You must log in or register to comment.

Evipicc t1_j1tq0nz wrote

Are fertilizer companies also showing records profits the last 2 years? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. If that turns out to be the case it should actually be criminal.

Just looked it up... yep, record profits from the 15 largest fertilizer companies. Fucking disgusting.

Literally capitalizing on starvation. Atrocious...


thenamelessone7 t1_j25v1vq wrote

Just to get on the same page: getting record nominal profits means diddly squat if they didn't retain their profit margin.

So I would not be so quick to pass a universal judgement on all businesses.

Also, corporations have no soul or moral compass but their ultimate owners are investors / people and feel free to appeal to them to share their dividends with poor people half way around the globe.


Evipicc t1_j2639pj wrote

Yeah if that 'giving their dividends to the poor' was actually happening I'd be willing to accept that as a point of counter-argument.

The point of nominal profits vs growing margins is minutely valid, but the fact remains that, despite risen costs, these companies (which are responsible for food security across a great majority of the planet) are generally maintaining their same margins despite the harm it does to many.

You're right, corporations have no soul or morals, so it's almost like they shouldn't have such universal power to doom millions to food insecurity on a fucking whim.


Whyismypponfire t1_j1uerf9 wrote

So I get that they were capitalizing on this conflict, but why is that bad? It’s not like they made the war happen, and people still need fertilizer. It’s unfortunate but there’s not much they can do except sell right? If I’m wrong tell me, but I don’t see why these companies are evil


[deleted] t1_j1ueysu wrote

Because they're setting costs to a level that directly starves people when they don't have to.


Whyismypponfire t1_j1ufz2a wrote

I thought the price went up for a reason, not just them being greedy? I don’t know much about economics so can you explain? They can’t just lower the price cause they want to be more affordable right?


[deleted] t1_j1ui61y wrote

The price is determined by multiple factors, but record profits are a clear indication that they absolutely could afford to charge people less.


There is the additional pressure of wanting to stay on the good side all the other people who profit off it.


crumbs4manatees t1_j1ulzl8 wrote

Revenue and profits are not the same thing. Yes, their cost of operating the business may have increased. But the only way to increase profits while thats happening is to sell more (not likely if supply is struggling) or to outpace the cost of business with your own price increases. Effectively they’ve seen an opportunity to raise prices, blaming it on a conflict, and then jacked them up far beyond necessary in the name of profits.

Profit margin gives us a pretty good indicator if that’s happening. Nutrien has increased their profit margins 60% as compared to last year. CF industries - profit margins up 238%. Mosaic Co - profit margins up 44%. So yes, they could absolutely keep prices lower if they wanted. They just don’t.


Babakins t1_j1ufdcs wrote

They put money over lives, literally. If you don’t see that as evil, I don’t know what to tell you


Vucea OP t1_j1qyc7w wrote

High fertilizer prices could put an additional 100 million people at risk of undernourishment, a study suggests.

The war in Ukraine has led to the blockade of millions of tons of wheat, barley and corn, but reduced food exports from the region are less of a driver of food price rises than feared, researchers say.

Instead, a modeling study led by University of Edinburgh researchers suggests surging energy and fertilizer prices will have by far the greatest impact on food security in coming decades.


53eleven t1_j1rd09e wrote

Regenerative Farming… no expensive fertilizer needed.


DentedAnvil t1_j1rhqc1 wrote

The hidden costs of industrial monocropping are becoming less hidden.


Dizuki63 t1_j1rn5g8 wrote

Yeah also the effects of harsh chemicals in the soils also prevents a switch from being feasible. The soil is dead and it takes years to properly revive. That or a lot of money.


Superb_Nature_2457 t1_j1s13y9 wrote

That’s why we’re working on helpful fungi and modified plants to resist pests and help prevent blight. Hydroponics also takes away the soil issue, but it’s much more expensive to set up.


Superb_Nature_2457 t1_j1s0tdd wrote

It’s important to note that regenerative agriculture encompasses a many different conservation focused techniques. Most of them are currently being implemented, but some of the bolder soil regeneration claims haven’t been reproduced or show to work at scale.

That said, the industry as a whole is producing some pretty amazing work. Hydroponics, agrivoltaics, and dry farming are my favorites.


53eleven t1_j1s57gk wrote

What “bolder soil regeneration claims” haven’t been reproduced or shown to work at scale?

It’s compost. It’s how nature works. It’s literally how the entire earth has worked for eons. We only very recently started introducing fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides and we got some extremely dramatic proof that this kind of farming is not sustainable almost a hundred years ago.

