Could we survive without chemical fertilizer?

It depends on your definition of a farm. How big, what are they growing? Do they have enough land to rotate crops with green manures? Pasture raised or feed lot? There are so many variables but All farming or ranching can be done organically if you are willing to make some sacrifices. The bigger the operation, the harder it is.

Buffy, the kind of big factory farm that she refers to is what is needed to produce enough for the 6 billion folk on the planet. Downsizing back to 40 acre boutique farms is fine to support those living on them and their local towns but cannot possibly produce enough to also support the urban centers.

The farmers I know couldn't survive without chem fert. Corn one year, soybeans the next, then corn, then soybeans, and so on. They would have to change their whole method of farming. Grandpa farmed many years with minimal chem fert, (liquid nitrogen applied to the corn patch) but the barn cleanings and a crop rotaion cycle of 5 crops and a fallow period helped keep the soil productive.

I suppose the NIMBY's would rather be poisoned from chem fert than plain old manure. I'ld prefer the manure.

The production from my farm, without using chemical fertilizer, would be IMO less than 1/3 the current output. All those that want to eat every third day or less need to promote eliminating chemical fertilizer from the production of food for the world. We have neither the acres nor the knowledgeable people to feed the current population without it.

__________________
Agmantoo
If they can do it,
you know you can!

I submit that with the dewindling petroleum reserves, we're going to need to figure it out.

Sustaining 6 billion people on fallow is not going to happen, but the choice to get off chemicals has been made for us. We're just going to run out some day ... and the longer you use chemicals the more you need them.

I think there's wake call coming ... and not everyone is going to have a full plate of food on that day.

My two cents ... as gloom and doom as it is.

Then again, if everyone could grow some of their own food then we wouldn't be as dependent on mega-farm corporations. Or even buying from small local farmers would help reduce the need for mega-farms. Change is coming, like it or not. And the mega-farm cheap food mentality will be the first casualty.

__________________
Check us out out "The Modern Homestead", a small, helpful, friendly forum. Find us at "The Modern Homestead", on facebook too!

I think if there were no chemical fertilizers, there would also be other problems, like not enough feed for the herds, so whether the world could be fed without chemical fertilizers is not the only problem. The economy would be kaput because it would mean that oil/fuel would also be in short/no supply.
I grow using non-sythetic fertilizers, but I also buy chicken feed which I'm sure is produced with chemical fertilizers and/or petroleum products to run the tractors, etc.
To think, however, that because of chemical fertilizers there are no people starving to death is just not true.
One thing to think about is all the feed that must be available to some of our least productive animals (feed/meat ratio) like beef, would maybe change what we eat. We could grow a lot more other things that would provide an adequate diet on less land if we didn't need beef, dairy cows, etc. It's not what those farmers would like to hear, but the acres used to produce their feed could be used to grow things used directly by humans. Or, if enough land were available we could go to a grass based feed system, requiring much less feed production.
There is so much to consider in a world if chemical fertilizers weren't available that I think most of us really don't comprehend. The rest of the world, at least those that aren't industrialized, eat different than we do.
And, I think we have a food import/export deficit at this point, so our excess isn't all going to feed the world.
Ann

I stopped using chemical based fertilizers 15 years ago when I started my first compost bin and aquaculture tanks. Worm castings and fish tank cleanings is adequate for my gardening needs.

__________________
"I didn't have time to slay the dragon. It's on my To Do list!"

Well, interesting responses. Motivated me to poke around the internet and do some reading. I’d be interested to hear responses to quotes below.

While population is an issue, I wouldn’t say it’s responsible for all problems. I would say laziness and economics are much of the problem. If cheap energy is available, then we don’t have to use resources available that take some effort and are more expensive. For example, human urine is essentially sterile and an excellent fertilizer. Humans produce 1 to 2 quarts a day. A city of 1 million could ship over 250,000 gallons a day out to farms, right? Of course, we’re too ‘civilized’ to do that. You’d think we could at least use it to fertilize our lawns.

If we could cut our needs in half using what we have, then Suburbanite, you’re saying we could survive without chemicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_urine

http://www.geocities.com/impatients6...Fertilizer.htm

At this site, I see a tractor in Sweden fertilizing with urine.

http://www.liquidgoldbook.com/index.html

Nitrogen in urine is in the form of urea (two ammonias hooked together). When applied to soil surface, is broken down back down into ammonias, which can dissipate into the air (volatalization). This site discusses this and how it’s best to apply just before rain or irrigation to push deeper so won’t disappear.

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/pasture/urea.html

Now the only challenge is keeping the urinary catheters into all the cows and people and having convenient dumping stations available. lol

um,I've often wondered why trees close to shelters and shops were larger than the other trees around, so thats it..

I think we are focusing too much on simply manure as fertilizer. There are other ways to build nutrients in your soil - Cover crops are absolutely wonderful. I use annual rye grass in the fall - it grows through the winter and finally dies in the coldest temps just before spring. It really softens the soil and add a ton of organic matter. In the summer, I put buckwheat in beds that are waiting for a fall crop. I don't always get a good stand, but that isn't the purpose. The cover crops keep the weeds down and add nutrient content to the soil by bring it up deep from the ground or by the stems of the plants being tilled into the ground.

Don't over look green manure crops as part of a good organic fertilizing program. You don't have to use manure if you are worried about it.

The information online regading use of human urine in agriculture all tend to overlook one important point. Only urine from humans not taking medications that do not fully metabolize would ensure that medicinal traces would not be passed to any food crops using human urine as a fertilizer additive.

__________________
"I didn't have time to slay the dragon. It's on my To Do list!"

My question is how are going to grow all that corn for ethonol with out chemical fertilizers. Corn is on of the worst nitrogen hoggers there is.

I manage quite well without it here. If it gets to the point I can't grow without adding fertilizer then I need to step back, regroup and take better care of my soil. Doesn't mean you skip on trace elements needed. Does mean you feed it, don't over work it and give it the same rest you need from time to time.

__________________
"Only the rocks [and really embarassing moments] live forever"

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands..." tick-tick-tick

Fish guts or other high protein compostables. When proteins biodegrade they produce high levels of nitrogen. Of course the same compostables can be utilized in the production of biofuels and some biofuel conversion of protein wastes from chicken and turkey processing plants already exist.

Thats one drawback to any alternative fertilizer and fuel sources. Components required for distancing agriculture from chemical fertilizer can also be used for fuel. Foodstuffs used for biofuel are required by humans and feed animals alike.

__________________
"I didn't have time to slay the dragon. It's on my To Do list!"

Cellulose based ethanol production. Use the entire plant, or waste residue to produce the alcohol. Cellulose is made up of long chains of sugars. Break them down, and convert to alcohol. More complicated than starch to sugar, but doable. The problem is cost. As the cost of gas rises, it will become more feasible to do it. Research is going on at many locations in the US and abroad on this idea.

Ethanol from corn is easy, and with low cost corn, almost economical. As corn prices rise, the resulting ethanol cost will go up as well. The long term solution is reduction in use, cellulose base alcohol production, and biodiesel from plants like algae.

Michael

Wouldn't a better question be? Can we survive with chemical fertilizers? Or any of the man made poisons? My thoughts have long been >chemicals are for those who are not farmers<. The use by many makes me think of drug addicts. Organic typically will produce equal yields to non-organic. Land will yield much more if farmed on a smaller scale in a responsible manner. If everyone grew just some of their own food the world would certainly be a better place. AND think of the energy saved. Even my own garden is hand dug and I do have mechanical means to do it. Its a relaxing way and save energy and help your own body all in one step. The most efficient way to get anything done is with your own two hands. That expends the least energy for the task at hand. (kilo-calories per job completed). Tom

__________________
Tom Lavalette, Garden Farmer
Owner Toms Tractors, Buy, Sell, Trade Garden Tractors and Implements. Custom Built machinery by order.


If Farms were Smaller, Communities would be Closer.

tomstractormag,
Todays farmer feeds in excess of 100 people per farmer. We have become dependent for the majority of the population to go to bed on a filled stomach to have the end product of the farmer. It is not in my mind feasible to accomplish the production of this much food without chemical fertilizer. We could revert to the the early 1900s where 1 farmer produced the needs of 3 none farmers but the "adjustment" would leave a lot of people to starve. There is a lot of uncertainty with meeting the food needs, of an ever increasing population, in the not too distant future but I do not think it will be addressed with a shovel and a few buckets of manure and compost. Certainly I do not possess the answer to the situation but it is disturbing if one ponders over it.

__________________
Agmantoo
If they can do it,
you know you can!

Interesting. I know someone with a septic pumping and portable toilet business. He used to dump the waste on desert rangeland miles from the nearest water source, or home. State department of ecology demanded he buy a farm and use the stuff to grow crops. Apparently they aren’t too worried about “medicinal traces”.

Which is worse – pharmaceuticals, or heavy metals found in artificial fertilizers:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa.../09larsen.html

You also have to ask if you want the medicines going to sewage treatment plants which cannot deal with them, then dump them in the water supply. Or would it be better to spread them out over the land, dilute them, and give them a chance to be degraded.

http://www.earthisland.org/project/n...7&subSiteID=44