9 ms·

There are options besides chemical fertilizers. The nodules on legume root are a symbiotic home for nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Farmers traditionally rotate corn

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 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-could-help-eliminate-need-fertilizer 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_meal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_meal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_meal

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
beebmam 5y ago
We could all benefit from eating more legumes in our diets, well most of us at least
gruez 5y ago
>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.
- jelliclesfarm 5y ago
  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..
  - esarbe 5y ago
    There are techniques to cut down water consumption by quite a lot. As for the land; we'll have to invest quite a bit more in ecosystem restoration in the future.
    - walleeee 5y ago
      Can we start now
- colordrops 5y ago
  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.
  - catmanjan 5y ago
    If those existed and were cheaper, that would be done
    - colordrops 5y ago
      If what existed? sustainable, nutritious and humane crops and farming practices? they do exist.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        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.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
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.)
- xkqd 5y ago
  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?
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  Crop rotation, livestock integration and guild planting can be applied in all of those cases.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    Crop rotation? Of perennials?
analog31 5y ago
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.
- pstuart 5y ago
  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).
  - analog31 5y ago
    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.
    - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
      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.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    Corn is a very good carbon sink. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198713000962 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016719871... https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/one-global-warming-strategy-sink-decomposing-corn-into-deep-ocean/article_6fb31ccc-5eb1-11ec-8846-8b58adb4a444.html https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/one-global-warmin...
    - 5y ago
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
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.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  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.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    > 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.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

beebmam 5y ago

We could all benefit from eating more legumes in our diets, well most of us at least

gruez 5y ago

>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.

jelliclesfarm 5y ago
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..
- esarbe 5y ago
  There are techniques to cut down water consumption by quite a lot. As for the land; we'll have to invest quite a bit more in ecosystem restoration in the future.
  - walleeee 5y ago
    Can we start now
colordrops 5y ago
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.
- catmanjan 5y ago
  If those existed and were cheaper, that would be done
  - colordrops 5y ago
    If what existed? sustainable, nutritious and humane crops and farming practices? they do exist.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      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.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

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.)

xkqd 5y ago
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?
CuriouslyC 5y ago
Crop rotation, livestock integration and guild planting can be applied in all of those cases.
- OJFord 5y ago
  Crop rotation? Of perennials?

analog31 5y ago

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.

pstuart 5y ago
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).
- analog31 5y ago
  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.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    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.
- lenkite 5y ago
  Corn is a very good carbon sink. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198713000962 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016719871... https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/one-global-warming-strategy-sink-decomposing-corn-into-deep-ocean/article_6fb31ccc-5eb1-11ec-8846-8b58adb4a444.html https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/one-global-warmin...
  - 5y ago

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

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.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
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.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  > 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.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago