Phosphorous Famine - The Threat To Our Food Supply - Scientific American

As complex as the chemistry of life may be, the conditions for the vigorous growth of plants often boil down to three numbers, say, 19-12-5. Those are the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, prominently displayed on every package of fertilizer. In the 20th century the three nutrients enabled agriculture to increase its productivity and the world’s population to grow more than sixfold. But what is their source? We obtain nitrogen from the air, but we must mine phosphorus and potassium. The world has enough potassium to last several centuries. But phosphorus is a different story. Readily available global supplies may start running out by the end of this century. By then our population may have reached a peak that some say is beyond what the planet can sustainably feed.

Moreover, trouble may surface much sooner. As last year’s oil price swings have shown, markets can tighten long before a given resource is anywhere near its end. And reserves of phosphorus are even less evenly distributed than oil’s, raising additional supply concerns. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest producer of phosphorus (after China), at 19 percent of the total, but 65 percent of that amount comes from a single source: pit mines near Tampa, Fla., which may not last more than a few decades. Meanwhile nearly 40 percent of global reserves are controlled by a single country, Morocco, sometimes referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of phosphorus.” Although Morocco is a stable, friendly nation, the imbalance makes phosphorus a geostrategic ticking time bomb.

In addition, fertilizers take an environmental toll. Modern agricultural practices have tripled the natural rate of phosphorus depletion from the land, and excessive runoff into waterways is feeding uncontrolled algal blooms and throwing aquatic ecosystems off-kilter. While little attention has been paid to it as compared with other elements such as carbon or nitrogen, phosphorus has become one of the most significant sustainability issues of our time.

EDIT

Altogether, phosphorus flows now add up to an estimated 37 million metric tons per year. Of that, about 22 million metric tons come from phosphate mining. The earth holds plenty of phosphorus-rich minerals—those considered economically recoverable—but most are not readily available. The International Geological Correlation Program (IGCP) reckoned in 1987 that there might be some 163,000 million metric tons of phosphate rock worldwide, corresponding to more than 13,000 million metric tons of phosphorus, seemingly enough to last nearly a millennium. These estimates, however, include types of rocks, such as high-carbonate minerals, that are impractical as sources because no economical technology exists to extract the phosphorus from them. The tallies also include deposits that are inaccessible because of their depth or location offshore; moreover, they may exist in underdeveloped or environmentally sensitive land or in the presence of high levels of toxic or radioactive contaminants such as cadmium, chromium, arsenic, lead and uranium. Estimates of deposits that are economically recoverable with current technology—known as reserves—are at 15,000 million metric tons. That is still enough to last about 90 years at current use rates. Consumption, however, is likely to grow as the population increases and as people in developing countries demand a higher standard of living. Increased meat consumption, in particular, is likely to put more pressure on the land, because animals eat more food than the food they become.

EDIT

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis

:shrug:

Or maybe we could stop pissing it away and require that urine be collected and used as fertilizer (after appropriate processing, of course).

with sufficient time for fallow fields and pastures.

There are tried and true methods for returning minerals to the soil: crop rotation and seasonal ruminant pasturage. They work; they've worked for about 12,000 years now. They just don't fit in with Monsanto's model of the farm as a factory. How much phosphorous are we dumping into our rivers from our giant pig "farms"? If they were pastured adequately, that would be going back to the soil and we wouldn't need all the petrochemical fertilizer in the first place.

With todays population, chemical fertilizers are the only way to feed people on the earth, and we don't even feed them all even with the fertilizers. Cutting out fertilizers would condemn hundreds of millions to starvation. Europe was facing famine in the mid-19th century even with crop rotation and fallow fields. Chemical fertilizers were accidentally discovered at the same time and the crisis was averted, at least for another 200 years.

The big agri businesses should be required to recover the phosphorus and other chemicals from the runoff.

Non-petroleum-based farming nets a much bigger caloric return on the energy invested than industrial farming.

Now, we can't do it with our current distribution system, sure, but that distribution system isn't doing very well to feed the world today, either.

brings in a much better return then working a job, but its not very stable.

There are 5 Billion people on this planet. Right now, return on investment is not the pressing problem. How to fill all those bellies when they growl is. Crop rotation and fallow fields works, but it doesn't produce the yields that chemical fertilizers do. Case in point Europe in the mid-19th century which you didn't even touch. Don't let reality intrude on a dream world huh?

As far as distribution system, WTF does that have to do with chemical fertilizers or sustainable farming?

Distribution is the problem, not production. We can feed the world 10 times over with the food we produce, and industrial farming isn't creating a tenfold increase in output. We are making more than enough food; we aren't getting it to people who need it.

