Talk:Fertilizer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Fertilizer is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
This article is supported by the Soil WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Soil and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the articles of high importance on the project worklist, or visit the project page for more details on the project. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Soil WikiProject assessment scale. [FAQ] See comments here. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
[edit] "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).
[edit] Link?
In my opinion the link to the Fertilizer Institute should not be removed, as it is not advertisement of the fertilizer industry.