Tilling and adding chemical fertilizers is not sustainable. We don’t need to discuss how to deal with the rising cost of fertilizers, we need to stop relying on them altogether. Compost takes what has long been considered waste products and turns them into valuable natural fertilizers that are in every way superior to chemical additives.


Superb_Nature_2457 t1_j1sddke wrote

Regenerative ag isn’t just composting. It’s an entire sector that involves a ton of research and a number of different conservation methods. There have been a lot of claims made, especially in the last 8 years or so, about holistic management/regenerative ag greatly improving production and carbon sequestration that don’t really add up or end up falling apart under greater scrutiny. Less tilling also leads to more invasive species, which some farmers then compensate for by using more herbicides and pesticide. There are still ag chem businesses worming their way in by offering quick kill chemicals at the end of harvests to compensate for the lack of tillage, because you need to work the land year round to turn a profit. That sort of thing.

That said, we are moving away from fertilizers and overworking the soil. There’s way more focus on soil conservation methods, bioengineered crops that can better work with regenerative ag practices, and those methods I listed above. It’s just more complicated than returning to composting and calling it good.


53eleven t1_j1swsnc wrote

Naysayers gonna nay.

Let’s see a source (preferably not from a fertilizer company) for the claims you’re saying have been made about regenerative farming and how those claims are falling short.

How does no till lead to more invasive species? (We’re talking about farming here, pretty much everything being farmed is going to be a non native species).

Compost has what plants crave. Plants don’t crave chemical fertilizers. Regenerative farming is more than simply adding compost, but an enormous component of it involves adding organic matter back to the soil… composting.


snowmannn t1_j1u7ug0 wrote

Dang this is almost a perfect comment then you get all sideways with your tillage and herbicides comments. Your right, regenerative ag is a set of MANY practices. But not sure where you are getting the reduced tillage=more invasives...

Although tillage can combat growing weeds, it also significantly increases weed seed mobilization in the soil and ultimately creates the perfect conditions for weeds to germinate and grow. Secondly, reducing tillage is only one aspect of regen Ag like you said. The use of cover crops as further weeds suppression (in lieu of tillage) is already happening and a growing movement. Hate to say it, but herbicides are a vitally important tool in the toolbox for a regenerative farmer. Don't mix up "organic" mumbo jumbo farming with regenerative ag.


farmer1972 t1_j1uit84 wrote

So when do you plant cover crops right before it freezes or after ?


snowmannn t1_j1ujljr wrote

Depends entirely on the crop and where you are. We harvest wheat late July and plant a cover crop to grow for several months and then plant grain corn into that next spring. There are folks experimenting with interseeding cover crops into growing corn, but typically it is easier to plant cereal rye as a cover crop after corn harvest, before it freezes (hopefully)


farmer1972 t1_j1uk264 wrote

Yeah you must be a lot farther south than me. I’m in Canada so most of the time it’s not really a option for me. Thanks for the response


snowmannn t1_j1ul7l3 wrote

I'm in Ontario so we can get cereal rye in after corn, but always still a challenge. If you are out in Western Canada you should check out Derek and Tannis Axten (they have some stuff on YouTube). Fairly large grain farmers that have gone far on replacing synthetic fert, intercropping, compost, etc... All the good stuff! They grow alot of stuff we don't, but alot of the practices and concepts are applicable. I'm totally blown away by their liquid compost extract planter setup. Super duper relevant for this article on fert prices skyrocketing :)


farmer1972 t1_j1upuhs wrote

Yeah just scanned through his videos and most of those have been tried here or are already being done. He is about 400 miles from me and I would love to farm in that country. Thanks for the information I will continue to watch some of it


snowmannn t1_j1uxlu1 wrote

No problem, glad you found it interesting! Lots of small steps needed to make a better system, according to everyone's specific farm operation. Cheers and happy holidays!


firmakind t1_j1ty704 wrote

I was thinking : damn that documentary production must have been huge, then realized the farmer is also the filmmaker.


OdelaX t1_j1tbzts wrote

As a fertilizer salesmen. Fertlizer has come down significantly over the last two years.


MrPicklePop t1_j1tpxvh wrote

Do you think it will reach new highs again after Europe had to cut production due to natural gas concerns?


The-Dane t1_j1umc4t wrote

you sounds like that sales guy who got insane profits in your own pockets


Doctor_Box t1_j1s80f7 wrote

The majority of crops are being grown to feed animals. We could easily skip the middleman and just eat plants which would vastly cut down the amount of crops we would need to grow.


HermitAndHound t1_j1txv5q wrote

Mass production of meat in feedlots is a terrible idea. But animals are part of healthy ecosystems. Manure is a fine fertilizer. It's perfectly possible to design productive local farming systems that regenerate soil, improve biodiversity, bring good plant crops AND produce animal protein.

Put the animals back where they belong. Switch back to cows that can live on grass and don't need soy or other protein-rich feed to keep up their insane milk production. Chicken kept on a small scale, to eat scraps and weed food gardens are a benefit to the system, not a problem.

Meat wouldn't be dirt cheap (and shouldn't be), and there'd be less of it. But not keeping animals would be wasting an opportunity. They can turn stuff that we can't eat into something we can while producing fertilizer and doing chores around the farm.


snowmannn t1_j1ual9j wrote

I agree, but like you said, meat would get very expensive (maybe that is a good thing). I just don't see how it can happen on a large scale though. The current industrial AG system is a very entrenched and (currently) very profitable. I fear that we would never see society willingly transition to $20 steaks for the good of the planet.

I've worked on several industrial chicken farms, catching chickens, sorting fertilized eggs off the belt, etc... I think long-term the only sustainable way to feed the masses animal protein is through lab-grown meat. But I agree wholeheartedly that animals are (and should be) a vital part of a healthy ecosystem. But on an industrial scale, it is terribly inefficient to have to feed, heat and care for a living creature, in order to harvest a small portion of animal protein. My 2 cents is that once lab-grown meat is at cost and taste parity with conventional meat, it will begin to really usurp industrial livestock production. I think and hope there will always be a market for locally raised sustainable livestock. Not sure how it will all play out... For context I personally have a small flock of 15 pastured chickens and their manure is how I feed my garden :)


Doctor_Box t1_j1uim5x wrote

>I think and hope there will always be a market for locally raised sustainable livestock.

Why, once there is a lab grown perfect alternative, would you still hope there are locally raised animals getting their throats cut?


snowmannn t1_j1uk1rn wrote

Being from a rural agrarian community... Livestock is integral to farming in many different ways. There is a deep, long history of the symbiotic relationship of livestock in agriculture. Yes, I hope there is still sustainable, pastured raised livestock in the future, even after lab grown meat.


Doctor_Box t1_j1wpmx9 wrote

Unless you're Amish and using Oxen to plough the fields today this argument does not hold water. Farming can and has modernized and changed over time. Having this romantic nostalgia for culture, tradition, or the way things were is not a good reason to continue harming and exploiting animals.

If cutting throats of animals at a fraction of their lifespans is integral to your way of life then it's time to change.


HermitAndHound t1_j1yepa9 wrote

Modern agriculture is problematic, though. There's "peak oil" when oil production starts dwindling because it's getting harder and harder to extract more of it, but there's also "peak phosphorus". Me extract the stuff to make artificial fertilizers and it's not an indefinite resource.

Soil is being washed and blown away. Extreme weather events are becoming more and more common making it all the more vital to have healthy, spongy soil that can handle massive downpours and store water. We can't go on with open-soil farming, putting the same four crops everywhere conditions be damned and trying to make up for the problems with artificial means.

It's not being romantic, or glorifying the "good old times" (which they weren't). Nature has a little bit of practice in how to handle fluctuations. Using the same concepts to make food production resilient and regenerative isn't tree-hugger woo, it's efficient.

Ruminants and grass land go together. We killed most of the wild ones, leaves using livestock to fill that ecological function. Whether that's cattle, sheep or goats, or on much smaller plots, maybe just some rabbits depends on the area and what the land and people need.

People want to preserve old breeds of livestock (it's a resilience thing too, variety is good), but you can't keep every individual until it drops dead on its own. A healthy population needs natural predation, or selection by humans. How do we keep old, not-currently-economically-interesting sheep breeds alive? We eat them. Draft horse breeds mostly survived the switch to combustion engines by also being damn tasty.


Doctor_Box t1_j20sx2j wrote

It's really unfortunate how animal agriculture takes over terms like "protein" and now "regenerative farming". We have more choices than the two you have laid out. It's not only a choice between farm animals or destructive intensive monocropping (which we already do to feed animals now btw).

First look at the macro. The majority (more than 50%) of cropland is used for feeding animals so by taking them out of the equation we have freed up a ton of land and possibilities. Once we no longer have such a high requirement on crops grown we can look at changing how we grow them.

Now ignore what cows are to you for a second and just think about what they do for the soil. They are eating whatever is growing there processing it, using a huge amount of those nutrients to grow, and depositing the rest on the ground as fertilizer. It's an open loop system where the majority of nutrients go to the cow then the cow is carried off the farm to be killed and eaten and those nutrients never return to the land that grew the cow.

