shutterstock

Opinions Jaap Major

There is only one solution to the nitrogen debacle

June 13, 2022 - Boerenbusiness - 63 comments

Christianne van der Wal, the Minister of Nature and Nitrogen, has announced her plans. In various areas of the Netherlands, farmers have to disappear, voluntarily or not. She has attached a map, which indicates the future of our farmers. In her letter, only the clearing of the farmers is mentioned as a clear solution. The rest of the emitters, such as Schiphol, for example, are not taken into account.

Our farmers emit the natural nitrogen NH3. A single farmer may stay if he starts farming very extensively. Only the prices of its products will become much more expensive for consumers than they already are. This in stark contrast to other news from America. There the company has amogy an agricultural tractor converted with a fuel cell. This is fed with NH3 (ammonia). They are now going to convert a truck and in the future even say that ships can be built on ammonia. We also want to switch completely to sustainable electricity. This electricity must be stored by converting it into green hydrogen. This process causes great losses. If you use urine instead of water, the yield will be much greater. These new techniques therefore require a larger livestock

The following facts are also not included in the nitrogen decrees:

  • Research has shown that nitrogen emissions can no longer be measured outside a circle of a few hundred meters around a farm. The nitrogen from the barn precipitates almost immediately. This nitrogen emission is therefore not detrimental to nature in the area.
  • In the last 40 years, the goose population has increased more than tenfold. We now have almost 3 million geese. They produce an enormous amount of nitrogen that is emitted in the middle of the Natura 2000 area. These emissions do have adverse consequences for the poor nature.
  • The managers of the Natura 2000 areas use large grazers to eat the plants. These are thousands. These grazers also defecate in the middle of the Natura 2000 area and therefore have direct consequences for nitrogen emissions.
  • In areas that are not fertilized (ie the Natura 2000 areas), denitrification results in nitrogen emissions of up to 35 kilos of nitrogen per ha.
  • Farmers' lands absorb more nitrogen than they emit. Only the emissions are counted and the uptake of nitrogen by the crops is not counted.
  • The CO2 content in the air has increased 50 times over the past 1,5 years due to our prosperity. As a result, the plants grow faster and therefore need more nitrogen. Too little nitrogen is already available to many plants, which means that the plants contain too little protein. This reduces the insect population.

When you put these facts together, we have to ask ourselves to what extent we can blame agriculture. Isn't there much more nitrogen in the nature reserve due to the management of the nature managers themselves? Our Minister van der Wal continues to insist that agriculture must go. Her motivation is: the judge has spoken. She also hides behind Brussels. Very special when you realize that the Netherlands has imposed much stricter rules on itself than the EU.

The Netherlands completely destroyed
Nature needs to be improved and the government is trying to achieve this by reducing nitrogen emissions. The buyout of farmers will not help and in a few years the MOB will be in court again and will then sue the companies. Until the Netherlands is completely destroyed. After all, there are already scholars who say: if all the people and companies are gone from the Netherlands, the nitrogen emissions will still be too great because of what blows over from abroad.

The only solution is a revision of which nitrogen load is allowed in the Natura 2000 areas. We cannot protect that one plant that cannot withstand nitrogen. After all, the Netherlands is the delta of Europe, where the fertile slip from the rivers has been deposited for millions of years. These areas will never become poor nature. Government you are now going to burn your ships, while your new ships are not even designed in the drawing office yet.

Jaap Major
Low Zuthem

Boerenbusiness

below Boerenbusiness opinions are posted from authors who, in principle, give their opinion once Boerenbusiness.nl or from people who prefer to remain anonymous. Name and place of residence are always known to the editors.

© 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.

Selection Most read

More about

Dossier Nitrogen crisis
Comments
63 comments
It can freeze or thaw June 13, 2022
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/column/10898975/er-is-maar-een-solution-voor-het-stikstofdebacle]There is only one solution to the nitrogen debacle[/url]
Well-founded opinion, it just creates an artificial problem that just isn't there.

Agriculture is now Jut's head, that's nice and easy because many people don't care about all this, in other words it's a far from my bed show until the consumer is presented with the bill.
And then it's too late.

We just have to accept that the Netherlands is full. The club of Rome stated in the 60s that 12 million inhabitants is the limit!!!
Apparently nobody in The Hague dares to throw the bat in the henhouse about this?
Ruud Hendriks June 13, 2022
Mr Majoor bases his opinion on a number of facts that are not correct. I pass them by because there is enough confusion about nitrogen as it is, it is wrong for opinions like this to add to the confusion because the assumptions are wrong.

The facts on which Mr Majoor bases himself:
Fact 1: "Research has shown that nitrogen emissions can no longer be measured outside a circle of a few hundred meters around a farm. The nitrogen from the stable precipitates almost immediately. This nitrogen emission is therefore not detrimental to nature in the surroundings."
This is not correct at all. The concentration of ammonia is highest immediately around the barn, but due to the spread it drops quickly. However, within a radius of 500 meters only 5% of the ammonia precipitates, within a radius of 50 km this is 40% (for nitrogen oxide the percentages are roughly half at a greater distance).
Fact 2: "The managers of the Natura 2000 areas use large grazers to eat the plants. There are thousands of them. These grazers also defecate in the middle of the Natura 2000 area and therefore have a direct impact on nitrogen emissions."
The large grazers have no major consequences. They eat crops that grow on site with nitrogen that comes from the soil on site. The nitrogen from their manure does not add extra nitrogen to the local system. The geese that Mr Majoor also mentions do indeed. They graze on farmland during the day and then seek the peace and safety of nature and defecate for a while.
Fact 3: "In areas that are not fertilized (ie the Natura 2000 areas), denitrification results in nitrogen emissions of up to 35 kilos of nitrogen per ha".
Denitrification results in nitrogen oxides and nitrogen, not ammonia. Again, what is evading is nitrogen that is already there in the system, it is not added nitrogen that is the deposition from agriculture.
Fact 4: "Farmers' lands absorb more nitrogen than they emit. Only emissions are counted and nitrogen uptake by crops is not counted." Here all nitrogen is thrown into a heap. It is true that a lot of ammonia emissions are also returned to agricultural land. More than half of the Netherlands is farmland, so that makes sense. But all nitrogen taken together, agriculture loses almost half of the nitrogen it uses to water and air (that is 170 to 180 kg N/ha/yr. Agriculture in the Netherlands is the largest nitrogen emitter in Europe per hectare.
Fact 5: "The CO2 content in the air has increased 50 times in the last 1,5 years due to our prosperity. As a result, the plants grow faster and therefore need more nitrogen. Too little nitrogen available for many plants, which means that the plants contain too little protein, which reduces the insect population."
The C/N ratio has indeed shifted, but it is not the case that insects disappear as a result. The chemistry of agriculture is partly to blame for this. To use the CO2 increase as a tolerance construction for nitrogen is turning the world upside down.

Finally, it must be said that Mrs vd Wal does not disregard the other sectors, contrary to what Mr Majoor states. In her letter she indicates that the cabinet is working on nitrogen oxides parallel to agriculture for industry and mobility (policy program Climate and Energy and the Clean Air Agreement). In the short term, however, there is less to be achieved with regard to domestic targets. Most of it blows abroad.....

There is a lot to be said for the way in which agriculture is being squeezed and what a lack of clarity hangs over the sector. However, we don't get any further with opinions like this, where the facts are taken for granted.
It can freeze or thaw June 13, 2022
Your story is also incorrect, with fact 2 you state that the large grazers do not cause a nitrogen problem in nature areas, a cattle farmer does not do that either, after all, the grassland is fertilized with manure from the cows that have eaten that grass. And it has to be incorporated even when administered.

And the manure that would be too much has to be transported to the arable areas.
This also applies to intensive livestock farming, as most of the manure is sent to arable areas.

