Clean air strategy

[Two Tone]

I agree. A big % of the carbon footprint of UK Ag is nitrogen fertiliser production.



I hadn't thought of that comeback. I'll see if I can find if that works later.

I've corrected my typo. Urea is indeed cheaper than AN by considerable amount. I don't have my copy of the Yellow Comic to hand which has rough fert prices to do the costings. Despite the lower bulk density you've still got roughly the same amount of N in your spreader hopper as AN. Add greedy boards and you're even better off.

Thanks again.
Yes, it is ironic that you have the same amount of N in the spreader using both AN and Urea. But the Urea hopper full cost significantly less! And greedy boards are cheap.

I'd be really interested to find out if any N fertiliser causes a crop to capture more or less Carbon than the CO2 it produces.

In fact, I'd be very surprised if the carbon capture wasn't significantly higher!

 

[Farmer Roy]

Thank you for your brilliant explanation regarding Urea @Brisel.
I've a couple of more questions that I'd be interested in your thoughts, or anybody else's for that matter.

Much of the rest of the worlds farmers are not allowed to use Ammonium Nitrate because it is easily useable in making explosives. Particularly if mixed with sugar or diesel. The diesel combination is often used in the opencast mining industry. I can't see a lot of those countries allowing farmers to use AN instead of Urea. Although, strangely enough, I believe Pakistan is one of them!

Many of the countries that are forced to only be able to use Urea, tend to have much hotter and drier climates than ours.

I am a big user of Urea on this farm. Every time I have switched back to AN, my crop yields seem to drop. But this could be explained by the fact that I am now so used to using Urea, that I am not using AN at the correct timings.

I believe that Urea in slower to work than AN. It is also less soluble and more temperature respondent. Therefore using it early by "ice road trucking" it on frosty fields in February, risks far less chance of it being leached if it turns wet shortly afterwards. Is this not better for the environment?

I am also lead to believe that Volatilisation is far more likely to occur if it is used in excessively warm and wet weather. Therefore using it later might not be such a good idea in the UK. Therefore we tend to use it as a main dressing, putting it all on by about 7th April and not bothering with a third dressing, because it is too slow to release, such that later dressings might not become available to the crop. Would I be correct here?

The UK has (had) 2 factories manufacturing AN, but none manufacturing Urea. Those manufactures (particularly Yara) wanted to slag off Urea, by claiming it is less efficient to encourage us to use (more expensive) AN. Several retailers have come up with various products to allegedly reduce Volatilization, but IMO they are a waste of money as unnecessary.

There are tariffs on imported fertilisers from outside the EU. Despite these, Urea is nearly always a significantly cheaper form of buying our Nitrogen. I spoke with my supplier on Monday morning (before the news re the Clean Air strategy). He said that he was expecting a significant drop in Urea prices next year, presumably due to a reduction in tariffs.

It seems to me that AN could be just as bad for the environment as Urea, but for water quality reasons instead of air quality reasons.

Maybe Mr Yara has been trying to fool Mr Gove about Urea, the same way as they have us farmers!

What are your thoughts?

AN was a reasonably popular ag fertiliser here, but after 11 / 09 / 2001 our govt banned its use in ag due to the above mentioned potential for use in explosives. It is still used here for blasting in mine sites, but that is obviously highly regulated . . .
so, we haven't had access to AN since 2001

 

[Two Tone]

AN was a reasonably popular ag fertiliser here, but after 11 / 09 / 2001 our govt banned its use in ag due to the above mentioned potential for use in explosives. It is still used here for blasting in mine sites, but that is obviously highly regulated . . .
so, we haven't had access to AN since 2001

Thanks @Farmer Roy.
Out of interest, how much does a tonne of Urea 46% N cost you?

