Infographic: Eliminating synthetic fertilizer won’t solve agriculture’s nitrogen pollution problem

, | September 30, 2019
A pakistani farmer spreads fertilizer on his crops.
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Nitrogen pollution is a pressing problem for ecosystem health and the climate. Large shares of nitrogen applied to farms as synthetic fertilizer or manure wash into rivers — causing algal blooms and killing off marine life — and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The impacts are so large that in 2018, a group of nitrogen experts determined that the world must halve the amount of nitrogen dumped into the environment to avoid the worst impacts on wildlife.

Related article:  7 ways biotechnology could change our lives in 2019

Many people argue that synthetic fertilizers are at the heart of the problem. Because synthetic fertilizers are the biggest contributor to nitrogen pollution, the thinking goes, we should radically limit their use, if not eliminate them entirely from the food system. The solution, in other words, lies in organic fertilizers such as animal manure.

However, this would be ineffective, infeasible, and counterproductive for several reasons. There is a strong environmental case to be made for synthetic fertilizer, captured in the suite of infographics below.

To view this infographic on a separate page, click here.

First, while we should make the best possible use of animal waste, applying manure to crops often generates even more nitrogen pollution than synthetic fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizers are responsible for the most pollution only because they are the most used, not because they are worse for the environment.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

Second, doing away with synthetic fertilizer would expand the footprint of agriculture, threatening ecosystems and worsening climate change. Because there isn’t enough manure and compost, we would need to expand our use of other nitrogen sources (legumes and fallowing fields) that require extra land — a lot of extra land. Eliminating synthetic fertilizers would require an 80% increase in cropland.

Finally, focusing on replacing synthetic fertilizer overlooks more promising ways to reduce nitrogen pollution. For instance, farmers can adopt precision farming equipment that helps them apply just the right amount of fertilizer to their crops. These technologies include soil nutrient sensors, tractors with GPS and auto-steering, and machines that vary how much fertilizer they apply. Read more here about innovative ways to reduce nitrogen pollution from agriculture.

Alyssa Codamon is Multimedia Producer at Breakthrough. Dan Blaustein-Rejto is a Senior Food and Agriculture Analyst at Breakthrough. Follow him on Twitter @danrejto

This article originally ran at the Breakthrough Institute as The Environmental Case for Synthetic Fertilizer and has been republished here with permission.

The GLP featured this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. The viewpoint is the author’s own. The GLP’s goal is to stimulate constructive discourse on challenging science issues.

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest

podcasts GLP Podcasts More...
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped

video Videos More...
stat hospitalai ink st x mod x

Meet STACI: STAT’s fascinating interactive guide to AI in healthcare

The Covid-19 pandemic underscores the importance of the technology in medicine: In the last few months, hospitals have used AI ...

bees and pollinators Bees & Pollinators More...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...

infographics Infographics More...
breastfeeding bed x facebook x

Infographic: We know breastfeeding helps children. Now we know it helps mothers too

When a woman becomes pregnant, her risk of type 2 diabetes increases for the rest of her life, perhaps because ...

GMO FAQs GMO FAQs More...
biotechnology worker x

Can GMOs rescue threatened plants and crops?

Some scientists and ecologists argue that humans are in the midst of an "extinction crisis" — the sixth wave of ...
food globe x

Are GMOs necessary to feed the world?

Experts estimate that agricultural production needs to roughly double in the coming decades. How can that be achieved? ...
eating gmo corn on the cob x

Are GMOs safe?

In 2015, 15 scientists and activists issued a statement, "No Scientific consensus on GMO safety," in the journal Environmental Sciences ...
glp profiles GLP Profiles More...
Screen Shot at PM

Charles Benbrook: Agricultural economist and consultant for the organic industry and anti-biotechnology advocacy groups

Independent scientists rip Benbrook's co-authored commentary in New England Journal calling for reassessment of dangers of all GMO crops and herbicides ...
Screen Shot at PM

ETC Group: ‘Extreme’ biotechnology critic campaigns against synthetic biology and other forms of ‘extreme genetic engineering’

The ETC Group is an international environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Canada whose stated purpose is to monitor "the impact of emerging technologies and ...
report this ad report this ad report this ad

Trending

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend