What are the hidden truths about the food industry?

[chemisttree]

The UN reports that the World's food supply is dwindling rapidly while prices are approaching historic highs. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php

The changes created "a very serious risk that fewer people will be able to get food," particularly in the developing world, said Jacques Diouf, head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

The agency's food price index rose by more than 40 percent this year, compared with 9 percent the year before - a rate that was already unacceptable, he said. New figures show that the total cost of foodstuffs imported by the neediest countries rose 25 percent, to $107 million, in the last year.

At the same time, reserves of cereals are severely depleted, FAO records show. World wheat stores declined 11 percent this year, to the lowest level since 1980. That corresponds to 12 weeks of the world's total consumption - much less than the average of 18 weeks consumption in storage during the period 2000-2005. There are only 8 weeks of corn left, down from 11 weeks in the earlier period.

Prices of wheat and oilseeds are at record highs, Diouf said Monday. Wheat prices have risen by $130 per ton, or 52 percent, since a year ago. U.S. wheat futures broke $10 a bushel for the first time Monday, the agricultural equivalent of $100 a barrel oil.

Diouf blamed a confluence of recent supply and demand factors for the crisis, and he predicted that those factors were here to stay. On the supply side, these include the early effects of global warming, which has decreased crop yields in some crucial places, and a shift away from farming for human consumption toward crops for biofuels and cattle feed. Demand for grain is increasing with the world population, and more is diverted to feed cattle as the population of upwardly mobile meat-eaters grows.

"We're concerned that we are facing the perfect storm for the world's hungry," said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program, in a telephone interview. She said that her agency's food procurement costs had gone up 50 percent in the past 5 years and that some poor people are being "priced out of the food market."

Wheat has just hit a record high of $10.095 per bushel for March delivery.

Wheat for March delivery, which reached a record $10.095 a bushel yesterday before settling at $9.66, today rose as much as 1.1 percent to $9.77 in after-hours electronic trading on the Chicago Board of Trade. They traded little changed at $9.6575 as of 12:17 p.m. local time in London. Global wheat inventories may drop 11 percent by May 31 to 110.1 million metric tons, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

What happens if next year's crops don't do well?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What happens if next year's crops don't do well?

Average incomes will increase.

Demand for grain is increasing with the world population, and more is diverted to feed cattle as the population of upwardly mobile meat-eaters grows.

Prosperity has its down side.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

As long as a box of mac-n-cheese us under $2 and an apple 40 cents I don't see how anyone goes hungry :)

 

[wolram]

As long as a box of mac-n-cheese us under $2 and an apple 40 cents I don't see how anyone goes hungry :)

May be when china buys all your food from under you.

 

[Evo]

What about all of the food we sent to starving African nations that was left to rot because the countries didn't want to anger EU countires because of their laws against bio-engineered crops?

The United States is able to grow food in enormous capacities. As the world's largest food exporter, the United States gives most of its food assistance "in-kind." That is, we send U.S.-produced food commodities abroad and have done so for nearly 50 years. U.S. farmers have widely accepted bio-engineered corn and soy varieties for their environmental and economic benefits. Therefore, U.S. commodity shipments of corn and soy for food aid and export markets are likely to contain bio-engineered crops.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/africa_humanitarian_crisis/bio_answers.html

 

[denverdoc]

What about all of the food we sent to starving African nations that was left to rot because the countries didn't want to anger EU countires because of their laws against bio-engineered crops?



http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/africa_humanitarian_crisis/bio_answers.html

Not w/o an abundance of petro-chemicals. Show us some data re the genetically engineered products and how that's the only way we can afford to give it a way! Truth I think is many countries, including most of europe has turned its nose up on this stuff, and Monsanto, et al, are doing the Nestle routine--dumping crap on the third world. "Eat this (with a gun poised to ones head) or die of starvation" is the image that comes to mind.

 

[drankin]

If there is such a food shortage, why are people fatter than ever in history?

 

[allanworks]

right now my mom is trying to ganetically splice a speases of seaweed with watermelon don't laff its true beacuse it grows faster than any other plant right now the plant producess softball size fruit that tast like watermelon with a lot of salt on it and a background tast of seaweed mom said its not done yet not saposed to have heavy salt or seaweed tast but the plant does produce 16 mealons every 3 1/2 mo

 

[Evo]

Show us some data re the genetically engineered products and how that's the only way we can afford to give it a way!

Read the link I provided, it will answer your questions.

 

[edward]

May be when china buys all your food from under you.

They may buy more than just our food.

The Chinese just bought a $5 billion chunck of Morgan Stanley. Yet at this point the Chinese want to sell us food.

 

[henxan]

Evo:

Im not sure you have read the article you posted a link to yourself? Have you?

The problem arises when people happen to plant the GM crops in africa. I do not know how well you are educated, but there seem to be some things you do not understand.

1. Naturally bred species of corn in different countries are adapted to those countries.
2. Corn, grown in Americas will not encounter the same conditions in Africa.
3. The corn may breed with the natural species, thus harming the yield.
4. A high food value is not the same as a high reproduction rate. The GM strain may be a better fertile breed, but still it gives lesser yields.

The problem with GM food sorts are at a entirely different place than the tummy. ;)

- The GM strains may harm a country's agriculture
- Some GM crops produce infertile seed, to keep their customers buying new seed every year ;).. This is immoral.

 

[russ_watters]

Those may sound like real concerns, hexan, but there is no evidence that those concerns are actually real. My grandfather is a farmer (now retired) and I once brought up the subject of GM crops to him. I asked him if he would ever consider not using them. He laughed.

When the environmentalists convinced several african countries not to accept donations of GM crops that could have helped end the famines there, they committed murder.

- Some GM crops produce infertile seed, to keep their customers buying new seed every year ;).. This is immoral.

No, that's business. And not to worry - if the GM crops really aren't as good, the farmers wouldn't buy them next year anyway, would they?

 

[dst]

Those may sound like real concerns, hexan, but there is no evidence that those concerns are actually real. My grandfather is a farmer (now retired) and I once brought up the subject of GM crops to him. I asked him if he would ever consider not using them. He laughed.

When the environmentalists convinced several african countries not to accept donations of GM crops that could have helped end the famines there, they committed murder. No, that's business. And not to worry - if the GM crops really aren't as good, the farmers wouldn't buy them next year anyway, would they?

Not to mention, if these plants are really as bad as fears go, we won't be seeing much of them. Isn't the situation with rapeseed bad enough?

 

[henxan]

russ:
Yeah.. Well I am a farmer, and I sure as hell wouldn't plant any gm crops.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Corn is native only to the Americas, and before GM crops, corn was introduced through out the world. Horse and cattle have grown quite well in Texas, Brazil and Argentina before GM and potatos have done well in Maine and Idaho prior GM.

Selective breeding has been around long before the GM crop, so I am not so sure whether there is an issue at all or a bit of stuborness.

 

[turbo]

And not to worry - if the GM crops really aren't as good, the farmers wouldn't buy them next year anyway, would they?

I think that the point is that infertile seed can't be reserved as seed for next year's crop. Here in the US, farmers give no thought to buying high-yield hybrids that don't breed true.

In many parts of the world, seeds are reserved from this year's crop to plant next year's crop. If GM plants hybridize with their traditional crops, the farmer's independence on seed (he can save his own instead of buying more next year) can be broken, and he will never know about the failure of his hybridized seed until the next crop fails to come in, leaving him and his family with no option but to try to buy seed and re-plant at what may not be an optimal time of the season.

Here in Maine there is an organization (MOGFA) that is an affiliation of organic growers and farmers. Many of these farmers supply seed, saplings, root-stock, etc to local seed companies like Johnny's and FEDCO (big business up here) and they are very concerned about the introduction of GM crops for this very reason. If the GM crops from another farm cross-pollinate their heirloom varieties with negative effects on propagation, germination rates, etc, we will have lost a valuable resource, perhaps forever. The farmers who want GM crops insist that small buffer zones around their fields will protect the heirloom crops from inadvertent cross-pollination from wind-borne pollen. They haven't managed to explain how they'll train bees, hummingbirds, etc to stay only in their fields and not fly to another field several hundred yards away, though.

 

[henxan]

Corn is native only to the Americas, and before GM crops, corn was introduced through out the world. Horse and cattle have grown quite well in Texas, Brazil and Argentina before GM and potatos have done well in Maine and Idaho prior GM.

Selective breeding has been around long before the GM crop, so I am not so sure whether there is an issue at all or a bit of stuborness.

haha.. you know, farmers have to think long-term.. And a good farmer plans years into the future, if not until next generation. They know choices they make today will affect the future; that's why farmers are skeptics.. After having that in mind, they have also been a force for renewal throughout. Competition has led people who have the edge, the new technology, to be a little more successful..

Good farmers are therefore both conservative and innovative ;)..

When I speak of corn, excuse me, I mostly think of grain (pronounced korn in norway). But this still doesn't matter, GM is a danger to the original species. I believe in natural selection; maybe with a little help of man. But NOT on the dna-manipulation-level.. Not yet. Its too uncertain. There are actually countless things which could go wrong. Concerning deceases, weather variations, ecosystems, insects, on-and-on-and-on...

What we have learned by time is that we sometimes believe we have found the ultimate sollution. Be it lobotomy, DDT, nuclear bombs.. Remember, DNA-fixing is quite new. Being modest, acknowledging our ignorance and proceeding carefully is probably the best we could do.. ;)..

Stubborn my ass..

 

[DrClapeyron]

Big business is big business, and to the firms putting out GM seeds which do not compete well with the brand favorite 'original', there is room for improvement and it is only a matter of time before market forces pay out their tune.

 

[henxan]

DrClaperton:

You know, there is a very indistinguishable border between capitalism and communism. You know, none of these ideas are based on human nature.

Wouldnt the best political strategy be one that is based upon our nature?
Communism - Share everything, nobody owns anything:
This is just a stupid stupid ideology. People are animals, decended from animals, and still like animals. We want our territories, we want children.. We have instincts and needs beyond food.
Capitalism - Everyone for themselves. What stupid **** is this? Everyone for themselves.. This has nothing to do with the human race, and all to do with tube worms. In our evolution our community made us stronger. People were dependent on each other.

Commies and capitalist are therefore equally idiots. And especially those who use the "the market will sort it out"- argument. The market will NOT sort it out.. They are both strategies who are bound to turn into each other, in everlasting cycles.

 

[Evo]

Evo:

Im not sure you have read the article you posted a link to yourself? Have you?

The problem arises when people happen to plant the GM crops in africa. I do not know how well you are educated, but there seem to be some things you do not understand.

1. Naturally bred species of corn in different countries are adapted to those countries.
2. Corn, grown in Americas will not encounter the same conditions in Africa.
3. The corn may breed with the natural species, thus harming the yield.
4. A high food value is not the same as a high reproduction rate. The GM strain may be a better fertile breed, but still it gives lesser yields.

The problem with GM food sorts are at a entirely different place than the tummy. ;)

- The GM strains may harm a country's agriculture
- Some GM crops produce infertile seed, to keep their customers buying new seed every year ;).. This is immoral.

henxan, yes, I fully understand what I posted, it appears, however, that you do not. The corn is not intended for planting, it is for consumption. The link I posted addresses the fears that if the people try planting the corn instead of eating it, it could cross pollinate with indigenous varieties and make selling their local grain to the EU difficult, if not impossible (that was my opening sentence).

I suggest you go back and carefully read the entire link, all of the concerns and reasons are carefully spelled out.

Start with the 2nd paragraph in my link, and then tell us what it says. I understand that English is not your first language, so perhaps it is a misunderstanding on your part?

Here is paragraph 2 for those that might not be able to open the link

What concerns are being raised by countries receiving U.S. food aid about bio-engineered crops?

