchens are more efficient and buy from wholesalers, so that lowers a different metric. But people consume fewer calories when cooking for themselves.
My main point is that for everyone but the lower 5%, I'd be surprised if they got a stimulus check and ate more calories because of it. I work in tech and make decent money. Maybe I buy the organic berries instead of the regular ones, but I'm not buying twice as many baskets because I have more money. I still only needed 3.
It's time to bring back the old practices of crop rotation and use of the chain of life in a healthy ecosystem to manage overgrowth of pest crops. In the old times, farmers depended on birds, insects and rodents to control pests Humanity took tens of thousands of years to perfect agriculture. It's taken humanity in the modern chemical-dependent age less than a hundred years of monoculture to push it to the brink of collapse.
Granted, yields will be lower. But instead of growing seed corn and soy beans, farmers need to diversify and bring back species that are unique to their regions- that were carefully selected and bred to grow best in that area. Did you know one in the early 20th century, one of the greatest exporters of apples was the state of Iowa? Not now.
Granted, yields will be lower. But instead of growing seed corn and soy beans, farmers need to diversify and bring back species that are unique to their regions- that were carefully selected and bred to grow best in that area. Did you know one in the early 20th century, one of the greatest exporters of apples was the state of Iowa? Not now.
This won’t work unless large numbers of people can go back to being farmers and leave their pointless lives in bullshit jobs sitting at a computer looking at Facebook all day. We would have to pay farmers a real wage again and pay more for healthy food that tastes great and doesn’t kill us. It sounds like a beautiful future and I’ve been contemplating and wishing that could happen for humanity a lot recently. I recommend the documentary Ingredients if you haven’t seen it. It’s on Tubi for free. It changed the way I look at food and the world.
The states of Punjab and Haryana are known as the "food bowl" of India, as their agrarian economy provides a huge share of our food that India needs. The "green revolution" was quite successful in these states and made India a food surplus country, from one that used to face famine and depend on foreign countries for its food. (Despite our economically dysfunctional farming economy, India is currently one of the largest producers of food in the world).
An unfortunate side effect has been the overuse of insecticide, pesticides and fertilizers, and poor planning in the choice of crops leading to excessive depletion of groundwater for water hungry crops like rice (which is a staple food for half the country) - https://eos.org/articles/indias-food-bowl-heads-toward-deser... ... Due to this, the fertile soils are being damaged, and farmers are blindly overcompensating with even more fertilizers. The second problem that has now come up is that we are producing so much, that sometimes huge quantities of grain just rot in government storages.
So the new Chief Minister of Punjab had suggested a novel idea - if the central government were to increase their procurement price (the government is the largest buyer in India), a large number of farmers could shift to organic farming that would be more sustainable in the long run. While the produce output would be less by 25% to 40% with organic farming (hence the need of increase in the procurement price) less production can address the wastage that happens. Moreover, organic produce is said to be safer and healthier due to the very limited use of insecticides / pesticides and fertilizers, and that would make India healthier.
An unfortunate side effect has been the overuse of insecticide, pesticides and fertilizers, and poor planning in the choice of crops leading to excessive depletion of groundwater for water hungry crops like rice (which is a staple food for half the country) - https://eos.org/articles/indias-food-bowl-heads-toward-deser... ... Due to this, the fertile soils are being damaged, and farmers are blindly overcompensating with even more fertilizers. The second problem that has now come up is that we are producing so much, that sometimes huge quantities of grain just rot in government storages.
So the new Chief Minister of Punjab had suggested a novel idea - if the central government were to increase their procurement price (the government is the largest buyer in India), a large number of farmers could shift to organic farming that would be more sustainable in the long run. While the produce output would be less by 25% to 40% with organic farming (hence the need of increase in the procurement price) less production can address the wastage that happens. Moreover, organic produce is said to be safer and healthier due to the very limited use of insecticides / pesticides and fertilizers, and that would make India healthier.
