Stupid scientists. There they are thinking that sugarcane requires nitrogen fertiliser, when according to Pholostan it actually adds nitrogen to the ground. They should listen to the random internet guy!

Where do I claim that? Please do tell. What I said was thet sugarcane need far less fertilizer compared to corn.

Corn needs about 160 lb/acre, sugarcane needs about 90 lb/acre. And in the case of sugarcane about 70% of this need can be fullfilled with biological nitrogen fixiation. If you actually read the pdf you would know this.

Sugar cane fixes Nitrogen

• Different from corn, sugar cane may obtain up to 70% of its need of Nitrogen directly
from BNF BNF (Biological Nitrogen Fixation). This is accomplished by four types of
diazotrophic bacteria, living inside stalks (endophytic) and not at the roots (symbiotic):

• Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus, by far the most important
• Herbaspirillum seropedicae
• Herbaspirillum rubrisubalbicans
• Burkholderia brasiliensis

• They require good management of micronutrients, specially Molybdenum

•In organic cane cultivation, intense recycling of materials and the absolute absence
of burning process, permit self-sufficiency in Nitrogen, the most expensive fertilizer
for chemical corn cultivation, highly dependent on natural gas for urea synthesis

...intense recycling of materials and the absolute absence
of burning process, permits self-sufficiency in Nitrogen...

So, philistine pholostan, if you use the whole plant, you are not recycling any part of it, and especially not "intensely recycling" it. Ergo, self-sufficiency in nutrients is not possible. I'm glad we agree. So in the end we need fossil fuel inputs, or other inputs, as that pdf document shows (nitrogen is only one input).

It's only about 30 pounds per acre. You can easily source enough hydrogen gas from pyrolysis or gasification of a tiny fraction of the bagasse harvested from a field to produce this ammonia if you feel compelled to do so.

I thought that was obvious...