In the high income countries, a lot more
nitrogen is used than what is taken out from farming in the form of products.
Countries like South Korea and the Netherlands, with very intensive farming
systems, used, in the end of the 1990s, more than 250 kg of nitrogen per
hectare more than they took out, and these figures are not even including all
nitrogen sources (OECD 2001). The International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development[3]
(IAASTD 2009) assess that the fertilizer uptake efficiency is less than 30
percent for rice production in South and South East Asia. Globally the nitrogen
efficiency in grain production has deteriorated drastically and rapidly. Around
1960, each ton of chemical fertilizer resulted in an increase of grain yield of
75 ton, while in the end of 1990 resulted in just 25 ton, a glaring example of
decreasing marginal utility, as nitrogen fertilizer use increased tremendously
in the same period.
Over and above the use of chemical
fertilizers, there is a substantial supply of nitrogen through biological
nitrogen fixation. This is partly done by bacteria living in symbiosis with
(mainly) leguminous plants and partly by bacteria and algae which fix nitrogen
independently. Biological nitrogen fixation represents one third of the
nitrogen brought to farming (Vitousek et al 1997). Even if nitrogen in chemical
fertilizers and nitrogen in biological nitrogen fixation are both from the same
source, the air, one can’t see them as totally equal sources, especially not
regarding their effects in the soil. In theory, there could be substantial
nitrogen leakage caused by biological nitrogen fixation; in practice, it is
difficult to substantiate that. One reason is that the process, as most natural
processes, to a large extent is self-regulating; if there is a lot of free
nitrogen in the soil, nitrogen fixation from the air ceases, as it is easier
(it ”costs” less) for the organisms to take it from the soil than from the
atmosphere.
We have mainly looked at nitrogen, but
there are similar problems with phosphorus. A main difference is that
phosphorus leaks mainly through erosion. Phosphorus is mined and is thus a
limited resource and there are indications that we approach “peak phosphorus”,
i.e. the point at which less phosphorus can be produced than previously,
because of limited supply. A complication with phosphorus fertilizers is that
they often contain cadmium, a highly toxic heavy metal of which the load in our
food is already alarmingly high. Rich countries can chose the cleaner
phosphates, or even clean contaminated ones, while low income countries are
left with the contaminated fertilizers.
(modified extract from Garden Earth)
[1] Over-abundance of
nutrients leading to algal blooms etc.
[2] It is nitrogen
fertilizers that have enabled farmer to skip sound crop rotations and go for
mono-cropping, so it is not so far-fetched to “blame” nitrogen fertilizers for
being a major factor for increase in mono-cropping.
[3] The IAASTD is an
intergovernmental agency with representation of UN agencies, the World Bank and
international and regional NGOs. Its main report was published in 2008. www.agassessment.org
No comments:
Post a Comment