VickyN wrote:
Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding
excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper yields.
So who can blame them, when the world is run by the dollar, when they
do exactly that year after excruciating year. Counting the dollars
whilst the land behind them pays a devastating cost.


The cost in buying fertiliser and applying it is not always justified by
even the short-term returns, that is it is applied in excess of the optimum
in some cases for reasons other than being demonstrated to be cost
effective. OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the world's
population by organic methods. There may be some focus on this issue over
the next few decades as sources of mineral phosphorus compound become
exhausted and the cost of nitrogen fixing rises with energy costs.


The full cost we can only guess at... but for starters much of the
land now needs to be rotated, with some of it barely farm-able at
all. Lots of locked out P and K, making land deficient in iron and
other micros, nitrates almost literally poured into the water supply.


Land always needs rotation, especially so if you grow a monoculture. This
is not limited to where chemical fertilisers have been applied.

Dare I even mention soil bacteria and the recent e.coli outbreaks?


Dare you explain the connection between the state of soil bacteria and
humans poisoning themselves by employing poor food handling practices?


Are we really upsetting the balance and need to add back what we have
taken away in an attempt to re-address it? Or, do we carry on as
usual, chasing the dollar and slaughtering the bio-diversity?


This question cannot be addressed until our collective decision making
processes adequately take into account long term effects. Many current
problems in the developed world with resource management, agribusiness and
the balance between development and the environment are tied to what the PR
companies can crank out before the next election, not what may happen in a
generation.

Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial
fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in
amazing harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?


Please provide some evidence for that claim. What are the costs of that
method compared to others? How do you feed cattle or sheep hydroponically?
Would that be cost effective?

David