9 ms·
A remarkable amount of the fertilizer applied via modern industrial farming practices is just wasted: > "According to an average of 13 global databases from 10
by photochemsyn 4y ago
A remarkable amount of the fertilizer applied via modern industrial farming practices is just wasted:
> "According to an average of 13 global databases from 10 data sources, in 2010, 161 teragrams of nitrogen were applied to agricultural crops, but only 73 teragrams of nitrogen made it to the harvested crop. A total of 86 teragrams of nitrogen was wasted, perhaps ending up in the water, air, or soil. The new research was published in the journal Nature Food in July."
https://eos.org/articles/index-suggests-that-half-of-nitrogen-applied-to-crops-is-lost https://eos.org/articles/index-suggests-that-half-of-nitroge...
Large-area applications by mechanized systems seem to be part of the problem, but that's also necessary to escape the subsitence agriculture trap, i.e. with such systems, it's not necessary for half or more of the human population to be working in the fields to grow food, it's more like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100.
The most promising solution might be AI + robots. If a robot could crawl up and down fields inspecting individual plants for nutrient status and applying small amounts of fertilizer as needed (also weeding and checking for pest infestations), it could cut fertilizer use in half while maintaining the same level of production - and perhaps eliminate the need for most herbicides and pesticides.
- soperj 4y agoI'd say the majority of that ends up in the sea, causing algae blooms and killing life for miles around. So worse than wasted.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoSurely there is more farm land away from the sea than adjacent to it. How does for example fertilizer from here[1] or here[2] end up at sea? [1] https://goo.gl/maps/Pm4JGesJZ9xELrBB8 https://goo.gl/maps/Pm4JGesJZ9xELrBB8 [2] https://goo.gl/maps/rzGttw1gMchSWXREA https://goo.gl/maps/rzGttw1gMchSWXREA
- hammock 4y agoThe Mississippi and Rhine Rivers
- soperj 4y ago[1] - down the Arkansas river to the Mississippi, and right out to sea. [2] - down the Danube, and right out to sea.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoThat still dozens, if not hundreds of kilometers the fertilizer somehow needs to walk.
- ceejayoz 4y agoIt doesn't walk, it flows - sometimes above ground, sometimes under - to the nearest tiny gully, creek, stream, spring, etc., with very few exceptions. The network for the USA: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/10/21/16/3995911F00000578-0-image-a-10_1477064225642.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/10/21/16/3995911F000005...
- seiferteric 4y agoIt's water soluble.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoSure, but why is it pulled sideways and not down, and why does it move toward the river of all directions it could move?
- Tyrannosaur 4y agoFor exactly the same reason the river exists in the first place. Why does the water flow to the ocean and not just sink into the ground?
- marginalia_nu 4y agoA lot of it does sink into the ground though. Thats how aquifiers replenish.
- contravariant 4y agoThere's very few places where water does not eventually end up in the sea. Though if it seeps into the groundwater it may take a geological amount of time.
- 83 4y agoFor the US, there's a nice app where you can follow the watershed path: https://river-runner.samlearner.com/ https://river-runner.samlearner.com/ Edit, direct link to the pinpoint: https://river-runner.samlearner.com/?lng=-98.92662834458773&lat=38.08379637247655 https://river-runner.samlearner.com/?lng=-98.92662834458773&...
- adrianN 4y agoA lot also ends up in the groundwater. It just takes a couple of decades to reach it.
- hammock 4y agoThere is so little organic matter in the topsoil due to modern farming practices and it gets worse every year. The result is soil that doesn't retain water, it just runs off. This means that irrigation has to be more and more frequent, and it means that fertilizer runs off (causing algal blooms etc) more than it percolates into the soil Lots of places to read more about this issue and here's a start: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/soil-degradation.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/soil-degradation.html
- hedora 4y agoIt’s strange that the article you linked doesn’t mention no-till farming. Farmers replace the plows on their tractors (which turn over the soil) with knives that have fertilizer injectors on the tips. Rather than plow, then spray fertilizer on to the surface, they inject fertilizer into the ground. After a few years, earthworms reestablish themselves and naturally aerate the soil. This can be combined with other (well established, commercially available) precision agriculture techniques to minimize irrigation and fertilizer waste. The big problem is the up front cost of replacing tractor implements, and training labor. Anyway, this is much easier than agroforestry, building glass hydroponics towers, etc.
- hammock 4y agoThanks I was looking for a youtube video that I couldn't find so I grabbed the first article I saw that explained that problem well. As for solutions, you are right no-till is a big one (the main one?) and is worth reading about elsewhere
- tmountain 4y agoYup, most gardening books start off talking about humus, “dark, organic material that forms in soil when plant and animal matter decays.” Industrial farms are very far away from the foundations of healthy soil, and they need copious amounts of fertilizer and water to compensate. The food produced is less nutritious and less sustainable as a result. Consider investing in a local CSA if you have the opportunity. It’s a fantastic way to support locally sustainable agriculture.
- Avicebron 4y agoWhile it's cool and all to want to work on AI+Robots, because obviously that's where this thought is coming from because who wants to actually work in the fields am I right?\s I think it's more important to think about market fit and margins of farming, in what world is introducing a complex, expensive machine to an already thin margin industry a practical solution? The reason it's inefficient and wasteful isn't because "they're some hicks who need the righteous engineer to come and save them with their brilliance" its because its fast and cheap
- prepend 4y ago> in what world is introducing a complex, expensive machine to an already thin margin industry a practical solution In the world where it is cheaper than the rising price of fertilizer.
- hedora 4y agoThe robots (including maintenance) would also have to be cheaper than sensors and existing automated tractors. I’m not willing to say it is impossible, but it would be extremely difficult to achieve.
- osigurdson 4y agoAgree. Not sure if the OP checked the price of modern farm equipment lately. I’m pretty sure $500K for certain things is not uncommon.
- horsawlarway 4y agoYes, but fast and cheap is temporary (and the end result is a lot of pain). This is a problem that requires structural investment from government (the populace) but once done, the return on investment seems very high. How do you think the Netherlands are the second leading agricultural exporter in the world right now? Short answer - very efficient greenhouses. To get an idea of just how efficient - they use ~4 to 9 liters of water per pound of tomatoes produced. The world average is 60 liters per pound of tomatoes. Not the high end - the AVERAGE.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoIs this a problem exclusive to outdoor farms, or would vertical/indoor farming help this?
- undersuit 4y agoHydroponics usually measure the nutrients in the water and only add when needed. Indoor farming with soil beds can adopt water recycling too but there's no requirement to.
- eru 4y agoIf you do greenhouse farming, the problem is more explicit. (Though in theory you could still just let your wastewater drain into the ground, and have the same problem.)
- Alex3917 4y ago> A remarkable amount of the fertilizer applied via modern industrial farming practices is just wasted You can also cut out most of the nitrogen just by using Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (e.g. azospirillum), but most US farmers don't do that. Without PGPBs, most of the plant's energy is wasted just trying to uptake the nitrogen from the soil. Whereas the with the bacteria, not only do the bacteria produce the nitrogen themselves, but they also do all the work of feeding it to your plants so they can spend their energy growing and producing food instead.
- csdvrx 4y ago> but most US farmers don't do that Why? Is it not cost-effective?
- wahern 4y ago> Is it not cost-effective? A quick Googling of the literature (more general terms seems to be bioinoculant and biofertilizer) suggests exactly that. There are industrial products out there for large-scale inoculation, but manufacture, packaging, shipping, and application of bioinoculants can require rather sophisticated carriers, whether in solid, liquid, or polymer form; or engineering more easily accommodated bacteria or fungus. It seems it's still very early days for industrial-scale products, notwithstanding that the research and perhaps even some products go back decades.
- sleton38234234 4y agoWell, that explains why our water is so high in nitrates. I've been looking into our local water supply. Out of the over 200 contaminants, the one that exceeds the EWG's limit by the most margin is nitrates which is said to come from fertilizer run off.
- Scoundreller 4y agoA lot of that can be from intensive animal farming. Really bad in New Zealand with all the dairy production.
- gjadi 4y agoThis kind of robot are already being developed and tested. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV0cR_Nhac0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV0cR_Nhac0 Sniper robot treats 500k plants per hour with 95% less chemicals | Challengers
- mattpallissard 4y ago> A remarkable amount of the fertilizer applied via modern industrial farming practices is just wasted: Hmm, the fact that there is waste totally unsurprising given some of nitrogen deliverey methods (like anhydrous ammonia). But those numbers are really high. > water, air, or soil Ah, but if it's still in the soil that could probably account for a big chunk of it that would eventually get used
- londons_explore 4y ago> 161 teragrams of nitrogen were applied to agricultural crops, but only 73 teragrams of nitrogen made it to the harvested crop Getting ~half of the nitrogen from the fertilizer into the harvest seems awfully impressive to me. There are so many ways for nitrogen to escape - into runoff, broken down back into the atmosphere, used to grow weeds and non-productive parts of the plant, etc.
- refurb 4y ago45% conversion to crop is actually amazing and way higher than I thought it would be. You'd never be able to get it to 100% just based on thermodynamics alone. It takes a lot of energy to move nutrients from an area of low concentration (the soil) to an area of high concentration (the plant). Just making up number here, but if a plant needed 10 grams of nitrogen, but the soil contained only 50 mg at any given time (but was constantly replenished), plant growth and yield would suffer considerably - despite the fact that a sufficient supply is available over time. You need to have an excess supply of nutrients available to maximize growth. It's similar to water - many plants will die in soil that has a low level of moisture. The water is there, the plant just doesn't have the capacity to actually pull in enough to sustain life.
- PicassoCTs 4y agoIdea: Take some clay, form and burn a repository for nitrogen rich water, that can be reached by roots, but not by rainwater, bury them beneath the field, resupply it via a feed line. Now watch roots and heavy tractors ruin that brilliant plan.