Eliminate subsidies and mandates for ethanol in gasoline. 14-16 million acres of land devoted to a mono crop of corn requiring copious fertilizer and pesticide. Basically this converts oil into a slightly larger quantity of ethanol with some of the most productive farmland in the world.
Energy descent hasn't even started yet lol
https://youtu.be/uqwWdranB5A
[deleted]
I think no-dig would work way better but we need machines that can do that to take it to scale. So maybe the farms need to fail to get there. Also doesn't help that 80% goes to feed animals.
Does anyone have a clue why we've suddenly run into fertiliser shortages? I feel like fertiliser and food demands should be fairly slow-moving? Not going up 3x in the space of 18mo.
Price of inputs increased. Logistic network efficiency fell, delays, ports, trucks, COVID increased labor and other costs.
That said, who knows. It's a complex system, cascading failures are common. Maybe the demand shock of the pandemic (restaurants cancelled orders, farmers cut back demand for fertilizer, factories predicted big demand decrease, but that was successfully "worked around" by government intervention, now the demand is higer than estimated, plus the aforementioned other factors.)
That said, who knows. It's a complex system, cascading failures are common. Maybe the demand shock of the pandemic (restaurants cancelled orders, farmers cut back demand for fertilizer, factories predicted big demand decrease, but that was successfully "worked around" by government intervention, now the demand is higer than estimated, plus the aforementioned other factors.)
Something that bugs me: How much human poop is generated worldwide every day and where does it go??
Why isn’t some of it used as fertilizer, or is it?
Why isn’t some of it used as fertilizer, or is it?
It is used as fertilizer, often not for food consumption. You would be depressed to know how many horrible things are to be found in human excrement, including pharmaceuticals, plastics, fire retardants, etc. To me the greatest use of human waste would be carbon sequestration. Think about it: we have an existing network of pipelines directly from every house to a centralized facility that can collect, dry, and [optionally] store that output in the soil or elsewhere for many years.
The UK is importing human waste from the Netherlands to be used as fertilizer. I guess they don't eat enough in the UK to produce what they need locally? Odd thing to need to import!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/02/sewage-s...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/02/sewage-s...
Maybe we should end the government mandate to burn corn in car engines. Biden seems more pro-ethanol than Trump, I have no idea why.
i always assumed ethanol production was encouraged by the govt precisely to spur excess production of corn so as to make our food production more robust. i.e. during a bad year of food production, halt ethanol production and redirect that excess of corn back into the food supply; crisis averted. is that not the case?
Subsides are never such simple handouts.
Corn and ag subsidies have as much or more to do with govt "buying" surplus and "selling" it to foreign countries as part of aid packages. And dominating the world grain market, which gives the US even more indirect control over foreign grain growing capabilities, making others reliant on the US. (Bc investing in local production is risky when the US can just flood the market.)
Separately, most corn grown for ethanol or animal feed isn't going to directly be rerouted to food supply, unless we approach a full collapse type situation (and even then, it would be more market and regulation collapse and black market emergence than due to policy changes).
But keeping those farmers in business and capable of growing table corn next season (with minimal capital investment or changes to practices required) accomplishes roughly the same thing.
Corn and ag subsidies have as much or more to do with govt "buying" surplus and "selling" it to foreign countries as part of aid packages. And dominating the world grain market, which gives the US even more indirect control over foreign grain growing capabilities, making others reliant on the US. (Bc investing in local production is risky when the US can just flood the market.)
Separately, most corn grown for ethanol or animal feed isn't going to directly be rerouted to food supply, unless we approach a full collapse type situation (and even then, it would be more market and regulation collapse and black market emergence than due to policy changes).
But keeping those farmers in business and capable of growing table corn next season (with minimal capital investment or changes to practices required) accomplishes roughly the same thing.
There was a time when I wasn't a fan of the government subsidizing farmers with policies like that, but the cost of underproduction of food is too high, and it's not a problem markets will solve, so it makes sense for governments to step in and overproduce food.
Ethanol is used in gasoline because MTBE is environmentally persistent.
For anyone else who was unaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE_controversy
It's because Iowa has a law saying their presidential primary must be first.
Hopefully EVs will put a natural end to that madness. We could satisfy much of our primary energy demand simply by replacing energy crops with PV.
EVs are wonderful in certain places: cities, suburbs, etc. Where I sit it’s -10F, and everyone with an EV either can’t start it at all or has to ride in it with no heat—-which can be life-threatening. EVs will reduce our demand, but never eliminate it due to such edge cases.
I'm pretty sure we don't need millions of hectares for Ethanol to satisfy the demand of the five people living in the frozen tundra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures#E...
In my worldview, a political issue that Biden and the EU agree on, and Trump is less enthusiastic about is probably a good thing.
I don't know all the ins and outs, and would generally prefer moving to EVs, but you didn't actually mention why you're not a fan of this policy?
In my worldview, a political issue that Biden and the EU agree on, and Trump is less enthusiastic about is probably a good thing.
I don't know all the ins and outs, and would generally prefer moving to EVs, but you didn't actually mention why you're not a fan of this policy?
I don’t have a reference for this, but I seem to recall that corn ethanol in particular produced more CO2 in its production then you saved by burning it.
(Might have been a different ethanol. There are many things that can be turned into ethanol, and it matters if some are worth it and others are not).
(Might have been a different ethanol. There are many things that can be turned into ethanol, and it matters if some are worth it and others are not).
Physical laws don’t care about good intentions. Expect more “surprises”.
sanctions to Belaruskali in action lol
[flagged]
What happened to ngate tho? It’s been dead for months.
This describes the comment section of at least one article here every week.
The problem with farms is they are small businesses. But instead of having entrepreneurs or managers, or some other competent people, they have farmers in charge. And farmers absolutely refuse to do things like accounts or business plans or learning about farming.
Are you getting your knowledge from stereotypes? I know farmers from my time in a rural midwestern high school and I keep in touch with some. They plan extensively and know more about accounting than I do. Some have agricultural or business degrees too. People generally prefer to make more money for their effort and will take steps in the direction.
Sure there are the backward, resistant type of farmers too. But they're not the majority because such farms are much more prone to failure. It doesn't matter if the stereotype is that farmers are all backwards, they adapt to economic pressures regardless.
Sure there are the backward, resistant type of farmers too. But they're not the majority because such farms are much more prone to failure. It doesn't matter if the stereotype is that farmers are all backwards, they adapt to economic pressures regardless.
While you may be right in some cases, or in other countries, here in Australia, farming in general is a highly developed industry with both very modern business models, and a rapidly digitising business platform.
World hunger for the first world maybe. 80% of global food is still produced in very small, un-industrial family farms.
Source? I suspect the number is closer to 20% than 80.
FAO’s SOFA report (2014a) estimated, based on an analysis of just 30 countries using the 2000 round of agricultural census data, that there are approximately 500 million family farmers in the world who produce 80% of the world’s food
From: https://pure.coventry.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/11930738/1...
From: https://pure.coventry.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/11930738/1...
So? My father in law runs a family farm that is over 4 square miles and his neighbor runs one that is over 40. The neighboring Hutterite colony is even bigger. All are very heavily industrialized.
Equally wrong in both counts. Most of the food in the world is produced by industrial farming. And it is (obviously) the poor (people and countries) who will be disproportionately affected by this, as they are by any price shocks. Your food costs will go up, people in Somalia will starve to death.
The climate change activists who want to cut oil and natural gas production should consider the consequences:
"The price-increases stem partly from global energy costs, with the average natural-gas price in Europe for the October-December quarter 10 times as much as that for the year of 2020, according to World Bank data. Nitrogen production facilities rely heavily on natural gas to convert chemical raw materials into finished products, so rises in the natural-gas price often flow through into fertilizer costs. Major fertilizer producers including China, Turkey, Egypt and Russia also curbed exports in the second half of 2021, further pushing up global prices."
