4 ms·

Agreed. I've studied the impact of fertilizers on natural gas consumption, and the figures are stunning. If we were able to reduce fertilizer use by just 1%, we

Agreed. I've studied the impact of fertilizers on natural gas consumption, and the figures are stunning. If we were able to reduce fertilizer use by just 1%, we would save meaningful amounts of energy. If we could eliminate it entirely, it would be as big of a breakthrough as the green revolution. It is a shame about the for-profit commercialization, but I think it's worth remembering that such things do sometimes result in faster implementation because the people working on it have more skin in the game. But either way, it will be public domain in 17 years worst case. I don't think that amount of time will make or break agriculture, and if you need 100% less fertilizer it's a pretty easy economic case.

Blahah 13y ago
Good point about possible faster implementation with patent incentive. I would love to see the research on that.
- DonGateley 13y ago
  I believe that was the entire point of it. Keeping invention a personal use secret just wasn't cutting it. Patents are good. Patent abuse is not. They need to be better regulated.
mhurron 13y ago
You'd reduce fertilizer usage if you could prevent farmers from over-fertilizing. Simply following directions would be a huge step forward. Unfortunately there isn't a technical fix for stupid. There is more to fertilizer than just Nitrogen compounds so you would still need a fertilizer, it just wouldn't need to be as nitrogen rich. And the farmers will continue to over fertilize.
- xradionut 13y ago
  "And the farmers will continue to over fertilize." The smart corporate farmers don't over fertilize, it costs real money. Research the technology that they use, satellites, GPS and automated tractors/spray rigs that adjust in real time for specific soil needs.
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  Where do you get the idea that they are over fertilizing? The vast majority of them are on slim margins and watch everything like a hawk so I find it unlikely, given the costs, and their equipment that they are rampantly over fertilizing.
  - pinneycolton 13y ago
    Not to mention the fact that over fertilizing will often reduce crop yields. The idea that the runoff of fertilizer products into groundwater, streams, lakes and oceans must be the result of over fertilization is false. It's the result of gravity.
penguindev 13y ago
If you had a memory leak in a software program, would you try to solve it by packing your structures 1% better?
- neltnerb 13y ago
  Agriculture has been under constant optimization for 80 years, and a 1% reduction in ammonia consumption is equivalent to $1B a year worldwide. I think your analogy is flawed.
  - penguindev 13y ago
    You realize that world population is going to grow by 1% in a year, right? Congratulations, your 'optimization' was just undone. As were those of the previous 80 years. It never ceases to amaze me how so many above-average intelligent people are moving quickly yet don't seem to wonder about where they are actually going. I guess they're just not as lazy as I am. Me personally, I'd rather have enough idle land and unpolluted water for free range beef and wild fish, but I guess some people set their sights quite a bit lower.
  - neltnerb 13y ago
    Ah, I thought you were talking about waste in the actual food production process. But who says I disagree? Suggesting that improving agricultural efficiency is useless because of population growth is just a logical fallacy, a version of a Straw Man. You're suggesting that I don't think we need to reduce population, when what I'm actually saying is that this is independently a big deal. I believe they call this particular version of the Straw Man an "Appeal to Worse Problems".
    - penguindev 13y ago
      I think improving efficiency is indeed useless because it does not address sustainability. I don't care if its 99.999 'efficient', you're either depleting the earth or you're not. Something 10% efficient could be 100% sustainable. And since nearly every post I see on here is about efficiency, and not sustainability, I'm compelled to offer another view point.

Blahah 13y ago

Good point about possible faster implementation with patent incentive. I would love to see the research on that.

DonGateley 13y ago
I believe that was the entire point of it. Keeping invention a personal use secret just wasn't cutting it. Patents are good. Patent abuse is not. They need to be better regulated.

mhurron 13y ago

You'd reduce fertilizer usage if you could prevent farmers from over-fertilizing. Simply following directions would be a huge step forward. Unfortunately there isn't a technical fix for stupid. There is more to fertilizer than just Nitrogen compounds so you would still need a fertilizer, it just wouldn't need to be as nitrogen rich. And the farmers will continue to over fertilize.

xradionut 13y ago
"And the farmers will continue to over fertilize." The smart corporate farmers don't over fertilize, it costs real money. Research the technology that they use, satellites, GPS and automated tractors/spray rigs that adjust in real time for specific soil needs.
DamnYuppie 13y ago
Where do you get the idea that they are over fertilizing? The vast majority of them are on slim margins and watch everything like a hawk so I find it unlikely, given the costs, and their equipment that they are rampantly over fertilizing.
- pinneycolton 13y ago
  Not to mention the fact that over fertilizing will often reduce crop yields. The idea that the runoff of fertilizer products into groundwater, streams, lakes and oceans must be the result of over fertilization is false. It's the result of gravity.

penguindev 13y ago

If you had a memory leak in a software program, would you try to solve it by packing your structures 1% better?

neltnerb 13y ago
Agriculture has been under constant optimization for 80 years, and a 1% reduction in ammonia consumption is equivalent to $1B a year worldwide. I think your analogy is flawed.
- penguindev 13y ago
  You realize that world population is going to grow by 1% in a year, right? Congratulations, your 'optimization' was just undone. As were those of the previous 80 years. It never ceases to amaze me how so many above-average intelligent people are moving quickly yet don't seem to wonder about where they are actually going. I guess they're just not as lazy as I am. Me personally, I'd rather have enough idle land and unpolluted water for free range beef and wild fish, but I guess some people set their sights quite a bit lower.
- neltnerb 13y ago
  Ah, I thought you were talking about waste in the actual food production process. But who says I disagree? Suggesting that improving agricultural efficiency is useless because of population growth is just a logical fallacy, a version of a Straw Man. You're suggesting that I don't think we need to reduce population, when what I'm actually saying is that this is independently a big deal. I believe they call this particular version of the Straw Man an "Appeal to Worse Problems".
  - penguindev 13y ago
    I think improving efficiency is indeed useless because it does not address sustainability. I don't care if its 99.999 'efficient', you're either depleting the earth or you're not. Something 10% efficient could be 100% sustainable. And since nearly every post I see on here is about efficiency, and not sustainability, I'm compelled to offer another view point.