So you are also playing with the facts.
Subscriber
January June 13, 2022
Die Ruud Hendriks is paid by the government to twist facts
that that man is still a teacher and can tell our sons and daughters that nonsense
Ad June 13, 2022
Nicely substantiated Jaap but I miss a few things, namely the following. Rainwater and sewer overflows are getting busier, because they do not collect enough in the built-up area and during a downpour. Much less drug waste is dumped en masse, will probably go into the well or sewer. Penalties for cannabis cultivation have gone up, now it's more interesting to start a lab, and seems to pay more, this makes you think
Ad June 13, 2022
In addition, the people who throw a hell of a lot into our inland waters complaining about the return of the fisherman will only get worse.
Gerrit van der Kolk June 13, 2022
It is a pity, Ruud Hendriks, that you have no knowledge of the matter and yet believe that you are responding to this column and thus maintain the left-wing framing....
Albert outdoors June 13, 2022
Mr Hendriks, now I have another question for you about the nitrogen oxide. If I look at the nitrogen oxide map of the Netherlands, then Rotterdam, Port of Antwerp (also a lot of goods for the Netherlands) Utrecht Schiphol and Amsterdam are a fire source of nitrogen oxide, you also remove the A2 exactly, then you just say in your response that 20 % descends within 50 km, you can see that clearly on the map, because the east side of the Randstad is deep dark red. What happens then the next 50 to 100 km we have in the Netherlands most of the time south-southwest or westerly wind, calm is also possible. According to some of your colleagues in nitrogen scientists , 85 % of the nitrogen oxide is blown outside the Netherlands , sounds like a paper story to me . 2nd point, you nature nitrogen professionals will be right that nature can look better, but food, where do you think to grow it for our world population without consequences for nature, we in the Netherlands will not suffer from hunger, but there his countries !! Are you also going there this winter to explain what the Luxury Netherlands refuses to contribute to society, Albert Buitenhui
Subscriber
jk June 13, 2022
@ruud Hendriks, I just watched a piece of yours on YouTube about biodynamic agriculture. Now I wonder if you are really convinced that chamomile in a cow gut that stays in the ground for a while to contact Mercury and after a while to be dug up to make the compost better so that the compost with the property to promote the rooting of chamomile, to promote circulation with the property of the cow intestine and to make the compost so much better with the properties of Mercury, trade, movement and mercury(??), but this is not measurable and yet you are convinced, how do you arrive at your figures on nitrogen?
Subscriber
jk June 13, 2022
for the people who wonder what it is about, see link

https://youtu.be/uU41_dpodVc
Oortgiese June 13, 2022
Worldwide more and more deserts use the organic fertilizers to make them fertile. If we make the landscape in the Netherlands increasingly arid, less will grow and less CO 2 will be bound
Subscriber
frog June 14, 2022
mister Hendriks I watched your video on YouTube, I certainly want to go along with a number of aspects, especially the higher and better nutritional value, but what about crops that die prematurely due to fungal infection such as onions and potatoes?
By the way, I gave up on the story about your emigration plans to Mercury.
Subscriber
Ard June 14, 2022
I think that Mr Hendriks bases his facts on the AERIUS model.
Subscriber
Ard June 14, 2022
Just like politics.
Subscriber
Piet Pole June 14, 2022
It used to be acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and global warming.
Haven't you heard anything more about.. problem solved?!? Or evaporated... :)

Now we have to believe that there is climate change, that is better with the gullible people because idd yes the climate changes continuously .. problem??
That is made of it by putting CO2 in the dark, and that while I learned 'in the past' at school that that is good for trees and plants, not only good but NECESSARY for life!!

For hundreds of thousands of years, that has never been a problem, but pay attention, we now live in the reversed truth world since the corona "pandemic" where solutions are presented as problems, and where problems come from is seen in The Hague as solution!!
Just as there was only 1 conceivable solution for corona (for most in The Hague) the experimental poison jab.. All other (much better) solutions were banned, even criminalized and gagged.

It is now also the case with CO2 which is considered a 'problem' instead of a necessary thing that has always been there and (in almost all countries) still has never been a problem, and never will be because it is a myth made up by the wealthy elites to push their fascist agenda. And any sane person with a bit of common sense would never fall for that!

It is also becoming easier to recognize the agenda items and to put together the last pieces of the puzzle..., also because the puzzle is already largely ready...
Ruud Hendriks June 14, 2022
#hetkanvriesthooien: nature reserve only gets manure from the animals on site. That can never increase. Cows eat grass with concentrates from outside the farm plus fertilizer. Of the nitrogen in a dairy farm, 30 to 40% comes in milk and meat. The other 60 to 70% is surplus, a very different situation than in the nature reserve where there is no supply except for the deposition.
With regard to the nitrogen discussion, I believe that if you take arid nature as a starting point, you can close the tent. I agree that nitrogen has also disrupted the natural balance. but not alone. Acidification in the time when there was sulfur in the diesel and there was no flue gas cleaning also dealt a blow. If you do want a poor nature, then that requires a lot of regular impoverishment, just like single farming has done for centuries. The disadvantage is that not only the nitrogen is removed, all other minerals are also removed, so it may be that trace elements and calcium have to be supplied again. The Netherlands is a cultural landscape, self-contained and self-reliant nature in our postage stamp miutopian. Food production should not contribute to a continuous deterioration of our environment and climate, which in my opinion is still the case, but it should also not be the case that we should want to make the Netherlands a nature reserve where food is subordinate. If even BD farms are at risk that are only allowed to supply a maximum of 112 kg N/ha, then agriculture will become very difficult.

I am indeed a teacher and guide groups of farmers. Not everyone finds that a success. The fact that many people from the agricultural practice experience what I bring as valuable, even years later, I still see as a positive contribution.

As far as agriculture is concerned, I live in two or three worlds. That of numbers and calculations. I have been making mineral balances for decades with farmers, conventional and organic. The BD piece is a research area that I picked up because, for example, I regularly encountered very high utilization and very nice soil on BD companies and became curious how they managed that. See it as a farmer works in the measurable and weighable world of kilograms, but can also be convinced of his faith for which no hard evidence can be provided. In the BD area I try to get research going to test the images and experiences.

Indeed, acidification has largely been tackled (desulphurised diesel, flue gas cleaning, air scrubbers). Ozone problems also by regulating the chemistry of the refrigeration industry. Warming unfortunately not solved yet...

My view on circular agriculture can be heard and seen on youtube. A more visual 12-minute film about circular agriculture in more than 5 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbx9hd5TP2A&t=3486s

So far response to a number of questions, if I have missed something, I'm sure to hear it again.
Subscriber
50/50 June 14, 2022
And everyone has his
made homework?
Subscriber
frog June 14, 2022
ruud hendriks wrote:
#hetkanvriesthooien: nature reserve only gets manure from the animals on site. That can never increase. Cows eat grass with concentrates from outside the farm plus fertilizer. Of the nitrogen in a dairy farm, 30 to 40% comes in milk and meat. The other 60 to 70% is surplus, a very different situation than in the nature reserve where there is no supply except for the deposition.
With regard to the nitrogen discussion, I believe that if you take arid nature as a starting point, you can close the tent. I agree that nitrogen has also disrupted the natural balance. but not alone. Acidification in the time when there was sulfur in the diesel and there was no flue gas cleaning also dealt a blow. If you do want a poor nature, then that requires a lot of regular impoverishment, just like single farming has done for centuries. The disadvantage is that not only the nitrogen is removed, all other minerals are also removed, so it may be that trace elements and calcium have to be supplied again. The Netherlands is a cultural landscape, self-contained and self-reliant nature in our postage stamp miutopian. Food production should not contribute to a continuous deterioration of our environment and climate, which in my opinion is still the case, but it should also not be the case that we should want to make the Netherlands a nature reserve where food is subordinate. If even BD farms are at risk that are only allowed to supply a maximum of 112 kg N/ha, then agriculture will become very difficult.

I am indeed a teacher and guide groups of farmers. Not everyone finds that a success. The fact that many people from the agricultural practice experience what I bring as valuable, even years later, I still see as a positive contribution.

As far as agriculture is concerned, I live in two or three worlds. That of numbers and calculations. I have been making mineral balances for decades with farmers, conventional and organic. The BD piece is a research area that I picked up because, for example, I regularly encountered very high utilization and very nice soil on BD companies and became curious how they managed that. See it as a farmer works in the measurable and weighable world of kilograms, but can also be convinced of his faith for which no hard evidence can be provided. In the BD area I try to get research going to test the images and experiences.

Indeed, acidification has largely been tackled (desulphurised diesel, flue gas cleaning, air scrubbers). Ozone problems also by regulating the chemistry of the refrigeration industry. Warming unfortunately not solved yet...

