hi Cory
just read the article below you posted. It is a great explanation of the history Chemical Nitrogen but like a lot of articles written about the wonders of Nitrogen to feed the world and the problems caused by nitrates in our environment at the end of the articles says we have to continue there use or the world will starve.

Also it never talk about the drop in carbon in the food we eat , which Bill Mollison said at a PDC course was 14 % in 1900 and now below 3%, which our the building blocks of nutrition, as a result of modern farming we are producing food empty of nutrition.

         At the end of the posting I have posted an explanation of what is nitrogen fertilizer/dangers/etc from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea and we use over 100,000,000 tons per year worldwide. which is made primary from coal or from hydrocarbons such as natural gas and petroleum-derived raw material

         The problem we never look at the impact of farming with nitrogen(urea ) at an Ecosystem level and how it effects the different ecosystem of the world.

But there are changes happening as a result of the The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably. www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.aspx

Out this report in 2005 an organization call International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) www.agassessment.org was formed to look at the Ecosystem of the world and measure the impact of modern agriculture and to suggest alternatives to stop this destructive practise which is the single most threatening human activity to to Ecosystem collapse. Bill Mollison co-founder of PC said the exact same thing at the PDC course I attended in Ojai in 1997.

In April 2008 , International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) www.agassessment.org made their report.
I think you will find the case studies in the report that will answer questions Cory is asking below and I have posted the brief report from the final report from Johannesburg April 15

hope this helps wes

FROM CORY
would be interested in hearing people's reaction to this article. His premise is that we cannot replace our "Green Revolution" food growing methods with purely organic methods because those don't produce enough nitrogen.  He omits the concept of polycropping as a potential solution.  I'm especially interested in any case studies or documented examples that would refute his premise.

http://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~cstevens/ES201/local/Smil%20-%20Global%20Population%20and%20the%20Nitrogen%20Cycle.pdf

FROM WES

Reinventing Agriculture International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).in Johannesburg April 15/08
15 April 2008
Posted to the web 15 April 2008

Stephen Leahy
Johannesburg

The results of a painstaking examination of global agriculture are being formally presented Tuesday with the release of the final report for the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). www.agassessment.org

The assessment has explored how agriculture can be reinvented to feed the world's expanding population sustainably in an era of multiple challenges -- not least those presented by climate change and a growing food crisis that has led to outbreaks of violence in a number of developing countries.

The expertise of some 400 scientists and other specialists was tapped for the IAASTD; governments of wealthy and developing nations also contributed to the assessment, along with civil society and the private sector.

Both scientific knowledge and traditional skills were evaluated under the IAASTD, which marked the first attempt to bring all actors in agriculture together to address food security. Contributors produced five regional assessments, and a 110-page-plus synthesis report.

Amongst the 22 findings of the study that chart a new direction for agriculture: a conclusion that the dominant practice of industrial, large-scale agriculture is unsustainable, mainly because of the dependence of such farming on cheap oil, its negative effects on ecosystems -- and growing water scarcity.

Instead, monocultures must be reconsidered in favour of agro-ecosystems that marry food production with ensuring water supplies remain clean, preserving biodiversity, and improving the livelihoods of the poor.

"Given the future challenges it was very clear to everyone that business as usual was not an option," IAASTD Co-chair Hans Herren told IPS. He was speaking at an Apr. 7-12 intergovernmental plenary in South Africa's commercial hub, Johannesburg, where the assessment findings were reviewed ahead of Tuesday's presentation.

While global supplies of food are adequate, 850 million people are still hungry and malnourished because they can't get access to or afford the supplies they need, added Herren -- who is also president of the Arlington-based Millennium Institute, a body that undertakes a variety of developmental activities around the world. A focus only on boosting crop yields would not deal with the problems at hand, he said: "We need better quality food in the right places."

