The Gaming Den

I've heard that the guy who created mustard gas also revolutionized agriculture with new kinds of high yield fertilizer and he's credited for saving the world from starvation.

Did he though? Would the world have starved without that invention?

OgreBattle wrote:I've heard that the guy who created mustard gas also revolutionized agriculture with new kinds of high yield fertilizer and he's credited for saving the world from starvation.

Sounds like you're confusing someone else with Norman Borlaug. There is no one guy that invented mustard gas - there were a couple reported discoveries followed by a series of refinements in synthesis. Norman Borlaug is the guy who launched the "Green Revolution" and is said to have saved a billion people from starvation.

Did he though? Would the world have starved without that invention?

Not the whole world, no - and a larger question might be "Would there be a billion people to starve without Borlaug's techniques?" Agricultural revolutions tend to lead to population booms (and industrialization), and have become a large part in the growth of third-world nations.

Or you may be thinking of Fritz Haber, who ran the first chlorine gas attack and did a lot with gas warfare in WW1 and also synthesized ammonia for fertilizer.

The people who worked with nitrogen at various points in history; they were always going to discover a bomb, a poison gas, and a fertiliser, because that's the things nitrogen makes.

The Green Revolution was about introducing tractors and fuel for them to a world momentarily free of war, plus a bunch of hybridised mutant plants selected for tolerance to extremely high nitrogen levels. In the 1960's, humanity drained, ploughed, and irrigated the world. Terraformed. Which resulted in a lot of nitrogen pollution, water-table collapse, salinity issues, extinction of wetland species, desertification of places the water used to go, silting of rivers and resultant major flooding, and so on, but we're adjusting as we go.

Like, some countries have given it up because the real costs are huge, and organics is up to producing almost as much as industrial fertilisers these days (~85-90%), and no one even talks about the wars India and Pakistan had over the water, but yeh, grain yields are up.

Here in Europe (at least in France), the government propaganda for fertilizer from the 1920s to the 1950s was huge, and very effective. Speak to any old farmer, and they'll tell you that they HAVE TO use A LOT of fertlizer, otherwise they'll get nothing at all.

They laugh at those who try to do with less, or without. Even when faced with the evidence, they just repeat "you got lucky this time, but you'll see one day, you'll regret it!"

It's true, if you use a lot of fertiliser, you do indeed get nothing without it.

My old man saw first fertiliser use a few times in his younger days. The first crop is amazing, because all the soil bacteria and everything are still present. The second and third crops are good, but miles behind that first one. Their measure of successive crops showed no better average yields than they had pre-fertiliser, only they had to use fertiliser and lime because the ground was functionally dead without it.

Though the fertiliser loads in those days were far higher than what's used now, and the crops not as tolerant of the accompanying soil issues.

Actually, there's a lot of research that has gone into the effects of nitrogen/"chemical"-fertilizers and how they impact soil ecosystems. I was just at a conference ... a(2?) year(s) ago talking about that. They sampled fert vs no-fert (but previously fertilized) areas and saw that the ecosystem didn't really require the extra nutrients, things picked up on their own. Fertilizers are typically a supplement, like vitamins and should really be tailored to what your needs are. Dropping tons of N on an area isn't actually a very good solution unless a lack of N is the problem.

Just like Phosphorous (P) and Potassium (K), they're useful as well. But adjusting amounts as necessary to reach a particular goal is a lot more effective (and cost effective) than just dumping various large amounts on your crops.

Farmers are often a lot more educated on what they're putting down than the population at large seems to think. Plus, there are a ton of options for fertilizing crops that doesn't involve buying processed fertilizers, and if you're talking farms... the alternatives are probably cheaper. Nitrogen is getting expensive (thanks CHINA! ).

Golf courses are huge consumers of processed/pre-made/man-made fertilizers. The other large sector is obviously private homesteads where over-application is going to be far more likely. Especially when it's a DIY application.

Back on topic, fertilizer is a supplement, but it doesn't remove the need for soil rejuvenation via agricultural practices like crop rotation and giving fields a year or two of rest with cover crop.

Also proper pest control, including pesticide use.
With out IPM (Integrated Pest Management), pest-resistant crops and pesticide use you get cases like Bhutan. Where apparently their move to being completely organic has seriously hurt their food production.

As with everything, moderation is key.

codeGlaze wrote:With out IPM (Integrated Pest Management), pest-resistant crops and pesticide use you get cases like Bhutan. Where apparently their move to being completely organic has seriously hurt their food production.

I can't find a citation for this. You got anything recent?

Maj wrote:

codeGlaze wrote:With out IPM (Integrated Pest Management), pest-resistant crops and pesticide use you get cases like Bhutan. Where apparently their move to being completely organic has seriously hurt their food production.

I can't find a citation for this. You got anything recent?

I'm still looking for the article I ran across last summer, that explicitly had farmers bitching about the country's shift in policy. But the half a dozen articles I've read in looking for it all mention how insects or "wild animals" (insects) have been a huge detriment to their crops. Also a bunch of bad weather, but there's not much we can really do about bad growing weather. (Ask California >_>)