Ann: NeuRizer Ltd Presentation, page-158

I am certain and there is plenty of literature freely available which ascertains that the sequestration of atmospheric carbon via normal plant growth and function far out ways losses or release of carbon from the addition of urea. Carbon naturally cycles through the system, requiring N to allow efficient microbial activity. More N = More plant growth = higher carbon sequestration = increased exudation at the roots = increased microbial activity and cycling of nutrients through the system = release if CO2 and increases in soil organic carbon. The process is inevitable no matter what fertiliser is used. The % of nitrogen will influence the speed of cycling.

I agree with you, I’m not sure how stating that urea contains carbon and not stating whether this is a good or bad thing is either relevant or somewhat flawed.

Nitrous Oxide emissions would be the bigger worry with any nitrogen based fertiliser, but it can be minimised by timing urea application or using enzyme based products to reduce the losses associated with enzyme activity. It’s becoming more readily done in dryer areas!

at this point I feel like arguments are going around in circles on both sides.