Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Axios)   No poop for you   (axios.com) divider line
    More: Scary, Chord, Threat level, Fertilizer prices, Wells Fargo, higher costs, food production, Russia, Kurt Angle  
•       •       •

5061 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2022 at 2:35 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-04-07 2:37:59 AM  
Well, ain't that a load of shiat.
 
2022-04-07 2:40:25 AM  
It's going to be an agonizingly slow spiral into Mad Max dystopia.
 
2022-04-07 2:44:16 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 2:46:20 AM  
Where has the old can-do attitude gone? We can supply our own!

We're the best shiatters out there!
 
2022-04-07 2:59:28 AM  
¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?
 
2022-04-07 3:05:57 AM  

What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?


I need Chemical X to create the Powerpuff girls!
 
2022-04-07 3:07:06 AM  
It's not poop, it's natural gas used to drive the Haber-Bosch process. Once again, having your enemy control the key resources for your economy is dumb.

Also, right now, the methane used to drive this process is being flared in wells all over the US, because the oil is worth more and they don't have to capture the gas. They just waste it because they can.
 
2022-04-07 3:09:04 AM  
My personal vote is that we convince Miller to put some sort of fiber product in Lite that causes Milwaukeeans to make more of this:

Fark user imageView Full Size


We'll even let folks in Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit use it. I think they normally fertilize their fields with the amounts of copious crap produced by the Bears, Vikings and Lions annually.
 
2022-04-07 3:12:40 AM  

What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?

That's not happening without a few billion volunteers for the suicide pods or global war.
 
2022-04-07 3:17:36 AM  
Who knew relying on totalitarian shiatholes for vital resources was a bad idea?
 
2022-04-07 3:18:21 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Who says?
 
2022-04-07 3:21:04 AM  
Just dig into Republican brains. Plenty there.
 
2022-04-07 3:24:07 AM  
The fertilizer price gouging started when China needed to clear the air for the olympics and shut down some smelters.  The waste energy from them made quite a bit of fertilizer. This is just adding to the price gouging.
 
2022-04-07 3:27:29 AM  

adamatari: Also, right now, the methane used to drive this process is being flared in wells all over the US, because the oil is worth more and they don't have to capture the gas. They just waste it because they can.


No, they don't burn it "because they can", they burn it because the cost of the infrastructure to capture and transport it would exceed the present value of the forecast future revenues of selling that gas.
 
2022-04-07 3:27:34 AM  

solokumba: Just dig into Republican brains. Plenty there.


Foam insulation is not fertilizer. It's inorganic.
 
2022-04-07 3:28:03 AM  

adamatari: It's not poop, it's natural gas used to drive the Haber-Bosch process. Once again, having your enemy control the key resources for your economy is dumb.

Also, right now, the methane used to drive this process is being flared in wells all over the US, because the oil is worth more and they don't have to capture the gas. They just waste it because they can.


Well, part of the reason is that we're wasteful idiots, but the main reason is that letting it all escape would be an environmental disaster far worse than the one we're already perpetrating. Sounds counterintuitive, but it's actually better to flare it.
 
2022-04-07 3:30:08 AM  

AppleOptionEsc: solokumba: Just dig into Republican brains. Plenty there.

Foam insulation is not fertilizer. It's inorganic.


Ammonium nitrate is inorganic too.
/mind blown
 
2022-04-07 3:42:26 AM  

solokumba: [Fark user image image 174x178]

Who says?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 3:51:44 AM  

Unda: adamatari: Also, right now, the methane used to drive this process is being flared in wells all over the US, because the oil is worth more and they don't have to capture the gas. They just waste it because they can.

No, they don't burn it "because they can", they burn it because the cost of the infrastructure to capture and transport it would exceed the present value of the forecast future revenues of selling that gas.


Privatize the profits, socialize the externalities.

Slap some sanctions on Europe for taking Russian gas and suddenly there's a brand new market.
 
2022-04-07 4:00:52 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 4:04:33 AM  

Boo_Guy: Where has the old can-do attitude gone? We can supply our own!

We're the best shiatters out there!


They did, and still do in developing countries. Used to be called "night soil" in some places. It's not ideal because it's easier for human pathogens to propagate vs. using animal waste. Manure fertilizer is the reason you're supposed to wash produce before you eat it.
 
2022-04-07 4:13:15 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 4:48:07 AM  
images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 4:54:34 AM  

What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?


I know this was a snarky reply, but this a a huge opportunity for regenerative ag to thrive with less inputs. Chemical Fertilizer essentially made farmers lazy, which had a ton of negative consequences. The more expensive that crap is, the better people get rewarded for relearning real farming.

/ No, massive chemical fertilizer use is not necessary to "feed the world" when your land isn't dead
// And I'm not saying "organic" is a must or gmos are the devil
/// glyphosate resistance as a target gmo property might as well be the devil
 
2022-04-07 5:30:57 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 6:44:26 AM  
Maybe now farmers will look into more sustainable cultivation practices, like using no-till methods that utilize nitrogen fixing cover crops, and more readily available inputs, like compost.
 
2022-04-07 6:46:52 AM  

OptimisticCynicism: What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?

I know this was a snarky reply, but this a a huge opportunity for regenerative ag to thrive with less inputs. Chemical Fertilizer essentially made farmers lazy, which had a ton of negative consequences. The more expensive that crap is, the better people get rewarded for relearning real farming.

/ No, massive chemical fertilizer use is not necessary to "feed the world" when your land isn't dead
// And I'm not saying "organic" is a must or gmos are the devil
/// glyphosate resistance as a target gmo property might as well be the devil


Pretty much this. No-till, drip irrigation, cover cropping, compost use, cessation of monocropping. There's absolutely no reason to use fertilizer salts aside from laziness.
 
2022-04-07 7:05:47 AM  
What about all those bodies laying around?  Seems like that would make for good fertilizer.
 
2022-04-07 8:03:55 AM  
Haber Bosch destroyed the planet with overpopulation and all i got was this lousy t-shirt.
 
2022-04-07 8:43:04 AM  

question_dj: Maybe now farmers will look into more sustainable cultivation practices, like using no-till methods that utilize nitrogen fixing cover crops, and more readily available inputs, like compost.


It is a bit late already to change plans for lots of crops.
 
2022-04-07 9:14:23 AM  
I'm all about organic, no-till, biodynamic, etc.

But there is a very real need for infrastructure, equipment and logistics to actually transform the current agricultural system into a more sustainable model. It won't happen overnight, or this year...probably not even in a few years. It's an excellent goal, but it will take time and market participation.

A sudden, rapid change that eliminates nitrogen inputs, as they are now, would lead to crop disasters worldwide. While the "end result" could possibly look like a more organic and sustainable agricultural system, the short to medium term consequences would look more like famine, starvation, economic and geopolitical upheaval.

Certainly there are Farkers who think that sounds awesome, but the billion or so people who would die likely wouldn't agree with your enthusiasm. It is easy for us to sit here in our climate controlled environments, with grocery stores brimming with food, and clean water on tap to make pronouncements about what's best for the world. It's the billions living on the edge who would pay for that hubris, though.

So, yes to policy and practices to move toward greater sustainability, but a big hell no to sudden shocks that plunge the world into chaos.

/pragmatic rant off
 
2022-04-07 9:29:59 AM  

Likwit: Who knew relying on totalitarian shiatholes for vital resources was a bad idea?


This
 
2022-04-07 9:57:37 AM  
Our entire civilization is balanced atop 6 inches of topsoil and the fact that it will randomly rain throughout the year.
 
2022-04-07 10:43:56 AM  

question_dj: OptimisticCynicism: What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?

I know this was a snarky reply, but this a a huge opportunity for regenerative ag to thrive with less inputs. Chemical Fertilizer essentially made farmers lazy, which had a ton of negative consequences. The more expensive that crap is, the better people get rewarded for relearning real farming.

/ No, massive chemical fertilizer use is not necessary to "feed the world" when your land isn't dead
// And I'm not saying "organic" is a must or gmos are the devil
/// glyphosate resistance as a target gmo property might as well be the devil

Pretty much this. No-till, drip irrigation, cover cropping, compost use, cessation of monocropping. There's absolutely no reason to use fertilizer salts aside from laziness.


Tell me you know NOTHING about farming without saying you know ZILCH about farming. Most farms run a 3 way crop rotation. Corn one year, then winter wheat, then soybeans. Most practice no till, unless subsoiling (which doesn't disturb topsoil) is needed. Even with BLM set-aside, no way your land recovers the needed nitrogen in less than 15 years.
 
2022-04-07 10:51:29 AM  

mehhhhhh: question_dj: OptimisticCynicism: What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?

I know this was a snarky reply, but this a a huge opportunity for regenerative ag to thrive with less inputs. Chemical Fertilizer essentially made farmers lazy, which had a ton of negative consequences. The more expensive that crap is, the better people get rewarded for relearning real farming.

/ No, massive chemical fertilizer use is not necessary to "feed the world" when your land isn't dead
// And I'm not saying "organic" is a must or gmos are the devil
/// glyphosate resistance as a target gmo property might as well be the devil

Pretty much this. No-till, drip irrigation, cover cropping, compost use, cessation of monocropping. There's absolutely no reason to use fertilizer salts aside from laziness.

Tell me you know NOTHING about farming without saying you know ZILCH about farming. Most farms run a 3 way crop rotation. Corn one year, then winter wheat, then soybeans. Most practice no till, unless subsoiling (which doesn't disturb topsoil) is needed. Even with BLM set-aside, no way your land recovers the needed nitrogen in less than 15 years.


Hey farmer Bill, Does that go for sugar cane too?
 
2022-04-07 10:57:10 AM  

Wobambo: It's going to be an agonizingly slow spiral into Mad Max dystopia.


And the left was warning of this since at least Occupy.
 
2022-04-07 11:18:50 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-04-07 2:26:07 PM  

mehhhhhh: question_dj: OptimisticCynicism: What Would Whoopty Do: ¿ Maybe learn how to grow your crop without chemical x?

I know this was a snarky reply, but this a a huge opportunity for regenerative ag to thrive with less inputs. Chemical Fertilizer essentially made farmers lazy, which had a ton of negative consequences. The more expensive that crap is, the better people get rewarded for relearning real farming.

/ No, massive chemical fertilizer use is not necessary to "feed the world" when your land isn't dead
// And I'm not saying "organic" is a must or gmos are the devil
/// glyphosate resistance as a target gmo property might as well be the devil

Pretty much this. No-till, drip irrigation, cover cropping, compost use, cessation of monocropping. There's absolutely no reason to use fertilizer salts aside from laziness.

Tell me you know NOTHING about farming without saying you know ZILCH about farming. Most farms run a 3 way crop rotation. Corn one year, then winter wheat, then soybeans. Most practice no till, unless subsoiling (which doesn't disturb topsoil) is needed. Even with BLM set-aside, no way your land recovers the needed nitrogen in less than 15 years.


So  grain -> grain -> pulse rotation ... really great rotation there bob.

and citation needed on the no-till. It is getting more popular, but is most definitely NOT the dominant practice.
 
2022-04-07 2:29:19 PM  

beezeltown: I'm all about organic, no-till, biodynamic, etc.

But there is a very real need for infrastructure, equipment and logistics to actually transform the current agricultural system into a more sustainable model. It won't happen overnight, or this year...probably not even in a few years. It's an excellent goal, but it will take time and market participation.

A sudden, rapid change that eliminates nitrogen inputs, as they are now, would lead to crop disasters worldwide. While the "end result" could possibly look like a more organic and sustainable agricultural system, the short to medium term consequences would look more like famine, starvation, economic and geopolitical upheaval.

Certainly there are Farkers who think that sounds awesome, but the billion or so people who would die likely wouldn't agree with your enthusiasm. It is easy for us to sit here in our climate controlled environments, with grocery stores brimming with food, and clean water on tap to make pronouncements about what's best for the world. It's the billions living on the edge who would pay for that hubris, though.

So, yes to policy and practices to move toward greater sustainability, but a big hell no to sudden shocks that plunge the world into chaos.

/pragmatic rant off


Yeah, I'm not saying that this is a good situation, just a good externality of a tragedy.
 
2022-04-07 3:34:16 PM  

OptimisticCynicism: beezeltown: I'm all about organic, no-till, biodynamic, etc.

But there is a very real need for infrastructure, equipment and logistics to actually transform the current agricultural system into a more sustainable model. It won't happen overnight, or this year...probably not even in a few years. It's an excellent goal, but it will take time and market participation.

A sudden, rapid change that eliminates nitrogen inputs, as they are now, would lead to crop disasters worldwide. While the "end result" could possibly look like a more organic and sustainable agricultural system, the short to medium term consequences would look more like famine, starvation, economic and geopolitical upheaval.

Certainly there are Farkers who think that sounds awesome, but the billion or so people who would die likely wouldn't agree with your enthusiasm. It is easy for us to sit here in our climate controlled environments, with grocery stores brimming with food, and clean water on tap to make pronouncements about what's best for the world. It's the billions living on the edge who would pay for that hubris, though.

So, yes to policy and practices to move toward greater sustainability, but a big hell no to sudden shocks that plunge the world into chaos.

/pragmatic rant off

Yeah, I'm not saying that this is a good situation, just a good externality of a tragedy.


Maybe, unless it leads to more extreme and even less sustainable substitutes to achieve an acceptable yield. Agriculture is slow, massive, and largely based on best guesses about future conditions. Equipment is radically expensive and in short supply. Farmers often have to book labor and contractors with adequate machinery months out. If conventional nitrogen fertilizer availability was cut in half, there aren't easily sourced substitutes available on a quick turnaround.

It would be great if a robust system existed where "clean" manure (i.e. not tainted with herbicides, etc) could be gathered in adequate amounts, trucked to distribution facilities, composted as necessary, then trucked to farms, loaded into large scale manure spreaders, then spread at the appropriate rate over the acreage, in conjunction with planting season. It would be great if massive amounts of organic-safe pesticides/fungicides/selective herbicides were available to spray on crops.

These things exist in small, niche quantities. They don't exist in quantities to cover half the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, etc., etc. The scale is massive. It would take years of very intentional effort to begin to change that system.

Like I said, I'm all for organic & sustainable. Anyone who is able to buy those products and support those systems should do so. While I'm not "rich" where I live, like many Americans, I would be ridiculously wealthy in 80% of the world's countries. I can choose to spend $20-30 on ingredients for any given weeknight dinner and casually drop $10-20 on lunch out. Most of the world doesn't (or couldn't) spend that in a week (or possibly a month). We're lucky, here.
 
2022-04-07 4:01:43 PM  

beezeltown: OptimisticCynicism: beezeltown: I'm all about organic, no-till, biodynamic, etc.

But there is a very real need for infrastructure, equipment and logistics to actually transform the current agricultural system into a more sustainable model. It won't happen overnight, or this year...probably not even in a few years. It's an excellent goal, but it will take time and market participation.

A sudden, rapid change that eliminates nitrogen inputs, as they are now, would lead to crop disasters worldwide. While the "end result" could possibly look like a more organic and sustainable agricultural system, the short to medium term consequences would look more like famine, starvation, economic and geopolitical upheaval.

Certainly there are Farkers who think that sounds awesome, but the billion or so people who would die likely wouldn't agree with your enthusiasm. It is easy for us to sit here in our climate controlled environments, with grocery stores brimming with food, and clean water on tap to make pronouncements about what's best for the world. It's the billions living on the edge who would pay for that hubris, though.

So, yes to policy and practices to move toward greater sustainability, but a big hell no to sudden shocks that plunge the world into chaos.

/pragmatic rant off

Yeah, I'm not saying that this is a good situation, just a good externality of a tragedy.

Maybe, unless it leads to more extreme and even less sustainable substitutes to achieve an acceptable yield. Agriculture is slow, massive, and largely based on best guesses about future conditions. Equipment is radically expensive and in short supply. Farmers often have to book labor and contractors with adequate machinery months out. If conventional nitrogen fertilizer availability was cut in half, there aren't easily sourced substitutes available on a quick turnaround.

It would be great if a robust system existed where "clean" manure (i.e. not tainted with herbicides, etc) could be gathered in adequate amo ...


Thing is, you literally don't NEED to truck nearly so much of that stuff in if you have a functionality ecosystem. The bigger thing is fungal/bacterial life in the soil, making sure the soil isn't ever bare, Making sure the soil structure isn't compacted, making sure soil salinity/sodicity aren't a problem.

It looks like some of the best you can do is integrated cattle (ideally fencing them in part of a field but rotating it to prevent overgrazing).

Otherwise there is interseeding, intercropping, relay-seeding, "green manure", messing with row sizing, more complex rotations (grain/legume(NOT PULSE)/brassica is the classic one instead of grain/grain/pulse like above) and so on.


Big pictures there's a subsoil economy between bacteria/plants/fungi that handles a huge portion of the nutritional requirements of a plant. The reason that we use massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides is that we don't allow that system to exist and therefore need external inputs to fill the place of the other actors. If you build that system back(it does NOT taken decades to start a notable recovery) then your fertilizer requirements go way down.
 
2022-04-07 4:11:01 PM  

beezeltown: OptimisticCynicism: beezeltown: I'm all about organic, no-till, biodynamic, etc.

