Immigrants make you richer.

[Hermit]

Only for the first year. Once that's done, it just needs a tiny top-up every year, if that.

You really don't have a fucking clue. The initial application of fertiliser is no larger than subsequent ones for the simple reason that crops use the stuff at a steady rate. For instance, for each ton of wheat we need the following in kilograms: 22.0 Nitrogen 3.8 Phosphorus 4.7 Potassium 2.2 Sulphur 0.4 Calcium 1.6 Magnesium. That is each and every year. If you use more at the outset than later on, it either means that you have used more than you needed to at the beginning or you are not using enough subsequently to bring your crops to maturity and harvest.

Australian farmers use over 4 million tons of fertiliser annually. Much of that is already imported, and there is pressure within nations we import from to stop exporting their stuff. Whoever said earlier in this thread that Australia could easily support several hundred million inhabitants has no fucking idea what he is talking about. I think we'd be struggling to support 50 million by the end of this century, and that number will be reached without increasing immigration.



Finally, will you, BG and D-K poster boy please stop pulling opinions out of your arses? It's getting a tad tedious.

[pErvinalia]

That was a really dumb post, Hermit. I only apply fertilizer to my garden every five years. Therefore Australia can grow enough food in the salty desert to sustain 4 trillion people!!

[mistermack]

You people should go to California and Israel and everywhere else that farms former desert, and tell them that a couple of dicks on Rationalia have decided that they are wasting their time, that their big houses and bank accounts are just a figment of their imaginations.

Me, I'll carry on drinking my imaginary wine, and eating the imaginary fruit that comes from some of the most arid regions of Spain.

It's all delicious, high quality stuff and amazingly cheap.

I imagine.

[Hermit]

Liar. I know for a fact that you piss on your potato patch several times a day. That provides enough urea to ensure a plentiful crop.

Oops, I think I just shot my own argument down with that observation. We can become self sufficient by fertilising our fields with our own excreta, no matter how many of us there are.

[Hermit]

You people should go to California and Israel and everywhere else that farms former desert...

...using massive amounts of imported resources.

[pErvinalia]

Spain and the US are newer lands than Australia. Not sure about Israel. So at least the US and Spain would be expected to have more nutrients, organic matter and soil structure than Australian barren soils on average.

[mistermack]

Spain and the US are newer lands than Australia. Not sure about Israel. So at least the US and Spain would be expected to have more nutrients, organic matter and soil structure than Australian barren soils on average.

You really do like making stuff up don't you?
So there's no irrigation-based agriculture in Australia then?

You're fucking unbelievable.


Literally.

[pErvinalia]

How do you go from what I said to "there's no irrigation-based agriculture in Australia then?"??

[mistermack]

The areas that you are claiming can't be farmed, are no different to the highly productive areas under irrigation. The ONLY difference is that they are near the river, or have plenty of groundwater downstairs.

You didn't say those exact words, but it's the logical conclusion from your posts.
Just as, you've never actually said the words, rEv is a brainless dick, but .....

[Hermit]

The areas that you are claiming can't be farmed, are no different to the highly productive areas under irrigation. The ONLY difference is that they are near the river, or have plenty of groundwater downstairs.

You didn't say those exact words, but it's the logical conclusion from your posts.

Not only did I not say those exact words, but I did not even say anything remotely like "those areas can't be farmed". I was very careful to repeatedly mention that those areas can't be farmed under the current economic circumstances.

"As for desalination plants, the size of such required would cost many billions of dollars. The cost would not even remotely cover any gains it might create until the rest of the world dries up."

"We'd have to import millions of tons of superphosphates, nitrates and such to grow things every fucking year. Again, this is not feasible until prices rise globally. We already import a huge proportion of our foods from overseas, simply because it can be produced more cheaply there"

"...massive cost of fertilisers. All your pipedreams remain just that until food production in the rest of this globe falls over in a screaming heap"

It seems to me that not only are you ignorant of facts and can't be bothered to find any in order to back your baseless waffling up with, but you can't read posts properly either. Now stop digging already.

[mistermack]

Hermit, I didn't say you did. I was replying to rEv, my post directly following his, and mentioning him in the post.

As far as fertiliser goes, you haven't made any kind of case as to why desert areas would need more long term. They might need more than the usual in the first few years, but there is no reason at all why they would need more long-term.

In fact, they would almost certainly need less than wetter areas. The reason?
It's obvious. The nutrients don't get washed down into the aquifers by rain.
Not if the irrigation is properly done. And in an area where water costs more, there isn't likely to be over-use of the precious water.

How do we know this happens? The groundwater and rivers get tested. And they are carrying lots of fertiliser to the sea, in wet areas.

[Hermit]

Hermit, I didn't say you did. I was replying to rEv, my post directly following his, and mentioning him in the post.

Oops. missed that.

As far as fertiliser goes, you haven't made any kind of case as to why desert areas would need more long term.

True. That's because I never argued that crops grown in desert areas need more fertilisers in the long term. I merely argued against your claim that after an initial priming of the soil the necessary supply of fertilisers to ensure continued yields becomes minimal in subsequent years, and I provided data to prove you wrong.

In fact, they would almost certainly need less than wetter areas. The reason?
It's obvious. The nutrients don't get washed down into the aquifers by rain.

LOL. You really are an ignorant cunt. The dirt in Australia's semi-arid, arid and desert regions has no nutritional value to speak of. It's been leached out millions of years ago and ended up in the depths of the oceans.

the aquifers

Oh. Aquifers. Right. I see you have not informed yourself about them either. The artesian well is shrinking, and not only is the area it used to provide water for diminishing, but the area it still services gets smaller quantities. But wait. Here are the steak knives. Not only is the area of supply diminished and the available volume of water reduced, but so is the quality of water that does come up. Its salinity keeps increasing.

in an area where water costs more, there isn't likely to be over-use of the precious water.

Brilliant concept. Now, just tell the crops that they can mature to harvest with less water, there's a good boy.

[Blind groper]

http://www.organicgardeninfo.com/crushed-granite.html

On the business of greening the Australian desert, I think we can all agree it would be a massive undertaking, costing billions of dollars. Just pumping fresh water from the monsoonal north would cost $$$$$.

However, if we accept the cost, then we must also accept that it would be possible. The reference above is to the use of crushed granite as fertiliser. The bedrock under the Australian desert (and its many hills) are granite. There are trillions of tonnes of granite available. Australian mining already turns millions of tonnes of rock into ground up material each year, in order to extract valuable minerals. It would cost money, but be quite feasible to use the same machinery in the Australian centre to grind up granite in the millions of tonnes.

You can make very good topsoil by mixing ground granite with compost. As someone already pointed out, compost can be made on the spot by market gardens, or by pastoral farming. All that is needed is water.

With the money and the determination, you do not need to import fertilisers, and you can make very, very fertile soil on the spot.

Let me add that the idea of soil from crushed granite and compost is not some fantasy. Agricultural researchers have done it, and crops are being grown in that soil as we speak, although on a very small scale.

I am not suggesting that this is going to happen any time soon. The financial cost is such as to make it impractical at this time. I just want the nay-sayers to realise that it is possible, if people are willing to pay the price.

[mistermack]

In fact, they would almost certainly need less than wetter areas. The reason?
It's obvious. The nutrients don't get washed down into the aquifers by rain.

LOL. You really are an ignorant cunt. The dirt in Australia's semi-arid, arid and desert regions has no nutritional value to speak of. It's been leached out millions of years ago and ended up in the depths of the oceans.

Jesus, you think I'M thick?
My post was perfectly clear. In areas with lots of rain, you add fertiliser, and the rain washes some of it away, into rivers and aquifers. You therefore have to add more year-on-year than in dry areas, to make up what gets wasted. It's fuck-all to do with millions of years of leaching. Are you and rEv competing to be the dumbest? I'm finding it hard to pick a winner.

On the question of greening the desert, I made it perfectly clear in my first post that I was talking about enough fresh stuff to supply a city, not greening the whole continent.
If I thought that was feasible, I'd have said so.

[pErvinalia]

The areas that you are claiming can't be farmed, are no different to the highly productive areas under irrigation. The ONLY difference is that they are near the river, or have plenty of groundwater downstairs.

You didn't say those exact words, but it's the logical conclusion from your posts.
Just as, you've never actually said the words, rEv is a brainless dick, but .....

I'm afraid you don't get to do logic, MM. Your track record is woeful. And no, "the areas you are claiming can't be farmed, are no different to the highly productive areas under irrigation", is not correct. No surprises that your ignorant opinions aren't reality. I'm sick of trying to educate you with ecological and soil science concepts. You're an old retard who is allergic to facts. Go and shake your fist at a brown person.