No not scary.
not scared either
No not scary.
what if you already own lots of land!!
If you're not worried, you're not paying attention:
Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people).
At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn't grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!
A 75% drop in arable land doesn't worry you? What would?
Well since you've got all the land, and all the know-how, please feed the world.
Sincerely,
Earth
Yeah... Except the British empire should also be responsible for restoring the third world nations she's raped and pillaged, so you gotta feed them too.Not to burst your bubble or make the sky blue again.. But I do and will do just not gonna feed twats.. never will or have!!
The usa and australlia has wasted so much time!!!
And because people can't use pretection or teach about overpopulation Keep their Dick in their pants,, Its not my problem I will only feed the UK or its a waste of a good product and Petrol. If they starve so be it. there money lords should feed them.. I want less population and more plants less people... Then we can do good but it is a struggle made my the powers that be,, and they can't just say well were in the shit and we need to feed the 5000 with a different story than jesus this time wee'l use chemicles and grow them on the MOON.
Yeah... Except the British empire should also be responsible for restoring the third world nations she's raped and pillaged, so you gotta feed them too.
toohighmffor the most part yes. There is a few forms of potassium phosphate, but mono is 2-54-32 or something really close.
toohighmfYES. most app rates are like a 1/4-1/2 tsp per gal of nutrient, if I'm not mistaken. with 50 lbs, you can spend the next 50 years going through it.. lol. ever use koolbloom? 1/4 tsp will bring a gallon up 200+ppm.
If a plant gets 100% of everything it needs from the nutrition I supply... but there is some other something which the plant could utilize... that some other something is not worth adding unless it makes measurable difference in volume or quality.
A difference that makes no difference might as well be no difference.
I notice a lot of the papers use language like "Root-colonizing non-pathogenic bacteria can increase plant resistance to biotic and abiotic stress factors"
Not that it DOES... Not that it is routinely shown to... only that it can... sometimes... for some species.
I personally see no need to stop doing something I know works well, to try something that might work as well or slightly better (but not measurable so).