[ONeil]

Hello,

Peak oil is supposed to impact food production first by removing the large farm machines from production and by affecting our ability to create fertilizers and pesticides.

I mentioned this to a co-worker today and he shot me down on this one. I did a google search and sure enough I could find no mention of oil used in the creation of fertilizers or pesticides. Of course being our #1 power source oil is going to be used for energy in the creation and distribution of fertilizers and pesticides.

Is there a direct association between fertizilers and pesticides? i.e. Are commercial fertilizers and pesticides created directly from oil byproducts?

This is one document that I found on the history of fertilizers and it did not mention oil at all.

http://www.imcglobal.com/general/efuman ... istory.pdf

Thank you,

O'Neil.

[bart]

I think you are right after all, Oneill!

However, it is natural gas that is used as the basis for nitrogen fertilizers, not oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')atural gas is the feedstock for nitrogen production and its cost represents 70 to 80 percent of the expense of producing ammonia, the building block for all nitrogen fertilizer products. Nitrogen products are applied as fertilizers and are also used in the manufacture of ammoniated phosphate products such as diammonium phosphate (DAP). Thus, the current energy situation is having a dramatic negative impact on a majority of the U.S. fertilizer industry.

(from a 2003 press release from the fertilizer industry about the effects of higher natural gas prices:
http://www.tfi.org/Media/natural%20gas% ... -%20km.pdf

[EnviroEngr]

I can bring this subject up in my rounds with Julian Darley.

[mikela]

Here is the text of an article that appeared in Harper's Magazine in February 2004 entitled, "The oil we eat: following the food chain back to Iraq." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1845_308/ai_112796599 It is linked on ASPO's main page.

As the title suggests, the author thinks that we're eating oil, not natural gas, though I also remember reading somewhere that amonia is made from natural gas. In any case, the article is an interesting read. A short quote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ver since we ran out of arable land, food is oil. Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten. In 1940 the average farm in the United States produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil energy it used. By 1974 (the last year in which anyone looked closely at this issue), that ratio was 1:1.

[Whitecrab]

The natural gas is the hydrogen source for the making of fertilizer. And I understand natural gas is 80-90% of the cost of fertilizer. But in a low-gas or no-gas world, can we electrolyze water for hydrogen and use that instead? Maybe the cost of fertilizer would triple, or something, but at least we'd still have it.

Or does it have to be atmosphere + natural gas?

[EnviroEngr]

PCI Segue.

Flag.

[frankthetank]

Plants need 3 main elements for growth NPK -- Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium. Other nutrients are needed in much smaller amounts along with plenty of water and sunshine.

Most N in fertilizers come from Natural Gas.

Without gas, farming in this country would take a serious hit on yields.

The accomplishment in food production over the last 40 years was a result of the Green Revolution -- agricultural processes focusing on hybrid plants designed to maximize yield while being resistant to pests, and intensive irrigation and fertilizing efforts. As Denis Avery points out, in 1950 the world’s 611 million hectares of cropland produced 692 million tons of grain. By 1992, the world planted 700 million hectares of cropland which produced 1,920 million tons of grain. In spite of skeptics in the late 1960s and 1970s who predicted the effects of the Green Revolution would be minimal, agricultural output increased from 1.13 tons/hectare to 2.74 tons/hectare in four decades (CITE).

[Concerned]

Direct your friends to a nice introduction to peak oil
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/

If you click on extra pages and then agriculture it will take you to the following link
Causes and Lessons of the "North Korean Food Crisis"
http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/%7Easlan/dprke.pdf

[rowante]

Worldwide use of fertilizer has doubled since 1970. Going by this chart the growth has predominately been in the developing world, hence the explosion of population in these countries.
I wonder what has driven the downward trend in fertilizer use in the developed world, GM crops? Does anybody have any information on this?
According to the Earth Policy Institute most countries in the developing world have hit the limit as far as yields per area. Also, food available per person worldwide has declined 18% since 1984, from 340kg to 290kg.

[umockme]

The reason that fertilizer use is down is simply because that the cost of energy is high.

It takes approximately 33 mcf of gas to make one ton of nitrogen fertilizer. Add other rising production costs and there you go... no money to buy fertilizer with.

Note that agricultural fertilizer use is at a static (to diminishing) state in the US. I suspect 2004 will be a 10 year low.

[pea-jay]

Two other explanations for developed world fertilizer declines:

1. Growth of Organic agriculture - more profitable for organic crops due to the demand growth by stores like Whole Foods
2. Urbanization - Turning a corn field into WalMart or tract homes will drop fertilizer use down to nothing.

[rowante]

Shannymara, yeah you could be onto something there, I wonder if that accounts for people "eating up the foodchain".

umockme, I don't think high-prices explains the downward trend, it seems to be in a period of extremely low energy price (1990-1995).

[jesus_of_suburbia_old]

Developing countries tend to be energy poor countries. Correct? Why would there fertilizer use increase as a result of higher energy prices? Wouldn't the we see an inverse in the slope b/t developed and developing nations if that were the case?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') wonder what has driven the downward trend in fertilizer use in the developed world, GM crops? Does anybody have any information on this?

[jesus_of_suburbia_old]

bummer

[MonteQuest]

Found this also:


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')fter the economic reform end of the eighties, fertilizer use in Central/Eastern Europe, CEE, and in the former Soviet Union, FSU, declined drastically. The current consumption represents about 33% and 14% of the amount to be used during the late eighties at the peak of fertilizer consumption (Figure 1) (FAO, 2002). Ukraine followed the trend seen for the whole of FSU. Lack of cash and credit facilities, collapse of traditional fertilizer distribution systems, changing market structure are some of the reasons for the decline in fertilizer use.

[nero]

I believe that the use of fertilizers has become more efficient. In other words the farmers are better at keeping the fertilizer from running off the fields. This is a factor in the revival of Lake Erie. At one point int the 70s it was considered in a catastrophic condition because of the algae blooms caused by the fertilizer runoff. The lake is now in much better condition.

[johnmarkos]

My understanding is that organic farmers just plow more to make up for lack of fertilizers. So they use a lot of fossil fuel either way -- doh!

[pip]

Wait a minute. I've learned through this website that without more and more fertilizer life as we know it will crash. Yet in the US, we've had a record corn crop, a record wheat crop, and a record cotton crop this year.

[Licho]

Well methods of agriculture improve all the time. We just found the "right" doses and fertilizers are more advanced and directed than before. There is no reason to poison water and country with excess nitrogen by fertilizing too much like in 60's/70's .. Developing world is just going through the same process..