Peak Phosphorus

It's an essential, if underappreciated component of our daily lives, and a key link in the global food chain. And it's running out.

BY JAMES ELSER, STUART WHITE | APRIL 20, 2010

From Kansas to China's Sichuan province, farmers treat their fields with phosphorus-rich fertilizer to increase the yield of their crops. What happens next, however, receives relatively little attention. Large amounts of this resource are lost from farm fields, through soil erosion and runoff, and down swirling toilets, through our urine and feces. Although seemingly mundane, this process cannot continue indefinitely. Our dwindling supply of phosphorus, a primary component underlying the growth of global agricultural production, threatens to disrupt food security across the planet during the coming century. This is the gravest natural resource shortage you've never heard of.

The root of this problem has previously been the subject of presidential concern. In a message to Congress in 1938, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned that the phosphorus content of American agricultural land "has greatly diminished." This shortage, Roosevelt warned, could cause low crop yields and poor-quality produce, detrimentally affecting "the physical health and economic security of the people of the nation."

For More

The New Resource Crunch
The science behind the shortage.
By James Elser and Stuart White

Phosphorus is used extensively for a variety of key functions in all living things, including the construction of DNA and cell membranes. As it is relatively rare in the Earth's crust, a lack of phosphorus is often the limiting factor in the growth of plants and algae. In humans, it plays an essential role in bone formation. Without a steady supply of this resource, global agricultural production will face a bottleneck, and humankind's growing population will suffer a serious nutrition shortage.

The world's reliance on phosphorus is an unappreciated aspect of the "Green Revolution," a series of agricultural innovations that made it possible to feed the approximately 4.2 billion-person increase in the global population since 1950. This massive expansion of global agricultural production required a simultaneous increase in the supply of key resources, including water and nitrogen. Without an increase in phosphorus, however, crops would still have lacked the resources necessary to fuel a substantial increase in production, and the Green Revolution would not have gotten off the ground.

Roosevelt's warning was prescient and stimulated agricultural engineers to find an effective, albeit temporary, solution. To satisfy the world's growing food demand, they mobilized global mining efforts in ancient, phosphorus-rich marine deposits. By 2008, industrial farmers were applying an annual 17 million metric tons of mined phosphorus on their fields. Demand is expanding at around 3 percent a year -- a rate that is likely to accelerate due to rising prosperity in the developing world (richer people consume more meat) and the burgeoning bioenergy sector, which also requires phosphorus to support crop-based biofuels.

Our supply of mined phosphorus is running out. Many mines used to meet this growing demand are degrading, as they are increasingly forced to access deeper layers and extract a lower quality of phosphate-bearing rock (phosphate is the chemical form in which nearly all phosphorus is found). Some initial analyses from scientists with the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative estimate that there will not be sufficient phosphorus supplies from mining to meet agricultural demand within 30 to 40 years. Although more research is clearly needed, this is not a comforting time scale.

The geographic concentration of phosphate mines also threatens to usher in an era of intense resource competition. Nearly 90 percent of the world's estimated phosphorus reserves are found in five countries: Morocco, China, South Africa, Jordan, and the United States. In comparison, the 12 countries that make up the OPEC cartel control only 75 percent of the world's oil reserves.

This fact could spark international tension and even influence how countries attempt to draw their internal boundaries. Many of Morocco's phosphate mines are in Western Sahara, a disputed independent territory that is occupied by Morocco and the site of growing international human rights concerns. Reflecting these concerns, U.N.-sanctioned export restrictions on phosphate and other resources are now in place, though the efficacy of the bans is incomplete. China, the country with the largest phosphorus reserves after Morocco, imposed a 135 percent tariff on the resource as part of 2008's complex series of events in which rising fuel and fertilizer costs led to rapid increases in food prices. The tariff effectively eliminated exports. Although the tariff was subsequently lifted as the 2008 food crisis faded, the imposition of this sort of trade barrier could become a regular occurrence as supplies dwindle worldwide.

The United States has only 12 phosphorus mines. The supplies from the most productive mine, in Florida, are declining rapidly -- it will be commercially depleted within 20 years. The United States exported phosphorus for decades but now imports about 10 percent of its supply, all from Morocco, with which it signed a free trade agreement in 2004.

The effects of this resource shortage will be felt long before the last phosphorus atom is extracted from the last mine. Increased demand for fertilizer and the decreased supply of phosphorus exports will result in higher prices, significantly affecting millions of farmers in the developing world who live on the brink of bankruptcy and starvation. Rising fertilizer prices could tip this balance.

Already, signs are emerging that our current practices cannot continue for long. Between 2003 and 2008, phosphate fertilizer prices rose approximately 350 percent. In 2008, rising food prices sparked riots in more than 40 countries. Although the spike in fertilizer prices was only partially responsible for the higher food prices, the riots illustrate the social upheaval caused by disruptions to the world's food supply. The 2008 food riots were only stopped by government promises of food subsidies -- a viable strategy only as long as governments can afford the ever-increasing costs of food support.

Establishing a reliable phosphorus supply is essential for assuring long-term, sustainable food security. We need to dramatically reduce the demand for phosphate rock by eliminating our wasteful practices. This will require a combination of low-tech and high-tech solutions, including efforts to prevent soil erosion, development of more-targeted methods of fertilizer application, and the creation of new, phosphorus-efficient crops, which produce a larger yield per phosphorus unit applied. Fortunately, unlike fossil fuels, phosphorus can be used over and over -- this is what occurs in natural ecosystems, where it is recycled innumerable times from its first mobilization from the Earth's crust to its eventual deposition into lake and ocean sediments.

If we fail to meet this challenge, humanity faces a Malthusian trap of widespread famine on a scale that we have not yet experienced. The geopolitical impacts of such disruptions will be severe, as an increasing number of states fail to provide their citizens with a sufficient food supply. This dark scenario need not, however, be our fate. If we are successful in rising to the phosphorus sustainability challenge, as well as other aspects of sustainable agriculture, we can look forward to a future in which families, communities, and countries are healthy and secure in their nutrition and where all live in a world with cleaner rivers, lakes, and oceans.

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Elser is Regents' professor of Ecology in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University and co-organizer of ASU's Sustainable Phosphorus Initiative. Stuart White is director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, and co-organizer of the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative.

DAVE MARTIN FROM GRAPEFRUITLAND

11:36 PM ET

April 20, 2010

Florida phosphorus

Osceola National Forest near the Georgia border in the Okefenokee Swamp region has modest phosphate reserves. Proposals to mine the area were evaluated in the 1970s. Mining appeared to be surprisingly compatible with conservation of wildlife, based on comparisons with an active mine in nearby Hamilton County.

When the area is finally mined, it's likely to be far more valuable than it would have been back then.

 

PAX

7:00 AM ET

April 26, 2010

Military Use of Phosphorous is Obscene

Phosphorous is so essential to horticulture, all military use of phosphorous bombs must cease. Phosphorous has been used by US military in Iraq, ostensibly to light up the sky, but has caused horrible injuries on innocent civilians, and its use is a crime against humanity. Has anyone worked out how much precious Phosphorous the US military has wasted?

 

PAX

7:00 AM ET

April 26, 2010

Military Use of Phosphorous is Obscene

Phosphorous is so essential to horticulture, all military use of phosphorous bombs must cease. Phosphorous has been used by US military in Iraq, ostensibly to light up the sky, but has caused horrible injuries on innocent civilians, and its use is a crime against humanity. Has anyone worked out how much precious Phosphorous the US military has wasted?

 

STEVEJOBS

5:21 AM ET

April 28, 2010

modern agriculture

Phosphorus is one of the three elements critical for modern agriculture, and hence the survival of human beings.

In 2007, Energy Bulletin published the first report in which Hubbert analysis was applied to mined phosphorus supplies, highlighting the oncoming shortage. In recent months, articles on the subject have been published by Scientific American, Spiegel, Foreign Policy and Miller-McCune. Several institutes are beginning to look at the problem.

p.s. I live in telford PA , I have two kids, they are looking for part-time jobs i don't want it to be more than 30 min. away from telford. if you can give us some advice, thanks a lot.

 

GREGRU

1:33 PM ET

April 21, 2010

Disturbing

Really??

The main problem you guys see in us mining up all of our phosphorous is actually that we'll lose the key ingredient in fertilizer?? It's not the massive deadzones that we've created in places like the Gulf of Mexico by effectively dumping so much phosphorous and nitrogen into our rivers and thus the sea? It's not the fact that using up all our phosphorous to artificially concoct fertilizers has led to a radically dangerous monoculture that has all but destroyed the life of our soil? Or how about the mining itself and all the damage that has done to our environment and human health of nearby communities over the years?

Or gee, maybe questioning the desirability and legitimacy of the green revolution in the first place? Was it a good thing to have "a series of agricultural innovations that made it possible to feed the approximately 4.2 billion-person increase in the global population since 1950."? Were many of these changes really "innovations"? Maybe the earth was never capable of adding 4.2 billion humans in such a short time span. Regardless of that tiny question, was radically imbalancing the natural ecosystem and causing all the epic damage that comes with that imbalance over the past 60 years really the right thing to do?

How about mentioning how dumping all this fertilizer on everything actually leads to diminishing returns in crops? Perhaps mentioning how sustainable farming methods not using fertilizers at all are in the long run far more productive?

In other words - how about mentioning that there was never really any necessary, imperative reason to mine all that phosphorous and make all that artificial fertilizer in the first place? Mentioning any of this stuff would be nice. Instead you basically come across as shills for the fertilizer and industrial farming industries. Oh no! Our completely unnecessary and incredibly noxious yet highly profitable industry is dying! What shall we do?

 

LASTBOYSCOUT

4:21 PM ET

April 23, 2010

Disturbing

I DON"T KNOW, STOP EATING?

 

LASTBOYSCOUT

4:33 PM ET

April 23, 2010

Disturbing

"Perhaps mentioning how sustainable farming methods not using fertilizers at all are in the long run far more productive?"

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? You can't grow a crop without macro (N,P,K) and micro nutrients. You cannot NOT add nutrients to the soil that your crops are removing without depleting the soil. The first settlers did this, clear some land, farm for a few years until they depleted the soil and moved on to the next plot of land.

Nutrients are all the same, no matter where they come from. Commercial fertilizer, manure fertilizer or composted fertilizer, a plant does not know the difference.

 

RKERG

10:06 PM ET

April 21, 2010

Is there a phosphorus futures market?

Because, if there is, I might think that this article is designed to send it into a panic and the price sky high. You know like they did a few years ago with the "peak oil" myth.

 

JBYER

7:29 AM ET

April 22, 2010

Simple Solution

Start treating all sewage in the country with thermal depolymerization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

This would allow us to recapture the phosphorus for farming as well as improve the quality of our water supplies and provide a new domestic source of oil.

It would also solve the problem of pharmaceuticals entering the water supply.

 

BRAND31

1:24 PM ET

April 24, 2010

Good idea, but...

Yes indeed it will be important to recapture P from treated wastewater. However, this can only contribute partially to the solution, as the P moving through the ENTIRE human population (including waste NOT subject to any treatment) amounts to only about 2% of the total annual global fertilizer applied in agriculture.

It seems that most of the P is lost at the field (runoff, erosion), during food processing, and during domestic animal production.

This depolymerization process looks great, and might also be useful in treating animal waste and food waste and other such targets.

 

N2LIBERY

8:04 AM ET

April 22, 2010

The Market will solve the problem most efficiently

These kind of OMG the world is going to end reports are such a waste of time. There are many solutions to this problem and they will all be used as they make economic sense. Currently Mining land based deposits make the most economic sense. As they become scarce the market will increase the price. Increased price will drive more efficient use. Price will continue to rise as supply becomes more scarce. More effective mining methods will be used to recover currently uneconomic deposits. Once the cost is high enough Recovery systems will be implemented. Deep water mining of ocean deposits will take place. Sea water mining what ever it takes to continue to provide this essential element. All the government has to do is stay out of the way. Allow the price to rise allow people to develop new methods and systems and profit from them. Government has its place insuring the methods do not damage the environment however government is a poor innovator and problem solver. Government "solutions" tend to make winners and losers not based on merit but on size of voting block. They distort normal market solutions by increasing costs and moving money and resources to politically adept organizations and individuals at the expense of the general public. Markets allocate based on individual choice through voluntary exchange. Governments allocate through force taking from one group and giving to another. I believe we would all be better off with more freedom and less government.

 

KINGAZAZ

11:07 AM ET

April 22, 2010

Really?

"There are many solutions to this problem and they will all be used as they make economic sense. [. . .] Increased price will drive more efficient use."

Relying on the market to solve problems of this sort is like relying on your car to warn you that the oil is too low. By the time that thing comes on you've already done damage to the engine that could have been prevented with regular maintenance.

The market doesn't look far enough into the future, nor does it care about the quality of life of everyone caught in its currents, for it to be an appropriate safeguard against depletion of any given resource. In fact, as the article points out, it's the people at the bottom of the economic ladder that will suffer first. It's already happened. How many people need to endure such hardships before "economic sense" spurs action? Doesn't that seem to be a moral problem that should be addressed now, when we can see the trouble brewing?

Don't let the economy subsume your own humanity. The environment is not some separate thing from yourself that is subject to human economic creations; we are a part of it too.

 

BRAND31

1:36 PM ET

April 24, 2010

Did the article say anything necessarily about "government"?

These days responses to environmental concerns are not just governmental regulations but are being led by creative and forward-looking companies that recognize both opportunity and responsibility. Societal concern and consumer wishes are part of "the market" that companies respond to. Perhaps that is missing from your viewpoint?

In any case, your argument ignores the fact that fertilizer prices and the food system will be driven by western economies, within which food prices reflect mostly advertising, transport, shipping, and profit margins and only vaguely include the on-farm costs of producing food. So, fertilizer prices can go through the roof without an American consumer noticing (did you notice anything in your food bill in 2008 when fertilizer and food costs skyrocketed?). However, in the developing world a high % of the cost of food reflects the direct farm costs and thus the cost of primary foods for citizens of the developing world are VERY sensitive to fertilizer prices. As the article notes, developing world farmers are often on the edge of going broke and if fertilizer goes up, they can't buy it, can't increase their yields, can't sell enough product, and go broke. And starve. And their neighbors. Hence the food riots and food export restrictions around the world in 2008. This will potentially set the stage for more "failed states", disaffected populations, insecure borders, and all of the national and international security consequences that flow from that.

Wouldn't it seem a good idea to work to prevent that scenario? Especially if, at the same time, you get cleaner lakes and oceans at the same time?

 

C12K

9:04 AM ET

April 22, 2010

totally one sided

They fail to mention that over 50% of phosphorus in European sewage is recycled. Efficiency is sure to rise, the practice will surely spread to non-human waste, and other nations are sure to follow.

Next meme, please.

 

BRAND31

1:41 PM ET

April 24, 2010

??? Did you read the whole article?

Not sure why you are so quick to blow it off.

Part of what they are arguing is in fact that P in wastewater needs to be recovered. And does Europe recycling 50% somehow solve the problem? What is the % for USA? (very low, BTW).

In any case, while P recycling from wastewater is likely part of the response that will be needed, it can't be the whole answer. This is because the P moving through the ENTIRE human population (including waste NOT subject to any treatment) amounts to only about 2% of the total annual global fertilizer applied in agriculture.

It seems that most of the P is lost at the field (runoff, erosion), during food processing, and during domestic animal production.

Can you get your "meme" back now that you've moved on?

 

RULER4YOU

9:26 AM ET

April 22, 2010

Fuzzy math

I tend to agree with RKERG. But the conflicts of the premise are many. We are 'running out' of phosphorus but we need to increase production of it for many reasons not the least of which is money. Politicians, and hence producers, have known about this for many decades belying the stated importance and imparting an paradoxical ambiguity to concerns. The idea that some kind of phosphorus recovery methodology needs to be discovered and implemented at waste water recovery sites and fresh water tributaries that is efficacious leaps to mind. Not to mention deep sea recovery (if possible). It's interesting, to me, that we have immense resources being used to 'discover' the next chemical we can add to our food in universities, chemical production facilities, laboratories and other facilities but they are ignoring something that 'supposedly' has such dire consequences? Something doesn't add up here.

 

JONATHAN CALLAHAN

1:58 PM ET

April 22, 2010

US Minerals Databrowser

Interested readers would do well to review the data on US and global phosphate production, consumption and prices at the US Minerals Databrowser:

http://mazamascience.com/Minerals/USGS

Reviewing visualizations of a century's worth of data on phosphate and the other non-renewable nutrient, potash, will give readers a sense of how important or acute this issue really is.

When in doubt, go back to the data sources and form your own opinion.

 

JENNIE G

2:16 PM ET

April 22, 2010

Phosphorous seems to be an

Phosphorous seems to be an insignificant name in any life's dictionary. Do we even think of this component ever? Do we know how does it control our lives and how important it is for our living? Some may know and some may not. But the sad part is that even those who know about it ignore its importance. The biggest fact of life is that even the smallest of thing can make the biggest difference in our life. Just think about a day when phosphorus will completely diminish..................any idea what will be the outcome......................?

Jennie
www.amazingfacts.co.in

 

SMSHEPARD

6:24 PM ET

April 22, 2010

The DEMAND we've never heard of.

I salute your article and the phrase used by the author: The DEMAND we've never heard of.
In the South Pacific there lies a group of islands, Kiribati. (pronounced, oddly, no doubt with help from Christian missionaries) Kiri-bas. Included in this area are Christmas Island - romantic eh? - and Banaba. I don't think that very many people know how Kirabati literally 'sold-out' it's land and peoples for phosphate 'mining'.
They were once wealthy but invested poorly and squandered. I know a bit more about Banaba, having served as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer for three years in Fiji, Fiji has about 100 inhabited islands (of over 300) and one is not 'tourist-friendly'. It is called Rabi (pronounced with an 'M' sound: Rambi). You can only visit this beautiful island in the inner NE portion of Fiji's bigger islands by invitation/relation. These people are the ancestors of displaced Rabi Islanders: displaced by Proctor & Gamble (probably others as well, let's be fair) in their greed to 'mine' the wealth of bird-poop, rich in phosphates. Many folks don't know about Kirabas and Rabi but I can't help but wonder with a world deficit of phosphates, and having seen what greed will drive people to do for oil, what will be the next episode in the phosphate mining ... epilogue(?)

