If Africa's agricultural situation changes, such that they start using rich-people levels of fertilizer per person, would that end the current stagnation of fertilizer use?
Very interesting! What is the reason for lower consumption in recent years? Is it because fertilizers are getting expensive or people are more concerned with the environmental impact of it?
I like keeping up with who’s doing what about the climate crises, so I thought, “What can I do, personally?”
So I decided to write a song, a “call to action” to address the crisis.
I’m old, but after reading something in Bill McKibben’s “The Crucial Years” newsletter on SubStack, about how our kids are pissed off by promises and inaction, I took a couple of my old friends into the studio and recorded “We Were Thieves.” I entered it into NPR’s “Tiny Desk Contest,” and included subtitles.
It’s rock and roll from a 3-piece who’s ages total 212 years, but we wanted to do our bit. I’m hoping you will share the following link with your subscribers:
Great post. Many farmers use inorganic fertilisers extensively. Inorganic fertilizers are made up of synthetic chemicals that are designed to provide plants with the nutrients they need to grow.
However, these fertilizers can actually reduce the amount of nutrients in crops, since they are designed to promote fast growth, rather than to improve the nutritional value of the crops.
1) using the term "decouple" when in the text is actually stated that the use of fertiliser is fundamental to get higher yields, it is just that we have wasted enormous quantities until now. Imagine an alternative world where we have always used the needed amount of fertilizer per crop. We would use much less fertilizer than we currently do for the same food production, and everybody would understand that fertilizer use is totally coupled to crop yield. We are getting more efficient/effective in its use, but it is not being decoupled.
2) why does the text use fertilizer/person instead of fertilizer/area (of crop)? I assume that the area of crop per inhabitant can vary a lot between countries. In the extreme, I don't think that Singapore has much space to grow anything so I assume that their fertilizer/person is tiny, probably much lower than the amount of fertilizer needed to produce what one person there eats --even at 100% efficiency in fertilizer use.
Thank you for this article. I knew little about fertilising and found quite interesting the decoupling of its use and crop production.
I couldn’t help but noticing that it happened around 1990 for the countries plotted. Are there any studies that helped implementing better cropping/production techniques or engineering, or biochemical studies that helped make more efficient fertilisers so ultimately less would be needed?
The cost of fertilizers and application costs have risen faster than crop values, farmers consistently overuse some fertilizers and under apply others, PH can be out of optimum range for optimum uptake and the cost of using enough lime to get the PH to optimum is prohibitively expensive. Phosphate availability is a problem due to lack of humic substances and microbial associations with the rhizospere trace elements are frequently ignored and silica in the form of silicic acid is absent which affects phosphate availability too. As soil organic matter and compaction reduce yield and waste fertilizers. Humic substances can reverse the phosphate problem and paying attention to PH and trace elements and crucial but neglected elements like sulfur must be considered not just NPK. The old saying fertilizer and no lime makes the father rich and the son poor is so true.
Intensification does not guarantee forest area conservation. More likely the opposite. Sure, support more fertilizers for one mechanism of increased yields if you like, but the biodiversity or forest area benefit is not a guaranteed association. ->
"This finding poses a major challenge to leveraging land sparing under current trends in global agriculture and highlights the importance of considering market dynamics when designing policy interventions aimed at fostering sustainable outcomes from intensification."
Pratzer, Marie, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Patrick Meyfroidt, Tobias Krueger, Matthias Baumann, Stephen T. Garnett, and Tobias Kuemmerle. 2023. “Agricultural Intensification, Indigenous Stewardship and Land Sparing in Tropical Dry Forests.” Nature Sustainability, February, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01073-0.
Really interesting article. For the countries that show continued increase in crop production, while fertilizer use falls, what do we know about energy usage for crop production? Is it possible that higher energy usage (e.g. more use of heating and lighting in greenhouses) is helping to maintain crop yields with less fertilizer usage?
Thank for this (somewhat encouraging) snapshot of fertilizer use. More precise and measured use of fertilizers is part of the solution. But as always, the situation is more complex than it seems, in that there are a variety of crop, soil and climate factors that affect nutrient availability and crop production. Organic matter in the soil is key, and has the additional benefit of locking up carbon and reducing nutrient runoff. Also, as other commenters have noted, decisions are situation specific; tiny doses of fertilizer can dramatically improve the lives of some resource-poor farmers, while in other settings it may be ill-advised. Keep up the great work!
Canada’s per capita fertilizer use is almost double that of the US - and our provincial and federal gov’t’s are supporting a new blue hydrogen industry for dubious uses (building heat, vehicles) and useful loads (high temp heat in industry). There is controversy about whether blue (fossil) hydrogen is clean - but today’s fertilizer is made with gray hydrogen that is a significant source of global GHGs. Wouldn’t the first priority for any new “clean” hydrogen be to replace dirty hydrogen in fertilizer - rather than be used for loads that can be transitioned to heat pumps and EVs?
Is the world approaching 'peak fertilizer'?
If Africa's agricultural situation changes, such that they start using rich-people levels of fertilizer per person, would that end the current stagnation of fertilizer use?
Very interesting! What is the reason for lower consumption in recent years? Is it because fertilizers are getting expensive or people are more concerned with the environmental impact of it?
Is the organic nitrogen only legume? Such that manure nutrients (n, p and k) are excluded?