The notion that yield can no longer be the sole measure of agricultural success was also raised by Greenpeace International's Jan van Aken, who said that the extent to which agriculture promotes nutrition needs to be considered. A half-hectare plot in Thailand can grow 70 species of vegetables, fruits and herbs, providing far better nutrition and feeding more people than a half-hectare plot of high-yielding rice, he added.

The IAASTD further notes that experts in agricultural science and technology must not only work with local farmers, but also economists, social and health scientists, governments and civil society.

"We can't solve these problems in the agriculture department alone," observed the other IAASTD co-chair, Judi Wakhungu, who is also executive director of the African Centre for Technology Studies. The centre is headquartered in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.

"Leadership will be needed to make this change," she added, in acknowledgement of the fact that most governments, research centres and others in sectors linked to agriculture are unaccustomed to joining hands, and often compete for funding.

The plenary was marked by some disagreement over the ever-controversial matters of biotechnology and trade: indeed, during a long and fraught debate over biotechnology, the meeting very nearly fell apart. U.S. and Australian government representatives objected to wording in the synthesis report that highlighted concerns about whether the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food is healthy and safe.

This issue, along with challenges pertaining to trade, had been thoroughly debated over the three-year IAASTD process and the final wording reflected scientific evidence. The report says biotechnology has a role to play in the future but that it remains a contentious matter, the data on benefits of GM crops being mixed; it further notes that patenting of genes causes problems for farmers and researchers.Relevant Links

Syngenta and the other biotech and pesticide companies abandoned the assessment process late last year.

The impasse at the plenary was broken when the two countries agreed to a footnote in the report indicating their reservations about the wording. They also agreed to accept the report as a whole, along with Canada and Swaziland: "Our government will champion this even though we have reservations on some parts," the Australian delegate told the meeting.

The other 60 countries represented at the plenary took a stronger position, moving beyond acceptance to adopt the report.

"I'm stunned. I didn't think it would pass," said Janice Jiggins of the Department of Social Science at the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands, and one of the experts who worked to review the totality of agricultural know-how and the effects of farming around the world.

There was also broad endorsement from civil society.

"We have a very strong anti-GMO (genetically-modified organism) stance but agreed to accept the synthesis report findings because it was neutral," noted van Aken. "We're not happy with everything, but we agree with the scientific consensus in the synthesis report."

Now, the IAASTD moves from testing the endurance of researchers to trying the political will of decision makers.

"These documents are like a bible with which to negotiate with various institutions in my country and transform agriculture," the Costa Rican delegate told the Johannesburg gathering, through a translator.

Others were more circumspect about the prospects for the assessment, but still hopeful.

"We're all headed in the same direction now, even if some are walking and some are running," said Wakhungu.

Interview with Robert Watson (IAASTD Director) Africa: 'Increase Agricultural Productivity While Reducing the Environmental Footprint'

'Increase Agricultural Productivity While Reducing the Environmental Footprint'

http://allafrica.com/stories/200804150172.html

Inter Press Service (Johannesburg)

INTERVIEW
15 April 2008
Posted to the web 15 April 2008

Johannesburg

Over the past few years, Robert Watson has had what must qualify as one of the world's tougher assignments: heading an initiative to help agriculture cope with the substantial challenges it faces presently, and the even bigger hurdles ahead.

The three-year International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) www.agassessment.org
:"has sought to evaluate agricultural knowledge across the spectrum, with the help of governments, civil society, the private sector, and hundreds of experts.

Watson initiated the project while chief scientist at the World Bank; he currently serves as director of the IAASTD -- also as chief scientist at the British environment and agriculture department.

The findings of the assessment are being formally presented Tuesday, this after they were reviewed at an intergovernmental plenary held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from Apr. 7-12. IPS environment correspondent Stephen Leahy chatted to Watson at this meeting about the landmark IAASTD.

What is the significance of the IAASTD findings for global food security?

The significance of the IAASTD is that for the first time governments from the developed and developing countries, civil society, scientific authors from natural and social sciences all worked together to address the critical issue of how to get affordable and nutritious food in way that is environmentally and socially sustainable.

The IAASTD clearly states that business as usual in agriculture is not an option. Why is this the case?

The IAASTD builds on the findings from two previous assessments. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that 15 of the planet's 24 natural ecosystems are in trouble or in decline, in large measure due to degradation of land and water -- mainly because of agriculture. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that agriculture is a major contributor to human-induced climate change, and climate change will have a major impact on agricultural productivity.

If we only focus on boosting food production it will only come at the expense of further environmental degradation.

What do IAASTD findings say about the current food prices, which are at record highs?

There are many factors involved in food prices -- climate variability resulting in declines in harvests in some areas, higher energy costs, biofuel production and speculation on the futures market. Now is the time to ask: how can we increase food production, keep food affordable and ensure farmers can make a decent living? The IAASTD is our best attempt to answer that important question.

You led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change initiative and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. How is the IAASTD different to these assessments?

It was absolutely critical to bring together an understanding of the natural sciences with an understanding of institutions, human behaviour and policies. Most previous assessments have failed to grasp the importance of social sciences. While they might capture the economic perspective they don't capture the other non-economic, social science knowledge.

It is not enough to look at the science and technology of how to grow more food without looking at its impacts on natural ecosystems and on social systems.

Does IAASTD call for the end of large-scale monocultures?

If monocultures can be modified so they are environmentally and socially sustainable, then they're OK. You can't undermine agriculture's natural resource basis -- the soil, water, biodiversity and so on -- because eventually it will collapse.

Why was there so little debate about climate change during the intergovernmental plenary?

Climate change is well recognised now as a serious environmental, development, human health and security problem. It is no longer a controversial issue. The challenge for us now is how to maintain and increase agricultural productivity while reducing the environmental footprint, emissions of greenhouse gases and fossil fuel use in the agricultural sector. At the same time we have to adapt agriculture to the changing climate. The IAASTD findings point the way in terms of the kinds of knowledge, science and technology we need to change agricultural practices to cope with this reality.

You've called the IAASTD a "unique social experiment". What do you mean by that?

All key sectors of society were involved: governments, civil society, industry, farmers, academics, and major international organisations like the World Bank and FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation). If everyone is affected by the issues of food, environmental and social sustainability, then everyone should be at the table to bring their knowledge and experience to help solve our common problem.

Given the diversity of viewpoints, it was an incredibly difficult and complex process. However I strongly believe this process is the way for the future and can be applied in any context, be it local, regional, national or international.

I can't think of a single important issue today that doesn't involve multiple sectors.


         AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea

Urea (nitrogen Fertilizer)

Synthetic production

Urea is a nitrogen-containing chemical product that is produced on a scale of some 100,000,000 tons per year worldwide.

For use in industry, urea is produced from synthetic ammonia and carbon dioxide. Urea can be produced as prills, granules, flakes, pellets, crystals, and solutions.

More than 90% of world production is destined for use as a fertilizer. Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use (46.7%). Therefore, it has the lowest transportation costs per unit of nitrogen nutrient.

Urea is highly soluble in water and is, therefore, also very suitable for use in fertilizer solutions (in combination with ammonium nitrate: UAN), e.g., in 'foliar feed' fertilizers.

Solid urea is marketed as prills or granules. The advantage of prills is that, in general, they can be produced more cheaply than granules, which, because of their narrower particle size distribution, have an advantage over prills if applied mechanically to the soil. Properties such as impact strength, crushing strength, and free-flowing behaviour are, in particular, important in product handling, storage, and bulk transportation.

[ edit] Commercial production

Urea is commercially produced from two raw materials, ammonia, and carbon dioxide. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are produced during the manufacture of ammonia from coal or from hydrocarbons such as natural gas and petroleum-derived raw materials. This allows direct synthesis of urea from these raw materials.

