Shutterstock

Opinions Ghost Rotgers

Government does not consider largest nitrogen source

June 12, 2021 - Geesje Rotgers - 21 comments

Nature is supplied with nitrogen from the air (from agriculture, industry, logistics). The size of this resource is calculated to the gram, every year. But nature also receives nitrogen from its own soil stock. This is still the largest source of nitrogen, which is not quantified and taken into account in nitrogen policy

Disruption of the natural soil, such as water abstraction and deforestation, drives the release of nitrogen from the soil stock. The size of this substantial nitrogen source is not shown, but rather is left out of the picture. This is remarkable, since this nitrogen affects nitrogen-sensitive nature just as much.

Farmers Defense Force was able to publicize a large number of measurements in nature reserves in Drenthe in April, via a WOB procedure. These measurements show that the largest nitrogen source is not nitrogen deposition, but the supply of nitrogen from the own soil stock.

Nature itself accumulates a lot of nitrogen
Where does the nitrogen that fertilizes and acidifies nature come from? Nature itself accumulates a lot of nitrogen. The total nitrogen deposition in the past 100 years amounts to 2.400 kilos per hectare. Measurements in 286 natural soils in the Province of Drenthe show that thousands of kilos of nitrogen are stored in the top 10 cm of the soil alone: ​​3.000 kilos per hectare (dry forest, dry heath), 4.000 kilo/ha (humid forest, moist heath ) to 10.000 kilo/ha (raised bogs, swamps). The layer below contains much more nitrogen, according to literature. So much more than has precipitated in 100 years.

From literature of the previous generation of nitrogen researchers it turns out that nature binds a lot of nitrogen (N2) from the air. In nitrogen-poor soil, this can be as much as 60 to 80 kilos per hectare per year. Soil organisms do this. As long as this nitrogen is stored, there is nothing to worry about. That will be different when it is released. This happens in the event of soil disturbance, usually the result of policy choices made by the government and/or nature manager.

When is the nitrogen released from the soil stock?
In principle, the soil stock of nitrogen is safely stored, fixed in organic matter. And it is almost not available to plants and can therefore do no harm to nitrogen-sensitive nature. This nitrogen is released through disturbances in the soil (in the past and present). The organic matter is then broken down more quickly. In the province of Drenthe, the annual amounts of nitrogen are estimated to be 30 to 250 kilos per hectare, which are released from the soil stock.

This is (much) more nitrogen than is supplied from emissions from agriculture, industry and logistics (together 22,5 kilos per hectare annually). Activities that boost nitrogen release on a long-term or even permanent basis include changing water management, water extraction or abstraction, felling forests or transforming nature.

Nitrogen source out of view
The government therefore keeps this largest source of nitrogen out of the picture. The largest nitrogen source is not quantified and not taken into account in nitrogen policy, while the size of this source is relatively easy to measure and monitor. The aim of nature policy is a good conservation status. When looking at the influence of nitrogen, all nitrogen sources that have an influence must be included. It is not right to keep a substantial nitrogen source out of the picture.

The billion-dollar package of measures to reduce depositions from agriculture, industry and logistics can never lead to a measurable result if profits are canceled out by larger losses. The nitrogen gain from the 100-kilometre measure for traffic amounts to approximately 0,3 kilos per hectare annually. This gain is negated by the loss of nitrogen from the soil stock of 30 to 250 kilos per hectare per year.

Degradation of soil stock
Policy-supporting institutes, NGOs and nature organizations are in an extraordinary hurry with measures that yield 0,3 to 5 kilos of nitrogen gain and are screaming bloody murder about this. But they are silent about the much larger nitrogen source: the degradation of the soil stock. The difference in attention correlates with the available budget. 

Transparency in the nitrogen dossier is hard to find. My experience is that a lot of data is withheld. The Province of Drenthe had also not made public the measurements in 286 natural soils, which visualized the supply of nitrogen from the soil itself. A WOB procedure had to be used to make the data available.

Ghost Rotgers

Investigative journalist in the agricultural sector
Comments
21 comments
Subscriber
jankievit June 12, 2021
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/column/10892724/overheid-weegt-largest-stikstofbron- niet-mee]Government does not consider largest nitrogen source[/url]
If the plum trees bloom 2018 weeks earlier in dry and warm years 2020 to 5, you cannot deny the climate change solution to achieve as little nitrogen emissions as possible. And the MOB and Greenpeace silencing makes smart farmers and the revenue models for growers a net 25% higher and the consumer educates that food prices amount to 20% of GNP and abolish all quality marks such as gobal gab and planet proof.
Subscriber
jan4072 June 12, 2021
@Jankievit, 3 things: 1) In the 80's it was the acid rain that killed all trees. Absolutely nothing came of that nonsense. The trees are growing so luxuriantly that they now overgrow the moors and SBB does nothing but fell, fell and fell again.
Subscriber
jan4072 June 12, 2021
@Jankievit, 3 things: 2). In response to your early spring. Spring 2021 was so cold that we now see the May beetles flying in June. Chance? The difference with previous years is that little is flown and the aircraft do not cause a smoke screen (and therefore a (greenhouse) effect) high in the atmosphere. Has nothing to do with agriculture.
Subscriber
jan4072 June 12, 2021
@Jankievit, 3 things: 3) It is not written anywhere that the world does not change. It has always been that way and it is now and will continue to be so. The point is that most of the time agriculture is identified as the culprit while there are other players who have much more influence; measure with 2 sizes.
Subscriber
frog June 12, 2021
three words say enough, too many people.
Subscriber
frog June 12, 2021
And if those postcode loterijk walls would just keep their feet off everything, nature would be in a much better position.
Sanders June 12, 2021
It pains me so terribly when I see all this nonsense being preached about gases that are stored in the ground and released by tilling the ground. Which wildlife biologists would proclaim that? One who respects himself perhaps only if he is offered a lot of money for it. And a biochemist who knows what he is talking about laughs at herself when reading "research" such as Geesje Rotgers, who so clearly reports on a subject on which she has had no experience at all.

Of most gases in the atmosphere you can safely say that humans have little or no influence because of their emissions if you look at average values, luckily it is never windless on earth so that atmosphere is nicely mixed.

What humans do have great influence on is the lung of the earth, which is responsible for the conversion of predominantly CO2 into oxygen and carbon.
The bright lights that now want to store CO2 in the soil should study how the trees do that and even in an even better process, the trees put coal into the earth and that releases oxygen. But we prefer to cut down those smart trees by many hectares at the same time. It is better to put in all those shortcomings that are reserved for the storage of CO2, the replanting of forests in great diversity.
A second major source of CO2 conversion are the plancton and seaweed that are now becoming extinct on a large scale due to the plastic soup, even there billions are needed to clean it up, but even more to prevent it.

And then the pathetic madness that humans could have the slightest influence on the climate. Do we already have an idea how we can move the earth a little further from the sun so that it becomes less warm? or is there any idea how we can control the sun's thermostat? And then the global warming, a joke, in the 70s of the last century and another upcoming mini ice age was announced that ice age lasted exactly 1 cold winter, then the warming started, and how funny, since we averaged nature have started to keep track of temperature with satellite measurements, it appears that the temperature has neither gone up nor down in recent decades.

I dare to say that the Media, if not financed by controlling powers, government and/or industry, is continuously trying to mislead ordinary people.

Facebook also encourages this, if not willingly, by applying censorship, removing scientific posts that hinder government and industry policy. Large-scale financial interests are involved.

Subscriber
quite coarse June 12, 2021
Researchers, reports, studies, environmental lobby, left-wing parties, media,
Left-wing newspaper, youth news, school books, SBB, nature monuments, f..ing postcode lottery Zembla bla bla and so on.
We are being brainwashed by all of these and many go along with it and see how to resist such organized groups.
Subscriber
Drent June 12, 2021
yet there is a kernel of truth in it, I myself sometimes use plots that contain peat, you have to be careful with the nitrogen gift because a lot of nitrogen is released from the peat.
Subscriber
Dirk June 12, 2021
right Drent, I have that experience too
info June 12, 2021
It is very remarkable that there are many relatives to the report that can be found in the STAF research can be found on Google. And that we as agriculture are severely disadvantaged and nature gets all the attention, I think we now have much less air pollution than before the corona since agriculture, food supply, has not changed, no less transport, harvesting activities, fertilizing and harvesting. So the polluter is the citizen with his holy cow and aviation polluting the atmosphere with millions of liters of kerosene.
It is also suggested by some that only CO2 is captured by nature, it is always avoided that agriculture captures many times more CO2, eg beets and maize lay gem. 44000 kg/ha while nature avg. does not capture more than 6000 kg/ha, how can you get even more land from agriculture, no, we do get the soy from another continent and make a hamburger out of it, do we know what that costs in CO2.
There is also no country in the world that is so mad about nitrogen and CO2, if it continues like this, we will destroy a very well-functioning economy for a bunch of idealists who are inciting the whole of the Netherlands, in my opinion that goes way too far and we have to put a stop to this.
ideas June 12, 2021
Lightning strikes release about 60 kg N from the air per year per ha. Where can I find that in the calculations. Will Peter Omzicht just call when he is better,
gerard June 13, 2021
it is not an excess of people that is the cause but an overconsumption of everything from travel to mobile phone to driving a car to the computer
how long do people measure the temperature 200 years before that one can only guess how hot it was
they can only measure the co2 content and thus guess the temperature
Subscriber
Frog June 13, 2021
gerard wrote:
it is not an excess of people that is the cause but an overconsumption of everything from travel to mobile phone to driving a car to the computer
how long do people measure the temperature 200 years before that one can only guess how hot it was
they can only measure the co2 content and thus guess the temperature
so actually wen too many rich people.
Herman June 14, 2021
info wrote:
It is very remarkable that there are many relatives to the report that can be found in the STAF research can be found on Google. And that we as agriculture are severely disadvantaged and nature gets all the attention, I think we now have much less air pollution than before the corona since agriculture, food supply, has not changed, no less transport, harvesting activities, fertilizing and harvesting. So the polluter is the citizen with his holy cow and aviation polluting the atmosphere with millions of liters of kerosene.
It is also suggested by some that only CO2 is captured by nature, it is always avoided that agriculture captures many times more CO2, eg beets and maize lay gem. 44000 kg/ha while nature avg. does not capture more than 6000 kg/ha, how can you get even more land from agriculture, no, we do get the soy from another continent and make a hamburger out of it, do we know what that costs in CO2.
There is also no country in the world that is so mad about nitrogen and CO2, if it continues like this, we will destroy a very well-functioning economy for a bunch of idealists who are inciting the whole of the Netherlands, in my opinion that goes way too far and we have to put a stop to this.
To prevent you from orating in front of an empty room, LIKES could be entered on this forum, then you also know whether you have a following.
Ruud Hendriks June 14, 2021
The key question is: is nitrogen released from the digestion of the natural soil? For low-lying natural soils (peat and stream valleys): yes. Minerals in the sandy area wash from high to low, ending in the stream valleys. There used to be arid grasslands there. The soil itself is then rich, but the digestion is slow, so that only limited growth is possible. The plants that grow from it accumulate as peat or organic matter in stream valley soil. This is accelerated by lowering the water level. Please note: this reduction is at the wish of the agricultural sector. So nature enriches from within, but through the actions of people from outside, not through nature itself. High sandy soils are naturally poor, lowering the groundwater level has little effect there, it is far away anyway. Extra degradation is not an issue there, especially not because those soils have become acidic due to acid rain in previous decades (ammonia from livestock farming and sulfuric acid from fossil combustion). Not conducive to the soil organisms that have to do the decomposition.
So there is something to the story that nitrogen can also come from natural soil itself, especially the wet ones. But I wouldn't shout that too loudly because an important cause of that release is agriculture. With a bit of bad luck, the article by Geesje Rotgers will put the consequences of ammonia emission into perspective in the wet area (not in the dry area), but it will exaggerate another problem.
Subscriber
Drent June 14, 2021
ruud hendriks wrote:
The key question is: is nitrogen released from the digestion of the natural soil? For low-lying natural soils (peat and stream valleys): yes. Minerals in the sandy area wash from high to low, ending in the stream valleys. There used to be arid grasslands there. The soil itself is then rich, but the digestion is slow, so that only limited growth is possible. The plants that grow from it accumulate as peat or organic matter in stream valley soil. This is accelerated by lowering the water level. Please note: this reduction is at the wish of the agricultural sector. So nature enriches from within, but through the actions of people from outside, not through nature itself. High sandy soils are naturally poor, lowering the groundwater level has little effect there, it is far away anyway. Extra degradation is not an issue there, especially not because those soils have become acidic due to acid rain in previous decades (ammonia from livestock farming and sulfuric acid from fossil combustion). Not conducive to the soil organisms that have to do the decomposition.
So there is something to the story that nitrogen can also come from natural soil itself, especially the wet ones. But I wouldn't shout that too loudly because an important cause of that release is agriculture. With a bit of bad luck, the article by Geesje Rotgers will put the consequences of ammonia emission into perspective in the wet area (not in the dry area), but it will exaggerate another problem.
what a mess, you should tell me here in the village, some have already had to lay new floors in their house 3 x by raising the groundwater level, so just putting it on the farmer's plate is too far for me. We also have high ash soils here, but almost no livestock farming, so where does the acidification come from? Your story is not true at all.
info June 14, 2021
Ruud you never went to an agricultural school or you didn't pay attention, that's why soil science and physics were your worst subject and has not gotten any better, it's a shame you write such a stupid piece
Student June 15, 2021
Just a few more years and then every form of tillage will be linked to an emissions surcharge…

