Ammonia gives a bad taste to nature and livestock

In an attempt to improve the quality of Dutch nature, Natura 2000 areas were designated and the Nitrogen Approach Program (PAS) was launched. It mainly meant that the agricultural sector had to take steps to improve the natural values. The sector made a sacrifice and it had an effect, or not. How ammonia gives a bad taste to livestock and nature. 

During the Roundtable on ammonia, the agricultural spokespersons in the House of Representatives were informed about ammonia. Central to this were the critical comments made in the report by Hanekamp, ​​Crok and Briggs: 'Ammonia in the Netherlands. Some critical scientific comments' on the results of Dutch policy.

During the session, more and more weaknesses in research and policy came to light. Are nature and the agricultural sector being played off against each other due to overdue research? Ingrid Jansen gave on behalf of the pig farmers, and probably also the other parties who called for a standstill, indicates that the sector is willing to cooperate with the measures, but then they must have an effect. And that is now very much the question.   

Gerard Velthof, nutrient management, was allowed to tell the story on behalf of Wageningen and Addo van Vul spoke on behalf of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). They were confronted by Elbert Dijkgraaf (SGP), professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He made it clear that he would do everything he could to prevent source data from being lost. They do not share that opinion at Wageningen. Papers, floppy disks and more containing the data from the original ammonia study were deemed uninteresting during relocations and were lost.  

'I also experienced that we went from paper to diskettes to yet other storage methods', says Dijkgraaf and makes it clear that there is no excuse. Velthof also had to admit that he had told Jan Cees Vogelaar, Mesdag, a year earlier that the data was still there, but that it was not intended that way. The source data is gone. 

In modern times a great sin when it comes to information on which policy is based, with major consequences, says Jaap Hanekamp. He says this for a reason, because worldwide there appears to be a lot of research that eventually got the title 'bullshit'. Only source data can prove that studies are correct. Even more remarkable that there is no discussion between researchers and other involved parties on an important subject such as this. "Something that always happens otherwise."

The interim result is that policy is still being drawn up on the basis of a 'pretty crude model' from 1984. 'Incomprehensible that WUR still uses the model.' What also plays a role here is that the credibility of the WUR is at stake and both Velthof and Van Vul barely respond to this. Which is cause for speculation, because why isn't there a stronger response to critical questions about an investigation that is highly regarded. Are they so sure that the results will be the same in a resit or do they expect that there will be no sequel in the end?

Jan Willem Erisman, former RIVM employee, acknowledges in any case that the uncertainties in the results were known at the time he left RIVM. Because it was already clear that ammonia was harmful, it was decided to draw up a policy. 'But it was never the intention to make policy solely on the basis of ammonia.'

To ensure better quality nature, more than just ammonia needs to be looked at. Esther Ouwehand, Party for the Animals (PvdD) asks for this and receives support from Vogelaar and Erisman. Where Henk Leenders, PvdA, would rather see much less livestock. Vogelaar puts his finger on another sore point here and that is the studies that disappeared in order to save costs. For example, the lichen research. It is also necessary because there is apparently a knowledge gap which underlines the emission and deposition. 'They turn out very differently than we expected.'        

To do the ammonia test again takes time, an estimated 2 years, and a lot of money. But the words of the experts show that this alone is not enough. Something is going on that has not yet been mapped out, which means that more time, energy and money should be spent on research into developments in nature reserves, which in turn has consequences for livestock farming, which is often located next to the areas. 

The threat is that the country-specific ammonia emissions will now ensure that the Netherlands remains under the NEC directive, says Velthof. 'When the standards are used, the Netherlands will go beyond them.' But shouldn't a researcher be delighted by the opportunity to do more research on a subject about which apparently much is still unknown. In the meantime, it pits livestock farming and nature against each other, while together they manage the area. Both are necessary for nature-inclusive agriculture, which Erisman advocates.  

A debate will follow after the election recess. This is necessary, because, for example, an answer must be given to the question whether tightening up the requirements for ammonia is worthwhile. 

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.