Hey there,
I like keeping up with who’s doing what about the climate crises, so I thought, “What can I do, personally?”
So I decided to write a song, a “call to action” to address the crisis.
I’m old, but after reading something in Bill McKibben’s “The Crucial Years” newsletter on SubStack, about how our kids are pissed off by promises and inaction, I took a couple of my old friends into the studio and recorded “We Were Thieves.” I entered it into NPR’s “Tiny Desk Contest,” and included subtitles.
It’s rock and roll from a 3-piece who’s ages total 212 years, but we wanted to do our bit. I’m hoping you will share the following link with your subscribers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPNKdwLR2s
Thanks, and keep up the fight!
Charles Williams
Great post. Many farmers use inorganic fertilisers extensively. Inorganic fertilizers are made up of synthetic chemicals that are designed to provide plants with the nutrients they need to grow.
However, these fertilizers can actually reduce the amount of nutrients in crops, since they are designed to promote fast growth, rather than to improve the nutritional value of the crops.
Curious how Hannah sees the new phosphate resources found in Norway as relates to this? https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/great-news-eu-hails-discovery-of-massive-phosphate-rock-deposit-in-norway/
Curious how Hannah sees the new phosphate resources found in Norway contributing to this?
I'm confused by 2 things:
1) using the term "decouple" when in the text is actually stated that the use of fertiliser is fundamental to get higher yields, it is just that we have wasted enormous quantities until now. Imagine an alternative world where we have always used the needed amount of fertilizer per crop. We would use much less fertilizer than we currently do for the same food production, and everybody would understand that fertilizer use is totally coupled to crop yield. We are getting more efficient/effective in its use, but it is not being decoupled.
2) why does the text use fertilizer/person instead of fertilizer/area (of crop)? I assume that the area of crop per inhabitant can vary a lot between countries. In the extreme, I don't think that Singapore has much space to grow anything so I assume that their fertilizer/person is tiny, probably much lower than the amount of fertilizer needed to produce what one person there eats --even at 100% efficiency in fertilizer use.
Thank you for this article. I knew little about fertilising and found quite interesting the decoupling of its use and crop production.
I couldn’t help but noticing that it happened around 1990 for the countries plotted. Are there any studies that helped implementing better cropping/production techniques or engineering, or biochemical studies that helped make more efficient fertilisers so ultimately less would be needed?
The decoupling is another reason for optimism.
Nitrogen and phosphorous runoff from fertilizer is non-trivial. Thanks for noting the annual hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is hard to argue that US biofuels policy since 2007 (corn ethanol) hasn't exacerbated the Gulf hypoxia problem.
Everything is a tradeoff. There are no perfect solutions. Those that attempt to defy physics and economics are always suspect.
Why China increased fertilizer used?
The cost of fertilizers and application costs have risen faster than crop values, farmers consistently overuse some fertilizers and under apply others, PH can be out of optimum range for optimum uptake and the cost of using enough lime to get the PH to optimum is prohibitively expensive. Phosphate availability is a problem due to lack of humic substances and microbial associations with the rhizospere trace elements are frequently ignored and silica in the form of silicic acid is absent which affects phosphate availability too. As soil organic matter and compaction reduce yield and waste fertilizers. Humic substances can reverse the phosphate problem and paying attention to PH and trace elements and crucial but neglected elements like sulfur must be considered not just NPK. The old saying fertilizer and no lime makes the father rich and the son poor is so true.
Intensification does not guarantee forest area conservation. More likely the opposite. Sure, support more fertilizers for one mechanism of increased yields if you like, but the biodiversity or forest area benefit is not a guaranteed association. ->
"This finding poses a major challenge to leveraging land sparing under current trends in global agriculture and highlights the importance of considering market dynamics when designing policy interventions aimed at fostering sustainable outcomes from intensification."
Pratzer, Marie, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Patrick Meyfroidt, Tobias Krueger, Matthias Baumann, Stephen T. Garnett, and Tobias Kuemmerle. 2023. “Agricultural Intensification, Indigenous Stewardship and Land Sparing in Tropical Dry Forests.” Nature Sustainability, February, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01073-0.
Really interesting article. For the countries that show continued increase in crop production, while fertilizer use falls, what do we know about energy usage for crop production? Is it possible that higher energy usage (e.g. more use of heating and lighting in greenhouses) is helping to maintain crop yields with less fertilizer usage?
Thank for this (somewhat encouraging) snapshot of fertilizer use. More precise and measured use of fertilizers is part of the solution. But as always, the situation is more complex than it seems, in that there are a variety of crop, soil and climate factors that affect nutrient availability and crop production. Organic matter in the soil is key, and has the additional benefit of locking up carbon and reducing nutrient runoff. Also, as other commenters have noted, decisions are situation specific; tiny doses of fertilizer can dramatically improve the lives of some resource-poor farmers, while in other settings it may be ill-advised. Keep up the great work!
Canada’s per capita fertilizer use is almost double that of the US - and our provincial and federal gov’t’s are supporting a new blue hydrogen industry for dubious uses (building heat, vehicles) and useful loads (high temp heat in industry). There is controversy about whether blue (fossil) hydrogen is clean - but today’s fertilizer is made with gray hydrogen that is a significant source of global GHGs. Wouldn’t the first priority for any new “clean” hydrogen be to replace dirty hydrogen in fertilizer - rather than be used for loads that can be transitioned to heat pumps and EVs?