 

[Farmer Roy]

Thanks @Farmer Roy.
Out of interest, how much does a tonne of Urea 46% N cost you?

err, to be honest, I have no idea, I don't use it . . .
i'll get back to you

 

[Exfarmer]

A few points
The popularity of Ammonium Nitrate was driven in the Uk by the discovery of North Sea Gas. To develop this new resource the Government needed to borrow vast sums of money, The encouragement of various chemical plants on the East Coast which would benefit was part of the strategy to demonstrate that the industry would be feasible.
ICI were encouraged to build a plant by guaranteeing them supplies of gas at a very cheap price for the long term. This also guaranteed a cheap source of AN for munitions for the British Army. ICI then went out and sold this cheap fertiliser to a nations grateful farmers. Up till the 60's nitrogen fertiliser usage was quite limited, but a series of trial farms were set up to demonstrate the benefits of applications of up to and beyond 400 units to the acre.
Across the rest of the world Ammoniia was more commonly used straight as a gas 46%N or a solution 27%N or as a solid in the form of Urea.
At the time the price difference AN / Urea was limited due to the cheap gas ICI were purchasing, after the initial deal inflation meant that ICI were coining it as they were paying possibly a tenth of the world price.
They justified the premium due to the volatility and difficult handling of Ammonia and urea products.
This deal came to an end when Tony Benn as energy minister realised how ICU were using so much gas, making the cheap AN which the household consumer was subsidising so he ripped up the original contract and effectively put the writing on the wall for the Billingham plant.
AN is a premium product and is not as volatile as Urea, both can gas off if spread in hot dry weather. volatilisation is something like ten times the rate for Urea. However I can remember the smell of Ammonia after spreading possibly 5 bags of AN per acre after first cut.
AN is far more likely to leach in wet weather as the nitrate is more mobile in the soil profile especially compared to Urea treated with didin

 

[Brisel]

err, to be honest, I have no idea, I don't use it . . .
i'll get back to you

What do you pay for anhydrous?

 

[Two Tone]

I've found some answers on the internet from the US regarding Carbon capture of using fertilisers compared to the amount Urea releases. Though some of the work was done by Yara using AN in Europe.

“Plants capture large amounts of CO2 during growth. Optimum fertilization can increase biomass production, and thus CO2 uptake, by a factor of 4-5 compared to fields that remain long-term unfertilized. For example, at a yield of 8 t / ha achieved with 170 kg N / ha, the grain fixes 12 800 kg / ha of CO2. This corresponds to 75 kg of CO2 fixed per kg of N applied.”


As far as I can make out from other work Yara have done re AN in Nordic countries, the Carbon footprint is about 3.1 tonnes CO2/ tonne of AN.

Therefore if 75Kgs of CO2 is fixed by 1Kg of N applied, But 3.1Kgs of C02 is released by 1Kg of N, my maths makes it this:

75/3.1 = 24.12.

In other words, I think I might be right in saying that due the increased absorption of C02 that using 1Kg of N creates on a fertilized crop, 24.12 times as much CO2 was captured than the fertilizer used on the crop released.

What do you reckon @Brisel ?

 

[Brisel]

Umm. The maths looks ok but the text doesn't quite make sense. Just the grain, not the whole plant? How much CO2 is released by the crop residues? That will depend on what you do with them afterwards - no till, incorporate etc. I think I'd rather see whole crop carbon accounting where cultivations etc are allowed for.

 

[rob1]

Looks like most things in life figures and stats can prove anything you want them too,not used AN for about five years, urea far cheaper and can spread earlier which in the last two years has helped a lot and it doesnt rot out the spinner, if they ban it I might have to fill a big shed before it goes

 

[fudge]

I think one has to consider consumer choices when looking at the impact of food production. Choosing animal products over vegetable products certainly has an impact on the size food production’s carbon footprint. N fertilizer plays a big part in making animal products cheaper thereby increasing their consumption.

 

[Two Tone]

Umm. The maths looks ok but the text doesn't quite make sense. Just the grain, not the whole plant? How much CO2 is released by the crop residues? That will depend on what you do with them afterwards - no till, incorporate etc. I think I'd rather see whole crop carbon accounting where cultivations etc are allowed for.

I see your point. But:

Yara definitely say "the grain fixes 12 800 kg / ha of CO2"

Regarding the CO2 in the residue, here is another question that will make you think:
If it was ploughed into the soil, might that trapped residue mitigate some, if not all of the CO2 that is released by the soil when it is ploughed?

In other words, is the residue prevented from releasing its CO2 by being buried and stored? Of course, the CO2 that is in the buried residue probably isn't recycled into the next crop. However, other Nutrients, including Nitrogen that can be recycled into the following crop are. But surely that CO2 is more captured than if it was left of the soil surface to rot and release to the air. And wouldn't some of that Nitrogen be released as Ammonia, which is far worse`?

I don't know the answers. But I can't find any work on this. I think it ought to be done.

What I am trying to discover is the truth behind the facts that we are fed about CO2 damage or not, that using Nitrogen fertilisers creates.

To me, this is far more important than crop carbon cultivation accounting. The cultivations have to be done anyway and even though it can be argued that No-Till methods create less CO2 in establishing a crop, the fact that using Nitrogen fertiliser very dramatically captures more CO2 than it releases could be far more relevant.

A very interesting subject though, don't you think?

 

[dowcow]

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-green-approach-ammonia-world.html

This article caught my attention last year. One of the big problems for fertilizer production is that it can't be done on a small scale. The factories occupy 100+ acre sites and are some of the most impressively industrial and scary looking things you'll see, and you would be right to be scared of them because when things go wrong things go catastrophic and there is a long list of fatalities. Small scale fertilizer production has never been possible, but there are hints it may be possible with the new method recently discovered.

 

[fudge]

I see your point. But:

Yara definitely say "the grain fixes 12 800 kg / ha of CO2"

Regarding the CO2 in the residue, here is another question that will make you think:
If it was ploughed into the soil, might that trapped residue mitigate some, if not all of the CO2 that is released by the soil when it is ploughed?

In other words, is the residue prevented from releasing its CO2 by being buried and stored? Of course, the CO2 that is in the buried residue probably isn't recycled into the next crop. However, other Nutrients, including Nitrogen that can be recycled into the following crop are. But surely that CO2 is more captured than if it was left of the soil surface to rot and release to the air. And wouldn't some of that Nitrogen be released as Ammonia, which is far worse`?

I don't know the answers. But I can't find any work on this. I think it ought to be done.

What I am trying to discover is the truth behind the facts that we are fed about CO2 damage or not, that using Nitrogen fertilisers creates.

To me, this is far more important than crop carbon cultivation accounting. The cultivations have to be done anyway and even though it can be argued that No-Till methods use less CO2 in establishing a crop, the fact that using Nitrogen fertiliser very dramatically captures more CO2 than it releases could be far more relevant.

A very interesting subject though, don't you think?

I am really a pragmatist. I would like to be paid for low emission farming and providing “public good” if possible. However such schemes need to be based on sound “carbon accounting” for want of a better term. Otherwise the public will see straight through them. Like it or not ghg emissions as well as particulates will be in Mr Gove’s cross hairs. He will be keen to show the UK is greener than the EU. Who am I to say he is misguided?

 

[Brisel]

I see your point. But:

Yara definitely say "the grain fixes 12 800 kg / ha of CO2"

Regarding the CO2 in the residue, here is another question that will make you think:
If it was ploughed into the soil, might that trapped residue mitigate some, if not all of the CO2 that is released by the soil when it is ploughed?

In other words, is the residue prevented from releasing its CO2 by being buried and stored? Of course, the CO2 that is in the buried residue probably isn't recycled into the next crop. However, other Nutrients, including Nitrogen that can be recycled into the following crop are. But surely that CO2 is more captured than if it was left of the soil surface to rot and release to the air. And wouldn't some of that Nitrogen be released as Ammonia, which is far worse`?

I don't know the answers. But I can't find any work on this. I think it ought to be done.

What I am trying to discover is the truth behind the facts that we are fed about CO2 damage or not, that using Nitrogen fertilisers creates.

To me, this is far more important than crop carbon cultivation accounting. The cultivations have to be done anyway and even though it can be argued that No-Till methods create less CO2 in establishing a crop, the fact that using Nitrogen fertiliser very dramatically captures more CO2 than it releases could be far more relevant.

A very interesting subject though, don't you think?

I'm with @fudge on this. Just looking at applied N and crop sequestered CO2 isn't enough. Nice story though. I can see why you don't want cultivations included on a wider level farm CO2 balance, though your claims about higher yields from ploughing vs min till or no till would cancel out a lot of the imbalance.

 

[Two Tone]

I am really a pragmatist. I would like to be paid for low emission farming and providing “public good” if possible. However such schemes need to be based on sound “carbon accounting” for want of a better term. Otherwise the public will see straight through them. Like it or not ghg emissions as well as particulates will be in Mr Gove’s cross hairs. He will be keen to show the UK is greener than the EU. Who am I to say he is misguided?