Instead we can look at composting, crop rotation, letting land go fallow and other farming practices to keep the nutrients on site. These include no till farming where we minimize the soil disturbance and keep it healthier and intercropping where multiple crops are grown at once in a way that support each other and balance the nutrient requirement in the soil.

Finally in a alternate universe, that I want to stress does not actually exist, where we have to have cows and sheep in the field to maximize the productivity of that field during fallow years then we could treat those animals like service dogs now. We let them live out their lives doing what they do for the soil, but we do not have to kill them every year and breed new cows and sheep to take their place. Cows live for 20-25 years. We would need a tiny number of animals to accomplish that task. If we kept to the bare minimum number of animals for keeping the soil healthy we would effectively have a vegan population because there would be so few of them.


Doctor_Box t1_j1tycv9 wrote

>But not keeping animals would be wasting an opportunity. They can turn stuff that we can't eat into something we can while producing fertilizer and doing chores around the farm.

That's why I only eat dogs and cats. No need to support factory farming when I can eat locally from my back yard. I live in the city and can't have chickens so I raise dogs for meat and while they're growing they work for me and do things like get me a beer from the fridge. A mutually beneficial relationship for the 8-12 months I let them live.

There's also a great option for those stuck in apartments. You can order online from a great family owned business!

I'm also looking to get the laws changed so we can eat humans who naturally pass away. I would hate to waste an opportunity!


atrophy1999 t1_j1si0d2 wrote

False. The nutrition density of meat is being blissfully ignored. The amount of calories and nutrients in meat isn't easily substituted by a single plant source. In order to substitute you would have to grow a hell-of-a-lot of different types of plants. This would increase the demand for fertilizer. You can't just grow plants without fertilizer.


PM_me_your_syscoin t1_j1slzh0 wrote

I don't know if the intuitive back-of-napkin math works there. A wider variety of crops wouldn't require more fertilizer just because they're different. You would need different types of fertilizer, which would actually help destress supply chains and prevent the risk of single-point failure that you have with monoculture. Also, you don't need as much overall agricultural production if you're primarily feeding humans and not cows/pigs/chickens.


FlintWaterFilter t1_j1szt0b wrote

There's only three macronutrients in fertilizer. The vast majority of fertilizer is made from the same ingredients and mixed in concentration according to application. The only way to speed up the supply chain of fertilizer is to produce it closer to the point of application.


time_drifter t1_j1t2iah wrote

This is my field of work and basically correct. The issue right now is the specific inputs for the process and sourcing them. Flocculant, potash, and catalyst for reactors have all been problematic over the past few years. Potash in particular because Canda and Russia are the biggest producers. If these inputs can be reliably sourced, production and distribution are relatively stable, just more expensive. Most of it is done by rail which is less prone to issue than freight or air.

One thing that does worry me is equipment longevity. Fertilizer production is very caustic and produces a lot of corrosive byproducts like phos-acid, sulphuric acid, etc. This requires constant maintenance using specialized and very difficult to procure parts. There are many critical components with no replacements on hand. Some of these parts are back ordered for a year or more with no alternative supplier(s). Unless we can rebuild or fabricate a solution, any one of these critical components can stop production.


MrPicklePop t1_j1tq5gd wrote

Yup not only that, but natural gas concerns in Europe have caused them to curtail industrial fertilizer production so they can build their winter natural gas reserves. What’s going to happen come planting season in Europe?


farmer1972 t1_j1ujh7g wrote

They have shut down one mine in Saskatchewan for potash. We have lots but the big boys don’t want the profit Marino drop


53eleven t1_j1sx8pn wrote

Plants don’t need fertilizer to grow if the soil is being taken care of.


korinth86 t1_j1t963g wrote

That is so backwards...

Nutrient density doesn't matter when you consider the amount of resources it takes to get to that point. There are far more nutrients in the years worth of feed a cow eats than the end meat product.

Meat makes it's easier for the consumer to get the nutrients we need. To go more vegetarian you need to eat a variety of foods, rice, beans, lentils, nuts, veggies, leafy greens, fruits, and should supplement with a multivitamin.

It's not hard, it's less convenient.

Fertilizer wise, vegetarian wins hands down. The amount of land necessary to keep humans healthy, without meat, would be less than having to raise animals to ultimately feed a human later.

