Haber
Bosch fixes nitrogen. The process is considered by many to be one of the
most important technological advances of the 20th century. Indeed, it is estimated that about a third of
the people born since 1909 have been sustained by fertilizer produced by the
Haber Bosch process (Erisman et al., Nature, 2008). It must also be
said that the process has been responsible for the death of millions as well, because it also fixes nitrogen for use in explosives, but it is its use in
agriculture that we are focusing on today.
Nitrogen
is an essential component of all living cells. It is crucial to metabolic
processes, to growth and development, and in plants it is a component of
chlorophyll, so it's essential for photosynthesis as well as seed and fruit
production. But nitrogen can be hard to come by if you're a plant.
It's a major constituent of our atmosphere – 78% -- but plants can't use
it in its atmospheric form because as such it is chemically inert, an
unreactive molecule that must be primed for further chemical reactions.
The bonds between the two nitrogen atoms (N2) in atmospheric nitrogen are the strongest
bonds known, in fact, so it must be 'fixed' by some natural or man-made
process, the bonds broken, and the nitrogen otherwise made ‘reactive, or available
to plants.*
Fritz Haber, 1918 |
Plants
can use nitrogen from either nitrate (NO3-) or ammonium
ions (NH4+). They absorb it through their roots,
but neither form is abundant in soil. Fritz Haber developed a process to
'fix' nitrogen about a century ago, to split the nitrogen bonds and prime the
molecules for further chemical reactions, linking them to hydrogen to make
ammonium or to oxygen to make nitrates, and thus make nitrogen bioavailable.
Now known as the Haber Bosch process, because Carl Bosch later scaled it
up for commercial use, agriculture has been dependent on it ever since.
There
are up sides and down sides to this. Haber Bosch converts atmospheric N's
into ammonia molecules at high temperature and pressure. Wikipedia tells us
that "This conversion is typically conducted at 15–25 MPa
(2,200–3,600 psi) or 150–250 bar and between 300–550 °C (572–1,022 °F)…"
As such, it is not an energy efficient procedure. Indeed, just this
one chemical reaction uses 1-2% of the world's energy supply. And
according to a recent BBC radio program hosted by UCL
chemistry professor Andrea Sella about the Haber Bosch process, only 20%
of the nitrogen fixed in this way goes into final products; the bulk gets lost
in the environment.
The nitrogen cascade, from an EPA report on reactive nitrogen |
The
Haber Bosch process now produces about 100 million tons of ammonia a year, according to
the same BBC program, which then is used to make 454 million tons of nitrogen
fertilizer, usually in the form of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, or urea. The Green
Revolution of the 1960's brought fertilizer-dependent agriculture to much of
the world, and along with it, a more productive way to feed the world, but
there have been consequences. As Aneja et al. put it in a Nature Geosciences
article in 2008 ("Farm
Pollution", paywalled):
Nitrogen emissions in various forms (nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrous oxide (N2O), ammonia (NH3), and organic nitrogen (Norg)) are one of the two main classes of pollutants that are emitted by modern agriculture. Although produced naturally in soils through microbial denitrification and nitrification processes, nitrous oxide —a greenhouse gas that is much more effective than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere — arises from animal production in large quantities, depending on the nitrogen input and management of manure. In order to increase yields, agricultural operations often directly add reactive nitrogen to soils, either through the application of fertilizer or livestock manure to fields, or by growing nitrogen-fixing crops. These measures increase nitrous oxide emissions via microbial reactions, especially enhanced nitrification. Indirect additions of reactive nitrogen exacerbate the problem. For example, nitrogen from fertilizer or manure volatilizes as ammonia and oxides of nitrogen are redeposited in downwind regions as ammonia, particulate ammonium, nitric acid and nitrate.
Haber
Bosch has led directly to water and air pollution, reduced biodiversity,
acidification of the soil, ocean dead zones, negative effects on human health,
and global warming. So, while biological fixation of nitrogen also has consequences, people are beginning to think about replacements for the Haber
Bosch process primarily because of its environmental effects. There are
two angles from which to approach this -- one is to engineer plants to fix
nitrogen themselves, and the other is to make the mechanics of fixing nitrogen
more efficient.
In
theory, it's possible to produce ammonia at low pressure and temperatures, unlike the Haber Bosch process.
The trick is to push electrons into the nitrogen molecule, N2, to weaken
the bonds, priming it to accept additional protons, positively charged
hydrogen, to eventually produce ammonia. This is being tried in the lab,
but there are a lot of ways this can and does go wrong, so that the hydrogen
leaks rather than makes ammonia and the process is decades away from being
commercially viable.
And
even if it does become viable, it still means farmers will be spreading tons of
synthetic fertilizer on their fields, still polluting soil, water and air.
So another approach is to engineer plants to fix their own nitrogen, as
legumes -- peas and beans -- do naturally with the aid of symbiotic bacteria that produce
an enzyme called nitrogenase.
The
interaction between legumes and these nitrogen-fixing bacteria happens in
nodules that the plant forms on its roots. These are essentially nitrogen
organs, and they fill with bacteria that can break the nitrogen bonds of
atmospheric N2 so that it becomes available to the plant. It's
not a one-way deal, though, as the plants are a source of carbon for the
bacteria.
Most
major cash crops don't have the ability to interact with nitrogen-fixing
bacteria, though, which is why, given the widespread practice of monocropping, they need to be intensively fertilized.
But, the genetic architecture by which legumes interact with bacteria is
understood and the pathway is already present in grasses, just doing
something else. So plant breeders are trying to coax the genes to
recognize signals from bacteria so that these plants can create their own
interactions with nitrogen fixing bacteria.
The
process in legumes, which uses rhizobial bacteria, happens in the absence of
oxygen, however, and an anaerobic setting can't always be arranged. But
there are bacteria that can fix nitrogen in the presence of oxygen.
Cyanobacteria do it, for example. Gunnera tinctoria, or
giant rhubarb, has a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria,
and they are also photosynthetic, producing oxygen. They are actually
inside the cells of the plant, meaning that it's possible that a plant wouldn't
need the root nodules that legumes use in their nitrogen fixing process.
Gunnera tinctoria: Wikipedia |
Sugar
cane, too, fixes nitrogen, either with or without oxygen. It doesn’t exploit
the same rhizobia that legumes do, nor does it use cyanobacteria. Instead,
it interacts with Glucoacetobacter diazotrophicus, an organism
that lives in intercellular spaces in the stem of the plant. Other
plant/N-fixing bacterial relationships are still being found, and plant
breeders are experimenting with coating seeds with bacteria as a way to
introduce the symbiotic relationship between plants and bacteria.
Would
this be efficient? That is, can it replace a significant amount of the
inefficient fertilizer produced by the Haber Bosch process? The same BBC
radio program we mention above suggests that it should be possible to replace
at least 20% of it, and that plants would still give good crop yields even
though there's an energy cost to fixing nitrogen. Twenty percent is not
insignificant, given the total amount of fertilizer used in the world today,
and given that demand for it is rising in China and India, as they try to
feed their ever-growing populations. But, it would still leave us
heavily dependent on Haber Bosch.
The
topic of nitrogen fixation was raised recently in an exchange of emails among a group of agronomists,
farmers, ag economists, geneticists and interested onlookers including me.
The question of whether engineering corn to fix nitrogen would be the
path to lower reliance on synthetic fertilizer was summarily dismissed as silly.
Kendall Lamkey, chair of Agronomy at Iowa State, did the numbers.
He pointed out that soybean is a legume. It fixes nitrogen, and
yet:
In the corn-soybean system in Iowa, soybean (the legume) by far
has the largest total N needs, particularly at high yield levels. Total N
needs are dependent primarily on seed protein content and yield. ...a 65
bushel/acre soybean crop has a seed N need of 240 lbs/acre. Soybean has a N
harvest index (the proportion of the total above ground N that is in the grain)
of about 0.7, so the total N requirement of a 65 bushel/acre soybean crop is
about 350 lbs/acre. Soybeans depend primarily on soil N until about the
start of pod-fill when they switchover to depending primarily on N-fixation. We
talk about soybean fixing about 50% of its total N needs on the average, but
the reality is that the range is large and dependent on many factors, but with
our levels of soil nitrate and yield, 50% fixation captures a lot of
the acres. That means a 65 bushel soybean crop needs about 175 lb N/acre from
the soil supply.
