LoraxAg Prompts a Look at Coal-based Fertilizer

After I wrote last week about a company called LoraxAg using waste coal to make farm fertilizer, commenters rightly pointed out that we should understand the technicalities of coal-based fertilizers before we condemn the stuff.

Of course that is a good policy, so I am now offering a deeper look into what this is all about. Coal as fertilizer? What the heck?

LoraxAg will use a process called coal gassification to convert the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the coal to produce urea and ammonia for fertilizer. In this process, coal is fed into a chemical reactor, where extreme heat and pressure break the chemical bonds in the coal to create a synthetic gas known as a syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The hydrogen portion of this gas is then combined with nitrogen to create anhydrous ammonia, which can be put directly on a field or reformulated to create other types of fertilizers.

Anhydrous ammonia fertilizer is popular among farmers because it contains a higher percentage of  nitrogen — 82 percent — than other nitrogen fertilizers. It is, however, "one of the more dangerous chemicals handled on the farm," University of Minnesota Extension Service tells us. And when used in excess is toxic to nearby waterways and their aquatic wildlife.

Ammonia fertilizer must be applied as a low-temperature liquid sprayed at high pressure, which creates a severe danger to workers. "In contact with your eyes, skin, or mucous membranes, ammonia will cause rapid dehydration and severe burns as it combines with the moisture of the body," according to University of Minnesota.

Ammonia in large quantities also majorly contributes to the acidification of the environment. Considering that ammonia is present in livestock manure, this is particularly true in areas where concentrated animal feeding operations are present. But sprayfields, where large dosages of ammonia are used, often in excess of what the field requires, also pose increased risk of ecological damage, particularly when they are near waterways and floodplains.

The chemical not only disturbs the gills of fish and thus kills them, but also directly contributes to the development of dead zones where oxygen is choked off and the life of a waterway decimated in places like the Gulf of Mexico, where the dead zone is the size of New Jersey.

So while I am no Luddite who says we should all just go back to sourcing all of the fertilizer for a massive food chain directly from a collection of doe-eye cows in the back paddock, I do think we can object to a company that produces anhydrous ammonia fertilizers to be used in great quantities on industrial monoculture farms taking on the name of a most famous environmental hero, the Lorax.

LoraxAg claims that it will produce its fertilizer without any emissions, which may be true, and which does get them a little green street cred, but I still think if we're talking about "speaking for the trees," we should avoid lauding a company that makes a business of creating a skin-burning, waterway-decimating chemical that will keep us addicted to an unsustainable way of food production as we move into a new century.

By the way, LoraxAg got slapped with a cease and desist order from Dr. Suess's people.

Photo: Katherine Gustafson