"The price-increases stem partly from global energy costs, with the average natural-gas price in Europe for the October-December quarter 10 times as much as that for the year of 2020, according to World Bank data. Nitrogen production facilities rely heavily on natural gas to convert chemical raw materials into finished products, so rises in the natural-gas price often flow through into fertilizer costs. Major fertilizer producers including China, Turkey, Egypt and Russia also curbed exports in the second half of 2021, further pushing up global prices."
> The climate change activists who want to cut oil and natural gas production should consider the consequences
The cause-and-effect graph is much, much more complicated than you might assume.
For example, having to compete with cheap renewable energy would force fossil fuel prices down to match, making fertiliser costs cheaper.
If fossil fuels no longer needed to be used to make gasolene, then the unused production could be redirected into chemical feedstocks instead, including industrial and agricultural chemicals.
Costs are probably rising because of reduced exports, not the other way around. This can happen for all sorts of reasons, but is usually OPEC countries price-gouging because they can. If they have to compete with non-fossil-fuel energy sources, they can't unilaterally set energy prices by reducing production or exports.
Etc, etc...
The cause-and-effect graph is much, much more complicated than you might assume.
For example, having to compete with cheap renewable energy would force fossil fuel prices down to match, making fertiliser costs cheaper.
If fossil fuels no longer needed to be used to make gasolene, then the unused production could be redirected into chemical feedstocks instead, including industrial and agricultural chemicals.
Costs are probably rising because of reduced exports, not the other way around. This can happen for all sorts of reasons, but is usually OPEC countries price-gouging because they can. If they have to compete with non-fossil-fuel energy sources, they can't unilaterally set energy prices by reducing production or exports.
Etc, etc...
Hello! The causes of the current crisis include:
- the energy situation in China, suffering coal shortages, leading to shortfalls in the production of fertilizer, and
- hurricanes in Texas which shut down natural gas production, leading to shortages of ammonia and urea as inputs to fertilizer production, and
- all sorts of COVID stuff impacting production in lots of ways, and
- sanctions against Belarus, a major potash producer, and
- yes, the energy situation in Europe, where the renewables had a few problems and weren't quite cutting it yet, such that gas is in short supply, while Russia is saber-rattling.
It's a one-among-many thing.
One possibly better form of this argument would be to suggest this threat to global food security is a representative of the situation which would occur if activists' stated goals were met, but in this case an argument that does not clearly state words to this effect is an argument that is undermined by the fact this is much more coincidence rather than design.
- the energy situation in China, suffering coal shortages, leading to shortfalls in the production of fertilizer, and
- hurricanes in Texas which shut down natural gas production, leading to shortages of ammonia and urea as inputs to fertilizer production, and
- all sorts of COVID stuff impacting production in lots of ways, and
- sanctions against Belarus, a major potash producer, and
- yes, the energy situation in Europe, where the renewables had a few problems and weren't quite cutting it yet, such that gas is in short supply, while Russia is saber-rattling.
It's a one-among-many thing.
One possibly better form of this argument would be to suggest this threat to global food security is a representative of the situation which would occur if activists' stated goals were met, but in this case an argument that does not clearly state words to this effect is an argument that is undermined by the fact this is much more coincidence rather than design.
Don’t underestimate the natural gas consumption by the oil industry. Since it’s cheaper than oil as an energy source, gas fuels refining, transportion and a lot of extraction of oil.
1/4 of Canada’s natgas consumption is from Alberta’s oil sands industry.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...
1/4 of Canada’s natgas consumption is from Alberta’s oil sands industry.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...
What’s particularly ridiculous is an enormous amount of methane is just burned into the atmosphere as a waste product in oil fields and more is leaked into the atmosphere due to shoddy maintenance. The source material that is making fertilizer so expensive is free for the taking in some places but being wasted.
Heat + pressure + atmospheric nitrogen + catalysts + methane is being used to produce ammonia and urea which are either used directly or further reacted to produce other nitrogen compounds for fertilizer and so much more.
Heat + pressure + atmospheric nitrogen + catalysts + methane is being used to produce ammonia and urea which are either used directly or further reacted to produce other nitrogen compounds for fertilizer and so much more.
> The source material that is making fertilizer so expensive is free for the taking in some places but being wasted.