The governments of Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have expressed concern over the food and environmental safety of bio-engineered crops. U.S. food aid donations may contain bio-engineered corn and soybean products. The only whole grain in food aid donations would be corn. Their core concern revolves around fear of damaging their future agricultural trade with the European Union (EU). If U.S. donated maize kernels are planted by farmers accidentally or intentionally, the maize may pollinate local maize plants. This could lead to the new genetic material being introduced into the local maize varieties, including any crops grown for export or used in animal feed for livestock intended for export. These governments are concerned that once the current food deficit is overcome, and trade might resume, that European markets may bar their maize or maize-fed animal exports. Europe has approved several bio-engineered crop varieties for import, but requires labeling of products containing bio-engineered ingredients. There are no restrictions or labeling requirements for animals fed bio-engineered feed, though some European buyers may request that livestock be fed non-bio-engineered feed for a niche market. The governments of Mozambique and Zimbabwe have agreed to accept U.S. food aid shipments of maize on the condition that it is milled prior to distribution. Malawi has requested that maize donations be milled, but continues to allow distribution of whole grain maize due to limited milling capacity. Swaziland and Lesotho are accepting whole grain maize. Only Zambia continues to reject any U.S. food aid donations containing bio-engineered products

 

[henxan]

Okey :).. May have misunderstood your writing :)..

Anyways, this seem to be a problem easily solved:
Process the maize(corn)! Crush it into maize flour and give it to them. Seems more economical even, sending only the usable part ;)..

And EU. The reason this is such a stupid debate is that people fear the food they consume. That has NOTHING to do with the problem of GM foods. Thats probably why I misunderstood. Because I thought you were arguing that stupid EU didnt want this in their tummys. Well, that's not the real consern. Its the other ramifications.

sorry evo!

 

[Evo]

Okey :).. May have misunderstood your writing :)..

Anyways, this seem to be a problem easily solved:
Process the maize(corn)! Crush it into maize flour and give it to them. Seems more economical even, sending only the usable part ;)..

And EU. The reason this is such a stupid debate is that people fear the food they consume. That has NOTHING to do with the problem of GM foods. Thats probably why I misunderstood. Because I thought you were arguing that stupid EU didnt want this in their tummys. Well, that's not the real consern. Its the other ramifications.

sorry evo!

No problem. There are a couple of sections that deal with the milling issues also.

 

[henxan]

Lol.. They probably didnt want to mill it because they wanted to know how well the GM crops grew in africa :D

 

[turbo]

Milling protocols are a critical point and I was remiss in not touching on this. In Africa, seed stocks are treated as if they are potential crops, and people who can get their hands on sacks of whole grains would treasure them, not realizing that they might not be viable and they might not breed true if they germinate. The obvious answer is to process the whole grains before they are shipped so that they cannot be diverted into the seed stores of the recipient countries. We have equivalent concerns in Mexico and Central America where heirloom grasses and corns exist from which our modern corn (maize) was bred. It is important that we protect the integrity of the genetic materials in these plants.

 

[DrClapeyron]

If a nation endorses the protection of property rights, has good trade standing and a market for GM crops, market forces will dictate if farmers choose the seed or not. If the seeds are no good, the firm fails and another takes its place; if the seeds are good, the firm prevails and others suffer. The farmers have the choice, it is theirs to make.

This is a new technology not unlike any other; tractors, pesticides, herbicides and soil fumagants, I don't see why GM crops would be any different.

 

[Yonoz]

This is a new technology not unlike any other; tractors, pesticides, herbicides and soil fumagants,

...DDT, PCBs, asbestos, thalidomide...
Jokes aside: GM foods will become mainstream in all developed countries, it's unavoidable - as you say, market forces will see to it. I have one problem with GMO-containing foods manufacturers and distributors, though - their policy of hiding the presence of GMO-containing foods from the end consumer. I think the most ardent capitalist would agree - transparency is beneficial to all, and especially so when new technologies are being marketed. Foods containing GMOs should be labeled as such. Resisting demands to label GMO-containing foods is counterproductive and unethical. When consumers see that:

1. GMO-free food is that much more expensive,
2. they are surrounded by GMO containing foods,
3. people around them regularly eat GMO containing food and yet they do not see any of them with any unusual appendages,

I reckon its acceptance will be faster and smoother.

 

[henxan]

If a nation endorses the protection of property rights, has good trade standing and a market for GM crops, market forces will dictate if farmers choose the seed or not. If the seeds are no good, the firm fails and another takes its place; if the seeds are good, the firm prevails and others suffer. The farmers have the choice, it is theirs to make.

This is a new technology not unlike any other; tractors, pesticides, herbicides and soil fumagants, I don't see why GM crops would be any different.

I do not think you are able to fully understand the difference clapseyron:
Unlike a tractor, unlike pesticide, unlike fertilizers - qenes prevail. And if there is damage to be done, it will be done. There is no turning back, once the original species are destroyd. When crops with different abilities then the original strains are the common species, cross breeding is unavoidable.

Market my ass. You are quite ignorant to how the world works if you really believe what you are saying. If GM crops are made so that they make the farmers dependant on their product, of course they sell it to them cheap, maybe free almost. But when the farmers have become dependant on the annual purchase of GM crops, what will happen to the price?

And what about safety? If we have a worldwide year of catastrophes, with poor yeilds on crops. What will happen the next years if everybody are dependant on getting unfertile seeds from a biologcal company? When it comes to food, the absolutely most important product in the world, one has to be careful not to gamble with it.

One thing about this wonderful capitalism of yours. Wouldn't the ideal capitalism lead to 1company owning all the ****ing world? No, of course not, because there are regulations who must come into play when one company gets too much market share. What is this kinda bulls***? Are you regulating the nice and holesome capitalism? :O.. *thump*(sound of me fainting)..

If your only answer to all questions are: "the market will fix it,"
then I do not understand why you even bother comment? Why you even care to lift your finger to the keyboard? Wont the market fix it for you?

 

[denverdoc]

Read the link I provided, it will answer your questions.

I read the link which contains the following quote:

The governments of Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have expressed concern over the food and environmental safety of bio-engineered crops. U.S. food aid donations may contain bio-engineered corn and soybean products. The only whole grain in food aid donations would be corn. Their core concern revolves around fear of damaging their future agricultural trade with the European Union (EU). If U.S. donated maize kernels are planted by farmers accidentally or intentionally, the maize may pollinate local maize plants. This could lead to the new genetic material being introduced into the local maize varieties, including any crops grown for export or used in animal feed for livestock intended for export. These governments are concerned that once the current food deficit is overcome, and trade might resume, that European markets may bar their maize or maize-fed animal exports. Europe has approved several bio-engineered crop varieties for import, but requires labeling of products containing bio-engineered ingredients.

But it really doesn't address the economic issues, or why our largesse should be confined to these strains, when in fact they are not intended for replanting. Seems like its throw away. It may be of interest to readers that Monsanto, who has probably the biggeststake in this, and other aspects of bio-engineered food, is trying to introduce legislation that would put an outright ban on "absence labeling", in other words one can't tout the fact that the milk/whatever is without hormonal/genetic influence.

 

[pitot-tube]

It's important to realize that in some poor countries the ruling elite doesn't want GM crops because they would depend on countries that produce GM seed like the USA to supply them and think that the seed supplier could hold them to ransom one day.
Not supplying GM food to desperate poor people is murder but be aware that some of the murderers could be the leaders of a given country who don't want first world countries having influence over their people.
People in rich countries like the USA and the uk are overweight,eat too much crap like wheat -based biscuits and throw lots away too.They could help the problem by eating less wheat and wasting less.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm sorry that I'm a bit confused here. Are people here saying that GM crops would hybridize into non-viable seed? And regular (non-GM) hybrids wouldn't? Are starving countries worried about a ban on the export of their (very limited) food to the EU? That's all nonsense!

The point of the OP is that any food might not be available (as gifts or otherwise). Why has the discussion turned into why developing countries want our GM food at all?
It really isn't relevant in this thread...

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I don't think that the continuous rise in world food prices is a problem in and of itself, that's just inflation.

But what seems to me a significant problem is the http://www.energybulletin.net/33164.html" . Phosphate is second behind nitrates as essential to modern chemical-mediated agriculture. But whereas nitrates can be manufactured out of the atmosphere phosphate has to be mined. And the geological origins of these phosphate deposits is frequently organic, like bat guano deposits at the bottom of caves or fossilized remains of sea life, which means that we can't find more by simply digging deeper as is possible with mineral deposits of inorganic origin.

The problem is that many of the sources of mined phosphates have http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nauru--the-little-island-that-cant/2007/12/29/1198778769277.html" and we aren't finding new ones. Without phosphates the crop yields on most of the farmlands of greatest productivity in the world would be significantly affected and that could cause a real impact on the worldwide food supply. It probably wouldn't be totally depleted for many decades but I don't want to be eating soylent green when I'm in a nursing home nor do I want to disappear from the nursing home some night and become soylent green. As the first link points out the point at which this would start to become a problem is whenever we pass peak phosphate production, not when we're nearing depletion.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't think that the continuous rise in world food prices is a problem in and of itself, that's just inflation.

But what seems to me a significant problem is the http://www.energybulletin.net/33164.html" .

No such thing as "petrochemical sources of phosphorous". A comparison is being made between peak oil and peak phosphorous which is nonsensical.

Phosphate is second behind nitrates as essential to modern chemical-mediated agriculture. But whereas nitrates can be manufactured out of the atmosphere phosphate has to be mined. And the geological origins of these phosphate deposits is frequently organic, like bat guano deposits at the bottom of caves or fossilized remains of sea life, which means that we can't find more by simply digging deeper as is possible with mineral deposits of inorganic origin.

A vast majority of phosphate produced in the world is mined in the form of phosphate rock. It does not come from bat quano for the most part but from weathered igneous rock. The supplies are quite vast.

The problem is that many of the sources of mined phosphates have http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nauru--the-little-island-that-cant/2007/12/29/1198778769277.html", for example.

Without phosphates the crop yields on most of the farmlands of greatest productivity in the world would be significantly affected and that could cause a real impact on the worldwide food supply. It probably wouldn't be totally depleted for many decades but I don't want to be eating soylent green when I'm in a nursing home nor do I want to disappear from the nursing home some night and become soylent green. As the first link points out the point at which this would start to become a problem is whenever we pass peak phosphate production, not when we're nearing depletion.

Economic pressures are much more of a factor than supply is. The island of Nauru has always been a pipsqueak player in the phosphate market and its phosphate depletion hasn't caused even a ripple in the world supply or price of the product.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No such thing as "petrochemical sources of phosphorous".

I thought that "petrochemical" literally means "chemicals which come from rocks" since "petro-" means "rock". If it means something different feel free to let us know. I'm using it to distinguish between phosphorous in fertilizer with sources like manure and compost from mined phosphorous.

A comparison is being made between peak oil and peak phosphorous which is nonsensical.
A vast majority of phosphate produced in the world is mined in the form of phosphate rock. It does not come from bat quano for the most part but from weathered igneous rock.

From the report you linked to:

Phosphate rock resources occur principally as sedimentary marine phosphorites.

This would seem to contradict your claim that it comes from igneous rock. It comes from sedimentary rock, which is what I was trying to convey. I'm pretty sure that the reason why it appears in marine sediments instead of sediments in general is because organic processes are what has concentrated it. (And yes, by "organic" I mean "related to life" rather than what you as a chemist might mean.)

The bat guano case I was giving was referring to some mines in Venezuela and Colombia.

The supplies are quite vast... This couldn't be further from the truth.

Did you even read that thing you linked to? It lists world mine production of phosphate rock at 133,000 MT and total world reserves at 12,000,000 MT. If the reserves are what's still in the ground (you didn't include the Appendix C where that stuff is defined), and only if consumption remained constant that would result in those reserves being entirely depleted in almost precisely ninety years, which is exactly what the thing I linked to said. The "peak phosphorous" idea is that unless changes are made similar to the changes made in response to scarcity of petroleum, we would experience problems long before the total depletion.

