The merits of natural versus chemical fertilisers

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:......... if priorities are properly allocated agriculture will be the last thing to run out of fuel while cruising down to the mall will soon be history.
That's a big "if".

There will be so many priorities such as the military, law and order and food manufacturing and distribution that have very high lobbying power that others will be forgotten about. Farms are spread out, difficult to guard and, so, vulnerable to theft so they will not be thought by increasingly pressurised authorities to be a good place for such a valuable commodity to be stored.

The food manufacturers and distributors are likely to put the conventional farmers out of business and take over the whole system as it must be "managed properly". Many farmers already have a high level of debt and when fuel prices rise quickly the price of their produce is unlikely to rise as fast, especially if Wallmart and Co have anything to do with it, so they will go even deeper into debt and probably go bust. This is much more likely in such a corrupt political system as the US than it would be here, especially if we have got out of the EU, which is just as corrupt but in a slightly more European, less competent, way.

Once fuel gets so expensive that the majority, the mall shoppers, can't afford it the whole system is likely to break down. The price of oil will swing as it has done recently but, in all probability, much more wildly. People will be put out of work on a massive scale and social disorder would be more likely in the US than here where we have a semblance of a social security system to take the mitigate the initial brunt of discontent.
Maintaining the supply of anything will be very difficult especially if there are highly armed gangs of people wandering around in sparsely populated and heavily built up areas. This is less likely to happen in Europe as we don't have a gun culture to add to the armed criminals.

If you don't rely on supplies of artificial fertilisers, agrochemicals and feed you are going to stand a chance of producing some food on a sustainable basis. Your soil is also likely to be in good heart to sustain production and your production methods will also allow you to carry on producing.

If you've been mining the soil of its fertility for years the second you're late with a fertiliser application you will lose your crop and all future crops. After seven years of fallow you might be able to start growing again but badly mined soils would probably need a lot longer than that to regain natural fertility. And then you would have to break ground again which would be very difficult without oil.

Coming up to an oil price shock I would be more confident of riding it out if I wasn't wholly or even partially dependent on supplies of oil based products.
You think the UK politicians are less corrupt then those in the US? How quaint . It is like the 95% that reelect their representative every election because "We have a good one" while decrying the rest of congress as a pack of thieves. And again the UK more socially stable then the US? We already have 47 percent on food stamps and other support measures, What more do you want? It is when the governments, both yours and mine, can't keep up the payments that TSHTF.
Armed gangs of city dwellers with their pistols they have never had to a range for practice won't last long against the armed farmers with their deer and varmint rifles with the scopes sited in for two hundred yards. After the gangs have been added to the compost heap peace and tranquility will return to the countryside.
There is nothing "artificial" about commercial fertiliser. A nitrogen molecule is a nitrogen molecule etc. We should use them as long as they can be made. Now on the other hand the pesticides and there over use and misuse have sterilised much of the soil and returning the bacteria, insects and worms to it is a major task. How to do it without losing whole crops to the weeds and insect pest the chemicals were applied to control is the problem.
My fields have been fallow now for twenty years and have seen no pesticides. To return any of them to food production I will first have to deforest them as some of the emergent trees are now thirty feet tall and a foot thick at the stump. For now I plan on putting in a couple acres of food plots for the deer and wild turkeys and will work at building up the soil in those plots.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Our food system is even worse than the waxed apples. We fly British caught prawns to Thailand for processing and then fly them back for sale here!! Quite a lot of our veg goes to Poland for processing and cleaning before coming back here. When TSHTF we will just sell them here without the flights if, that is, we still have the diesel for the trawlers to go and catch them and for the tractors.

The great advantage we have in the UK is that the maximum that anything has to travel to get from field or sea to plate is about 400 miles and we have an extensive rail system that could do it. We also have quite a few operating steam trains should the oil run out. In the US some of your food travels 4000 miles from one coast to the other with a comparatively rudimentary rail system. A lot of you transport use will go on food miles as will ours.

There aren't that many farmers in the US compared to the 45% already on food stamps and I seem to remember that quite a few suburban dwellers have assault rifle that they use to practice on children, without taking into account the armed criminal element.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
Totally_Baffled
Posts: 2824
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Hampshire

Post by Totally_Baffled »

http://news.sky.com/story/1049133/findu ... -horsemeat

lol looks like beef is too expensive already, turns out we have been eating horsemeat all along!! :lol: :lol:
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... :(
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

They Do Say that horse-paddocks are beginning to be less hard-to-come-by since so many families are giving up keeping horses (hence the burgers and the lasagne I suppose...)

Anyone seen any evidence of this?
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:Our food system is even worse than the waxed apples. We fly British caught prawns to Thailand for processing and then fly them back for sale here!! Quite a lot of our veg goes to Poland for processing and cleaning before coming back here. When TSHTF we will just sell them here without the flights if, that is, we still have the diesel for the trawlers to go and catch them and for the tractors.

The great advantage we have in the UK is that the maximum that anything has to travel to get from field or sea to plate is about 400 miles and we have an extensive rail system that could do it. We also have quite a few operating steam trains should the oil run out. In the US some of your food travels 4000 miles from one coast to the other with a comparatively rudimentary rail system. A lot of you transport use will go on food miles as will ours.

There aren't that many farmers in the US compared to the 45% already on food stamps and I seem to remember that quite a few suburban dwellers have assault rifle that they use to practice on children, without taking into account the armed criminal element.
The US "rudimentary rail system" carries 39.5% of the freight ton miles and that percentage is growing as oil prices increase.
http://www.envisionfreight.com/value/in ... rview.html
As to the suburban assault rifle owners there are on average eighteen people killed per year by people welding assault rifles. Less then lightning strikes. As transportation costs increase I expect prawns to Thailand and all other such wastes of fuel to pass away and I don't expect the armed criminal element to ever have an effect on food prices or supply.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Re: The merits of natural versus chemical fertilisers

Post by emordnilap »

vtsnowedin wrote:I wouldn't worry about going organic
We wouldn't want you to worry, vt. :lol:

Here's quite a detailed article giving yet more merits and which merely reinforces the reasons we eat normal (i.e. conventional non-toxic) food. And, as per usual, poor people have to take the hit:
Low-income parents might not have access to organic produce or be able to guarantee their children a low-lead household. When it comes to brain development, this puts low-income kids at even greater disadvantages—in their education, in their earnings, in their lifelong health and well-being.
Sometimes I encounter people trying to push a new food product. When I say to them, "But it's not organic", they think I'm some kind of nutter. :wink: They really haven't a clue. They swallow the spin, the lies as well as the chemicals. Listen, I'm gonna die anyway - but I want to die healthy. I'm thinking of the apple tree I want planted on my grave.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Re: The merits of natural versus chemical fertilisers

Post by vtsnowedin »

emordnilap wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:I wouldn't worry about going organic
We wouldn't want you to worry, vt. :lol:

Here's quite a detailed article giving yet more merits and which merely reinforces the reasons we eat normal (i.e. conventional non-toxic) food. And, as per usual, poor people have to take the hit:
Low-income parents might not have access to organic produce or be able to guarantee their children a low-lead household. When it comes to brain development, this puts low-income kids at even greater disadvantages—in their education, in their earnings, in their lifelong health and well-being.
Sometimes I encounter people trying to push a new food product. When I say to them, "But it's not organic", they think I'm some kind of nutter. :wink: They really haven't a clue. They swallow the spin, the lies as well as the chemicals. Listen, I'm gonna die anyway - but I want to die healthy. I'm thinking of the apple tree I want planted on my grave.
Thirteen months and I don't know how many pages back you found my quote. Quite a pause in the conversation don't you think?
Tarrel
Posts: 2466
Joined: 29 Nov 2011, 22:32
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

Re: The merits of natural versus chemical fertilisers

Post by Tarrel »

vtsnowedin wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:I wouldn't worry about going organic
We wouldn't want you to worry, vt. :lol:

Here's quite a detailed article giving yet more merits and which merely reinforces the reasons we eat normal (i.e. conventional non-toxic) food. And, as per usual, poor people have to take the hit:
Low-income parents might not have access to organic produce or be able to guarantee their children a low-lead household. When it comes to brain development, this puts low-income kids at even greater disadvantages—in their education, in their earnings, in their lifelong health and well-being.
Sometimes I encounter people trying to push a new food product. When I say to them, "But it's not organic", they think I'm some kind of nutter. :wink: They really haven't a clue. They swallow the spin, the lies as well as the chemicals. Listen, I'm gonna die anyway - but I want to die healthy. I'm thinking of the apple tree I want planted on my grave.
Thirteen months and I don't know how many pages back you found my quote. Quite a pause in the conversation don't you think?
Behold! The wonder of the high speed internet. :D
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

What's an internet?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

The coming food shortages
The practice of dosing livestock with antibiotics combined with putting the same drugs into animal feed is having a profound effect on the soil where the manure is used as fertiliser.

We have known for years that antibiotics in livestock has hastened antibiotic resistance but a new study proves just how detrimental the practice can be to our health and our food supply.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

<wonders how long it takes an antibiotic to break down...>
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

RenewableCandy wrote:<wonders how long it takes an antibiotic to break down...>
I'd have to ask the biochemists in the family to get a good answer but I recall having to throw away the milk from a antibiotic treated cow for three days after last treatment. No telling of course if that bureaucratic regulation was in fact sufficient.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

Got cadmium?

Now here's an interesting paper: a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers, settling the rather silly contention about whether organic food is better than toxic food.
In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods. Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively. Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.
Download the entire paper from here.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Post Reply