Lab grown meat changes the equation a bit depending on ultimate cost.


farmer1972 t1_j1uj7d8 wrote

Lol and how do you think all that is grown


korinth86 t1_j1ujd6a wrote

Every time you take a step in the consumption chain you increase the needed inputs.

It's less efficient to raise cattle for food than it is to use that land to grow food to feed humans.


farmer1972 t1_j1ukbry wrote

Ok that I can agree on but most cattle are grazed on marginal land that won’t support a crop why not use it that way rather than letting it go to weeds. Do you know the amount of stuff (herbicide,pesticides,desiccation)that is needed for each one of those plants?


korinth86 t1_j1usft2 wrote

I'm dubious to the claim of "most". data I can find suggests about 60%> In the US the standard for grass fed is 50% of their diet to claim "grass fed".

There are days it's too wet to let your cows graze, they'll destroy the field. So you keep them in and have to feed them something. Then there are 3-4mo your fields don't produce grass, which means again, food comes from somewhere.

If the fields are growing enough grass to feed a meaningful amount of cattle, they can grow other crops.

My buddy is a dairy farmer though he calls himself a grass farmer. They only supplement feed probably 10-20% during the growing season as they can grow enough grass. He cannot produce enough extra and has to buy feed for the 3-4mo he can't pasture them.

I'm not against meat. The truth is it takes more everything (water, fertilizer, land, blah) to cultivate rather than plants. I'm all for reducing our meat consumption. It will be interesting to see how lab grown meat changes the equation.


6GoesInto8 t1_j1t1n5m wrote

I wonder how much meat could be removed from the American diet without needing any replacement but still keeping the person healthy? For me it is at least 50%. At least half of the meat I eat is for pleasure over nutrition.


[deleted] t1_j1t55z1 wrote



6GoesInto8 t1_j1t5zom wrote

Whelp, your logic is clear and irrefutable, off to Cuba. Do they accept bot refugees?


myplushfrog t1_j1t8fzq wrote

Their comment is hilarious lol omg. I don’t need to move to Cuba to eat rice, milk and flour. They are insanely cheap here, far more so than meat.


6GoesInto8 t1_j1ta4rn wrote

I started to write a counter argument to some of their points but it was so easy I was worried it was some sort of trap. Maybe trying to steer the conversation towards sanctions or something? That's probably not true, but their argument feels intentionally absurd.


Tuggerfub t1_j1td64j wrote

You're not making sense.

Have you seen cuban sandwiches? These people love meat.

How about you advocate for the US to stop erroneously sanctioning Cuba and making trade a nightmare for them instead? Think about it in the context of what it took for Russia to receive relatively modest sanctions.


RadialSpline t1_j1u35im wrote

To put some context on that point: when the Communist revolution deposed Bautista in 1959 they [the revolutionaries] nationalized a lot of American business assets, and many of the “upper crust” of people in Bautista’s orbit fled as refugees to the US and they [the refugees] along with the businesses that had assets nationalized lobbied the fuck out of the government to impose those sanctions, and continue to lobby to keep those same sanctions in place until their grievances are “properly addressed” to their liking.

Also totally doesn’t help that the powers that be in the US really don’t want even a semi-functional socialistic/communistic government to exist.


RadialSpline t1_j1u2ixc wrote

For one, Non parle Espagnol.

For two, I don’t exactly have the resources (cash-in-hand) to get to Cuba.

For three, why the fuck would I have to move to Cuba in order to not eat as much meat? I can eat less meat here (and very slightly reduce the demand for meat while doing so) just as well where I currently live.

Four, from an energy transfer standpoint eating plants directly is an order of magnitude more efficient than raising plants for a “middle cow” to eat then I eat the cow.


Doctor_Box t1_j1sqzqd wrote

Why would you replace meat with a single plant source? The point is we can free up so much agricultural land you can grow a variety of plants and still not use as much land (or fertilizer) as what is currently used growing food for cows, pigs, and chickens.

Also nutrient density makes no sense when comparing plants to meat. Plants are generally more nutrient dense but less calorie dense. Maybe calorie density is what you mean, but considering the obesity epidemic I don't think calories are an issue for most people in first world countries.


Tuggerfub t1_j1td9zi wrote

A lot of what you need doesn't come from plants so it's a moot point.
We're an omnivorous species.


Doctor_Box t1_j1telyy wrote

Where do the cows, pigs, and chickens get what they need then? Everything you need comes from plants (except for B12 which is bacteria).

We are omnivorous I agree, but that only tells you what you can eat and not what you have to eat. There are plenty of people thriving on a plant based diet.