Steve in Seattle, WA, USA

 

ALIDA ANTONIA CORNELIUS

7:44 AM ET

April 23, 2010

Algae and lignite.

China Agritech, Inc. is using humis made from lignite. They are producing organic fertilizers. While they may have more phosphorous resources than the USA, I do believe that the developing technology in growing algae is going to be our solution to this problem.

And how about that lignite? It's most abundant in Texas.
I worry about company's like Agrium using so called "biodegradable polymers" for fertilizer. They say the polymers will biodegrade in one year.
Who wants polymers in our soil for even a month?

Is anyone in the USA using lignite?
Does anyone know?

 

LASTBOYSCOUT

4:39 PM ET

April 23, 2010

lignite

a coal or peat, in between somewhere. Usually can see the pattern of wood. There are many substances that have P, but may not be available to plants, and may take decades to release some of the P available to plants. I don't know about lignite, but is sounds like it is a fairly stable material. If you would put it in your garden, I would bet you can't count on the material providing available P anytime soon

 

COFARMER

8:15 AM ET

April 23, 2010

Phosphorous

The EPA has undertaken measures to ensure that phosphorus becomes a prohibited element. This is one element that they are trying to eliminate from water and soil since it is like water vapor and CO2 a dangerous pollutant.

Perhaps, the US needs more than just a better foreign policy regarding phosphorus, they need a domestic policy too.

 

SOZO

10:33 PM ET

April 23, 2010

sozo

I am interested very much in the subject matter of your blog.I like very much your way of presentation.. I got more useful information on this blog.Thanks a lot for sharing.Keep blogging.
sozo

 

ZHURNALY

8:03 PM ET

April 27, 2010

author of "Feed or Feedback" agrees ...

for more on this theme see Feed or Feedback: Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the State of the Planet, a 2003 book by A. Duncan Brown, emeritus professor of biology at the University of Wollongong (Australia) --- brief review on http://zhurnaly.com/FeedOrFeedback --- in summary:

The first essential agricultural input to be depleted will probably be phosphate rock; Brown estimates that within 100-200 years its cost will skyrocket. Well before that time, however, Brown's analysis suggests that soil degradation, deforestation, depletion and pollution of water resources, and destruction of fisheries will result in widespread famine and death. It could happen abruptly, when reliance on a few species for food production results in a global ecosystem "... simplified to a level at which it becomes dangerously vulnerable to any of a number of types of stress --- both physical and biological." Or it could be a more gradual collapse, stretching for generations. Brown's best guess is that, if present trends continue, this will begin to be obvious by the middle of the 21st Century.

 

ACTIVATOR

12:02 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Sustainability

I read every single posting. Some people get it, most people don't. The reason we are in this mess is a result of ignorance and greed, this creates a society that "lets the market decide" Now we have co many sites like this where people talk techna fix using technology to fix the problems that we continue to create.
The reason we are mining oil in tar sand and the middle east is reducing their oil exports and leasing land in africa and importing slaves to grow food for them is because we are running out of primary commodities. The two of many points that most lacking in these posts were that all of the techno based solutions require huge fossil fuel inputs, like ocean mining etc.
The second and larger point is that nothing other than permaculture as a solution is sustainable. All other ideas require inputs which are not only Not Sustainable, they just borrow time and create more and bigger problems in the long term.

 

ACTIVATOR

12:02 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Sustainability

I read every single posting. Some people get it, most people don't. The reason we are in this mess is a result of ignorance and greed, this creates a society that "lets the market decide" Now we have co many sites like this where people talk techna fix using technology to fix the problems that we continue to create.
The reason we are mining oil in tar sand and the middle east is reducing their oil exports and leasing land in africa and importing slaves to grow food for them is because we are running out of primary commodities. The two of many points that most lacking in these posts were that all of the techno based solutions require huge fossil fuel inputs, like ocean mining etc.
The second and larger point is that nothing other than permaculture as a solution is sustainable. All other ideas require inputs which are not only Not Sustainable, they just borrow time and create more and bigger problems in the long term.