@thatguyoverthere @MV2019 it's not about the nitrogen itself. there's a range of (imo misguided) complaints. feed stock to produce it, but that's purely due to cost and there are other options. carbon footprint to produce it because it's very energy intensive, but that's purely a problem with where you get your electricity (or heat I guess). misinformed takes about sustainability of soil composition, as though that's not just another cost thing

it being manufactured in russia and ukraine is yet another cost thing. it got outsourced but it probably shouldn't have been

afaik the stuff about runoff into waterways is cost yet again. method of application and handling drainage. but regulating that would increase food prices so ...

most of it boils down to people not liking agribusiness for perfectly valid reasons and that translates into a bunch of really bad takes that are emotionally driven

@roboneko @thatguyoverthere @MV2019@freeatlantis.com
nitrogen not taken up by the crops ends up in waterways leading to algae bloom, which then kills everything else due to the algae using up all the oxygen when they start to decompose.

it's for sure problematic, something should be done, but the politicians are thinking that just forcing farmers to use less fertilizer/manure will solve this problem without helping them in any way.

it's the same story with cars, "just buy a tesla!". some big cheese politicians thinking they know how to solve problems the easy and cheap way.

@bonifartius @thatguyoverthere @MV2019 sure but how does method of application affect uptake? and what are the cost tradeoffs

there are also options to manage runoff, but of course "fuck it not my problem" is usually the cheapest for an individual

but yeah I agree the problem is ultimately poor political decisions in this case

I think the real answer is to use farming practices that require less external inputs like chemical fertilizers. No till methods of farming may not scale to the same level of production, but there is a lot of waste in our existing system because of the way food is centrally distributed. More small scale local farms producing food stuffs for their own communities and less top down management (with less federal subsidies incentivizing bad practices) is probably the best course forward. It's probably also the exact opposite of the approach we'll actually take.

That already exists: Organic farms usually do that kind of thing (and their produce costs 2-3 times the price).

Thing is, while there is a niche market for that most people have made it clear they don't care and/or can't afford it. I don't see why governments should be forcing them to triple part of their budget.

The "inflated" price is actually not "inflated" so much as "not subsidized". I don't know that people have "made it clear" they would prefer lower quality food stuffs. It's more like, the market has been manipulated and the real cost of some foods is obfuscated away. It will come back in taxes, environmental stress, and poor nutrition/health issues.

If you're arguing for ditching subsidies then you won't find any argument here. That said, organic farms are always going to be much less efficient than the big boys. That's just how it is.

@Eiregoat
idk if the big bois are terrible effective without being subsidized. guess they (or any farm) would be more effective in the long run without the whole patented-seeds/fertilizer/pesticide racket. also, if your soil is fucked because of 10 years corn&pesticides, it doesn't get magically unfucked over night and is effectively lost, requiring more fertilizer etc. those things need to be priced in, but are funded by subsidies e.g. my tax € at work.
@roboneko @thatguyoverthere @MV2019@freeatlantis.com