My view on circular agriculture can be heard and seen on youtube. A more visual 12-minute film about circular agriculture in more than 5 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbx9hd5TP2A&t=3486s

So far response to a number of questions, if I have missed something, I'm sure to hear it again.
And what about the nutritional value of crops that die prematurely due to fungal infestation? This question has not yet been answered.
For the rest, I think it's a very interesting discussion that we can all learn something from.
Leo van der Beek June 14, 2022
Young people, help me. On the one hand I have been hearing for forty years that nature suffers from agriculture. My nose tells me that the increasingly large companies, especially pigs and chickens, smell terribly. Isn't all that true? In the meantime, the number of farmers has halved. Fewer and fewer of our children can become farmers. The investments are high, the earnings are small. I hear about the pig cycle, three years of loss, one year of gain. Every year hoping for a good barbeque season because otherwise.. This has to do with economy. Small business no loan. Fewer and fewer Dutch people want to work in agriculture, slaughterhouses, you name it. Foreigners and weird situations. Enter from Amazon and Ukraine, in the same breath with famine. Barn fires, rains or no rains, whether that's normal or not. Peat meadows have sunk in by half a meter in the past 40 years. Then there are the pesticides. Just a grasp. And that's all just nonsense? I'd like to believe it, but please answer honestly.
Subscriber
January June 14, 2022
and what do you eat, Mr. van der Beek?
yes we also produce for the european market, shouldn't those people eat?
do you drive a car made in the Netherlands?
is your mobile made in the Netherlands
your Washing Machine, why is the Netherlands proud of ASML and not of the farmers?
Subscriber
peta June 14, 2022
Leo van der Beek wrote:
Young people, help me. On the one hand I have been hearing for forty years that nature suffers from agriculture. My nose tells me that the increasingly large companies, especially pigs and chickens, smell terribly. Isn't all that true? In the meantime, the number of farmers has halved. Fewer and fewer of our children can become farmers. The investments are high, the earnings are small. I hear about the pig cycle, three years of loss, one year of gain. Every year hoping for a good barbeque season because otherwise.. This has to do with economy. Small business no loan. Fewer and fewer Dutch people want to work in agriculture, slaughterhouses, you name it. Foreigners and weird situations. Enter from Amazon and Ukraine, in the same breath with famine. Barn fires, rains or no rains, whether that's normal or not. Peat meadows have sunk in by half a meter in the past 40 years. Then there are the pesticides. Just a grasp. And that's all just nonsense? I'd like to believe it, but please answer honestly.
And what about human drug residues in surface water? And what about climate change caused by human actions? Under the melting glaciers one finds ancient settlements! Who put it there then?
Leo June 14, 2022
I understand guys. It's a mess from all sides. But I really expect something different from constructive entrepreneurs than forever digging in the sand and pointing at others. In the past, a hundred tons went over a hectare and you could eat DDT. And grandpa smoked and turned ninety and everything was nonsense too. Yet a lot has changed for the better.
Subscriber
peter June 14, 2022
ruud hendriks wrote:
#hetkanvriesthooien: nature reserve only gets manure from the animals on site. That can never increase. Cows eat grass with concentrates from outside the farm plus fertilizer. Of the nitrogen in a dairy farm, 30 to 40% comes in milk and meat. The other 60 to 70% is surplus, a very different situation than in the nature reserve where there is no supply except for the deposition.
With regard to the nitrogen discussion, I believe that if you take arid nature as a starting point, you can close the tent. I agree that nitrogen has also disrupted the natural balance. but not alone. Acidification in the time when there was sulfur in the diesel and there was no flue gas cleaning also dealt a blow. If you do want a poor nature, then that requires a lot of regular impoverishment, just like single farming has done for centuries. The disadvantage is that not only the nitrogen is removed, all other minerals are also removed, so it may be that trace elements and calcium have to be supplied again. The Netherlands is a cultural landscape, self-contained and self-reliant nature in our postage stamp miutopian. Food production should not contribute to a continuous deterioration of our environment and climate, which in my opinion is still the case, but it should also not be the case that we should want to make the Netherlands a nature reserve where food is subordinate. If even BD farms are at risk that are only allowed to supply a maximum of 112 kg N/ha, then agriculture will become very difficult.

I am indeed a teacher and guide groups of farmers. Not everyone finds that a success. The fact that many people from the agricultural practice experience what I bring as valuable, even years later, I still see as a positive contribution.

As far as agriculture is concerned, I live in two or three worlds. That of numbers and calculations. I have been making mineral balances for decades with farmers, conventional and organic. The BD piece is a research area that I picked up because, for example, I regularly encountered very high utilization and very nice soil on BD companies and became curious how they managed that. See it as a farmer works in the measurable and weighable world of kilograms, but can also be convinced of his faith for which no hard evidence can be provided. In the BD area I try to get research going to test the images and experiences.

Indeed, acidification has largely been tackled (desulphurised diesel, flue gas cleaning, air scrubbers). Ozone problems also by regulating the chemistry of the refrigeration industry. Warming unfortunately not solved yet...

My view on circular agriculture can be heard and seen on youtube. A more visual 12-minute film about circular agriculture in more than 5 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbx9hd5TP2A&t=3486s

So far response to a number of questions, if I have missed something, I'm sure to hear it again.
Ruud, agricultural companies also know drainage; milk, meat some sell grass and cattle leave the farm. Can they compensate for this with a supply of concentrates (like substances)? Ultimately, they also fulfill a function of valorizing pressed pulp, soybean meal, brewer's grain, citrus pulp, etc. This makes a number of products even cheaper for the consumer. The discharge in a nature reserve? Do you have an idea of ​​this in relation to the supply by, for example, geese?
HWTV June 14, 2022
We have all become entangled in our own laws. The students have each developed their own theories in their field, but have completely lost the overview. With 18 million people, who also have to earn a living, you cannot want to have the nature of 100 years ago when there were 6 million people in the Netherlands, with a much lower standard of living.
Ruud Hendriks June 15, 2022
#Peter, compensating for drainage is only logical. If you don't, it will stop, it's as simple as that. As long as what people eat goes through sewers to landfill, say about 45% of the nitrogen, agriculture will have to tap external sources in addition to leguminous plants to compensate. Hence my plea not to treat sewage sludge / manure as waste, despite all the limitations that this also has. Current agriculture also has a lot of losses, for nitrogen that is about as much as is removed. Losses will never become 0, but can be reduced. N utilization of arable farming 55%, dairy cattle 30 to 40% (23% including losses from concentrate cultivation). This is not sustainable. Arable farming on good soil can meet the nitrogen requirements with 20% to 25% legumes. The N utilization is already approaching 80% on some farms. Dairy cattle can also provide their own nitrogen at grass/clover.

In fact, nitrogen could be the smallest problem, we can bind it again from the air. The losses that have been incurred will eventually end up there. The loss of all other minerals is more difficult, they have to be brought in from outside the company.

In various reactions it can also be recognized that one of the problems is that we are simply with a lot of people and that we also consume ourselves drowsy in the rich west. In NL we use 4 times more than the globe can handle (yes, I might as well participate.......). Every year in mid-April we have already used up our share of energy and raw materials for that year. The rest of the year we are from other countries and using up our children. Agriculture is only one of the transition areas if we also want to give (grand)children a chance.

From a more holistic view of fungi in potato and onion: fungi are the clearers in nature. When they occur in crops that are still growing, this is a signal of loss of vitality, life force. The cleanup starts earlier than intended. The fact that you can lose part of the yield or sometimes an entire crop as a result is annoying, but with enough risk spread it can be absorbed / rather not, but in organic cultivation it is sometimes part of the deal. Variety selection/resistance breeding is therefore of great importance to the organic grower, in addition to cultivation strategy. Attention to a vital and extensive root system and a lot of soil activity is crucial in variety selection and soil management.

There are more and more 'robust varieties' that can also mature without chemicals. Crispr cas as a method is a point of discussion, the flexible think it an acceptable method, the precise do not. In the biodynamic world, research methods are being sought that can visualize the vitality and vitality of food. Then you can also substantiate what are and are not responsible methods. But yes, small sector, the research budget is not sloshing over the skirting boards unfortunately.
Subscriber
frog June 15, 2022
Then another serious question, can we biologically dynamically feed the world? And of course I don't mean from the Netherlands but just grow food worldwide in this way?
Subscriber
time bomb June 15, 2022
Each time the greens, who cause nuisance, and not the farmers. Would the citizen realize that farmers are the largest producers of oxygen, and storage of co2. What does Schiphol, tatasteel, and hundreds of other factories do. The farmers produce a lot of oxygen and store a lot of co2. The greens need to think about that too, and not just about oxygen-producing trees.
A few more years, and there will be famine, also in the Netherlands. A pity that the weakest in society suffer the most. They should have planted much less forests and preserved agricultural land.
It can freeze or thaw June 15, 2022
ruud hendriks wrote:
#hetkanvriesthooien: nature reserve only gets manure from the animals on site. That can never increase. Cows eat grass with concentrates from outside the farm plus fertilizer. Of the nitrogen in a dairy farm, 30 to 40% comes in milk and meat. The other 60 to 70% is surplus, a very different situation than in the nature reserve where there is no supply except for the deposition.
With regard to the nitrogen discussion, I believe that if you take arid nature as a starting point, you can close the tent. I agree that nitrogen has also disrupted the natural balance. but not alone. Acidification in the time when there was sulfur in the diesel and there was no flue gas cleaning also dealt a blow. If you do want a poor nature, then that requires a lot of regular impoverishment, just like single farming has done for centuries. The disadvantage is that not only the nitrogen is removed, all other minerals are also removed, so it may be that trace elements and calcium have to be supplied again. The Netherlands is a cultural landscape, self-contained and self-reliant nature in our postage stamp miutopian. Food production should not contribute to a continuous deterioration of our environment and climate, which in my opinion is still the case, but it should also not be the case that we should want to make the Netherlands a nature reserve where food is subordinate. If even BD farms are at risk that are only allowed to supply a maximum of 112 kg N/ha, then agriculture will become very difficult.