Kendall
went on to say that a recent record soybean yield in Iowa (160 bu/acre) he bets
required on the order of 600 lbs of nitrogen per acre. However,
A 200 bushel/acre corn crop tops out at about 178 lbs/acre at
physiological maturity. The N-harvest index is around 0.64 as well, so
114 lbs/acre of the 178 is in the grain.
So, a soybean harvest at these yield levels removes much more N from
field than a corn harvest and both require about the same amount of soil N,
which comes from fertilizer and manure inputs and soil organic matter
decomposition.
If you measure change in soil N content over time in the corn-soybean
rotation, you will find there is a net loss of N from the system, which
translates into a net loss of soil organic matter. If you do the same
thing with a corn-corn rotation, you will find a net increase of N in the
system. This difference is driven primarily by the low crop residue
inputs in soybean compared to corn.
Unless we change the cropping system, N fixation in corn is
not a cure. Neither is reduced fertilizer N inputs. It would help,
but not as much as you might think, unless it caused farmers to change their
cropping system. Changing the cropping system is what caused the problem
in the first place.
Before
1913, when fertilizer made by Haber Bosch became commercially available, plants
got their nitrogen naturally. Farmers rotated crops, planting
nitrogen-fixing legumes in fields where they also grew cereals, they applied
manure from animals that had eaten nitrogen-rich feed, and/or the composted
nitrogen-rich remains of other crops. Where available, farmers used guano as
fertilizer, shipped far and wide from Pacific Islands, or nitrates from South
America, but by the turn of the 20th century, these sources of
reactive nitrogen were not enough to feed the growing world population.
Cropping
practices have changed dramatically in the last century, largely
because farmers can rely on synthetic fertilizer to enhance their crop yields. A sharp decrease in the diversity of crops
planted in the American midwest occurred over that 50 or 60 years, and now corn
and soybeans are the predominant crops there, with heavy reliance on synthetic
fertilizer. Haber Bosch has changed the way agriculture is done, with all
its consequences.
And,
Haber Bosch has also thus indirectly enabled dramatic population growth, making possible an increase in the
number of people on earth from close to 2 billion in 1900 to 7 1/2 billion
today. Erisman et al. write that "...the number of humans
supported per hectare of arable land has increased from 1.9 to 4.3 persons
between 1908 and 2008", and they estimate that probably half of us
wouldn't be alive today without Haber Bosch.
Of the total world population (solid line), an estimate is made of the number of people that could be sustained without reactive nitrogen from the Haber–Bosch process (long dashed line), also expressed as a percentage of the global population (short dashed line). The recorded increase in average fertilizer use per hectare of agricultural land (blue symbols) and the increase in per capita meat production (green symbols) is also shown. (Erisman, Nature Geoscience, 2009) |
Would
growing food that fixed nitrogen itself enable further population growth?
Not if what it would change is the way that nitrogen is made available to
plants, not the amount of food that can be grown. If
plants can be engineered to fix nitrogen, this could have beneficial environmental
effects, although biologically fixed nitrogen is also a pollution source. But, if we’re still spreading as much reactive nitrogen on
fields as we do now, regardless of how it’s made, this can’t attenuate the
environmental effects.
So, perhaps a law of nature that we must face is that every solution raises its own problems.
----------------------------
*Reactive nitrogen (Nr) includes inorganic chemically reduced forms of N (NHx)
[e.g., ammonia (NH3) and
ammonium ion (NH4+)],
inorganic chemically oxidized forms of N [e.g., nitrogen oxides (NOx),
nitric acid (HNO3),
nitrous oxide (N2O), N2O5,
HONO, peroxy acetyl compounds such as peroxyacytyl nitrate (PAN), and nitrate
ion (N3-)], as
well as organic compounds (e.g., urea, amines, amino acids, and proteins). From a 2011 EPA report, “Reactive Nitrogen in
the United States: An
Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences,
and Management Options”.
This
post was inspired and enhanced by a recent discussion among agronomists, ag
economists and geneticists, and comments, and improved with assistance from Matt Liebman. Any remaining
errors are my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment