Talk:Fertilizer

Claims for Haber-Bosch process require documentation and clear phrasing

I've just removed this line from the close of the 4th-5th paragraph of the "Inorganic fertilizers" section:

The Haber-Bosch process uses about one percent of the Earth's total energy supply (primarily in the form of natural gas) in order to provide half of the nitrogen needed in agriculture.

The statement is unusually unclear. Does the H-B process use 1% of the total energy supply of the earth annually? Monthly? Daily? By the second? By the century?

This would be technically okay if "energy" were changed to "power" (since power is defined as energy per unit time, dE/dt). I think that is what the original author meant, but the wording is poor. Also, I'm not sure what the point of the statement is, wording aside.

Jrtomshine 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Equally so, what does it mean to say "half" of the nitrogen needed -- in commercial farming, in farming in developed countries, in small-scale farming and family gardening? How does this supposed measurement weigh, in comparison to the total amount of nitrogen in prior reserves in soil, in decaying vegatation, in legume deposits, in azobacterial contributions, in algae, in the nitrogenous fallout from lightning?

Where's the science?

The removed statement is not encyclopedic. References, and defined terms, for this kind of pseudo-calculation need to be provided, if flat assertions are going to be made about what processes provide -- and what percentages those processes actually deliver in realworld terms.

Cheers, Madmagic 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Madmagic and whoever wrote the deleted part or anyone having related information,

I agree that the above isn't accurate enough for an encyclopedia (without the sources), but I had hoped to find some information on the environmental impact of fertilizer production in Wikipedia. So if someone has information that can be backed up on this, it would be great if he/she could add it. As for "earth's total energy supply" I wouldn't be surprise if it should have been "humanity's total energy consumption".

Thomas

I've added some aspects of energy into the nitrogen fertilizer section. The previous use of the term Earth's energy supply or humanity's total energy consumption is unorthodox in energy statistics - the correct expression is simply global energy supply. This simply means the sum of coal, oil, nuclear, hydro, gas and other renewables. There would not be any need to discuss power in this context - if you were to give actual figures, the energy would need to relate to a given time interval (month, year etc) This section could be enlarged as fertilizer production is substantially affected by energy prices, which feeds into the issues of climate change and sustainability, among other environmental issues GrahamP 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

removed text

.. of organic matter, i.e. carbon based), or inorganic (containing simple, inorganic chemicals). They can be naturally-occurring compounds such as peat ...

The above was removed by User:67.53.64.151. Not sure this was an improvement. --

Paleorthid 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusing elements

First you state the lack of evidence on the "fertilizer pollution" idea. You put it as misconception. Later, you talk about the soil and some "destuctive nature" on fertilizers. You should clarify this a little more specific.

The author of some articles inserted his pubs as references, this should be checked. 5 refs four two sentenses and 4 for the rest of the article is a little to much. Most of the stuff is converence material, wich could be original research.--Stone 08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

I don't actually know anything about this subject, and so can't contribute, but I came to the article looking for a history of fertilizer. Currently, there isn't even a stub of a history section. --jacobolus (t) 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've started one - however, my sources are English and it would benefit if someone could add an international perspective Ephebi 11:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

macronutrients

Those who may not know, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen are also macronutrients as well as sulfur.

I think most people realize that plants need water [H₂O]. As for carbon, well, it's not usually a "ferterlizer" per se, since it generally isn't applied by humans. I suppose someone could add a section about growing plants in CO₂-enriched atmospheres in greenhouses, which has been done.

Jrtomshine 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

External link to: Articles on Various Kinds of Fertilizer (www.lawn-care.org)

According to my Firefox browser extension "Calling ID Link Advisor" the external link "Articles on Various Kinds of Fertilizer (www.lawn-care.org)" shows red, advising that the site owner hides his identity. Could anyone advise as to the suitability of such a link in Wikipedia. 62.125.76.10 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction needed?

The sentence "Some materials, such as ammonium nitrate, are used minimally in large scale production farming." is not correct. I live and farm in West Tennessee and.201.36]] (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

"Liebig's theory"?

Does this refer to Liebig's Law? If anyone knows for sure, could you please make the link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken g6 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Link?

In my opinion the link to the Fertilizer Institute should not be removed, as it is not advertisement of the fertilizer industry.

This article currently sucks! Text Is Not Clear!

This article currently sucks. The phrase "There are concerns though about arsenic and cadmium accumulating in fields treated with phosphate fertilizers. Eventually these can build up to unacceptable levels and get into the produce. (See cadmium poisoning.)" under the "Health and sustainability issues" section (and yes, only the first word is capitalized in the titlein the article!) does not make any sense! What do arsenic and cadmium have to do with phosphate fertilizers??24.83.178.11 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Cadmium Uranium and arsenic are trace compounds in phosphates and because thea are not filtered out thea are transfered onto the fields.--Stone 10:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Risks section was a mess. I've rearranged it, added a few details, and tried to put types of fertilizer in a logical order. - Ken g6 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I really agree aswell because it barely explains all the chemicals and what its just basically made of i mean siriously--90.36.37.197 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)CHRIS

Little mention of major environmental effects of inorganic fertilizers

I read this article from an ecological perspective to ascertain the overall effects that fertilizer production has on the environment and to understand how it is made. While this article was useful in this sense, I couldn't help noticing the lack of information regarding the detrimental effects that fertilizers have on watercourses, and how they reduce diversity within the area they are applied to. The main problem with fertilizers is that they run off into rivers causing eutrophication - I suggest that a link be made to the page of this name. They also increase the overall growth of competitive plant species, which mean that ruderal (weedy) and stress tolerant species are out - competed and so the diversity of an area decreases. Therefore accidental spraying of fertilizers onto hedgerows reduces hedgerow diversity. - Jugglia1 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)jugglia1

This line I think is also somewhat contentious

'When used appropriately, inorganic fertilizers enhance plant growth, the accumulation of organic matter and the biological activity of the soil, while reducing the risk of water run-off, overgrazing and soil erosion' - although fertilizers will enhance plant growth I think it would be a difficult case to argue that they do any of the rest. I am unclear about what is meant by 'biological activity of the soil' - I would imagine that addition of fertilizers would decrease invertebrate diversity, but possibly increase the decomposition rate - I don't know. Is this what is meant? The accumulation of organic matter follows plant growth, but without additional nitrates more plant matter would be left after cropping (as less would be valuable harvest), overgrazing still occurs in highly fertlised areas as stocking is increased to match plant growth and soil erosion.... how do fertilizers prevent soil erosion? I am not a professor, I am a student of wildlife conservation so this is perhaps more of a question than a statement of facts... but it just doesn't seem to fit well with what I have been taught. 00000000

Health and sustainability issues

There have been claims of the massive social & population impact of ammonia-based fertilizers, notably by Vaclav Smil, e.g.: Nature 29 July 1999: Detonator of the population explosion "Without ammonia, there would be no inorganic fertilizers, and nearly half the world would go hungry" & in his book Enriching the Earth. Smil links fertilizer to the growth of the world's population from 1.6 bn in 1900 to 6+ bn today[1], effectively breaking out of the limits set by theories such as the Malthusian catastrophe. I'm tempted to suggest we should we raise this in this article, as the size of the earth's population is probably the biggest issues of today - ref: sustainability#Population_growth_and_Consumption? Ephebi 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• In the absence of any feedback to the contrary I've been bold and added a small section on global issues regarding sustainability & greenhouse gasses. Ephebi 09:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

biofuel by-products

Saw this in another article - is this encylcopedic and suitable for inclusion here? According to a 2003 article in Discover magazine, it is possible to use the process of thermal depolymerization to manufacture fertilizer out of garbage, sewage, and agricultural waste [2]. A follow up article from 2006 gave more information [3], suggesting it produces "9 percent nitrogen, 1 percent phosphorus, 2 percent potash, and 19 amino acids" Ephebi 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to incorprate this under Health and sustainability issues Ephebi 10:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

merge with fertilization (soil)

It seems to me like the little that is in the article should be merged into this one, replacing the content with a redirection. Bendž|Ť 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"man-made manure" leads my fantasy astray

The phrase "man-made manure" is no good - but I'm not sure what was intended. Whoever merges Fertilizer and Soil Fertilization, please make sure the wording is altered! Reason: Another frequently used online source, Cambridge dictionary online, defines "manure" as excrements, which would synonymize "man-made manure" with "human faeces". Incorrect, and bad for school use: I would not like to be the teacher forced to discuss this mistake in a class trying to humiliate me. 90.227.141.108 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, good point - I presume we mean "organic" in this context. Chambers doesn't have the scatological meaning, though Websters notes it as animal... I'll tidy it up if you don't want to WP:be bold. Ephebi 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not so far-fetched as you might think. There are fertilizers on the market which are actually processed slude from municipal sewage treatment plants. (The sludge is sterilized first, of course!) The advantage is that the sludge doesn't have to go to a landfill. The disadvantage is that any toxic waste that was in present in the sewage system (say from drain cleaners or what not) ends up in the fertilizer. See http://www.ejnet.org/sludge/ for more info. At any rate, this type of fertilizer makes up a really insignificant portion of the fertilizer market, so it may or may not be worth mentioning in the article. And I too suspect it's not what the user meant. Riick (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

self contradiction?

The health and sustainability section contradicts itself.

First it states that there is a public perception that the use of fertilizer "poison's the soil" and that there is no scientific evidence of this.

Then it goes on to state that buildup of cadmium, arsenic, and uranium, all of which are highly toxic, can happen as a result of the use of fertilizer and then links to the cadmium poisoning article.

The two statements are incompatible, and the first should I think take a less condescending tone and be rewritten to unify itself with the second statement. Such as "While there is no scientific evidence to support claims that fertilizer itself may cause soil toxicity, improperly manufactured fertilizer can present problems due to buildup of such toxins as..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.48.5 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

health and sustainability section

a sustainability section is incomplete without any discussion of the depletion of natural fertilizers and the production of replacements through various methods (e.g. the Haber process) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.184.166 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

shouldnt

there be a section on the use of fertilizer in bomb making? Luke12345abcd (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)