The key detail you neglect to mention is that those oil wells are in the middle of nowhere with no pipeline infrastructure. If the value of the natural gas being leaked was more than the cost of the infrastructure required to bring it to market, companies would have already built it.
The key detail you neglect to mention is that those oil wells are in the middle of nowhere with no pipeline infrastructure. If the value of the natural gas being leaked was more than the cost of the infrastructure required to bring it to market, companies would have already built it.
It's not just value, it's also about embedded energy.
Spending $1000 in additional infrastructure to recover $1001 additional methane could make financial sense. But what if manufacturing that infrastructure utilized more btus of cheaper or cleaner energy than what gets recovered?
Then you're still better off not recovering it, financially and from an embedded net energy/ greenhouse gas perspective.
Spending $1000 in additional infrastructure to recover $1001 additional methane could make financial sense. But what if manufacturing that infrastructure utilized more btus of cheaper or cleaner energy than what gets recovered?
Then you're still better off not recovering it, financially and from an embedded net energy/ greenhouse gas perspective.
Methane is needed to make hydrogen, which you can easily make from electricity and water. It’s just cheaper to make from methane so there aren’t facilities to make it using green energy.
But it depends on location. Natural gas in Europe is so expensive that if you were to make hydrogen in Chile from solar, it’d be cheaper
Although I agree cutting oil and natural gas production will in the short term result in more pain and suffering in the world, in the long term the production of oil and natural gas will result in much more suffering as climate changes wrecks our ecosystems. When the Amazon becomes a desert, and the Sahara covers half of Europe, it will be too late to change your mind on what the consequences are of cutting oil and natural gas production.
Most climate change activists are aware that they're making tough choices. They've probably been living their lives in less comfort and more expenditure than the average person for years trying to give the right example.
That neighbour you know, that installed solar panels on the roof of his house 15 years ago? He probably could have taken his family to Hawaii 3 times for the money they spent on that. And he's probably only recovered his initial investment a couple years ago if you live in a northern climate, if at all.
Most climate change activists are aware that they're making tough choices. They've probably been living their lives in less comfort and more expenditure than the average person for years trying to give the right example.
That neighbour you know, that installed solar panels on the roof of his house 15 years ago? He probably could have taken his family to Hawaii 3 times for the money they spent on that. And he's probably only recovered his initial investment a couple years ago if you live in a northern climate, if at all.
I believe people who want to cut oil and gas pollution have been aware of the escalating cost of inaction for some time.
As a minor nitpick on your post, i don't think holding an opinion on any particular topic makes anyone an 'activist' - just as i'm sure you are not a pollution activist.
This feels like a cheap & easy way to revel in scorching the earth.
If we tried to solve the energy problem at any sizable scale (nuclear or renewable, some of the low-hanging efficiencies available), so many other needs for oil & gas would taper. Prices could be stable or ideally decrease, while production is cut.
We've seen too many instances of electricity getting expensive, gas being a better alternative. We need to do better. I'm not even starting in on engaging what I think is the more contemporary geopolitical influence, the reduction in exports you cite.
If we tried to solve the energy problem at any sizable scale (nuclear or renewable, some of the low-hanging efficiencies available), so many other needs for oil & gas would taper. Prices could be stable or ideally decrease, while production is cut.
We've seen too many instances of electricity getting expensive, gas being a better alternative. We need to do better. I'm not even starting in on engaging what I think is the more contemporary geopolitical influence, the reduction in exports you cite.
The climate change activists believe artificial fertilizers are too cheap & consequently lead to destructive practices, so they may be happy about these consequences.
[deleted]
Yes, because we need cheap fossil fuels not a planet that supports human life. /s
It's sad that you are being downvoted. Nothing that you said was factually incorrect. People just want to squelch you because they don't like these facts and what they imply. Ideology is making things terrible for everybody.
[deleted]
Or, read the comments and try to understand.
This is a good thing, fertilizer is heavily overused, poisoning waterways. Yes the cost of food may go up as a result but the current farming practices are unsustainable.
These kinds of ostensibly progressive arguments come very close to crossing the line into fascist eugenics, even if they're made with the greenest of intentions.
Malthusian fears and Luddite patterns are not designed to improve the lot of humanity, only those who can afford luxuries. Deep down, they're rooted in the notion that the world would be better off without undesirable surplus humans.
More sustainable methods do exist to grow crops, and much of what the rich West eats are sustainably grown "organic" vegetables and free range meat. But the bulk of humanity lives on industrial-scale agriculture. Industrial ag is actually why there are so many people. Removing it is unnecessarily cruel. The way it shakes out when there are food shortages is not that suddenly the rich stop eating free-range chicken. It's that the poor starve. You can't expect that inequality to change just by restricting food production across the board. If a Big Mac doubles in price in America, it's still well within the reach of most Americans. If my grass-fed rib eye triples in price, I might go down from 2 to 1 a week. But if grain prices go up by 30% in Africa, there's civil war and starvation. The imbalance actually becomes more extreme as access to protein is always curtailed first in the poorest areas. The assumption that demand for animal protein would go down faster in rich nations, given a price spike in grain, is wishful thinking to say the least.
There is no real solution to the ecological damage done by industrial agriculture unless you want to kill off a lot of the people who were born and live as a direct result of industrial food production.
Malthusian fears and Luddite patterns are not designed to improve the lot of humanity, only those who can afford luxuries. Deep down, they're rooted in the notion that the world would be better off without undesirable surplus humans.
More sustainable methods do exist to grow crops, and much of what the rich West eats are sustainably grown "organic" vegetables and free range meat. But the bulk of humanity lives on industrial-scale agriculture. Industrial ag is actually why there are so many people. Removing it is unnecessarily cruel. The way it shakes out when there are food shortages is not that suddenly the rich stop eating free-range chicken. It's that the poor starve. You can't expect that inequality to change just by restricting food production across the board. If a Big Mac doubles in price in America, it's still well within the reach of most Americans. If my grass-fed rib eye triples in price, I might go down from 2 to 1 a week. But if grain prices go up by 30% in Africa, there's civil war and starvation. The imbalance actually becomes more extreme as access to protein is always curtailed first in the poorest areas. The assumption that demand for animal protein would go down faster in rich nations, given a price spike in grain, is wishful thinking to say the least.
There is no real solution to the ecological damage done by industrial agriculture unless you want to kill off a lot of the people who were born and live as a direct result of industrial food production.
This would be rather like telling the Irish in 1847 that “This is a good thing because it will make you less dependant on a single crop”.
A somewhat callous attitude.
A somewhat callous attitude.
Indeed. They might as well celebrate power blackouts because that reduces carbon emissions --never mid the emergency services which can't be rendered and affect lives --but hey they avoided carbon emissions! That's ideology.
The problem with that metaphor is that the Irish largely went hungry because England continued to export food from the island during the famine. The crop failure was because of nature, but the famine was man made.
I've got bad news for you if you think our current crop of politicians and businessmen are going to pick lives over profits in an analogous situation.
I am absolutely too cynical to believe that, trust me. But I think we absolutely should be honest with ourselves and admit that any famine is really because our leaders valued profits over lives, rather than pinning the blame on fertilizer prices.
It means poor people will suffer. Overpopulated paces may suffer more. Places experiencing bad crops as well…. It’s not something to celebrate in detachment. [the market, and thus price of food staples, is global]
More production will be moved from grain for cattle to growing food for humans. We can massively scale up our food production if we remove beef from the average diet.
It means everything will get more expensive. Poor people also eat meats. Their staple grains will go up, and if the feed for chickens and cows goes up, so will their meat.
I think the person you’re responding to is saying that it’s good that we’ll all be eating less meat. There’s an important point to be made about inequity and the decline of commodity meat, but that point doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s probably good for everyone involved and the planet for us to be eating less meat.
Yes, over time, that would be fine, but not a shock induced by the high prices of fertilizer that immediately affect prices --inducing glee in some because they don't see the immediate detrimental effects.