You may well have hit on the crux of this whole situation:
Isn't it a shame that Mr Gove isn't more of a pragmatist, rather than an idealist.

One wonders who he gets his ideas from and who is brainwashing him, rather than giving him proper scientific facts.


I think this guy knows a few scientific facts and one or two about our politicians too. Take a look at this at 38 minutes and 40 seconds to 45 mins and 40 seconds.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it's about promoting free and open enquiry. It's about listening to what the scientist tell us, even when it is inconvenient - especially when it is inconvenient." President Obama.

"People are entitled to there own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." Steve Chu, former US secretary of Energy.

"The [European] Commission should be in the position to give the majority view of democratically elected governments at least the same weight as scientific advice." President Junker.

Which one of these opinions does Mr Gove follow?

 

[Two Tone]

I'm with @fudge on this. Just looking at applied N and crop sequestered CO2 isn't enough. Nice story though. I can see why you don't want cultivations included on a wider level farm CO2 balance, though your claims about higher yields from ploughing vs min till or no till would cancel out a lot of the imbalance.

Yes I'm with @fudge too.
I can't claim anything about higher yield on ploughing vs min-till or no-till anywhere else or on anybody else's farm other than this one. I will only claim that it seems to work better here, on this farm, with me, right now.

However, (being very tongue in cheek!) that bit about the possible advantage of burying crop residues and locking up the CO2 within them does seem to be a [theroretical] "convenient truth" for me maybe! I don't know if it "holds water" or not, scientifically. But it definitely helps with my soil structure and drainage here, me thinks. Absolutely no puns intended, whatsoever!

Whether that is anything to do with every soil tests we ever do on any of our extremely varied soil types, stating that they all slump very easily, I don't know. I'll know next week because @Warnesworth is coming to talk to me about it. I have a feeling he might side with you, but might not actually tell me so! We will see.

I haven't invited Mr Gove to attend!

However, I really would like a proper scientist to look into all the facts regarding N ferts and CO2, not just that 3.1Kgs CO2 / 1Kg N figure. Wouldn't you? I think Prof John Beddington would be interested too.

 

[rob1]

Why dont we stop using fert chems etc and of course tractors, it would cure lots of problems by stopping emissions and cut the population by starvation so further reducing pollution its a win win I tell thee

 

[Farmer Roy]

Thanks @Farmer Roy.
Out of interest, how much does a tonne of Urea 46% N cost you?

What do you pay for anhydrous?

prices can vary greatly depending on availability, seasonality & world oil & gas prices. Freight is also quite a significant component as we are about 400km inland from any ports
I am not a great user of synthetic N & am aiming to eliminate its use altogether, so not the best to comment on price
traditionally, urea & anhydrous ammonia have been fairly competitive with each other price wise, for rough budgeting purposes you'd work on about $1 / kg of N
ie - urea about $500 / t and gas ( 82% N ) about $900 / t
but - as I said, prices vary a lot
AN was always more expensive than urea per kg / N

 

[wurzell1976]

Does a stubble rake after muck spreading constitute incorporation i wonder ? You can bet it won"t

 

[wurzell1976]

Spread the muck, someone with clipboard says, why haven’t you incorporated it, you just say it’s no till. Man with clipboard leaves, you get the plough out.

When the man with the clip board pays me visits,we always start off with tea and cake whilst talking about what he does and ,has he got a family and ,what do they do ?"you must be so proud of them" i say.I always put on my scruffiest work clothes,i find it better not to give any indication as to anything that could be misconstrued as being prosperous.This also means moving the children"s school photos from the sideboard,the smart blazers could easily give me away.On the way to a given land parcel we take a detour and i show him all the butterflies in the stewardship that are sunning themselves on the thistles that seem to have come from nowhere.This is where i start acting thick as he looks at the field you have muck spread more than 12 hours previous ,his tone changes as he wonders about saying nothing,i have done my best to incorporate ,been over it several times but as you can see the ground is a bit hard and it wouldn"t go in right,even ran a short top link.Back to the yard ,that"s the cultivator i used pointing to the stubble rake .I have found this type of approach has worked in my favour many times over the years.The last thing these folks appreciate is a smart Alec.