I am indeed a teacher and guide groups of farmers. Not everyone finds that a success. The fact that many people from the agricultural practice experience what I bring as valuable, even years later, I still see as a positive contribution.

As far as agriculture is concerned, I live in two or three worlds. That of numbers and calculations. I have been making mineral balances for decades with farmers, conventional and organic. The BD piece is a research area that I picked up because, for example, I regularly encountered very high utilization and very nice soil on BD companies and became curious how they managed that. See it as a farmer works in the measurable and weighable world of kilograms, but can also be convinced of his faith for which no hard evidence can be provided. In the BD area I try to get research going to test the images and experiences.

Indeed, acidification has largely been tackled (desulphurised diesel, flue gas cleaning, air scrubbers). Ozone problems also by regulating the chemistry of the refrigeration industry. Warming unfortunately not solved yet...

My view on circular agriculture can be heard and seen on youtube. A more visual 12-minute film about circular agriculture in more than 5 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbx9hd5TP2A&t=3486s

So far response to a number of questions, if I have missed something, I'm sure to hear it again.
A livestock farmer may not supply an unlimited amount of manure to his land, the surplus must be processed or transported to areas where there are shortages.
Arable farmers in these areas are also increasingly encountering the perverse measures imposed by the government.

Someone once said: The soil is getting hungry and unable to grow good crops.

It is a fact that soil fertility and thus the structure of the soil in the Netherlands is declining.

Make no mistake about everything TE stands for is never a good thing, but we as an agricultural sector need to start propagating that livestock and crops cannot live on the air alone.
jaap major June 15, 2022
Dear Mr Hendricks.

I have read your statement and would like to answer it anyway.
On fact 1 There are various studies with measurements that show that after 200 meters around the barn, the nitrogen can hardly be measured anymore. You say the opposite. This is precisely why government calculation models are so unreliable. How can our scientists have such different outcomes. Is it about who pays them?
Fact 2 The great grazers. There is no difference between a large grazer at the farmer or the nature agency.
In fact, several farmers let their animals graze in a nature reserve, because the nature manager himself has too few animals for maintenance of the nature reserve.
It is true that the farmer supplies fertilizer and concentrates, but that is the fault of the people themselves. The farmer has his cycle pointer beating. He transports his products to the consumer (we humans). In this way it constantly loses essential raw materials (nitrogen, potassium, phosphate). After all, we consumers do not return our faeces to the farmer. He must supplement these losses by means of fertilizer and concentrate.
Fact 3 The measured nitrogen is and turns out to be nitrogen. Here it is pointed out to the farmers that they are guilty, while it also comes from the nature reserve itself. In a nature reserve in Drenthe, measurements showed that almost all the nitrogen measured came from the nature reserve itself, but the farmer is blamed. This can't be true.
Fact 4 does not give you an answer that the nitrogen absorbed by the crops is not counted.
fact 5 Nitrogen-loving insects live in our fertile country. This population is now declining, one group of scientists says, and the other group of scientists says the nitrogen is too high. Who should we believe? 100 percent contradictory.
One thing is certain, nh3 is a natural nitrogen and nox does not belong in nature.
There are different ways to farm, conventional or organic. You abhor habitual.
I think we need both groups of farmers. Let's respect each other. Make no mistake, the difference between conventional farmers and organic farmers is not that big anymore.
You also say that the nox blows for the most part abroad. This means that the nox from abroad is precipitated by us. How can you blame the farmers alone?
Once again the government needs a scapegoat and has found it by blaming the farmers.
Subscriber
Gwoon June 15, 2022
jaap major wrote:
Dear Mr Hendricks.

I have read your statement and would like to answer it anyway.
On fact 1 There are various studies with measurements that show that after 200 meters around the barn, the nitrogen can hardly be measured anymore. You say the opposite. This is precisely why government calculation models are so unreliable. How can our scientists have such different outcomes. Is it about who pays them?
Fact 2 The great grazers. There is no difference between a large grazer at the farmer or the nature agency.
In fact, several farmers let their animals graze in a nature reserve, because the nature manager himself has too few animals for maintenance of the nature reserve.
It is true that the farmer supplies fertilizer and concentrates, but that is the fault of the people themselves. The farmer has his cycle pointer beating. He transports his products to the consumer (we humans). In this way it constantly loses essential raw materials (nitrogen, potassium, phosphate). After all, we consumers do not return our faeces to the farmer. He must supplement these losses by means of fertilizer and concentrate.
Fact 3 The measured nitrogen is and turns out to be nitrogen. Here it is pointed out to the farmers that they are guilty, while it also comes from the nature reserve itself. In a nature reserve in Drenthe, measurements showed that almost all the nitrogen measured came from the nature reserve itself, but the farmer is blamed. This can't be true.
Fact 4 does not give you an answer that the nitrogen absorbed by the crops is not counted.
fact 5 Nitrogen-loving insects live in our fertile country. This population is now declining, one group of scientists says, and the other group of scientists says the nitrogen is too high. Who should we believe? 100 percent contradictory.
One thing is certain, nh3 is a natural nitrogen and nox does not belong in nature.
There are different ways to farm, conventional or organic. You abhor habitual.
I think we need both groups of farmers. Let's respect each other. Make no mistake, the difference between conventional farmers and organic farmers is not that big anymore.
You also say that the nox blows for the most part abroad. This means that the nox from abroad is precipitated by us. How can you blame the farmers alone?
Once again the government needs a scapegoat and has found it by blaming the farmers.
@Jaap Majoor...is very clearly stated...but who pays - determines what should be included in the report and what should not be mentioned...government then hides in these kinds of reports and measurements. How would the results turn out if this were also applied to "traffic, industrial, port areas and airports? There is no answer to that.
It can freeze or thaw June 15, 2022
jaap major wrote:
Dear Mr Hendricks.

I have read your statement and would like to answer it anyway.
On fact 1 There are various studies with measurements that show that after 200 meters around the barn, the nitrogen can hardly be measured anymore. You say the opposite. This is precisely why government calculation models are so unreliable. How can our scientists have such different outcomes. Is it about who pays them?
Fact 2 The great grazers. There is no difference between a large grazer at the farmer or the nature agency.
In fact, several farmers let their animals graze in a nature reserve, because the nature manager himself has too few animals for maintenance of the nature reserve.
It is true that the farmer supplies fertilizer and concentrates, but that is the fault of the people themselves. The farmer has his cycle pointer beating. He transports his products to the consumer (we humans). In this way it constantly loses essential raw materials (nitrogen, potassium, phosphate). After all, we consumers do not return our faeces to the farmer. He must supplement these losses by means of fertilizer and concentrate.
Fact 3 The measured nitrogen is and turns out to be nitrogen. Here it is pointed out to the farmers that they are guilty, while it also comes from the nature reserve itself. In a nature reserve in Drenthe, measurements showed that almost all the nitrogen measured came from the nature reserve itself, but the farmer is blamed. This can't be true.
Fact 4 does not give you an answer that the nitrogen absorbed by the crops is not counted.
fact 5 Nitrogen-loving insects live in our fertile country. This population is now declining, one group of scientists says, and the other group of scientists says the nitrogen is too high. Who should we believe? 100 percent contradictory.
One thing is certain, nh3 is a natural nitrogen and nox does not belong in nature.
There are different ways to farm, conventional or organic. You abhor habitual.
I think we need both groups of farmers. Let's respect each other. Make no mistake, the difference between conventional farmers and organic farmers is not that big anymore.
You also say that the nox blows for the most part abroad. This means that the nox from abroad is precipitated by us. How can you blame the farmers alone?
Once again the government needs a scapegoat and has found it by blaming the farmers.
Good story I get the idea that Mr. Hendriks wants to go back to the Ot en Sien time, but it is not realistic.

I am convinced that if you put 10 chemists together you will get 10 different results.

One more example to conclude.

In Flevoland, N measurements were taken at drains, which shows that most N disappears in the ditch in nature reserves. The report inexplicably disappeared the reason is guessable.
Joshua June 15, 2022
good grace
The fact that Mr. Ruud Hendrikx can give such one-sided, meter-long reactions in the middle of the day as a civil servant who has nothing to do and as a rejected environmental fanatic does not take the human dimension into account is astonishing.
Subscriber
Bottoms June 15, 2022
There are so many animals in the Oostvaardersplassen that the surface water contains so much nitrogen and phosphate that it cannot be pumped directly into the IJsselmeer or Markermeer.
In order to reduce the percentage of nitrogen and phosphate, surface water from the agricultural area of ​​southern Flevoland is added.
Ruud Hendriks June 15, 2022
@Bass. I wouldn't call the Oostvaardersplassen normal nature either. Pumping it out in a few years, giving you an explosion of growth. Then put beasts in it without enemies and a fence around it. Then it will eat and poop. More of an ecological toy from nature creators.
Ruud Hendriks June 15, 2022
Hi Jaap, in response to your answer.
At 1. The figures about nitrogen distances are legion, that certainly goes further than 200 meters. Unfortunately I can't list them here.
Re 2. Grazing by farmers and by nature authorities are really different. It is logical that the farmer also supplies again because of the transport to consumers. However, to get milk from a cow, much more has to be put in than is removed in product. The difference enters as a loss of soil and air. From agriculture in the Netherlands, the nitrogen discharge to the consumer and the loss to soil and air are about the same. (2020 43% and 46% respectively of the nitrogen supply). Arable farming uses 55%, dairy cattle 30 to 40%.
At 3. The nitrogen that comes from nature reserves can come out in 2 ways. Deposition on leaves (forests filter strongly) that washes out; it comes from outside. Net decomposition of organic matter, which can be a consequence of the disintegration of the ecosystem due to eutrophication/acidification/desiccation. Nature that is independent and stable does not lose appreciable nitrogen, crop growth in spring/summer and leaf digestion in autumn/winter are in equilibrium
At 4. I don't understand how it is meant here. How is nitrogen absorbed by crops not counted?
At 5. Nitrogen-loving insects can easily decrease when there is more nitrogen. All insects are declining strongly, which is where chemistry contributes, among other things. More nitrogen will not compensate for the decrease due to other factors.
NH3 is a natural substance. NOx too. It comes from any soil and from manure because nitrate is partly converted into NOx under oxygen-poor conditions. Naturalness is not a distinguishing aspect for NH3 and NOx.
As far as debt is concerned, it is certainly not only placed on farmers, measures for industry and transport will follow in the summer. That they don't all bring that out together is inconvenient, though. NH3 is the most harmful to nature. NH3 mainly comes from agriculture, so that's why the pressure on the boiler is now extra high.
I agree that the nitrogen situation in agriculture is unsustainable. Losing almost half of the nitrogen input is unfortunately too much. The way in which the measures are implemented and communicated resembles panic football. Money spent on buying out is eternal sin. I understand that there are too many pigs and chickens and something has to be done there. Dairy cattle is a branch that can be ground-bound, so that much more attention can be paid to it so that companies can continue to exist. That is more money spent than buying out.
@ Joshua: short answers become a caricature, no one is the wiser. You don't even know half the times I work. Maybe focus on the content instead of the person? PS: this is a late night response.
Subscriber
peter June 16, 2022
ruud Hendriks wrote:
#Peter, compensating for drainage is only logical. If you don't, it will stop, it's as simple as that. As long as what people eat goes through sewers to landfill, say about 45% of the nitrogen, agriculture will have to tap external sources in addition to leguminous plants to compensate. Hence my plea not to treat sewage sludge / manure as waste, despite all the limitations that this also has. Current agriculture also has a lot of losses, for nitrogen that is about as much as is removed. Losses will never become 0, but can be reduced. N utilization of arable farming 55%, dairy cattle 30 to 40% (23% including losses from concentrate cultivation). This is not sustainable. Arable farming on good soil can meet the nitrogen requirements with 20% to 25% legumes. The N utilization is already approaching 80% on some farms. Dairy cattle can also provide their own nitrogen at grass/clover.

In fact, nitrogen could be the smallest problem, we can bind it again from the air. The losses that have been incurred will eventually end up there. The loss of all other minerals is more difficult, they have to be brought in from outside the company.

In various reactions it can also be recognized that one of the problems is that we are simply with a lot of people and that we also consume ourselves drowsy in the rich west. In NL we use 4 times more than the globe can handle (yes, I might as well participate.......). Every year in mid-April we have already used up our share of energy and raw materials for that year. The rest of the year we are from other countries and using up our children. Agriculture is only one of the transition areas if we also want to give (grand)children a chance.

From a more holistic view of fungi in potato and onion: fungi are the clearers in nature. When they occur in crops that are still growing, this is a signal of loss of vitality, life force. The cleanup starts earlier than intended. The fact that you can lose part of the yield or sometimes an entire crop as a result is annoying, but with enough risk spread it can be absorbed / rather not, but in organic cultivation it is sometimes part of the deal. Variety selection/resistance breeding is therefore of great importance to the organic grower, in addition to cultivation strategy. Attention to a vital and extensive root system and a lot of soil activity is crucial in variety selection and soil management.

There are more and more 'robust varieties' that can also mature without chemicals. Crispr cas as a method is a point of discussion, the flexible think it an acceptable method, the precise do not. In the biodynamic world, research methods are being sought that can visualize the vitality and vitality of food. Then you can also substantiate what are and are not responsible methods. But yes, small sector, the research budget is not sloshing over the skirting boards unfortunately.
Accepting losses is also an art. Of course, losses should not be accepted indefinitely, but how do you look at it, loss to drinking water is unacceptable, we quickly agree, but is loss via ditch water, which then follows the route that eventually ends up in the sea and has an influence there? also harmful advice on the fish stock? You can also look at the yield of the loss is> food, employment.
Aviation, recently it appears that quite a few (N) losses are not included in the calculations. The industry also produces for export, is that acceptable? Nature, the urine of a cow in a nature reserve does not release ammonia???
With the total I want to say; we have to make choices and bear the consequences. Netherlands a nature reserve???? Fine, just say that, pass a law that from 2025 all agricultural activities are criminal and ruin the sector rigorously.
The robust varieties you are talking about have always been there, but the studies cost money, and where is the money?? go to novartis, bayer, etc. There the money is splashing over the skirting boards (it even flows over them). But they have different interests.
Subscriber
frog June 16, 2022
I have just read that Schiphol has to shrink enormously due to noise standards, if we just close Schiphol now, we will immediately have solved a large part of the nitrogen problem, especially given all the transport movements around it and the employees can work elsewhere. An additional advantage is that our citizens can go on holiday less as a result and therefore have more money left over for expensive food!
Subscriber
time bomb June 16, 2022
bass wrote:
There are so many animals in the Oostvaardersplassen that the surface water contains so much nitrogen and phosphate that it cannot be pumped directly into the IJsselmeer or Markermeer.
In order to reduce the percentage of nitrogen and phosphate, surface water from the agricultural area of ​​southern Flevoland is added.
This is also in geese areas.
Ruud Hendriks June 16, 2022
@Peter, losses are part of agriculture, it is indeed the extent to which. Now it is almost half the nitrogen. Apart from the environmental discussion, that is a lot of money. On average 170 to 180 kg/ha is lost at the current price around €350 per ha. In livestock farming it is more than in arable farming.
Nitrogen from other sectors must just as clearly be identified and therefore reduced. As far as I'm concerned, aviation should be much more 'up' to put it in those words.
Incidentally, urine and manure from natural cows are different from those from lactating cows. It is not for nothing that a farmer does not give natural clippings to lactating cows. There is not enough nitrogen in it to produce.
It's a pity that everything is so sharp now, as if everything is black and white. I miss the conversation about how agricultural production can be extensified, where the moors and sand dunes are not my norm. And the conversation about how to generate a good income. Preferably from the products, but I don't think that is feasible in the short term and in a global market. Shared income from society?
Subscriber
epv June 16, 2022
yield reduction in organic farming is at least 25%. Harvest security also decreases enormously. while there is currently only limited organic farming. If the percentage of organic farming were to increase to 50%, the harvest security would drop even further. Then €350/ha of nitrogen loss is nothing. And then the other environmental aspects: Burning weeds, how much gas does that cost, how many beetles and beetles die as a result, Hoeing also kills many insects. Migrant workers are not to be dragged on. The first biologists are already switching back to normal. Sales stall, retailer does not want to pay the price and the consumer ignores it, because he also has to make ends meet with the current cost increases in energy, interest and groceries.
prosperity and overpopulation have a price,
shoemakers June 16, 2022
Apparently organic is currently cheaper than usual, that's what it's worth, if you want to eat that junk, you can't take your own seriously anymore, forget about destroying bird nests, it's a total disillusionment, but seeing blind, that is the norm in this shitty country, don't look anywhere for the facts, but just without considering reality important, continue to destroy everything, thanks to liar Rutten, who gave Kaag everything he wanted, just because he thinks his function is more important as all he should stand for
It can freeze or thaw June 17, 2022
epv wrote:
yield reduction in organic farming is at least 25%. Harvest security also decreases enormously. while there is currently only limited organic farming. If the percentage of organic farming were to increase to 50%, the harvest security would drop even further. Then €350/ha of nitrogen loss is nothing. And then the other environmental aspects: Burning weeds, how much gas does that cost, how many beetles and beetles die as a result, Hoeing also kills many insects. Migrant workers are not to be dragged on. The first biologists are already switching back to normal. Sales stall, retailer does not want to pay the price and the consumer ignores it, because he also has to make ends meet with the current cost increases in energy, interest and groceries.
prosperity and overpopulation have a price,
Good story, the question is how sustainable organic is.

What always surprises me is that in many nature reserves there is a mowing regime that mowing is only allowed from a certain date in order to protect bird nests.

What I see at the biologists from April onwards, the whole lot is continuously hoeed and tilled and that several times. There will no longer be a bird's nest on the lot.

This has nothing to do with nitrogen that the discussion is now about, but taking a slightly broader view of how the world works would suit some parties.
Subscriber
jaap major June 17, 2022
Dear Mr Hendricks. Of course, the cow takes in more than it returns to us. After all, he has to move all day, so most of the energy is lost in movement and not in losses to the bottom. Many areas are only suitable for grassland. The cow converts this grass into dairy products, meat and precious gold called manure for us.
So a 30 to 40 % return can be right. For us, the cow in the nature reserve has a return of zero percent. He only supplies manure in the Natura 2000 area.
Nox is mainly released from the combustion of fossil fuels and this disrupts the nitrogen cycle.
Jaap Major
Ruud Hendriks June 17, 2022
Dear Jaap, it was all about nitrogen, minerals, not about energy. That is also an issue, but separate from the discussion above.
2/3 of the nitrogen in dairy farming is lost again. Converting grass and producing manure and milk from it involves a lot of losses (not for everything, nitrogen does, phosphate not). It is no different, although there is certainly room to limit that.
The cow in nature produces no products, but the input (except time) is also 0. Does not receive concentrates, the feed (natural pasture) is not fertilized.
The input in agriculture is 685 million kg of nitrogen each year, which comes from abroad via concentrates or from fertilizers. That produces a lot of manure, much more than would be available in NL on the basis of soil dependence. What we do not use is therefore an environmentally harmful surplus. The culture cow is a 'transit cow.' The natural cow is a 'circulation cow', it can never supply more nitrogen than was already in the ground on site. That cow does not enrich, it circulates locally.
NOx is indeed also disruptive, but has a much slower effect than NH3. NH3 is a directly acting mineral form, NOx is a more stable form that does not immediately have a fertilising effect.
Subscriber
frog June 17, 2022
ruud hendriks wrote:
Dear Jaap, it was all about nitrogen, minerals, not about energy. That is also an issue, but separate from the discussion above.
2/3 of the nitrogen in dairy farming is lost again. Converting grass and producing manure and milk from it involves a lot of losses (not for everything, nitrogen does, phosphate not). It is no different, although there is certainly room to limit that.
The cow in nature produces no products, but the input (except time) is also 0. Does not receive concentrates, the feed (natural pasture) is not fertilized.
The input in agriculture is 685 million kg of nitrogen each year, which comes from abroad via concentrates or from fertilizers. That produces a lot of manure, much more than would be available in NL on the basis of soil dependence. What we do not use is therefore an environmentally harmful surplus. The culture cow is a 'transit cow.' The natural cow is a 'circulation cow', it can never supply more nitrogen than was already in the ground on site. That cow does not enrich, it circulates locally.
NOx is indeed also disruptive, but has a much slower effect than NH3. NH3 is a directly acting mineral form, NOx is a more stable form that does not immediately have a fertilising effect.
we come back to my previous question, can we feed the whole world in a biodynamic way mister Hendriks?
Subscriber
time bomb June 17, 2022
frog wrote:
ruud hendriks wrote:
Dear Jaap, it was all about nitrogen, minerals, not about energy. That is also an issue, but separate from the discussion above.
2/3 of the nitrogen in dairy farming is lost again. Converting grass and producing manure and milk from it involves a lot of losses (not for everything, nitrogen does, phosphate not). It is no different, although there is certainly room to limit that.
The cow in nature produces no products, but the input (except time) is also 0. Does not receive concentrates, the feed (natural pasture) is not fertilized.
The input in agriculture is 685 million kg of nitrogen each year, which comes from abroad via concentrates or from fertilizers. That produces a lot of manure, much more than would be available in NL on the basis of soil dependence. What we do not use is therefore an environmentally harmful surplus. The culture cow is a 'transit cow.' The natural cow is a 'circulation cow', it can never supply more nitrogen than was already in the ground on site. That cow does not enrich, it circulates locally.
NOx is indeed also disruptive, but has a much slower effect than NH3. NH3 is a directly acting mineral form, NOx is a more stable form that does not immediately have a fertilising effect.
we come back to my previous question, can we feed the whole world in a biodynamic way mister Hendriks?
Good comment. Not by a long shot.
Subscriber
peter June 17, 2022
ruud hendriks wrote:
Dear Jaap, it was all about nitrogen, minerals, not about energy. That is also an issue, but separate from the discussion above.
2/3 of the nitrogen in dairy farming is lost again. Converting grass and producing manure and milk from it involves a lot of losses (not for everything, nitrogen does, phosphate not). It is no different, although there is certainly room to limit that.
The cow in nature produces no products, but the input (except time) is also 0. Does not receive concentrates, the feed (natural pasture) is not fertilized.
The input in agriculture is 685 million kg of nitrogen each year, which comes from abroad via concentrates or from fertilizers. That produces a lot of manure, much more than would be available in NL on the basis of soil dependence. What we do not use is therefore an environmentally harmful surplus. The culture cow is a 'transit cow.' The natural cow is a 'circulation cow', it can never supply more nitrogen than was already in the ground on site. That cow does not enrich, it circulates locally.
NOx is indeed also disruptive, but has a much slower effect than NH3. NH3 is a directly acting mineral form, NOx is a more stable form that does not immediately have a fertilising effect.
Ruud . those losses may also be deducted from the positive influence on the fish stock, for example? That natural cow that delivers no products; what the hell does she do in the cycle, she walks on ground with a value of 100 k and what do we get back??? That input of N in agriculture; ever thought that there is also output in the form of exports?
NOx works much slower; that's why we don't talk about it for the sake of convenience?
Ben Bleckink June 18, 2022
The problem is that we have formulated a much too narrow definition of Nitrogen. If we are consistent and want to maintain this current standard, the Netherlands must be evacuated as a whole. And can Mr. Rutte be the last to turn off the light. It would have been better for the Netherlands if we had a prime minister who would behave like a Father of the Fatherland and, as in Denmark, puts the community first instead of himself. The latter causes division in society. If you have a splitter at work in your company, it can disrupt the entire organization. That is what is happening in the Netherlands now. Let's solve it together in the spirit of Denmark and send Rutte home!!!
Subscriber
pomp June 18, 2022
time bomb wrote:
frog wrote:
ruud hendriks wrote:
Dear Jaap, it was all about nitrogen, minerals, not about energy. That is also an issue, but separate from the discussion above.
2/3 of the nitrogen in dairy farming is lost again. Converting grass and producing manure and milk from it involves a lot of losses (not for everything, nitrogen does, phosphate not). It is no different, although there is certainly room to limit that.
The cow in nature produces no products, but the input (except time) is also 0. Does not receive concentrates, the feed (natural pasture) is not fertilized.
The input in agriculture is 685 million kg of nitrogen each year, which comes from abroad via concentrates or from fertilizers. That produces a lot of manure, much more than would be available in NL on the basis of soil dependence. What we do not use is therefore an environmentally harmful surplus. The culture cow is a 'transit cow.' The natural cow is a 'circulation cow', it can never supply more nitrogen than was already in the ground on site. That cow does not enrich, it circulates locally.
NOx is indeed also disruptive, but has a much slower effect than NH3. NH3 is a directly acting mineral form, NOx is a more stable form that does not immediately have a fertilising effect.
we come back to my previous question, can we feed the whole world in a biodynamic way mister Hendriks?
Good comment. Not by a long shot.
could be. only then we have to plow all 2000 areas and drain the sea so that we have more surface area. we also have to apply GMO in the eu to make crops more resistant to everything. and no longer eat animal products. so that there is more surface area for the pig feed that we then have to eat.
Subscriber
frog June 18, 2022
pump wrote:
time bomb wrote:
frog wrote:
ruud hendriks wrote:
Dear Jaap, it was all about nitrogen, minerals, not about energy. That is also an issue, but separate from the discussion above.
2/3 of the nitrogen in dairy farming is lost again. Converting grass and producing manure and milk from it involves a lot of losses (not for everything, nitrogen does, phosphate not). It is no different, although there is certainly room to limit that.
The cow in nature produces no products, but the input (except time) is also 0. Does not receive concentrates, the feed (natural pasture) is not fertilized.
The input in agriculture is 685 million kg of nitrogen each year, which comes from abroad via concentrates or from fertilizers. That produces a lot of manure, much more than would be available in NL on the basis of soil dependence. What we do not use is therefore an environmentally harmful surplus. The culture cow is a 'transit cow.' The natural cow is a 'circulation cow', it can never supply more nitrogen than was already in the ground on site. That cow does not enrich, it circulates locally.
NOx is indeed also disruptive, but has a much slower effect than NH3. NH3 is a directly acting mineral form, NOx is a more stable form that does not immediately have a fertilising effect.
we come back to my previous question, can we feed the whole world in a biodynamic way mister Hendriks?
Good comment. Not by a long shot.
could be. only then we have to plow all 2000 areas and drain the sea so that we have more surface area. we also have to apply GMO in the eu to make crops more resistant to everything. and no longer eat animal products. so that there is more surface area for the pig feed that we then have to eat.
I'll give the answer myself, apparently Hendriks doesn't dare.
No, this is absolutely not possible and if we go that way anyway, we will desperately need the Natura 2000 areas as a cemetery because there will be famine!
Ruud Hendriks June 20, 2022
I had a party weekend, that continues, but still a reaction :).
In current consumption trends, organic or biodynamic cannot feed the world, nor is conventional. With the current degree of (Europe, America) and trend in (Asia) animal protein consumption, no system will save that. If agriculture gets almost nothing in return from the export of minerals to the consumer and that can no longer be compensated from nature, every agricultural system will eventually stop.
Organic does indeed harvest less, but at the current energy price, the availability of fertilizers and the pressure on chemical use, the gap with conventional is becoming smaller..... The nitrogen shortage is largely solved organically with legumes, actually N is the smallest problem in that sector . The dairy farmer can get the N balance just fine with leguminous plants closed. For the other minerals, organic and conventional will soon have the same problem: where do you get the minerals that can compensate for the losses (based on the expectation that the minerals will come back from the consumer.
Subscriber
frog June 20, 2022
Conclusion We are far too many people on this planet and that is the basis of the problem, we farmers are only busy serving all those mouths that need to be fed!
Subscriber
in hiding June 20, 2022
frog wrote:
Conclusion We are far too many people on this planet and that is the basis of the problem, we farmers are only busy serving all those mouths that need to be fed!
A problem comes with one solution.
so I would like to know.
not June 21, 2022
There is only one solution, or make the person responsible for this drama accountable, or all officials out of the country, then a future can come again
It can freeze or thaw June 22, 2022
in hiding wrote:
frog wrote:
Conclusion We are far too many people on this planet and that is the basis of the problem, we farmers are only busy serving all those mouths that need to be fed!
A problem comes with one solution.
so I would like to know.
It doesn't seem that difficult to me, a 1 child policy can be a start worldwide!!!

Frank Simmes June 22, 2022
Nitrogen crisis exposed differently, and no I'm not Wappie but just a farmer with common sense and respect for nature.

I especially want to respond in this opinion about how important it is to work in nature reserves with soil analyzes such as Caroline and JA21 also advocate. Only then will we get an idea of ​​the extent to which nitrogen plays a role in biodiversity.

I just read a blog by Arjan Reijneveld. He is a worldwide expert in soil analysis. I have sent the blog in which he wrote by means of a link. But I know that he has many perhaps more important arguments that he can substantiate to get the current nitrogen impasse out of the doldrums, and that starts with soil analyzes in nature reserves. They are never or very rarely done there. In that regard, I am very concerned about the current measurement method.

Measuring nitrogen deposition is promoted by RIVM and used as the Holy Grail. In my view, they are completely missing the point here. In agriculture, we know better than anyone that continuous soil analyzes provide insight into the need for a healthy habitat. Only nitrogen deposition as measured by RIVM says absolutely nothing about the quality of nature and the growth of plants.

It starts with an analysis of the soil. What kind of soil are we dealing with, which and in what balance are nutrients available. The drought caused by climate change in recent years has also had a major impact on these poor, poor, acidic sandy soils. I would like to emphasize once again that nitrogen deposition alone means absolutely nothing. And that's not even talking about where exactly it lands. Scientists sometimes talk about 5km, other times it is adjusted to 25 or 50km. People are happy to count on calculation models that are not well founded. What one measures in the air says nothing about what happens in the ground. In nature reserves, soil analyzes are very rarely made. There are therefore hardly any references from the past to check, while farmers have been doing this for more than a century and it is precisely because of these analyzes that they have been extremely conscious of the soil for the past 20 years, because they also think generations ahead. They too have learned from past mistakes.

In 2019 I was able to see a number of soil analyzes that show that nitrogen plays no role at all in the nature reserves of the Veluwe. Although the soil is acidic, it can in no way be attributed to nitrogen. These recent soil analyzes show that sulfur did contribute to acidification in the past. It is therefore an illusion to think that the traditionally poor acidified soils, of which nitrogen is by no means the main cause (as is also apparent from the soil analysis), that these soils will automatically return to good condition by spending 25 billion euros to buy up farms. That's wasted money. Not even when nitrogen oxides (fossil fuels) and methane are completely banned in the Netherlands, because that is not the cause here at all.

In recent years, nature organizations have identified very sneaky nitrogen-averse plants in many nature reserves (such as, for example, H6510 Low-lying meager hay meadows Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis and H6120 *Lime-loving grassland on arid sandy soil). In some areas, plants have been identified where they cannot even grow. These plants have ended up in Europe with the permission of the Dutch government (consciously or through ignorance) and are now just as protected as the wolf, so that the court can only decide that these plants must be protected. A stick has been created to legally annex farms. Only, at the time when the plants were included in the designation decisions, people hadn't thought far enough that the No(x) is a much bigger problem. As a result, the Netherlands has reached an enormous impasse and now they are trying with half-hearted measures and the method of the Holy Grail, to point out the farmer as the guilty party and to drive them off his land. (This was probably also the ultimate goal that certain organization had in mind)

It is incomprehensible that 25 billion is being spent to kill farms in this way. Hypocritical when we know that in a few months a billion people will not have enough food because of the war in Ukraine. Government in the Netherlands is completely off the track. We live opposite a German Natura 2000 area. With regard to nitrogen, it is dark green on the map there because they have not yet designated nitrogen-avoiding plants for this in the designation decision of Europe. In the Netherlands the limit value for deposits is 0,05 Mol, in Germany it is currently 7 Mol. (factor 140 difference) That is also the reason that the Netherlands (Belgium) are the only ones with a nitrogen problem. But how long will it be until such organizations in Germany or other countries in Europe start operating in the same way or are already doing so. It is pure pride what one is doing. And pride always comes before a fall. (I always have to think how in the story of the lady of Stavoren the precious grain was thrown into the sea and we all know what happened to her. This is in fact what happens here too)

Until 10 years from now, this government will have to face a parliamentary inquiry and account for the nitrogen affair. We can no longer feed the world population, food prices are already going through the roof, this is going to bring a lot of unrest in the world. And yes, when there is innovation to artificially produce meat and milk in a more sustainable way, I will certainly go along with it, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater before these innovations are available. We live in an enormously rich delta that naturally has a nutrient-rich soil and which is extremely suitable for the food supply on this earth. Yes, so the Netherlands also has a joint responsibility to guarantee food security and not just for our own country, because that also seems a fairly selfish idea to me. We export what we are good at and import what we are less good at, and that cancels each other out.

In addition, we must not forget that our animals turn all the residual waste that we produce (the modern peel farmer) into a high-quality product (citrus pulp, beer pulp, soy meal, chips waste, it is too much to mention). If we want to switch to vegetable soy milk in the future, we need 10 times as much high-quality soy to make 1 liter of vegetable milk. Our cows do this with the residual waste, but with 1/10 of the product. Together with grass and maize, our cows convert these raw materials that cannot be consumed by humans into high-quality protein products for human consumption.

Please also pay attention in which Arjan Reijneveld (worldwide expert in the field of soil analyses) describes yet another problem: namely, what consequences the depletion has in the field of CO2 sequestration. This problem is totally underexposed but has major consequences for our climate.

see Blog Arjan Reijenveld
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/eurofins-agro_stikstof-klimaat-natuur-activity-6943173854458466305-aL9U/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Ruud Hendriks June 22, 2022
Learn about the CO2 impact on land that is taken out of the agricultural relationship. This also fits in with the concern about CO2 impact due to the intensive use of peat meadow areas. If they are bought out, 2 birds with 1 stone. There carbon will start to increase again and the extra breakdown will stop.
Mind you, I don't mean this as a serious proposal, I'm not in favor of buying out at all, but Arjan's approach is one-sided.
The fact that cows can convert good grass into protein is a quality that needs to be preserved. However, comparing soy milk and regular milk 1 on 1 is not a good idea. In dairy, every liter of milk is one, including that for all other dairy products. With soy, a part becomes milk, a great deal goes directly into a product. If you first calculate from soy to milk and then extend that again to the milk requirement of the dairy industry, you are wrong. I wouldn't add that corn to protein. If something causes CO2 loss from the soil, it was the maize in recent decades......
Jan 3 July 2022
If we don't have to raise the dikes because Mercury is going to save us when the climate changes back then I start to believe in fairy tales (kindergarten lesson is too hard)

Nibble nibble nibble ... who's nibbling on my house?
The Emperor Without Clothes

we chose wrong
politicians of freedom give their lives, we turned our backs on them
these are their answers
It can freeze or thaw 4 July 2022
Frank Simmes wrote:
Nitrogen crisis exposed differently, and no I'm not Wappie but just a farmer with common sense and respect for nature.

I especially want to respond in this opinion about how important it is to work in nature reserves with soil analyzes such as Caroline and JA21 also advocate. Only then will we get an idea of ​​the extent to which nitrogen plays a role in biodiversity.

I just read a blog by Arjan Reijneveld. He is a worldwide expert in soil analysis. I have sent the blog in which he wrote by means of a link. But I know that he has many perhaps more important arguments that he can substantiate to get the current nitrogen impasse out of the doldrums, and that starts with soil analyzes in nature reserves. They are never or very rarely done there. In that regard, I am very concerned about the current measurement method.

Measuring nitrogen deposition is promoted by RIVM and used as the Holy Grail. In my view, they are completely missing the point here. In agriculture, we know better than anyone that continuous soil analyzes provide insight into the need for a healthy habitat. Only nitrogen deposition as measured by RIVM says absolutely nothing about the quality of nature and the growth of plants.

It starts with an analysis of the soil. What kind of soil are we dealing with, which and in what balance are nutrients available. The drought caused by climate change in recent years has also had a major impact on these poor, poor, acidic sandy soils. I would like to emphasize once again that nitrogen deposition alone means absolutely nothing. And that's not even talking about where exactly it lands. Scientists sometimes talk about 5km, other times it is adjusted to 25 or 50km. People are happy to count on calculation models that are not well founded. What one measures in the air says nothing about what happens in the ground. In nature reserves, soil analyzes are very rarely made. There are therefore hardly any references from the past to check, while farmers have been doing this for more than a century and it is precisely because of these analyzes that they have been extremely conscious of the soil for the past 20 years, because they also think generations ahead. They too have learned from past mistakes.

In 2019 I was able to see a number of soil analyzes that show that nitrogen plays no role at all in the nature reserves of the Veluwe. Although the soil is acidic, it can in no way be attributed to nitrogen. These recent soil analyzes show that sulfur did contribute to acidification in the past. It is therefore an illusion to think that the traditionally poor acidified soils, of which nitrogen is by no means the main cause (as is also apparent from the soil analysis), that these soils will automatically return to good condition by spending 25 billion euros to buy up farms. That's wasted money. Not even when nitrogen oxides (fossil fuels) and methane are completely banned in the Netherlands, because that is not the cause here at all.

In recent years, nature organizations have identified very sneaky nitrogen-averse plants in many nature reserves (such as, for example, H6510 Low-lying meager hay meadows Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis and H6120 *Lime-loving grassland on arid sandy soil). In some areas, plants have been identified where they cannot even grow. These plants have ended up in Europe with the permission of the Dutch government (consciously or through ignorance) and are now just as protected as the wolf, so that the court can only decide that these plants must be protected. A stick has been created to legally annex farms. Only, at the time when the plants were included in the designation decisions, people hadn't thought far enough that the No(x) is a much bigger problem. As a result, the Netherlands has reached an enormous impasse and now they are trying with half-hearted measures and the method of the Holy Grail, to point out the farmer as the guilty party and to drive them off his land. (This was probably also the ultimate goal that certain organization had in mind)

It is incomprehensible that 25 billion is being spent to kill farms in this way. Hypocritical when we know that in a few months a billion people will not have enough food because of the war in Ukraine. Government in the Netherlands is completely off the track. We live opposite a German Natura 2000 area. With regard to nitrogen, it is dark green on the map there because they have not yet designated nitrogen-avoiding plants for this in the designation decision of Europe. In the Netherlands the limit value for deposits is 0,05 Mol, in Germany it is currently 7 Mol. (factor 140 difference) That is also the reason that the Netherlands (Belgium) are the only ones with a nitrogen problem. But how long will it be until such organizations in Germany or other countries in Europe start operating in the same way or are already doing so. It is pure pride what one is doing. And pride always comes before a fall. (I always have to think how in the story of the lady of Stavoren the precious grain was thrown into the sea and we all know what happened to her. This is in fact what happens here too)

Until 10 years from now, this government will have to face a parliamentary inquiry and account for the nitrogen affair. We can no longer feed the world population, food prices are already going through the roof, this is going to bring a lot of unrest in the world. And yes, when there is innovation to artificially produce meat and milk in a more sustainable way, I will certainly go along with it, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater before these innovations are available. We live in an enormously rich delta that naturally has a nutrient-rich soil and which is extremely suitable for the food supply on this earth. Yes, so the Netherlands also has a joint responsibility to guarantee food security and not just for our own country, because that also seems a fairly selfish idea to me. We export what we are good at and import what we are less good at, and that cancels each other out.

In addition, we must not forget that our animals turn all the residual waste that we produce (the modern peel farmer) into a high-quality product (citrus pulp, beer pulp, soy meal, chips waste, it is too much to mention). If we want to switch to vegetable soy milk in the future, we need 10 times as much high-quality soy to make 1 liter of vegetable milk. Our cows do this with the residual waste, but with 1/10 of the product. Together with grass and maize, our cows convert these raw materials that cannot be consumed by humans into high-quality protein products for human consumption.

Please also pay attention in which Arjan Reijneveld (worldwide expert in the field of soil analyses) describes yet another problem: namely, what consequences the depletion has in the field of CO2 sequestration. This problem is totally underexposed but has major consequences for our climate.

see Blog Arjan Reijenveld
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/eurofins-agro_stikstof-klimaat-natuur-activity-6943173854458466305-aL9U/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
A good analysis, now put 10 chemists together to get a 1 conclusion.
I am almost certain that this will not work, because there is still so much ignorance about how certain processes work in the ground.
Subscriber
gerard 4 July 2022
I already have one here prof dr han Lindeboom this man shows that the calculation model of the RIVM is not correct
this guy got his PhD on nitrogen
Subscriber
time bomb 4 July 2022
gerard wrote:
I already have one here prof dr han Lindeboom this man shows that the calculation model of the RIVM is not correct
this guy got his PhD on nitrogen
Report this man immediately to min.lNV, then it will come for the baker.
You can no longer respond.

What are the current quotations?

View and compare prices and rates yourself

News Nitrogen

KDW from law and emission targets instead of nitrogen targets

Opinions Wim Groot Koerkamp

Top-down meets bottom-up in nitrogen impasse

News Manure

Less nitrogen from manure, (still) above new ceiling

Opinions Jaap Major

Agriculture and nitrogen: problem or solution?

Call our customer service +0320 - 269 528

or mail to supportboerenbusiness. Nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Login/Register

Our offer

Arable Milk & Food Milk price comparator Pigs & Feed Market data Futures

About us Boerenbusiness

About Us Corporate subscriptions My Boerenbusiness Careers Boerenbusiness

Our customer service

Contact us Frequently Asked Questions Advertise