Vermont farmers are turning to human urine as a sustainable and cost-effective fertilizer alternative. Urine is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, essential nutrients for crop growth, and using it reduces reliance on synthetic fertilizers, which have environmental drawbacks. Researchers are studying the efficacy and safety of urine fertilization, working to develop standardized collection and treatment methods to ensure it's safe for both the environment and consumers. This practice offers a potential solution to the rising costs and negative impacts of conventional fertilizers, while also closing the nutrient loop by utilizing a readily available resource.
Larry Ellison's ambitious, half-billion-dollar investment in sustainable farming in Hawaii has largely failed to achieve its goals. His company, Sensei Farms, aimed to revolutionize agriculture with high-tech greenhouses and hydroponic techniques, promising locally grown produce and food security. However, after years of operation and significant financial losses, Sensei has dramatically scaled back its operations, laying off staff and abandoning plans for expansion. While the company claims to be pivoting towards research and development, the project is widely considered a costly misstep, demonstrating the difficulty of translating tech industry success to the complexities of agriculture.
Hacker News commenters are largely skeptical of Ellison's Lanai farming project. Many question the economic viability of high-tech, hydroponic farming at scale, especially given the transportation costs from a remote island. Some see it as a vanity project, disconnected from the realities of agriculture and food security. Others point out the irony of Ellison, known for his aggressive business practices, now promoting sustainability. A few commenters offer more nuanced perspectives, suggesting that the project's failure might stem from management issues rather than inherent flaws in the concept, while others highlight the difficulty of disrupting established industries like agriculture. Several comments also discuss the potential for unintended consequences, such as the impact on local water resources and the ethical implications of controlling food production.
Summary of Comments ( 53 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43235424
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and cultural acceptance of using urine as fertilizer. Some highlighted the long history of this practice, citing its use in ancient Rome and various cultures throughout history. Others pointed out the need to address the "ick" factor, suggesting that separating urine at the source and processing it before application could make it more palatable to farmers and consumers. The potential for pharmaceuticals and hormones to contaminate urine and subsequently crops was a key concern, with commenters debating the efficacy of current treatment methods. Several also discussed the logistical challenges of collection and distribution, comparing urine to other fertilizer alternatives. Finally, some users questioned the scalability of this approach, arguing that while viable for small farms, it might not be feasible for large-scale agriculture.
The Hacker News post titled "Why Vermont farmers are using urine on their crops," linking to a BBC article on the same topic, has generated several comments discussing the practice of using human urine as fertilizer.
Several commenters focus on the practicality and safety of using urine as fertilizer. One points out that urine is sterile when fresh and contains valuable nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. They highlight that proper composting is crucial to eliminate pathogens and pharmaceutical residues. Another commenter questions the scalability of using urine for large-scale agriculture, comparing the volume needed to the relatively small output per person. This commenter doubts the feasibility of collecting and processing urine on a scale large enough to replace synthetic fertilizers.
Another thread discusses the "ick" factor associated with using human waste. A commenter suggests that the psychological barrier is significant and could hinder wider adoption despite the potential benefits. Others argue that this aversion is cultural and can be overcome, pointing to historical examples of using "night soil" as fertilizer. One commenter suggests that separating urine at the source, rather than treating all wastewater together, simplifies the sanitation process and makes the use of urine as fertilizer more palatable.
The discussion also touches on the environmental impact of current fertilizer production, which is energy-intensive and contributes to pollution. Some see urine fertilizer as a sustainable alternative that closes the nutrient loop. A commenter raises concerns about potential contamination from pharmaceuticals and personal care products present in urine, advocating for further research into the long-term effects on soil and crops.
One commenter draws a parallel between urine fertilization and the use of biosolids (treated sewage sludge), noting similar concerns and benefits. They suggest that public perception and regulatory hurdles are key challenges for both practices. Another commenter mentions the Rich Earth Institute in Vermont, which is specifically mentioned in the BBC article, highlighting their research and efforts to promote urine recycling. This commenter also adds details about the Institute's work on separating urine at the source.
Finally, a few commenters offer humorous takes on the subject, adding a touch of levity to the overall discussion.