The island of Nauru has always been a pipsqueak player in the phosphate market and its phosphate depletion hasn't caused even a ripple in the world supply or price of the product.

That's curious because I read through several historical sources on this issue from the 20's, 30's, and 70's and they all mentioned it. It seems odd that the British would have bothered to secure dominion over a source of phosphate that's literally on the other side of the world from them if it's as common as you claim. I think perhaps "always" does not mean what you think it means.

Of course it didn't make waves in the world markets if it was gradually depleted over a century. The depletion of the tin mines in Cornwall in the 1990's didn't upset the world tin market. But the depletion of a source that has been worked for more than 2000 years is significant - it basically means there's no more f***ing tin in Europe (accessible through current prospecting and mining technology, of course).

Look, go ahead and say why you don't think this will be a problem but calling it "nonsensical" and saying "nothing can be further from the truth" are silly hyperbolic statements that show you haven't read any of this stuff, even what you're offering up yourself.

 

[chemisttree]

I thought that "petrochemical" literally means "chemicals which come from rocks" since "petro-" means "rock". If it means something different feel free to let us know.

Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum (hydrocarbon) origin. (With regard to etymology, the name is incorrect, as the Greek root petro- means "rock"; the correct term is oleochemicals, from the Greek root oleo-, meaning "oil".)

Nobody uses the term "petrochemical" to mean mined rock - anywhere.

This would seem to contradict your claim that it comes from igneous rock. It comes from sedimentary rock, which is what I was trying to convey. I'm pretty sure that the reason why it appears in marine sediments instead of sediments in general is because organic processes are what has concentrated it.

Weathering of igneous rock deposits it in marine sediments where it can be further concentrated by mechanisms that are not clear and concise. The source of phosphorous is igneous rock, weathered and carried into shallow seas where it combines with calcium and or fluoride and concentrates by mechanisms that are not fully understood. Both sedimentary and igneous rocks are mined as sources of phosphorous. My comment was actually focusing on the statement that phosphorous occurs as a result of organic processes such as in bat guano. Not so.

Did you even read that thing you linked to? It lists world mine production of phosphate rock at 133,000 MT and total world reserves at 12,000,000 MT. If the reserves are what's still in the ground (you didn't include the Appendix C where that stuff is defined), and only if consumption remained constant that would result in those reserves being entirely depleted in almost precisely ninety years, which is exactly what the thing I linked to said.

But the reserve base is 47,000,000 thousand metric tons. And that is only what is reported as known at this time. Where does that put the end of phosphorous?

The "peak phosphorous" idea is that unless changes are made similar to the changes made in response to scarcity of petroleum, we would experience problems long before the total depletion.

There is no alternative to phosphorous as there is in energy. Phosphorous application rates have been declining in the USA and worldwide, thus the use of phosphate rock has followed a similar trend. The number quoted in 2000 is smaller than that used in any given year in the 80's save 82, for example.

That's curious because I read through several historical sources on this issue from the 20's, 30's, and 70's and they all mentioned it. It seems odd that the British would have bothered to secure dominion over a source of phosphate that's literally on the other side of the world from them if it's as common as you claim. I think perhaps "always" does not mean what you think it means.

Nauru Island's production in 1980 was 2,087 thousand metric tons. Its peak production of roughly 2,800 thousand metric tons occurred in the mid 70s. That's "pipsqueak".

Look, go ahead and say why you don't think this will be a problem but calling it "nonsensical" and saying "nothing can be further from the truth" are silly hyperbolic statements that show you haven't read any of this stuff, even what you're offering up yourself.

I have on my bookshelf the book entitled "Industrial Minerals and Rocks", 6th ed. I have indeed read the chapter on "Phosphate Rock".

 

[DrClapeyron]

No one wants to become dependant on US manufactured seeds or US food donations. It is about power and control: politics.