Submitted by Vucea t3_zvt87h in Futurology
atrophy1999 t1_j1si0d2 wrote
Reply to comment by Doctor_Box in Soaring fertilizer prices could see millions more undernourished by Vucea
False. The nutrition density of meat is being blissfully ignored. The amount of calories and nutrients in meat isn't easily substituted by a single plant source. In order to substitute you would have to grow a hell-of-a-lot of different types of plants. This would increase the demand for fertilizer. You can't just grow plants without fertilizer.
PM_me_your_syscoin t1_j1slzh0 wrote
I don't know if the intuitive back-of-napkin math works there. A wider variety of crops wouldn't require more fertilizer just because they're different. You would need different types of fertilizer, which would actually help destress supply chains and prevent the risk of single-point failure that you have with monoculture. Also, you don't need as much overall agricultural production if you're primarily feeding humans and not cows/pigs/chickens.
FlintWaterFilter t1_j1szt0b wrote
There's only three macronutrients in fertilizer. The vast majority of fertilizer is made from the same ingredients and mixed in concentration according to application. The only way to speed up the supply chain of fertilizer is to produce it closer to the point of application.
time_drifter t1_j1t2iah wrote
This is my field of work and basically correct. The issue right now is the specific inputs for the process and sourcing them. Flocculant, potash, and catalyst for reactors have all been problematic over the past few years. Potash in particular because Canda and Russia are the biggest producers. If these inputs can be reliably sourced, production and distribution are relatively stable, just more expensive. Most of it is done by rail which is less prone to issue than freight or air.
One thing that does worry me is equipment longevity. Fertilizer production is very caustic and produces a lot of corrosive byproducts like phos-acid, sulphuric acid, etc. This requires constant maintenance using specialized and very difficult to procure parts. There are many critical components with no replacements on hand. Some of these parts are back ordered for a year or more with no alternative supplier(s). Unless we can rebuild or fabricate a solution, any one of these critical components can stop production.
MrPicklePop t1_j1tq5gd wrote
Yup not only that, but natural gas concerns in Europe have caused them to curtail industrial fertilizer production so they can build their winter natural gas reserves. What’s going to happen come planting season in Europe?
farmer1972 t1_j1ujh7g wrote
They have shut down one mine in Saskatchewan for potash. We have lots but the big boys don’t want the profit Marino drop
53eleven t1_j1sx8pn wrote
Plants don’t need fertilizer to grow if the soil is being taken care of.
korinth86 t1_j1t963g wrote
That is so backwards...
Nutrient density doesn't matter when you consider the amount of resources it takes to get to that point. There are far more nutrients in the years worth of feed a cow eats than the end meat product.
Meat makes it's easier for the consumer to get the nutrients we need. To go more vegetarian you need to eat a variety of foods, rice, beans, lentils, nuts, veggies, leafy greens, fruits, and should supplement with a multivitamin.
It's not hard, it's less convenient.
Fertilizer wise, vegetarian wins hands down. The amount of land necessary to keep humans healthy, without meat, would be less than having to raise animals to ultimately feed a human later.
Lab grown meat changes the equation a bit depending on ultimate cost.
farmer1972 t1_j1uj7d8 wrote
Lol and how do you think all that is grown
korinth86 t1_j1ujd6a wrote
Every time you take a step in the consumption chain you increase the needed inputs.
It's less efficient to raise cattle for food than it is to use that land to grow food to feed humans.
farmer1972 t1_j1ukbry wrote
Ok that I can agree on but most cattle are grazed on marginal land that won’t support a crop why not use it that way rather than letting it go to weeds. Do you know the amount of stuff (herbicide,pesticides,desiccation)that is needed for each one of those plants?
korinth86 t1_j1usft2 wrote
I'm dubious to the claim of "most". data I can find suggests about 60%> In the US the standard for grass fed is 50% of their diet to claim "grass fed".
There are days it's too wet to let your cows graze, they'll destroy the field. So you keep them in and have to feed them something. Then there are 3-4mo your fields don't produce grass, which means again, food comes from somewhere.
If the fields are growing enough grass to feed a meaningful amount of cattle, they can grow other crops.
My buddy is a dairy farmer though he calls himself a grass farmer. They only supplement feed probably 10-20% during the growing season as they can grow enough grass. He cannot produce enough extra and has to buy feed for the 3-4mo he can't pasture them.
I'm not against meat. The truth is it takes more everything (water, fertilizer, land, blah) to cultivate rather than plants. I'm all for reducing our meat consumption. It will be interesting to see how lab grown meat changes the equation.
6GoesInto8 t1_j1t1n5m wrote
I wonder how much meat could be removed from the American diet without needing any replacement but still keeping the person healthy? For me it is at least 50%. At least half of the meat I eat is for pleasure over nutrition.
[deleted] t1_j1t55z1 wrote
[deleted]
6GoesInto8 t1_j1t5zom wrote
Whelp, your logic is clear and irrefutable, off to Cuba. Do they accept bot refugees?
myplushfrog t1_j1t8fzq wrote
Their comment is hilarious lol omg. I don’t need to move to Cuba to eat rice, milk and flour. They are insanely cheap here, far more so than meat.
6GoesInto8 t1_j1ta4rn wrote
I started to write a counter argument to some of their points but it was so easy I was worried it was some sort of trap. Maybe trying to steer the conversation towards sanctions or something? That's probably not true, but their argument feels intentionally absurd.
Tuggerfub t1_j1td64j wrote
You're not making sense.
Have you seen cuban sandwiches? These people love meat.
How about you advocate for the US to stop erroneously sanctioning Cuba and making trade a nightmare for them instead? Think about it in the context of what it took for Russia to receive relatively modest sanctions.
RadialSpline t1_j1u35im wrote
To put some context on that point: when the Communist revolution deposed Bautista in 1959 they [the revolutionaries] nationalized a lot of American business assets, and many of the “upper crust” of people in Bautista’s orbit fled as refugees to the US and they [the refugees] along with the businesses that had assets nationalized lobbied the fuck out of the government to impose those sanctions, and continue to lobby to keep those same sanctions in place until their grievances are “properly addressed” to their liking.
Also totally doesn’t help that the powers that be in the US really don’t want even a semi-functional socialistic/communistic government to exist.
RadialSpline t1_j1u2ixc wrote
For one, Non parle Espagnol.
For two, I don’t exactly have the resources (cash-in-hand) to get to Cuba.
For three, why the fuck would I have to move to Cuba in order to not eat as much meat? I can eat less meat here (and very slightly reduce the demand for meat while doing so) just as well where I currently live.
Four, from an energy transfer standpoint eating plants directly is an order of magnitude more efficient than raising plants for a “middle cow” to eat then I eat the cow.
Doctor_Box t1_j1sqzqd wrote
Why would you replace meat with a single plant source? The point is we can free up so much agricultural land you can grow a variety of plants and still not use as much land (or fertilizer) as what is currently used growing food for cows, pigs, and chickens.
Also nutrient density makes no sense when comparing plants to meat. Plants are generally more nutrient dense but less calorie dense. Maybe calorie density is what you mean, but considering the obesity epidemic I don't think calories are an issue for most people in first world countries.
Tuggerfub t1_j1td9zi wrote
A lot of what you need doesn't come from plants so it's a moot point.
We're an omnivorous species.
Doctor_Box t1_j1telyy wrote
Where do the cows, pigs, and chickens get what they need then? Everything you need comes from plants (except for B12 which is bacteria).
We are omnivorous I agree, but that only tells you what you can eat and not what you have to eat. There are plenty of people thriving on a plant based diet.
Human_Anybody7743 t1_j1snc4q wrote
This is a lie. The exact crops (soy and corn) fed to the cows with a bit of fermentation to reduce calorie density and create some micronutrients cover most of your bases.
Small quantities of a much less crop intensive animal protein cover the rest.
NewReddit101 t1_j1tev6v wrote
“You can't just grow plants without fertilizer.”
Lol plants couldn’t grow before the industrial revolution; they just didn’t exist
unskilledplay t1_j1tl0gu wrote
There isn't enough arable land to feed 8 billion people without fertilizer.
In the late 1800s scientists were modeling that after around 2 billion people population growth would have to stop because there wouldn't be any way to feed everyone. In the early 20th century a bunch of methods to mass produce fertilizer appeared. It was one of the biggest events in human history.
Today you can do the math and determine exactly how many calories a shortage of X tons of fertilizer will cause to global food production.
Evipicc t1_j1tq437 wrote
Of all of the arguments that are totally valid to support continuing to eat meat as a species you picked the one that was wrong...
Nashka01 t1_j1twuch wrote
How this would increase the demand for fertiliser since 80% of soya is used to feed animals? Like if we have less animals, we should feed them less, harvest less soya for them and utilise properly the fertiliser for us ? The question is more about how to organise our agriculture with a long term prospect instead of economy prospect
firmakind t1_j1tz6uw wrote
> You can't just grow plants without fertilizer.
Not going to go into the meat vs plant nutrients debate in which I probably don't have enough knowledge to chime in.
But you can grow plants without (synthetic) fertilizer. And it's not about organic farming or whatever, it's just about basic plant biology and requirements. Otherwise how would there be plants anywhere? Plants are over 80% of the world's biomass.
You can't grow plants without fertilizer using current high input intensive agriculture, since there's just enough going on in the ground to properly turn organic matter into usable nutrients by the plants. They just can't do that by themselves. So either you provide them with readily available nutrients through fertilizing, or you help the soil's life do it's freaking job and feed it enough dead stuff so it provides plants with usable nutrients.
But that requires no till farming, green manure crop, and so on to avoid growing on a dead soil and thus being dependent on synthetic fertilizers. And not everyone has the time to do that.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments