3 ms·

There goes another possible experiment in regenerative agriculture, the only sustainable way for our great-grandchildren to avoid mass starvation. Industrial f

There goes another possible experiment in regenerative agriculture, the only sustainable way for our great-grandchildren to avoid mass starvation. Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input, because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century. We're going to run out of oil. I know that's a minority opinion here, but the facts will bear it out over time. Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. Doing so would build soil, capturing and fixing large amounts of carbon in the process, improving drought resistance (through improved ability to hold water without runoff, and reduced ground temperature and evaporation due to cover crops).

cm2012 4y ago
Scientists will figure it out. Much more likely than everyone switching to artisan, labor intensive farms.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Or, like many things, the labor intensive parts will be automated by ever more autonomous farm devices allowing more biologic processes to grow food and less chemical intervention. The cost an autonomous drone that uses electricity to zap pests and weeds, charged off panels in the fields, over time will be significantly less than applying mass amounts of synthetic chemicals over a large surface area. The biological processes that yield soil are very efficient and essentially free at extreme scales, so long as the labor isn’t so expensive. And I think most people are wagering on automation taking over an awful lot of tasks. There have been plenty of HN postings of companies proving the basic techniques out, which work but are too expensive today. That will change. I think this is more likely than vertical farming or that we can continue to blast the environment with chemicals that interfere with fundamental biological processes at extreme scales.
nordsieck 4y ago
> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. False dilema. There are probably more options, but one that immediately comes to mind is that we could synthesize petroleum from the atmosphere. It'd probably be the only sensible way to do long-range air travel in your scenario anyhow.
colechristensen 4y ago
Oil isn't "turned into fertilizer". Methane is used as a source of hydrogen to fix atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, but it's entirely possible but slightly more expensive to use hydrogen from splitting water. When natural gas prices go up, it'll be cheaper to use electrolysis on water so that's what will be used, no starvation involved. You don't know what you're talking about. The generational BS about not being able to do agriculture any more in n decades doesn't have any merit, it's just a bubble of doomers who have no idea what they're talking about convince each other that the world is going to end.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I believe the H from the oil (literally the hydrogen atom) is incorporated chemically into the resulting ammonia, which would be consistent with saying "oil is turned into fertilizer" in most worlds that I move through.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    I mean, yes, this is what I explained, but in no way is the hydrocarbon necessary, it's just one of many alternative feedstocks for hydrogen.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      I don't think this is logical. You said "oil is not turned into fertilizer" but then you agree, oil can be used to do it. And, in reality, nearly all nitrogen fertilizer uses oil as the feedstock, so probably, in the future, don't say "you don't know what you're talking about" unless you are 100% technically correct, which in this case, I don't think you were.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        He's saying oil (or any fossil fuel) doesn't have to be the feedstock from which ammonia is produced. That natural gas (not oil) is currently the leading feedstock is entirely beside the point. Agriculture can switch away from it at any time. And, in particular, this statement is figurative and literal bullshit: > Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.
whatshisface 4y ago
The biggest fertilizer is ammonia. It's made from nitrogen that comes from the air and hydrogen that comes from methane. Conveniently, methane can be burnt to create the high temperature environment in which the reaction must take place. The other major fertilizer is potash. It is mined, but can also be extracted from underground brines, both natural and those produced from water pumped into deep wells and brought back up. If you took away the methane, you could heat the reactor electrically and produce hydrogen from water. It would be more expensive and use more energy, but it would work. Although potassium is a nonrenewable resource it is not likely to run out any time soon.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Potassium can also be obtained from seawater. The limiting element is phosphorus. It cannot be substituted for and phosphate ores will not last forever. Eventually, it will have to be extracted from very low grade rocks at a concentration just above 0.1%. This probably sets a lower limit on how much rock global civilization will have to process each year. Phosphorus recycling will likely become more profitable.
cyberax 4y ago
> Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input, because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century. What a piece of nonsense bullshit. 1. Ammonia can be produced without any oil. Natural gas (not oil per se) is simply used as an easy way to produce hydrogen and the heat energy needed. 2. Nitrogen fertilizers do not "sterilize" the soil. Not even close to it. They in fact can cause bacterial overgrowth, as nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient for anything. Soil with fertilizer is extremely fertile for both agricultural plants and for microbial life. 3. Nitrogen fertilizers are _essential_ to survival. Without them, quite literally billions will starve. 4. "Soil depletion" is typically caused by the lack of micronutrients such as potassium, and can be managed by (you guessed it!) adding fertilizers. Some other causes such as salt accumulation due to irrigation are more complicated. > Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. Sigh. People should REALLY learn how the nitrogen cycle works.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  The future of land management is going to be cultivating, curating, and generally taking care of the living, mostly fungal, part of the soil which will displace some or all of the straight up chemical additions instead enhancing the natural symbioses between root, fungus, and bacteria on an industrial scale... but until then chemical additions are fine. The issue going forward is going to be cost not an existential threat.
  - cyberax 4y ago
    What a LOAD of bull. Look, the hard truth is, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. A square kilometer of plants can fix only so much of it on its own via symbiotic bacteria (and maaaaybe archaea), fungi can NOT fix nitrogen on their own. You can optimize, curate, cultivate, paint yourself in dog shit and chant at the full moon however long you want, but there's a hard practical limit on that amount. And that's it. Animals can concentrate nitrogen into manure, but they don't produce more of it. That's why fertilizers are absolutely essential, as long as the Earth's population is above ~2B.
biorach 4y ago
> the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. That's a massive, massive exaggeration.

cm2012 4y ago

Scientists will figure it out. Much more likely than everyone switching to artisan, labor intensive farms.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
Or, like many things, the labor intensive parts will be automated by ever more autonomous farm devices allowing more biologic processes to grow food and less chemical intervention. The cost an autonomous drone that uses electricity to zap pests and weeds, charged off panels in the fields, over time will be significantly less than applying mass amounts of synthetic chemicals over a large surface area. The biological processes that yield soil are very efficient and essentially free at extreme scales, so long as the labor isn’t so expensive. And I think most people are wagering on automation taking over an awful lot of tasks. There have been plenty of HN postings of companies proving the basic techniques out, which work but are too expensive today. That will change. I think this is more likely than vertical farming or that we can continue to blast the environment with chemicals that interfere with fundamental biological processes at extreme scales.

nordsieck 4y ago

> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. False dilema. There are probably more options, but one that immediately comes to mind is that we could synthesize petroleum from the atmosphere. It'd probably be the only sensible way to do long-range air travel in your scenario anyhow.

colechristensen 4y ago

Oil isn't "turned into fertilizer". Methane is used as a source of hydrogen to fix atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, but it's entirely possible but slightly more expensive to use hydrogen from splitting water. When natural gas prices go up, it'll be cheaper to use electrolysis on water so that's what will be used, no starvation involved. You don't know what you're talking about. The generational BS about not being able to do agriculture any more in n decades doesn't have any merit, it's just a bubble of doomers who have no idea what they're talking about convince each other that the world is going to end.

dekhn 4y ago
I believe the H from the oil (literally the hydrogen atom) is incorporated chemically into the resulting ammonia, which would be consistent with saying "oil is turned into fertilizer" in most worlds that I move through.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  I mean, yes, this is what I explained, but in no way is the hydrocarbon necessary, it's just one of many alternative feedstocks for hydrogen.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    I don't think this is logical. You said "oil is not turned into fertilizer" but then you agree, oil can be used to do it. And, in reality, nearly all nitrogen fertilizer uses oil as the feedstock, so probably, in the future, don't say "you don't know what you're talking about" unless you are 100% technically correct, which in this case, I don't think you were.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      He's saying oil (or any fossil fuel) doesn't have to be the feedstock from which ammonia is produced. That natural gas (not oil) is currently the leading feedstock is entirely beside the point. Agriculture can switch away from it at any time. And, in particular, this statement is figurative and literal bullshit: > Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.

whatshisface 4y ago

The biggest fertilizer is ammonia. It's made from nitrogen that comes from the air and hydrogen that comes from methane. Conveniently, methane can be burnt to create the high temperature environment in which the reaction must take place. The other major fertilizer is potash. It is mined, but can also be extracted from underground brines, both natural and those produced from water pumped into deep wells and brought back up. If you took away the methane, you could heat the reactor electrically and produce hydrogen from water. It would be more expensive and use more energy, but it would work. Although potassium is a nonrenewable resource it is not likely to run out any time soon.

pfdietz 4y ago
Potassium can also be obtained from seawater. The limiting element is phosphorus. It cannot be substituted for and phosphate ores will not last forever. Eventually, it will have to be extracted from very low grade rocks at a concentration just above 0.1%. This probably sets a lower limit on how much rock global civilization will have to process each year. Phosphorus recycling will likely become more profitable.

cyberax 4y ago

> Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input, because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century. What a piece of nonsense bullshit. 1. Ammonia can be produced without any oil. Natural gas (not oil per se) is simply used as an easy way to produce hydrogen and the heat energy needed. 2. Nitrogen fertilizers do not "sterilize" the soil. Not even close to it. They in fact can cause bacterial overgrowth, as nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient for anything. Soil with fertilizer is extremely fertile for both agricultural plants and for microbial life. 3. Nitrogen fertilizers are _essential_ to survival. Without them, quite literally billions will starve. 4. "Soil depletion" is typically caused by the lack of micronutrients such as potassium, and can be managed by (you guessed it!) adding fertilizers. Some other causes such as salt accumulation due to irrigation are more complicated. > Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. Sigh. People should REALLY learn how the nitrogen cycle works.

colechristensen 4y ago
The future of land management is going to be cultivating, curating, and generally taking care of the living, mostly fungal, part of the soil which will displace some or all of the straight up chemical additions instead enhancing the natural symbioses between root, fungus, and bacteria on an industrial scale... but until then chemical additions are fine. The issue going forward is going to be cost not an existential threat.
- cyberax 4y ago
  What a LOAD of bull. Look, the hard truth is, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. A square kilometer of plants can fix only so much of it on its own via symbiotic bacteria (and maaaaybe archaea), fungi can NOT fix nitrogen on their own. You can optimize, curate, cultivate, paint yourself in dog shit and chant at the full moon however long you want, but there's a hard practical limit on that amount. And that's it. Animals can concentrate nitrogen into manure, but they don't produce more of it. That's why fertilizers are absolutely essential, as long as the Earth's population is above ~2B.

biorach 4y ago

> the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. That's a massive, massive exaggeration.