But there is a very real need for infrastructure, equipment and logistics to actually transform the current agricultural system into a more sustainable model. It won't happen overnight, or this year...probably not even in a few years. It's an excellent goal, but it will take time and market participation.

A sudden, rapid change that eliminates nitrogen inputs, as they are now, would lead to crop disasters worldwide. While the "end result" could possibly look like a more organic and sustainable agricultural system, the short to medium term consequences would look more like famine, starvation, economic and geopolitical upheaval.

Certainly there are Farkers who think that sounds awesome, but the billion or so people who would die likely wouldn't agree with your enthusiasm. It is easy for us to sit here in our climate controlled environments, with grocery stores brimming with food, and clean water on tap to make pronouncements about what's best for the world. It's the billions living on the edge who would pay for that hubris, though.

So, yes to policy and practices to move toward greater sustainability, but a big hell no to sudden shocks that plunge the world into chaos.

/pragmatic rant off

Yeah, I'm not saying that this is a good situation, just a good externality of a tragedy.

Maybe, unless it leads to more extreme and even less sustainable substitutes to achieve an acceptable yield. Agriculture is slow, massive, and largely based on best guesses about future conditions. Equipment is radically expensive and in short supply. Farmers often have to book labor and contractors with adequate machinery months out. If conventional nitrogen fertilizer availability was cut in half, there aren't easily sourced substitutes available on a quick turnaround.

It would be great if a robust system existed where "clean" manure (i.e. not tainted with herbicides, etc) could be gathered in adequate amo ...


checkout out https://www.ndsu.edu/soilhealth/ . If you look into it their podcast has literally been sponsored by places like North Dakota Corn Council and North Dakota Soybean Council, North Dakota Dry Bean Council. This isn't fringe groups advocating these kinds of practices. Those are literally commodity groups for major crops that primarily service people that farm conventionally.
 
2022-04-07 5:11:12 PM  
"Food prices expected to continue to soar on news that megacorp CEOs continue to not be jailed, let alone charged for their rampant profiteering, and say that 'they can always rent a bigger money bin'..."
 
2022-04-08 11:00:27 AM  

OptimisticCynicism: checkout out https://www.ndsu.edu/soilhealth/ . If you look into it their podcast has literally been sponsored by places like North Dakota Corn Council and North Dakota Soybean Council, North Dakota Dry Bean Council. This isn't fringe groups advocating these kinds of practices. Those are literally commodity groups for major crops that primarily service people that farm conventionally.


I'm all for it. I've been studying it for the last 20 years. My family farm and my wife's family's farm are impacted by these sorts of things.

My wife's cousin got an agricultural degree, then moved back to the farm and attempted to convert their dairy/corn/soy operation into an organic farm. He was educated and had resources to do it. After a few years (and a couple of years after being certified organic), the yields dropped so low he nearly had to declare bankruptcy. He and his wife had to work full time off the farm just to pay for their basic needs plus the farm costs.

It's all very cool to think about, but when reality drags your ass through the mud, it's no longer theoretical.

Farmers do what has the highest chance of working, not out of laziness or ignorance, but because the consequences of failure are very real and not the least bit abstract. Movement towards greater sustainability is necessary, but so is the realistic expectation that a farmer's livelihood and everything they've worked for (and perhaps multiple generations before them worked for) could vaporize on a wrong or slightly mis-timed move. The stakes are high.

These changes have to be incremental. It's not just as easy as turning your 60 acre corn field into a rotational pasturing operation. It's a neat idea, but for the (very typical) 65 year old farmer, that kind of constant physical exertion probably can't happen. Not without hiring a crew (if any crew exists to be hired), and paying the crew, and hoping all goes well and prices remain strong. It certainly can be done, but not easily.

If you look at Joel Salatin or other farmers who have perfected their own art of biodynamic production, notice their staffing levels. Notice how many "interns" are working there. It's all cool (not being snarky), but it's not realistic to think Polyface Farm could be replicated 200,000 times over. There aren't enough people working in agriculture to pull it off. The immigrants who filled those roles were pushed off, years ago, and they're not coming back (they can make more working in a factory or restaurant, if they come back at all).

Agriculture is heavily dependent on machinery. The decreasing numbers of people in the industry will only increase reliance on machinery.

Yes, row spacing, mixing crops, changes in rotational sequences can all help. But yields and prices still have to work to create profitable results, predictably.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.