Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Nitrogen Problem [View all]
The farming systems we are putting in place now will need to feed the 9-10 billion people that will inhabit our planet in 2050. This is a huge challenge.
One of the most, if not the most, important factor in sustainability is nitrogen. Plants need a lot of nitrogen to grow, and this is often the limiting factor in large-scale food production.
~~~
The Solution
As is often the case with any complex problem, there is rarely a simple answer. If we want to optimize sustainable farming we need to consider the entire system, all inputs and outputs, all the land use, and all of the environmental impacts.
...
It seems that a combined strategy using as much recycled nitrogen as possible, nitrogen-fixing crops, and optimally applied chemical fertilizer, can maximize yield per unit of land while minimizing environmental impact. This can be extra work for farmers, however, so they need an incentive to do this.
As the human population grows, however, it will likely become necessary to add new options. One intriguing possibility is genetically engineered crops that are able to fix their own nitrogen. Imagine a wheat variety that can fix nitrogen from the air no need for nitrogen fertilizer.
Legumes are plants that can do this now. Actually it is bacteria that live on their roots that fix the nitrogen from the air. There is ongoing research to engineer cereals that are able to develop the same symbiotic relationship with these bacteria. This is a complex task, however, and estimates are that we are at least 20 years away from this goal.
Still, this is the kind of technology we need to be working on so that we do have more options in 2050 when there will be more than 9 billion human mouths to feed.
~~~
Conclusion
A thousand years ago we were essentially mining our world for nutrients, and the reservoir was so vast that we did not have to worry about the entire system. That changes with the industrial revolution and the explosion of the human population. This was followed by the green revolution made possible by synthetic fertilizer, which caused further population increase.
...
This is partly why I think the false dichotomy of organic vs conventional is harmful. An integrated evidence-based approach to best practices, without an appeal to an arbitrary ideology, is what we need.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-nitrogen-problem/
One of the most, if not the most, important factor in sustainability is nitrogen. Plants need a lot of nitrogen to grow, and this is often the limiting factor in large-scale food production.
~~~
The Solution
As is often the case with any complex problem, there is rarely a simple answer. If we want to optimize sustainable farming we need to consider the entire system, all inputs and outputs, all the land use, and all of the environmental impacts.
...
It seems that a combined strategy using as much recycled nitrogen as possible, nitrogen-fixing crops, and optimally applied chemical fertilizer, can maximize yield per unit of land while minimizing environmental impact. This can be extra work for farmers, however, so they need an incentive to do this.
As the human population grows, however, it will likely become necessary to add new options. One intriguing possibility is genetically engineered crops that are able to fix their own nitrogen. Imagine a wheat variety that can fix nitrogen from the air no need for nitrogen fertilizer.
Legumes are plants that can do this now. Actually it is bacteria that live on their roots that fix the nitrogen from the air. There is ongoing research to engineer cereals that are able to develop the same symbiotic relationship with these bacteria. This is a complex task, however, and estimates are that we are at least 20 years away from this goal.
Still, this is the kind of technology we need to be working on so that we do have more options in 2050 when there will be more than 9 billion human mouths to feed.
~~~
Conclusion
A thousand years ago we were essentially mining our world for nutrients, and the reservoir was so vast that we did not have to worry about the entire system. That changes with the industrial revolution and the explosion of the human population. This was followed by the green revolution made possible by synthetic fertilizer, which caused further population increase.
...
This is partly why I think the false dichotomy of organic vs conventional is harmful. An integrated evidence-based approach to best practices, without an appeal to an arbitrary ideology, is what we need.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-nitrogen-problem/
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This is only a yuuuge challenge if we want to feed 9-10 billion people by 2050.
GliderGuider
Feb 2016
#1
That's what I was thinking. The real solution is not to HAVE 9-10 billion people.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Feb 2016
#2
Actually, there’s a pretty good source of potassium and phosphorus available without mining
OKIsItJustMe
Feb 2016
#6
That was a traditional source of both materials, but not the MAIN source today.
happyslug
Feb 2016
#7
Actually Frank–Caro process is economically viable but the Haber system is just cheaper to operate.
happyslug
Feb 2016
#17
