Hacker News Reader

Comment by msandford | Hacker News Reader

You seem very certain that fertilizer is required. Given what we know of agriculture today, that seems reasonable.

But something, somehow grew 4-8ft of deep topsoil on the prairies in the US that are now prime farmland. Haber Bosch wasn't around 300 or 3000 years ago, nor were people tilling and planting. How did these plants get enough nitrogen to thrive?

How do current grass fed beef ranchers grow enough grass to grow cattle today? Surely they aren't fertilizing the grass.

Some folks say that there are free living nitrogen fixing bacteria that can live in the soil, provided that they're getting sugars from growing plants. It seems reasonable.

View on HN

> Haber Bosch wasn't around 300 or 3000 years ago, nor were people tilling and planting. How did these plants get enough nitrogen to thrive?

They didn't "thrive" in the modern sense. For example, a good yield in 1900 was around 16 bushels of wheat per acre, with the national average of 12 bushels. You could use somewhat better crop rotation techniques, waste a lot of effort on manual pest removal, and get to maybe 20-25 bushels.

The current _average_ yield is 50 bushels per acre. And the top yields are around 100 bushels per acre ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/190370/top-10-us-states-... ).

Sorry for arcane units, they are traditional when talking about wheat.

> How do current grass fed beef ranchers grow enough grass to grow cattle today? Surely they aren't fertilizing the grass.

Yes, they do. Alfalfa doesn't require a lot of it (it's a nitrogen fixer itself), but other types of grass do. Corn for corn-fed beef certainly needs fertilizer.

And corn-fed beef is around 96% of all beef in the US.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-12-09-organic-farming-produ...

Report: Organic farming yields 40% more crops than conventional farming during drought

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...

A new meta-analysis suggests farmers should take a hybrid approach to producing enough food for humans while preserving the environment

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/farmyard-man...

Farmyard manure in natural farming leads to higher yield than conventional method: Study

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069

with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States

The analysis we present here offers a new perspective, based on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland.

Averaged across all crops, organic yield averaged 80% of conventional yield. However, several crops had no significant difference in yields between organic and conventional production, and organic yields surpassed conventional yields for some hay crops.

> If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares > Farmyard manure in natural farming leads to higher yield than conventional method: Study

First, these two items are mutually exclusive. Second, about 95% of manure right now is produced by animals that are fed "non-organic" corn, that is produced with the help of fertilizers.

Honestly, "organic" people should just study the basics: the nitrogen cycle.

> these two items are mutually exclusive

How? Why?

> about 95% of manure right now is produced by animals that are fed "non-organic" corn

That's not the only way how to get manure, right? Three field system, for example. And manure is not the only thing we could use, we have also compost and mulch and nitrogen fixing plants and companion plants and agroforestry etc.

> How? Why?

If the world switches to a vegan diet, there wouldn't be any manure.

> That's not the only way how to get manure, right?

Nope. Not right.

> Three field system, for example. And manure is not the only thing we could use, we have also compost and mulch and nitrogen fixing plants and companion plants etc.

If you're talking about bilogical methods, then nitrogen-fixing plants are THE ONLY way you can get nitrogen. Animals don't fix nitrogen, they simply concentrate it in the form of manure.

And guess what? Plants suck at nitrogen fixation. So overall yields would be around one tenth of the current ones for many important crops.

> If the world switches to a vegan diet, there wouldn't be any manure.

We could, and probably would still have the animals. There are vegan sanctuaries even in this day and age. But even without manure we'd still be ok.

> So overall yields would be around one tenth of the current ones for many important crops.

Yields were 2-3 times smaller before the "green revolution," not 10 times less.

With better methods, processes, and with automation we could further improve yields. This would undoubtedly require more knowledge than the uniform methods we're currently using.

Animal agriculture is so wasteful and inefficient that we could absolutely free 75% of the lands we're currently using for reforesting and rewilding and still have 2x more space than we have now for veggies, fruits, and nuts, while feeding everyone sustainably.

We should even accept those lower yields than we currently have; the priority should be the restoration of soils and biodiversity rather than the maximal exploitation of natural resources. Soil depletion/erosion is a serious problem, and both industrial and animal agriculture are the culprits.

> We could, and probably would still have the animals. There are vegan sanctuaries even in this day and age. But even without manure we'd still be ok.

Without fertilizers? Nope.

> Yields were 2-3 times smaller before the "green revolution," not 10 times less.

It is close to 10x. I gave numbers for wheat already. Potatoes are similar: 60 bushels per acre in 1900, 500 bushels now. And so on, and so on.

> With better methods, processes, and with automation we could further improve yields.

Nope. They are fundamentally limited by nutrients. Primarily nitrogen.

> This would undoubtedly require more knowledge than the uniform methods we're currently using.

Sigh. Do you think EVERYONE around you is a moron? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people working in agricultural research are idiots and/or bribed into silence by large companies?

> Animal agriculture is so wasteful and inefficient that we could absolutely free 75% of the lands we're currently using for reforesting and rewilding and still have 2x more space than we have now for veggies, fruits, and nuts, while feeding everyone sustainably.

Once we perfect vat-grown meat, sure.

> Without fertilizers? Nope.

Look into syntropic and natural farming, for example.

Syntropic Farming:

- Concept: This approach is based on the principles of succession in natural ecosystems. It mimics natural processes to regenerate the land, creating a resilient system where various plant species support each other.

- Yield: Initial yields might be lower than industrial farming, but over time, as the ecosystem stabilizes and soil health improves, yields can be sustained without much external input.

- Advantages: Builds soil health, reduces the need for external inputs, enhances biodiversity, sequesters carbon, and can be more resilient to climatic fluctuations.

- Limitations: Requires deeper understanding and observation of natural processes, may not produce as high yields initially, and might require more labor in the beginning stages.

Natural Farming (or Do-Nothing Farming):

- Concept: Introduced by Masanobu Fukuoka, this method avoids plowing, chemical fertilizers, weeding, and pesticides. Instead, it promotes the use of cover crops and natural fertilizers.

- Yield: Yields can be comparable to conventional methods after the system stabilizes, but there might be fluctuations depending on environmental conditions.

- Advantages: Low external input, builds soil health, encourages biodiversity, reduces erosion, and is less labor-intensive in the long run.

- Limitations: There's a learning curve to understanding the balance of natural systems, initial yields might be lower, and it might not be suitable for all crop types or large-scale monocultures.

> Potatoes are similar: 60 bushels per acre in 1900, 500 bushels now.

Farming practices were less advanced, and there was a limited understanding of pest and disease management. The lack of resistant varieties meant that pests and diseases could cause substantial yield losses (potato blight for example).

> Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people working in agricultural research are idiots and/or bribed into silence by large companies

I believe we stopped developing new methods a long time ago, compromising biodiversity, soil, and human health. The entrenched belief that we need animal products for sustenance prevents us from exploring new, more sustainable methods. Furthermore, the current financial system does not accommodate experimentation, learning, and the adoption of sustainable practices.

> Once we perfect vat-grown meat, sure.

We may destroy all remaining biodiversity before we find ways to achieve that on the necessary scale.

> Look into syntropic and natural farming, for example.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. You can "regenerate" this and "natural" that all you can, but it simply won't work.

There is NOT enough naturally fixed nitrogen (and phosphorus) to sustain yields that are needed to feed people.

> Farming practices were less advanced, and there was a limited understanding of pest and disease management. The lack of resistant varieties meant that pests and diseases could cause substantial yield losses (potato blight for example).

Nope. It's all nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. Modern cultivars are also more adapted to utilizing the higher levels of nitrogen, and they just won't thrive with the starvation-era agricultural practices.

> I believe we stopped developing new methods

Then you're a moron and/or ignorant of what is actually happening.

> There is NOT enough naturally fixed nitrogen (and phosphorus) to sustain yields that are needed to feed people

You're mistaken.

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/07/in-syntropic-agriculture-f...

He refused to use artificial fertilizers and pesticides. He let most of the land grow naturally, and on 12 hectares (30 acres) he planted bananas and cocoa, cutting back the surrounding trees regularly. Today, he harvests an average 920 kgs (2,000 lb) of cocoa beans per hectare, more than three times the average across Brazil of 300 kg (660 lb) per hectare. And because he doesn’t spend money on fertilizers and pesticides, unlike the farmers around him, Götsch enjoys higher profits.

https://www.microfarmguide.com/syntropic-farming/

The yield from the system usually equates to and often surpasses that of the conventional counterpart. The other plants grown within the systems result in additional income for the farmer, covering the labor cost.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...

Organic agriculture delivers just 5 percent less yield in rain-watered legume crops, such as alfalfa or beans, and in perennial crops, such as fruit trees. But when it comes to major cereal crops, such as corn or wheat, and vegetables, such as broccoli, conventional methods delivered more than 25 percent more yield.

Organic farmers should use best management practices, supply more organic fertilizers or grow legumes or perennial crops.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x...

Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069

with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields

https://www.motherearthnews.com/sustainable-living/nature-an...

Yet his acres consistently produce harvests that equal or surpass those of his neighbors who use labor-intensive, chemical-dependent methods. Fukuoka’s system of farming is amazing not only for its yields, but also for the fact that he has not plowed his fields for more than 30 years! Nor does he use prepared fertilizer — not even compost — on his land, or weed his rows, or flood his rice paddies.

> I wonder, do people really think that all farmers are morons?

> You can "regenerate" this and "natural" that all you can, but it simply won't work

> Then you're a moron and/or ignorant of what is actually happening.

I'm not a farmer, and I just love farmers ;)

But I'm aware what's happening, and how destructive "modern" agriculture is.

Do you realize the extent to which we have depleted wildlife, insects, and fish populations, and how limited their numbers have become?

Do you realize the extent to which we have depleted our soils and how little of them remains?

Are you aware what pesticides and herbicides are doing to the wildlife and to our health?

Are you aware we're in the overshoot, e.g. consuming and polluting more than what earth can handle, and that with new countries developing the demands will only continue to grow?

Are you aware that agriculture, and animal agriculture specifically, is a leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss?

Are you aware that animal populations have seen 70% reductions just in the last 50 years, insects are 80% gone, seas will be almost empty in 2040's? That we're witnessing the sixth extinction, something that should take apx. 2.8 million years, but we'll manage that in less than 100 years?

Are you truly content with the current situation and genuinely believe that what we're doing aligns with the responsibilities of good stewards of the Earth?

Are you absolutely certain that, considering the world's population has reached 8 billion, we should continue prioritizing our eating habits over sustainability?

Are you aware that we're destroying rainforests to grow and import animal feed?

Are you aware that more of the habitable earth is dedicated to animal agriculture than to forests??

Are you aware that livestock make up 62% of the world’s mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4%?

Are you aware that poultry weighs more than twice that of wild birds?

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

https://xkcd.com/1338/

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/

Are you really not seeing the need to "regenerate" ?

Clearly, you believe that we have to keep doing what we're doing. As a result, you will likely continue to eliminate every living thing around your fields for the remaining few years, until biodiversity collapses, just to maintain your profits.

Hope you stay healthy and avoid developing Parkinson's, a fate that has befallen many of your colleagues due to the pesticides and herbicides you so readily spray across your fields. Be well.

> Haber Bosch wasn't around 300 or 3000 years ago, nor were people tilling and planting. How did these plants get enough nitrogen to thrive?

Are you claiming that 9 billion people lived 300 or 3000 years ago and planted and regularly harvested high yield crops to feed themselves?

> How do current grass fed beef ranchers grow enough grass to grow cattle today? Surely they aren't fertilizing the grass.

Yes, yes they are.

I live in an old cattle ranch and the fertilizer use over the years made my well really high in nitrates

Food security has probably been an issue since forever.

History of Agriculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture :

> The development of agriculture about 12,000 years ago changed the way humans lived. They switched from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles to permanent settlements and farming. [1]

World population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population :

> It took over 200,000 years of human prehistory and history for the human population to reach one billion and only 219 years more to reach 8 billion. [3]

Food security: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security

Soil fertility > Soil depletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_fertility :

> Topsoil depletion occurs when the nutrient-rich organic topsoil, which takes hundreds to thousands of years to build up under natural conditions, is eroded or depleted of its original organic material.[13] Historically, many past civilizations' collapses can be attributed to the depletion of the topsoil. Since the beginning of agricultural production in the Great Plains of North America in the 1880s, about one-half of its topsoil has disappeared. [14]

> Depletion may occur through a variety of other effects, including overtillage (which damages soil structure), underuse of nutrient inputs which leads to mining of the soil nutrient bank, and salinization of soil.

Soil management : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_management :

> Soils can sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, primarily by storing carbon as soil organic carbon (SOC) through the process of photosynthesis. CO2 can also be stored as inorganic carbon but this is less common. Converting natural land to agricultural land releases carbon back into the atmosphere. The amount of carbon a soil can sequester depends on the climate and current and historical land-use and management.[6] Cropland has the potential to sequester 0.5–1.2 Pg C/year and grazing and pasture land could sequester 0.3–0.7 Pg C/year.[7] Agricultural practices that sequester carbon can help mitigate climate change.[8] Intensive farming deteriorates the functionality of soils.

> Methods that significantly enhance carbon sequestration in soil include no-till farming, residue mulching, cover cropping, and crop rotation, all of which are more widely used in organic farming than in conventional farming.[9][10] Because only 5% of US farmland currently uses no-till and residue mulching, there is a large potential for carbon sequestration

FWIU new methods of onsite green ammonia production for fertilizer could help solve food security, but the nitrogen runoff is causing algal blooms in waterways.

A (soap-like) surfactant like JADAM Wetting Agent (JWA) which causes the applied treatments to stick to the plants might reduce fertilizer runoff levels; but Nitrogen-based fertilizer alone does not regenerate all of the components of topsoil. https://www.google.com/search?q=jadam+jwa

Mycorrhizae fungus in the soil help get nutrients to plant roots, and they need to be damp in order to prevent soil from turning to dirt due to solar radiation and oxidation. https://youtube.com/@soilfoodwebschool

Urea breaks down into Nitrogen and CO2 in the soil. Maybe that used to scale (before we had 8b people on here).

TIL that rainwater is higher in nitrogen from falling though air (which contains H2O, CO2, N, O2, CO).

Irrigation > Challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation :

> However, if the soil is under irrigated, it gives poor soil salinity control which leads to increased soil salinity with the consequent buildup of toxic salts on the soil surface in areas with high evaporation. This requires either leaching to remove these salts and a method of drainage to carry the salts away. Irrigation with saline or high-sodium water may damage soil structure owing to the formation of alkaline soil.

From "Idiocracy":

> "For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.

>> But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. [Sodium (NaCl), Potassium (K), Water (H2O))

TIL that basic soil and plant health and farming things are new material for me, an otherwise qualified eater.

Agree, very interesting stuff. Before I get to the soils, animal ag intro.

https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomf...

The animal agriculture industry is the leading cause of most environmental degradation that is currently occurring. These detrimental effects happen due to overgrazing, habitat loss, overfishing, and more. We are currently in the next mass extinction and animal agriculture is only fueling this catastrophe. Waste in the meat industry, too, is a major problem in of itself.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.142033699

Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy

Our accounts indicate that human demand may well have exceeded the biosphere's regenerative capacity since the 1980s. According to this preliminary and exploratory assessment, humanity's load corresponded to 70% of the capacity of the global biosphere in 1961, and grew to 120% in 1999.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4

The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land ... shifts in global food production to plant-based diets by 2050 could lead to sequestration of 332–547 GtCO2, equivalent to 99–163% of the CO2 emissions budget consistent with a 66% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 °C

And back to soils ...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/soil-has-micro...

Soil Has a Microbiome, Too - The unique mix of microbes in soil has a profound effect on which plants thrive and which ones die

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/07/secret-w...

The secret world beneath our feet is mind-blowing – and the key to our planet’s future - Don’t dismiss soil: its unknowable wonders could ensure the survival of our species

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/05/how-climate-c...

Getting to root of possible carbon storage changes due to climate change

https://regenerationinternational.org/2023/02/16/maximizing-...

Maximizing Photosynthesis and Root Exudates through Regenerative Agriculture to Increase Soil Organic Carbon to Mitigate Climate Change

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improvin...

Improving soil could keep world within 1.5C heating target, research suggests

Better farming techniques across the world could lead to storage of 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year, data shows

Nutrients are of course required and depleted if you keep harvesting and removing them from the ecosystem. So you need a way to deliver some of that back. There are many ways to deliver nutrients and industrially produced fertilizers are merely one of those. A lot of organic farmers instead use things like compost, crop rotation, and no-till. No till keeps the soil healthy (by not disturbing it) and minimizes nutrient losses through erosion. Compost in the form of carbon rich wood chips or dead leaves, or nitrogen rich greens, or animal waste can do the rest. Certain cover crops actually add nitrogen to the soil. They take nitrogen from the air and deposit it in their roots. When the plants are harvested, the roots remain.

Gah.

Quite a few of nutrients are _dependent_ in nature on erosion. Phosphorus is one of them, it's normally locked in very insoluble phosphates, that get broken down by weathering (erosion).

No-till farming preserves nitrogen, which is the main limiting factor in agriculture. It also allows soil to have better water retention.

The BIG downside is that no-till farming doesn't disrupt pests, so they can easily crowd out crops.

> Certain cover crops actually add nitrogen to the soil. They take nitrogen from the air and deposit it in their roots

Yes. That's why people had to leave fields fallow, to allow nitrogen fixing plants (such as clover) to grow and then compost in-place. The problem with that is an extremely poor efficiency of biological nitrogen fixation.

It's a wonder that it works at all, honestly.

> That's why people had to leave fields fallow, to allow nitrogen fixing plants (such as clover) to grow and then compost in-place

Leaving fields fallow does allow the land to recover and can reduce certain pests and diseases. However, the primary purpose of leaving fields fallow historically wasn't necessarily for nitrogen-fixing plants to grow. That said, some traditional farming systems deliberately planted nitrogen-fixing cover crops, like clover, in rotation with other crops to replenish soil nitrogen. And let's not forget about nitrogen fixing trees.

> an extremely poor efficiency of biological nitrogen fixation

Biological nitrogen fixation may not be as immediately effective or efficient as directly applying synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, but it's a natural process that has sustained ecosystems for millennia. To say it has "extremely poor efficiency" might be an overgeneralization. In sustainable agriculture, the efficiency of nitrogen-fixing plants isn't solely measured by the speed or volume of nitrogen delivery but also by the myriad of other benefits they provide, such as improving soil structure, suppressing weeds, and promoting beneficial soil microbes.

> It's a wonder that it works at all

Biological nitrogen fixation is a well-established and crucial ecological process.

I now believe that I'm talking to a bot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com