I agree that shocks generally aren't good. I'm also a meat eater, and I don't like paying more for meat. But I do simultaneously recognize that (1) meat should be more expensive than it is, and (2) that the "real" price of food is completely divorced from the actual price.
In terms of our agricultural mean, there is no reason why every single American can't have cheap, healthy produce without having to devastate the environment. Our current pricing scheme is a product of the better part of a century of (good-intentioned) subsidies and stupendously wasteful distribution practices.
In terms of our agricultural mean, there is no reason why every single American can't have cheap, healthy produce without having to devastate the environment. Our current pricing scheme is a product of the better part of a century of (good-intentioned) subsidies and stupendously wasteful distribution practices.
Most agricultural land can't support food crops but can support ruminants.
That’s not an argument against dedicating existing cropland to human food production. The GP isn’t talking about pasture and rangeland. Just the huge amount of cropland used to grow feed for animal ag. And while we’re at it, let’s reform the ~40M acres [0] cropland used for grazing back to growing human feed. Then we can take the 127M acres of crops used to grow animal feed [1] and also dedicate that to human feed. All while reducing the animal populations and helping with the overgrazing happening on ~50% of range and pasture [2]. And to pre-empt the argument that food animals are fed the byproducts of human-consumption crops, go back to [1]. But yes feel free to feed them the byproducts… it’s just not going to be very much of their calories.
[0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature...
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
[2]: https://www.nrdc.org/resources/grazing-operations-journey-be... unfortunately an ad for grass fed beef, but I think it says something that beef producers see the writing on the wall for the current methods affecting the environment
[0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature...
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
[2]: https://www.nrdc.org/resources/grazing-operations-journey-be... unfortunately an ad for grass fed beef, but I think it says something that beef producers see the writing on the wall for the current methods affecting the environment
> poisoning waterways
This hasn't been true for years. Most algal blooms around the US at least are caused by lawn runoff.
This hasn't been true for years. Most algal blooms around the US at least are caused by lawn runoff.
This is still very much true according to NOAA [0]
A bit weird to make such a definitive statement about the, allegedly singular, culprit with "lawn runoff".
It's really difficult, to nearly impossible, to trace back where the nitrogen and phosphorus originated from that results in oceanic dead zones thousands of miles away [1].
A good start would simply be to look at the biggest consumers of these fertilizers, and those ain't homeowners fertilizing lawns, those are industrial scale agricultural operations [2] for whom fertilizer use directly correlates with their financial bottom line [3].
[0] https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/happenowdeadzone/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216153/
[2] https://www.epa.gov/agriculture/agriculture-nutrient-managem...
[3] https://investigatemidwest.org/2021/11/30/excess-fertilizer-...
A bit weird to make such a definitive statement about the, allegedly singular, culprit with "lawn runoff".
It's really difficult, to nearly impossible, to trace back where the nitrogen and phosphorus originated from that results in oceanic dead zones thousands of miles away [1].
A good start would simply be to look at the biggest consumers of these fertilizers, and those ain't homeowners fertilizing lawns, those are industrial scale agricultural operations [2] for whom fertilizer use directly correlates with their financial bottom line [3].
[0] https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/happenowdeadzone/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216153/
[2] https://www.epa.gov/agriculture/agriculture-nutrient-managem...
[3] https://investigatemidwest.org/2021/11/30/excess-fertilizer-...
I went back and revisited what I read and realized I was overstating the case on gains in fertilization efficiency. It's unfortunately too late to edit my original comment.
Source please. The quantity of fertilizer used on farms dwarfs that used on lawns.
The knowledge and professionalism and price sensitivity of the farmer dwarfs that of thr average home owner. How many nights of sleep does the average home owner lose each year obsessing over the amount of fertilizer and cost of that fertilizer? Meanwhile that actually happens to most farmers. They obsess and endlessly talk about how to cut their fertilizer and pesticides to the bare minimum they think they can handle so they can maybe own their farms for the next generation. You think they're throwing away product by over applying fertilizer? These guys walk their fields once a week and some once a day. They notice things like soil and fertilizer runoff.