Time for agricultural interests to stand up for compensating for nitrogen fixation by crops, because soon there will be no more tools in the ground…
Subscriber
Drent June 15, 2021
if I look at it this way, my preference remains plowing, rubbish from undersowing and green manures at the bottom. See many plots that have been superficially tilled and now need heavy spraying against weeds.
Bearded Miel June 19, 2021
Good article and enlightening.
Will not help what the policy wants to achieve...
Of all CO2 emissions worldwide is "humanity", WITH industry, agriculture, consumption, traffic on land, water and air, wars, relaxation via casinos, sports, ice cannons and Trekkertrek, the many Evergivens that steam into Europe via the Suez Canal. You name it.....all this together is only 4 (read that right, four percent) percent of the total planet emissions!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Rockefeller Foundation, boss Van Vanguard and Blockrock, largest world cnglomerates in the 30000 double, want, demand, under pressure, that that 4% must fall by 20% by 2050!
4% - 20% = would be 3.2%

Woahah!
All land mass with volcanoes, nature, geysers etc 44%
All world sea: 3/4 Earth is sea state 54%, plankton, undersea volcanoes (even under Antarctica).
100% will then, possibly fall to 99.2%
To do this, the WEF, Bilderberg group, Stientje Lagarde want to inject thousands of billions of fiat money into the economy via Europe and all those other self-sufficient things. That bill will be met by you and I. Who benefits from that scam? The top 0.001% of the world population.
Wind turbines and solar panels are helping the world to ruin even faster than people think.
Einstein once said: 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not quite sure about the universe.

You can no longer respond.

What are the current quotations?

View and compare prices and rates yourself

Call our customer service +0320(269)528

or mail to support@boerenbusiness.nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Sign up