Comments on: How to Profit From the "Fertilizer Wars"

By: BHP Billiton's Bid for Potash Could Spark Surge of M&A Activity in Agribusiness Sector

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:33:28 +0000

[...] ground floor in the last sector to join the secular-commodities smorgasbord," he added. "Potash, Agrium or Mosaic could serve as the dessert to the ongoing commodities banquet." The surge in agribusiness activity is symptomatic of a worldwide upward trend supporting [...]

By: Martin W

Martin W — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:10:40 +0000

Nothing new here.

You should really clarify what you mean by Brazil's bio-fuels. What you said is very misleading.

By: Tom Gulley

Tom Gulley — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:49:32 +0000

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on "synthetic potash". Potash is a naturally occuring nutrient, with major deposits in Canada and New Mexico. The product in Canada is mined (near Saskatoon) from an old sea bed about a half mile underground. Being an old seabed, the mined product is very high in salt, which damages crops, so the salt is removed by seperating it out with water, basically floating it out.. The downside enviornmentally is the mountain of salt that is produced, but that does bring down the cost of salt as it is a "byproduct" of sepereating it from the potash... So, this naturally occuring potash product is not "synthetically " produced,, neither is phosphorus, which is also mined.. There are two major phosphorus mines, one on the coast of North Carolina and one in Florida.. You should see some of the artifacts recovered from those mines.. some giant sharks teeth and bones,(which I don't consider synthetically produced either.. ) "Building Potash in the soil" is also hard to do, and depends on the soil type, cation exhange capacity, and base saturation of the soil... Most soils in the US can hold only enough potash for a few high yielding crops, but soils in a natural state don't require "additional" potash because there is no "crop removal" I don't disagree with the fact that we can add nutrients by other means than the fertilizer bag, but not on a scale large enough to feed the increasing population with our decreasing land base. Why in some towns now, there are rules about keeping free range chickens and hogs in town, even if just ot provide "fertilizer" for the vegetable garden...There is no easy answer, but population control is going to be the next hot topic we'll be discussing...not where the potash to produce our food comes from.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:32:58 +0000

Manure and other natural firtilizers didn't depleat soils as do the processed chemical type firtilizers. We might be in for a situation where we might be eating more and being nutritionally deficient.

By: Leon

Leon — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:25:45 +0000

What you read is not accurate for corn. Higher yields and fertilizer generally improve the nutritional value of the crop because without the nutrients the plant cannot effiiently fill the kernal to its potential. There are differences in genetics (varieties) that along with weather events have a big influence on the quality of the grain.
As to the energy in vs energy out corn based ethanol yields 1.67btu out for every 1 btu in. This ratio is continueing to get better as corn and ethanol production efficiencies continue to improve.

By: r4ds revolution for ds

r4ds revolution for ds — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:18:16 +0000

I think Robot may have more positive impact on agricultural.

By: Frank Tu

Frank Tu — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:02:37 +0000

The only solution for balanced economy and implicitly balanced life can return in this society by eliminating the dangerous socially para-zit financial tyrants and market manipulators including this article. Yours people have ho human dignity to present the truth. For yours only valid option is the free money for foolish statements. Yours human senses are completely out of order yours are able to smell only the poisoned odor of the dirty money. Is extremely sad for the working people whom create real values not papers and scaring slogans as you do. Grab a hammer a saw go out do some valuable work instead of moral contamination as you do new with all your tendentious fabricated misleading statements. Yours people have to be compensated to do nothing instead to do social damages.

By: Cal Van Dyke

Cal Van Dyke — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:31:34 +0000

Your statement that NPK application increases yield and nutrients is only partially true. While yield is increased using chemicals, the nutrient levels actually decrease. I know that personally by testing the produce. The higher the yield using chemical fertilizers the lower the nutrient value. Proof of this is the fact that many dairy producers now require nutrient testing of forage and pay a premium for the higher nutrient valued alfalfa and corn. Human food is not tested as a rule. It is based on color, which is one of the advantages of using chemical fertilizers. Good color is not a true indication of nutrient levels. A better test is the rate of spoilage. High nutrient dense produce is extremely slow to spoil. Unlike the produce on the average supermarket shelves. Nutrient testing is almost nonexistent for produce.

By: Daddy Paul

Daddy Paul — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:37:10 +0000

What a great read. We have come a long way from just dumping manure on our fields.

By: Lou Elwell

Lou Elwell — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:45:09 +0000

There is no denying fertilizer is important to the world's food supply, but it is definitely NOT the panacea it is made out to be.

Synthetic fertilizers do not "replenish soils"; they reduce the soil's organic content which is harmful: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines-

Synthetic fertilizers to not lead to "better quality foods," but rather to lower quality foods — i.e., fewer nutrients — see the section on Trace Mineral Depletion — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

Synthetic fertilizers require significantly greater amounts of water which is critical since agriculture (in the U.S.) already uses 70-80% of the annual water supply and fertilizer run off is responsible for "dead zones" in numerous bodies of water around the world, such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay.

The most important item to mention is synthetic fertilizer is simply not sustainable. Other methods of fertilizing, such as soil enhancement with microbes that extract nitrogen and other nutrients from the air and soil — http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-07/8-farming-solution-help-stop-world-hunger?page=3 — hold much greater promise.

The argument for using fertilizer is the yield, however, natural fertilizers (such as the one mentioned in the Popular Science article) can actually increase yields beyond what synthetic fertilizers achieve.

By: Bob Dickey

Bob Dickey — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:39:09 +0000

Billy T,

Brazil is not getting its biofuels from sugar cane. It's coming from soy beans…

Bob D

By: Ed Marchok

Ed Marchok — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:38:11 +0000

I read recently that increasied crop yield is related to reduced nutritional value of the crop. Is this accurate? If so, is there an equation like net energy (i.e. the energy used to produce energy – e.g. ethanol) present in the agricultural yeild world?

Thanks

By: Billy T

Billy T — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:54:14 +0000

Brazil should not be included as part of the 10% of farm land growing energy crops. Brazil uses less than 2% of its farm land for sugar cane production. Approximately 10% of Brazil's farm land is now abandoned pasture. I.e. Brazil could increase alcohol production about five fold without displacing any land used for food crops. Get your facts straight .