That's different then using chemical fertilizers. Small farmers use chemical fertilizers also. Distribution? seems to work well to me. We got food to Ethiopia during their famine. I don't think we are anywhere near being able to feed the world "10 times over". But if we could "BIG COULD" are you suggesting we only do it maybe 2 times over by giving up fertilizers?

"industrial farming isn't creating a tenfold increase in output". How do you know? have you seen a study comparing the use of chemical fertilizers in a wheat or corn field to non-use? I'm sure there's more then a 10 fold increase. There also aren't enough "natural" fertilizers either. The only reason you don't see it is because no one is stupid enough NOT to use fertilizers. You have same problem that the people who say we don't need vaccines have. They have no historical perspective.

stop trying to change the subject. I'm not going to fall for it. You started with crop rotation and now you're onto distribution.

Having tracked up & down this thread, I can see that some of your
points (e.g., the need to get corps to reclaim the phosphates from
runoff water) are valid and bang on target.

However, you are also missing the links between different aspects
of a complex problem and treating components such as "chemical
fertilizers", "industrial farming", "population", "famine" and
"distribution" as discrete, unrelated issues - each of which can
be solved by a different discrete, unrelated answer - whereas in
practice, they are very much interlinked: that's part of what makes
the problem so tricky (the other parts including the cross-border,
political & nationalistic facets).

To pull out a number of your points from the thread:

> have you seen a study comparing the use of chemical fertilizers
> in a wheat or corn field to non-use? I'm sure there's more then
> a 10 fold increase.

You are being no more scientific that those you criticise.
There is a n-fold increase initially but this declines over time,
leading to the need to increase quantities of artificial fertilizer
to maintain yield. This increase then distorts not only the runoff
(which is a "separate" unhandled problem) but the balance of minerals
in the remaining soil. It is a spiral that can (and frequently does)
get out of hand, to the detriment of the land and anyone who depends
on it. Check into organic farming resources for your studies.


> You have same problem that the people who say we don't need vaccines have.

No. You are trying to blur some lines here by disparaging the non-GM,
non-industrial farming people by associating them with the more extreme
anti-vac arguments. Deliberately? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


> Right now, return on investment is not the pressing problem.
> How to fill all those bellies when they growl is.

RoI is indeed the pressing problem for a lot of folks as this directly
affects the shelf price of food.

> ... now you're onto distribution.

Again, distribution costs directly affect the shelf price of food and
so this affects "how to fill all those bellies when they growl".


> Crop rotation and fallow fields works, but it doesn't produce the yields
> that chemical fertilizers do. Case in point Europe in the mid-19th century
> which you didn't even touch.

You only just touched the underlying aspect of the above when you mentioned
the "5 Billion people on this planet". In the mid-19th century, there was
a rapid growth in population driven in part by the move from the country
to the towns and by the growth of greed & exploitation (especially in the
shape of absentee landlords of food-producing lands who championed the
increase of yields from farms for the purpose of enriching themselves,
not for any humanitarian reasons). This meant that fewer people were able
to live directly from their lands and so had to buy food (thus adding to
the demand, the price issues and the incentive for greed to spiral).
In a parallel to today's problems, they also stepped up the demand of
non-basic products (e.g., more exotic foods, luxury items) that, in turn,
distorted the means of supply to satisfy that demand.
Today, we have the 5% at the top (which ironically includes you & me)
consuming a vastly disproportionate quantity of the planet's resources.


> Chemical fertilizers were accidentally discovered at the same time
> and the crisis was averted, at least for another 200 years.

The crisis wasn't so much averted as displaced (along with a large number
of the people who would otherwise have suffered from that crisis).
Check into emigration/immigration waves.


> ain't enough shit in the world

There is but most of it is wasted ... Hell, in our countries we flush it
away with fresh water that is pure enough to drink!
:grr:

(Sorry ... that's a grumpy topic with me at the moment.)

> 21.3 million tons of chemical fertilizers used in the US last year

And a high proportion of this ended up in the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf
of Mexico and "fresh"water lakes.

> Someones backyard compost isn't going to cover it.

Someone's backyard didn't receive all of the 21.3 million tons either.
If you are prepared to play large scale with one aspect, you should
also be prepared to do the same with the others. Again, you also need
to consider more than one aspect at a time, e.g., not just composting
green waste but manure re-use (biogas extraction + solids as fertilizer),
run-off capture & processing, crop rotation, healthier diets, impact
of fuel costs, ...

Like in all things, we have to start somewhere and the sooner we start,
the better chance we have of reaching the goals.

