Hacker News Reader

Comment by boudin | Hacker News Reader

Isn't that just the result of having heavily used this process? This can indeed be a consequence (although I do find the source of the wikipedia article really light without a proper study to support the claim) but it doesn't mean that this is a necessity. It could just be a result of a transition of societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct, to a mechanize society needing to find an alternative for fertilizing.

View on HN

> societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct

Animals also eat. There was never an abundance of fertilizer before industrial processes.

Although highly depending where, there definitely was. You can read about it in the Parisian farmers practice in the 19th century for example (not sure there's much material in English though)

> Animals also eat.

I'm curious: what do you think they were eating?

Livestock was and is used to convert plants humans can't eat into milk and meat that we can. Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. Grains are really expensive compared to some grass growing in a field. I don't understand why people think it would be even close to economical for a rancher to raise an animal over 1000 pounds on grain alone. That beef would be more expensive than any wagyu.

> Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses.

I meant, "Even modern grain-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com