In article ,
VickyN wrote:

'Billy[_10_ Wrote:
;928908']In article ,
VickyN wrote:
--
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. --
The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Michael Pollan
http://tinyurl.com/622qckd
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1
(Available at a library near you, as long as they remain open.)

p.45 - 46
it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie

of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer [a] farm produced more

than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.

or
'Fossil Fuel and Energy Use, sustainable food - The Issues - Sustainable
Table' (http://tinyurl.com/psf8le)
A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
estimated that, using our current system, three calories of energy were

needed to create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average.
Some foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires
thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. x What¹s more,

the John Hopkins study didn¹t include the energy used in processing and

transporting food. Studies that do estimate that it takes an average of

seven to ten calories of input energy to produce one calorie of food.xi
--
OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the
world's
population by organic methods. --
http://tinyurl.com/5tvy5nj
"Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable
increases of food production worldwide. Only organic methods can help
small family farms survive, increase farm productivity, repair decades
of environmental damage and knit communities into smaller, more
sustainable distribution networks * all leading to improved food
security around the world."
- Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
--
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.-

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. How is the cost of
buying fertiliser not justified by the short term returns? I also
don't
understand your take on phosphorus as there is plenty sitting in soils
all over the world already.-
http://tinyurl.com/5rq9ub5
shortage
Experts fear critical phosphorus shortage
Jim Langcuster, Auburn University
Oct. 19, 2010 3:34pm

³There are estimates we have as little as 50 years left in the current
phosphate mines,² says Charles Mitchell, an Alabama Cooperative
Extension System agronomist and Auburn university professor of
agronomy."

- Billy


This is an excellent post altogether Billy, and you've given me much to
digest. thank you very much.

In regards to P depletion though, as I must take your post a piece at a
time, I found this link here that claims the opposite:

'The Unbroken Window Blog Archive We Are All Going to Starve To Death
in 38 Years' (http://tinyurl.com/6jlr8n9)

Often statistics can be twisted to create panic, sell newspapers, add a
little drama. I hit google and it takes a while to find something saying
the opposite, funny how website after website will take the same story,
well it's not funny... it turns the internet into a quagmire of
mis-information. If 10 links say one thing and only one link says the
other, what are you more inclined to believe?

I don't know, not saying you're wrong... I'm just not sold on the idea
100%.

I was never selling the idea that we were going to starve to death for
the lack of phosphates. What I reported was that there were going to be
shortages when our phosphate strip mines are depleted. I also mentioned
the use of birds as a source of phosphates.

At present, the idea of extracting phosphate, an atom at a time from the
soil seems fanciful. If you look at the "Dead Zones"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
(caused by agricultural run-off) around the world, you will see that
they are quite large, and then the dying algea drifts with the currents.
Mining the sea floor won't be as simple, or as rewarding as open pit
extraction of phosphates. At present, the power for this extraction of
phosphates comes from petroleum, which is a non-renewable resource,
outside of geological time. As the price of petroleum goes up, the price
of most other things do to, including phosphates.

This factory approach to farming (adding chemical salts to a medium
[soil for example] in which you grow crops) is killing the topsoil which
is the real basis for soil fertility. Petroleum is becoming more
expensive. Phosphates will be more expensive. You may be able to
survive, but one sixth of the world population is living on less than
$2/day. If Pakistan were to become a failed state, we would all have
more to worry about than phosphorus shortages.

There is a great BBC production called Farm for a Future. It comes in 5
parts. Parts 1 & 2 outline farming problems, and parts 3, 4, and 5
address the problems with permaculture farming.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8

The subject of phosphorus is addressed in part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxsPfeSRIFo&feature=related

Were it only so easy to get the blood sucking oligarchs off our backs,
this could be a wonderful world.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/