PS:
> (GASP!) SCIENCE! and I know thats a dirty word to the natural crowd.
+
> I like science. I know thats a dirty word for the granola crowd around here.

If you post crap like this, don't be surprised if you get crap thrown
back at you. Most of the people in this forum are educated, trained
and very familiar with many more aspects of science & engineering than
you are: don't go wasting your useful contributions by pissing people
off with largely inaccurate ad-homs like that.
:hi:

If we don't find a better way now, it's all going to come to an abrupt end.

Saying that we can't feed all of today's humans unless we risk feeding all of tomorrow's humans is a very poor argument. We can, we should and we need to do better.

I didn't make that argument. You did. I just said we need chemical fertilizers. If the world population drops ( very unlikely ) to say, 1 billion, we probably won't need them. If the population stays the same, or goes up, we need them.

Science is also, as much as you would like to believe, always an either/or proposition. We can use the fertilizers, we just need to separate them from the runoff. Its as easy as evaporation. Someone just needs to make the Corps do it. Solar Cells are another case in point where science is not either/or..

Oil is a hydrocarbon, the phosphorus they get from crude is a byproduct of processing, it's not a distillate. There is no such thing as petroleum-BASED fertilizer.

The rest of your post is spot-on.

Though I'm also talking about the distribution system that requires a lot of petroleum to get food from point A to (a generally very distant) point B.

When in reality, with climate change and fossil fuel depletion breathing down our necks, we don't. Chemical fertilizer use will be curtailed no matter what the demand for food is as the raw materials and energy sources required to produce it decline. Unfortunately, I also agree with you when you say that we can't feed all 6.5 billion people on this planet without chemical fertilizers.

It will be an interesting century to be alive, to put it mildly.

pasture-raised livestock rather than factory-farmed and grain-fed. Probably why I'm about to give up on meat - can't agree with how the affordable stuff is produced and can't afford the stuff I approve of, lol. Sigh.

Organic Compost.

Instead of keeping pigs and cows in concrete feedlots, pasture them.

ain't enough shit in the world.

On Edit: Maybe if you harnesses the republican and fox talking point, there would be enough.

There still isn't enough of it in the world.

Sorry bring crushing reality down on you. 21.3 million tons of chemical fertilizers used in the US last year. Someones backyard compost isn't going to cover it.

..So let's just keep making more and more chemical ferts, screw progress. Mega-farms know what's best for the Earth.

Did I get that about right? :eyes:

So I'm going to make a pissy post. Is that right?

I never made the argument that we shouldn't come up with new solutions. I like new solutions. I live for new solutions. I'm just saying some solutions that are close to peoples hearts are not going to work (like sustainable farming ( don't know if you noticed, but the pop of the world isn't sustaining, it growing, unfortunatly), unless there's some breakthrough in.....


(GASP!) SCIENCE!

and I know thats a dirty word to the natural crowd.

Nothing you have said is factual.

It's impossible to debate with the ignorant.

Now go eat your chemically grown crap and have a nice life.

whatever. I just tried to make a few points.

If it makes you mad, look for an apology from reality.

Those two buckets of soil will provide the same weight in vegetables and additional stock for compost right back to us.

Confusion, you need some edumacation. And put down the Monsanto newsletter while you're posting on DU: it pisses people off.

But your way of farming is no basis for feeding 5 billion people.

Nice try, but I hate monsanto. Isn't that one of those fallacious arguments? I'll have to look that up.

I like science. I know thats a dirty word for the granola crowd around here.

I also try to leave my daydreams in the dreamworld. I try to live in REALITY.

At least that's how you come across. Completely ignorant (willful or not) on the subject.

You're not hitting bill kristols average yet though.

I'm a student at a university in Arizona and I like science and reality.

Prove me wrong! Build a Company ( or collective, whatever) that grows massive amounts of food without chemical fertilizers. I will concede the point.

I suspect that would make quite a hole in the imports, if used.

My hunch is that you would have a lot less manure annually if those feedlots only fed their livestock crops raised without chemicals, simply due to the lower yield per acre.

Some green manure plants can send roots down 10 ft or more and have a knack for bio-accumulating phosphorus. That may be a suitable substitute for some of the animal manure, though you may need to add more trace minerals as well.

It would require a lot of extra land devoted to green manure production, though, which would be a serious problem with a constantly growing population.

Hmm. Maybe there's a remedy hidden in that statement.

One solution is to better utilize the phosphorous that is present in soil. If you want to know how, Google "arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi".

It's not going to be fun but it's going to happen.