> You think they're throwing away product by over applying fertilizer?
They need to overapply fertilizers because by now that's the only way anything grows in most places after decades of soil mismanagement, due to a wide-spread disregard of sustainable practices in favor of "fast results, fast money" over-fertilizing [0].
Rotating crops to keep the soil fertile sounds nice in theory, in capitalistic practice it's not popular because demand for different crops is not interchangeable, so rotating crops means industrial scale operations miss out on valuable growing months, labor and resources, growing a product that's not as profitable.
The "fix" is to just keep applying fertilizers to keep growing those high demand crops because industrial scale operations also think like corporations; It's all about the financial returns in the short-term, not about long-term sustainability.
[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210112125215.h...
They need to overapply fertilizers because by now that's the only way anything grows in most places after decades of soil mismanagement, due to a wide-spread disregard of sustainable practices in favor of "fast results, fast money" over-fertilizing [0].
Rotating crops to keep the soil fertile sounds nice in theory, in capitalistic practice it's not popular because demand for different crops is not interchangeable, so rotating crops means industrial scale operations miss out on valuable growing months, labor and resources, growing a product that's not as profitable.
The "fix" is to just keep applying fertilizers to keep growing those high demand crops because industrial scale operations also think like corporations; It's all about the financial returns in the short-term, not about long-term sustainability.
[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210112125215.h...
You're talking about the death of half the world's population:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_sup...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_sup...
Cheap synthetic fertilizer is one of the single greatest inventions of the 20th century, and is singlehandedly responsible for an enormous increase in our productive capacity and quality of life.
At the same time, I think this chart is misleading: it shows our ability to support the current population as it currently consumes, which includes an extraordinary amount of crop diversion towards animal feed. The GP is describing a world in which we all eat radically less meat, which is also one in which we need to use less synthetic fertilizer for all that meat's food.
At the same time, I think this chart is misleading: it shows our ability to support the current population as it currently consumes, which includes an extraordinary amount of crop diversion towards animal feed. The GP is describing a world in which we all eat radically less meat, which is also one in which we need to use less synthetic fertilizer for all that meat's food.
But this presupposes that the inefficient diversion to animal feed would work itself out in favor of keeping everyone fed if less grain were available. Since the inefficient systems of production and consumption are already deeply entrenched in areas with the highest savings and the most buffer against instability, there's no reason to think they would be the first thing to collapse, or even that the economics might not favor keeping livestock fed over reallocating grain to humans.
I don't think there's any supposition of this sort in my comment: I haven't committed to any particular opinion on how we would (or whether it's politically feasible to) distribute the agricultural products that normally go into animal feed. Contemporary economic pressures, as you've correctly noted, don't help!
All I've observed is that the GP's conclusion doesn't necessarily extend from the data they've presented: it's just not the case that 3.5 billion humans would have to die if we didn't use as much synthetic fertilizer as we do. We can feed the entire world with much less indirection than we currently go through.
All I've observed is that the GP's conclusion doesn't necessarily extend from the data they've presented: it's just not the case that 3.5 billion humans would have to die if we didn't use as much synthetic fertilizer as we do. We can feed the entire world with much less indirection than we currently go through.
Fair enough, but we could only do that if there were some master plan to reallocate the land used for animal feed, the processing, the innumerable distribution systems that get food to people. Saying this is like saying there's enough energy from the sun, wind and hydro to let us go off fossil fuels. It would be true if you could wave a wand and redesign the whole system from scratch. But that observation doesn't make it any less of a crisis if the system as-is begins to break down. The trouble with a lot of these idealistic proclamations that "we have the ability ...if" is that they don't take into account the messy realities, and so the only purpose they serve is virtue-signaling. Tl;dr the only useful solutions in this will involve ways to produce or more efficiently distribute more fertilizer, not to say that we could or should get along without it.
As cynical as it might sound; Maybe that much population, at increasingly higher living standards, was never sustainable to begin with.