The production of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide takes place in an equilibrium reaction, with incomplete conversion of the reactants. The various urea processes are characterized by the conditions under which urea formation takes place and the way in which unconverted reactants are further processed.

Unconverted reactants can be used for the manufacture of other products, for example ammonium nitrate or sulfate, or they can be recycled for complete conversion to urea in a total-recycle process.

Two principal reactions take place in the formation of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide. The first reaction is exothermic:

2 NH₃ + CO₂ H₂N-COONH₄ ( ammonium carbamate)

Whereas the second reaction is endothermic:

H₂N-COONH₄ (NH₂)₂CO + H₂O

Both reactions combined are exothermic.

The process, developed in 1922, is also called the Bosch-Meiser urea process after its discoverers.

[ edit] Uses

[ edit] Agricultural use

Urea is used as a nitrogen-release fertilizer, as it hydrolyses back to ammonia and carbon dioxide, but its most common impurity, biuret, must be present at less than 2%, as it impairs plant growth. It is also used in many multi-component solid fertilizer formulations. Its action of nitrogen release is due to the conditions favouring the reagent side of the equilibriums, which produce urea.

Urea is usually spread at rates of between 40 and 300 kg/ha, but actual spreading rates will vary according to farm type and region. It is better to make several small to medium applications at intervals to minimise leaching losses and increase efficient use of the N applied, compared with single heavy applications. During summer, urea should be spread just before, or during rain to reduce possible losses from volatilisation (process wherein nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere as ammonia gas). Urea should not be mixed for any length of time with other fertilizers, as problems of physical quality may result.

Because of the high nitrogen concentration in urea, it is very important to achieve an even spread. The application equipment must be correctly calibrated and properly used. Drilling must not occur on contact with or close to seed, due to the risk of germination damage. Urea dissolves in water for application as a spray or through irrigation systems.

In grain and cotton crops, urea is often applied at the time of the last cultivation before planting. It should be applied into or be incorporated into the soil. In high rainfall areas and on sandy soils (where nitrogen can be lost through leaching) and where good in-season rainfall is expected, urea can be side- or top-dressed during the growing season. Top-dressing is also popular on pasture and forage crops. In cultivating sugarcane, urea is side-dressed after planting, and applied to each ratoon crop.

In irrigated crops, urea can be applied dry to the soil, or dissolved and applied through the irrigation water. Urea will dissolve in its own weight in water, but it becomes increasingly difficult to dissolve as the concentration increases. Dissolving urea in water is endothermic, causing the temperature of the solution to fall when urea dissolves.

As a practical guide, when preparing urea solutions for fertigation (injection into irrigation lines), dissolve no more than 30 kg urea per 100 L water.

In foliar sprays, urea concentrations of 0.5% – 2.0% are often used in horticultural crops. As urea sprays may damage crop foliage, specific advice should be sought before use. Low-biuret grades of urea should be used if urea sprays are to be applied regularly or to sensitive horticultural crops.

[ edit] Storage of urea fertilizer

Like most nitrogen products, urea absorbs moisture from the atmosphere. Therefore it should be stored either in closed/sealed bags on pallets, or, if stored in bulk, under cover with a tarpaulin. As with most solid fertilizers, it should also be stored in a cool, dry, well-ventilated area.

Hazards

Urea can be irritating to skin and eyes. Too high concentrations in the blood can cause damage to organs of the body. Low concentrations of urea such as in urine are not dangerous.

It has been found that urea can cause algal blooms to produce toxins, and urea in runoff from fertilizers may play a role in the increase of toxic blooms.^[3]Repeated or prolonged contact with urea in fertilizer form on the skin may cause dermatitis. The substance also irritates the eyes, the skin, and the respiratory tract. The substance decomposes on heating above melting point, producing toxic gases, and reacts violently with strong oxidants, nitrites, inorganic chlorides, chlorites and perchlorates, causing fire and explosion hazard

a