Human_Anybody7743 t1_j1snc4q wrote

This is a lie. The exact crops (soy and corn) fed to the cows with a bit of fermentation to reduce calorie density and create some micronutrients cover most of your bases.

Small quantities of a much less crop intensive animal protein cover the rest.


NewReddit101 t1_j1tev6v wrote

“You can't just grow plants without fertilizer.”

Lol plants couldn’t grow before the industrial revolution; they just didn’t exist


unskilledplay t1_j1tl0gu wrote

There isn't enough arable land to feed 8 billion people without fertilizer.

In the late 1800s scientists were modeling that after around 2 billion people population growth would have to stop because there wouldn't be any way to feed everyone. In the early 20th century a bunch of methods to mass produce fertilizer appeared. It was one of the biggest events in human history.

Today you can do the math and determine exactly how many calories a shortage of X tons of fertilizer will cause to global food production.


Evipicc t1_j1tq437 wrote

Of all of the arguments that are totally valid to support continuing to eat meat as a species you picked the one that was wrong...


Nashka01 t1_j1twuch wrote

How this would increase the demand for fertiliser since 80% of soya is used to feed animals? Like if we have less animals, we should feed them less, harvest less soya for them and utilise properly the fertiliser for us ? The question is more about how to organise our agriculture with a long term prospect instead of economy prospect


firmakind t1_j1tz6uw wrote

> You can't just grow plants without fertilizer.

Not going to go into the meat vs plant nutrients debate in which I probably don't have enough knowledge to chime in.
But you can grow plants without (synthetic) fertilizer. And it's not about organic farming or whatever, it's just about basic plant biology and requirements. Otherwise how would there be plants anywhere? Plants are over 80% of the world's biomass.

You can't grow plants without fertilizer using current high input intensive agriculture, since there's just enough going on in the ground to properly turn organic matter into usable nutrients by the plants. They just can't do that by themselves. So either you provide them with readily available nutrients through fertilizing, or you help the soil's life do it's freaking job and feed it enough dead stuff so it provides plants with usable nutrients.
But that requires no till farming, green manure crop, and so on to avoid growing on a dead soil and thus being dependent on synthetic fertilizers. And not everyone has the time to do that.


boynamedsue8 t1_j1sn7cj wrote

Tell that to people who suffer from anemia or have A+ blood type where they need protein in their diet.


AspenRiot t1_j1spy5d wrote

Listen I'm not a doctor but I know enough about biology to tell you that plants contain protein.

And the medical needs of a small number of people have no bearing on the fact that Western countries consume waaay more meat than is rational. A country cutting back on meat and dairy isn't going to cause its anemic population to drop dead.


Doctor_Box t1_j1sq1dk wrote

Anemia is an iron issue. Plenty of plant sources there. As for protein, all plants have all the essential amino acids in varying amounts. As long as you're eating a variety of plants(not highly processed refined stuff) and getting enough calories, you're getting enough protein. Otherwise focus on beans, lentils, legumes, nuts and seeds for maximum protein. There are also things like Seitan made from wheat that is 75% protein by weight.


boynamedsue8 t1_j1suvol wrote

I’m aware it’s an iron issue. Took iron supplements along with adding hemp to my protein shakes and radically changing my diet and yup I still needed to eat meat.


Doctor_Box t1_j1svyis wrote

I'm not sure what radical changes you made to your diet but meat is not really required and heme iron has some other detrimental effects. I can't argue with your specific case but if you are interested in trying again here are some resources.

Vegan society recommendation: Good plant sources of iron include lentils, chickpeas, beans, tofu, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, kale, dried apricots and figs, raisins, quinoa and fortified breakfast cereal.

Another good article.

A pro tip is to add citrus or a vitamin c source to your meal to help with absorption and avoid caffeine around the meal which can decrease absorption.


MilkshakeBoy78 t1_j1syo9w wrote

Eat some spinach and nuts.


Tuggerfub t1_j1tdgrg wrote

The notion that spinach is loaded with iron was a clerical error.

Some nurse put the decimal in the wrong place, but voila, the myth and the superpowers of Popeye were born. Incidentally it's also the origin of where the idea of 'powerups' in video games comes from (because a Popeye game started the convention).

If someone has a deficiency that impacts how their brain, blood, or other critical functions work, and you're not a specialist, maybe no?


MilkshakeBoy78 t1_j1tf645 wrote

100 grams of spinach has one more milligram of iron compared to 100 grams of beef. 2.7mg vs 2.6mg

if you're arguing for needing meat to survive and properly function than get off your high horse.

pistachios contain 14mg of iron per 100g of pistachios...


xiphoidthorax t1_j1s6u7b wrote

Maybe cut back on the 147th flavour of corn chips or other heavily processed food and think about fundamental nutrition for society.


wsdpii t1_j1tr183 wrote

But what about the profits? Won't anyone think of the shareholders?


ResponsibleDealer749 t1_j1she6a wrote

Some governments are now limiting the effective fertilizers all together, it will help the planet, by maybe eliminating another billion of us?


MrPicklePop t1_j1tqa91 wrote

This is what Sri Lanka tried to do. I suggest you look up their most recent riot videos


53eleven t1_j1sxu0k wrote

Plants grew for millions of years without chemical fertilizers.


ResponsibleDealer749 t1_j1tkkds wrote

They do, and humans died since ever until we started using them, then from a few millions to 8 billion of us


53eleven t1_j1ud7c4 wrote


ResponsibleDealer749 t1_j1ue12l wrote

Not interested, prefer reality. reality is simple, if a farmer can grow tons of food using a normal fertilizers, they would have done it many times over.


53eleven t1_j1uikct wrote

You realize what you’re calling reality is the myth, right? Farming in the “conventional” way is unsustainable. Full stop.


MrPicklePop t1_j1val39 wrote

It’s unsustainable, but now our population is unsustainable without industrial farming. It’s called a progress trap


53eleven t1_j1vjhtq wrote

It’s a myth that we can’t feed everyone without using “conventional” farming practices.

The only trap we’re in is a lack of creativity and will to do the things we need to do, the way they need to be done.


natesovenator t1_j1suxk5 wrote

So... Why exactly are they increasing in price? I thought there was an overabundance and they were struggling to get rid of it all in 2018...


MrPicklePop t1_j1tq8dn wrote

Because the required inputs are locked behind geopolitical conflicts.


natesovenator t1_j1tqq22 wrote

Mind giving me one or more examples? I'm really curious.


MrPicklePop t1_j1tr387 wrote

Potash is mainly produced in Canada and Russia. Now that Russia is banned, there is only one supplier for the western nations.

Ammonia requires a very energy intensive process to produce. With the Russian natural gas pipelines being down, European nations like Germany had to curtail production in preparation for winter. They would rather have natural gas to heat homes than produce fertilizer.


frupp110 t1_j1wb63w wrote

Or, we could just go back to the way that worked for thousands of years before big chem tricked farmers into killing their soil with their chemicals AND selling them fertilizer to artificially replenish the soil. Rodale Institute, Soil Regeneration

I also suggest watching the documentary Biggest Little Farm (trailer)

Rodale teamed up a couple of years ago with Mark Hyman, author of Food Fix


squidking78 t1_j1tvtg5 wrote

This has been the case the instant the war started. Anyone who looks at how globalization works will tell you famine is coming.


FuturologyBot t1_j1r2tx1 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Vucea:

High fertilizer prices could put an additional 100 million people at risk of undernourishment, a study suggests.

The war in Ukraine has led to the blockade of millions of tons of wheat, barley and corn, but reduced food exports from the region are less of a driver of food price rises than feared, researchers say.

Instead, a modeling study led by University of Edinburgh researchers suggests surging energy and fertilizer prices will have by far the greatest impact on food security in coming decades.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


S0M3D1CK t1_j1txduh wrote

This is another reason the war in Ukraine needs to end. Fertilizer and explosives are made with the same chemicals.


mvallas1073 t1_j1u9n9z wrote

Huh, you’d think after all we’ve been through we’d be shitting ourselves more often and drive the prices down…


Balls_DeepinReality t1_j1uda90 wrote

Not sure why Ukraine is a focus, but sure.

Fertilizer is just NPK, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium.

The best fertilizer is shit (manure).

If you don’t know, and haven’t gone down that rabbit hole, I’d highly suggest doing so to learn more


Qisfakeyoustupidfuck t1_j1twnci wrote

Sorry to say but traditional farming produce must go away. It is far more efficient and cleaner to farm vertically and indoors…


wickedcoding t1_j1ua4dg wrote

I work in agriculture. The amount of chemicals, fertilizers, insecticides, gas, water usage for greenhouse farming used every week would blow your mind.

It is nowhere near as “green” as traditional farming.


The_Mann_In_Black t1_j1uuquj wrote

And significantly more energy intensive and limited to certain crops. Integrate regenerative practices in row crops that can’t be brought indoors. Eat less meat. Build greenhouses as they have lower upfront and operational cost than vertical farms. And then we have distributed, resilient, and independent food production.


watevauwant t1_j1w1qwm wrote

You are wrong as hell. Also what you refer to as “Traditional farming” is industrialised farming. Traditional farming doesn’t require imported fertilisers.


Scarlet109 t1_j1rsi1k wrote

Clarification: ‘Undernourished’ does not mean ‘starving’. You can be full of food with little to no nutritional value.


TheNotSoEvilEngineer t1_j1sl38t wrote

When you move the bar up that more people are going hungry, prices are going up and the people further down the line are going to suffer more. It's estimated over 200 million are already food 'insecure', and it's going to get even worse.


Particular-Lake5856 t1_j1qyybj wrote

Are you sure? Not the 1 billion more people per decade until 2050? (Prices and war, do have an impact, but not a high one)


Shot-Job-8841 t1_j1rm3hz wrote

I disagree with your prediction of 2.7 Billion more people. That would put the world population at about 10.8B which yes, some analysts predict, but the majority seem to predict 10B by 2080, not 2050.


Particular-Lake5856 t1_j1ry5cm wrote

Prediction change all the time, and there are a lot of different ones out there, my point is not the exact number, but that the population growth does have a much bigger impact that fertilizer and wars.


[deleted] t1_j1sdkt9 wrote



KainX t1_j1rrpvo wrote

Ones urine and feces are all the fertilizer a person needs. We only need to buy food for one year of life to sustain us until death from old age, and even then, that corpse has enough nutrients to continue the cycle to make another.

Edit: the downvotes show me that people here do not understand nutrient cycling, closed loop systems, regenerative agriculture, or how composting and pathogens work.

Urine is easy and safe to use, there have been plenty of articles and studies posted on reddit about it so we can skip this part of the conversation

With poop, I can only assume the downvotes are from people who immediately imagine growing potatoes in poo, which is not how its dealt with.

aerobic septic systems render feces safe to use, this can be bolsterd with UV-C lights for extra insurance.

anaerobic systems are cheaper and less effective, but are used almost everywhere outside of the cities already

If you buy conventionally farmed food, you can bet you are already eating food fertilized with municipal sewage

Half the worlds population does not have running water to flush feces away, meaning **they need simple on site solutions**. For this, dry-toilets or compost toilets are used.

Composting is a simple way people can process feces from dry toilets. Poop is anaerobic, and composting is an aerobic process (unless you do it wrong, but there is a clear difference). Aerobic microbes will consume and destroy anaerobic pathogens

Do not plant root crops in poo, its a pretty simple rule. But It can be safety used to feed an apple tree, with layers of mulch on top.

If they colonize mars do you really think we are just going to jettison our sewage nutrients away so we can ship more in from earth?

Each and every person has and makes enough fertilizer for themselves technically speaking, just because we flush away out feces away with potable water is the normal, does not mean it is smart, efficient, or sustainable.


Superb_Nature_2457 t1_j1s1jvx wrote

Using human feces as fertilizer leads to major disease outbreaks, not just via the plants but in drinking water when it leeches into the soil. It has to be processed and treated, which then leads to more energy use and more chemicals.


KainX t1_j1t3nv8 wrote

I do not disagree with your statement, and have been using using properly treated human waste for five years. I graciously accept my downvotes, but people got to accept the facts. We do not have a fertilizer problem, we have a resource management problem.


Scarlet109 t1_j1rtcn6 wrote

Urine is good for plants that grow well with low pH (acidic): potatoes, blueberries, citrus (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, citron), apple, etc.

Fecal matter is good for plants that grow well with high pH (basic): cabbage, beets, asparagus, broccoli, kale, leeks, etc.


Dismal_Struggle_6424 t1_j1rtxdj wrote

Y'all must have never died of dysentery. But it sounds like you're going to.


Scarlet109 t1_j1ru9iv wrote

No one is saying to eat the stuff raw or that other types of compost can’t be used


StSalvage t1_j1rgr6l wrote

You flush your shit down the loo. Using drinking water. Then you ask for fertilizer. Hahaha!


GarugasRevenge t1_j1s6mnw wrote

Fr free fertilizer comes out of our butts.


rad-boy t1_j1sedwu wrote

human shit makes awful fertilizer because of our diets


MrPicklePop t1_j1tqeno wrote

Yup and most of the treatment plants use PFAS so the human fertilizer ends us causing more damage especially to people eating root vegetables


StSalvage t1_j29pgjj wrote

No it just needs longer to compost, then it's perfectly suitable.


GarugasRevenge t1_j1sepdr wrote

It's a solution, I didn't say it was a good one. What about pee pee? What about catching CO2 off our tailpipes?