Untreated Urea Being Banned in the UK?

[California]

Our agronomist sent this text to me this afternoon (knowing we are users of urea) "Please be very wary of buying any urea to spread next spring. There is a possibility you will not be allowed to spread it unless it's combined with an inhibitor. It's due to new proposed government legislation" Has anyone else heard this?
I hope it's not true or CF (and other AN producers) will no doubt be leaping for joy. Also a concern as we were thinking very seriously about getting some booked. Will give him a call in a bit but just wondered if anyone else knew about it.

 

[California]

He has sent me a link to this. https://www.hlhltd.co.uk/news/read_...CzmLhy7VWPBlxHwfW23g3-TOp3_ZM5DO0h8y8yuX0RxpM

 

[DRC]

Isn’t that article largely written by Yara

 

[California]

The first have of the article does seem to quote Natalie from Yara heavily but I would assume that the quote from the Government's Clean Air Strategy document “We propose to introduce ... a requirement to spread urea-based fertilisers in conjunction with urease inhibitors, unless applied by injection on appropriate land by 2020" is correct. Also Hutchinsons and Yara both sell urea and not just AN so not sure why it would be made up. Although if the document was published "earlier this year" and there was a real risk of untreated uread being banned for use next spring then you would have though someone would have picked up on it soonner?
Quite worrying though none the less.

 

[yellow belly]

one of the statement I would argue against is that the difference between n applied and n harvested is what is lost
some n is lost down the drain more likely with ammonium nitrate or where the following crop is planted after October

if you are building organic matter then some of the n that is not harvested is locked in the organic matter

the problem with inhibited urea is that the n is available too late unless it is applied very early

all the studies I have seen only show ammonia loss at temperatures higher than we have ever had in march in Lincolnshire

the research work still needs doing on uk soils at uk temperatures

 

[MrAgrologist]

Hi,
This is correct. The Clean Air Strategy from the government is the key here. As with other member states EU governments are being taken to court for not achieving the ammonia emissions targets set out in the Gothenburg Protocol. This has made governments across the EU react with new regulation proposals. Agriculture sadly contributes more than any other industry when it comes to ammonia, with the biggest issue being livestock manures / urine etc. However urea fertilizer is also a large contributor which is why it is under scrutiny. Ammonia is predicted to cost the NHS £5.3billion so using urea certainly isn't a 'public good'. As part of the proposed regulation straight urea will not be allowed, unless it is treated with a urease inhibitor. The best ammonia mitigation products are CAN/AN nitrogen forms - these have half the emissions of urea plus inhibitor. The original date set for the new regulation was 1st Jan 2020 which is why it is a risk having product as straight urea. Since this date was proposed it has been withdrawn so we now await the next proposal. It is important to note that this is not UK specific, Germany and France have already proposed their intentions with bans coming in soon. Effectively this new regulation signals the end of straight urea as an option - with urea plus inhibitor , UAN and CAN / AN being the options. The urease inhibitors are more complex with application rates determined by length of storage before usage, as well as operator safety / fertility being important! Natalie Wood at Yara is very well informed on this subject and has been communicating out the developing issues for over 12 months now. There are years of experience with inhibitors at Yara as well, especially as they supplied the material for the NT26 work often quoted. Hope this helps.

 

[MrAgrologist]

one of the statement I would argue against is that the difference between n applied and n harvested is what is lost
some n is lost down the drain more likely with ammonium nitrate or where the following crop is planted after October

if you are building organic matter then some of the n that is not harvested is locked in the organic matter

the problem with inhibited urea is that the n is available too late unless it is applied very early

all the studies I have seen only show ammonia loss at temperatures higher than we have ever had in march in Lincolnshire

the research work still needs doing on uk soils at uk temperatures

If you look at the NT26 dataset you will see that some of the highest losses came when urea applied to Grassland in February, and high losses were recorded in the arable dataset through March and April - averaging 26%

 

[marco]

What are the health risks with these inhibitors? And who is to blame when they inevitably end up in the food chain? Talks of being made to wear full ppe to spread this stuff does not instill any confidence in the products saftey.

 

[California]

What are the health risks with these inhibitors? And who is to blame when they inevitably end up in the food chain? Talks of being made to wear full ppe to spread this stuff does not instill any confidence in the products saftey.

We've used KAN (urea treated with a product called Agrotain) before. Whilst I didn't particularly rate the product I didn't note any particular safety issues with it and non were mentioned when we bought it.

 

[BigBarl]

It’s no big deal. The inhibitors are either added in the slurry before granulation or sprayed on as a coating afterwards. They are relatively inexpensive and will still be cheaper than AN on a £/kg of N basis. Products like Alzon, KAN, agrotain etc have been around for years, there are no additional health concerns using the products. As for a withdrawal period on untreated Urea nothing has been set in stone yet but given how many millions of tonnes there will be kicking around then surely some sort of use up period like we have with pesticide products will be implemented.

 

[Luke Cropwalker]

It has to be your decision, but I have booked some urea for next year. It would be unusual for new legislation to be enforced without allowing a use up period for the affected products. Apparently any urea that has S in the compound or mix if it is a liquid will still be allowed.

 

[rob1]

Hi,
This is correct. The Clean Air Strategy from the government is the key here. As with other member states EU governments are being taken to court for not achieving the ammonia emissions targets set out in the Gothenburg Protocol. This has made governments across the EU react with new regulation proposals. Agriculture sadly contributes more than any other industry when it comes to ammonia, with the biggest issue being livestock manures / urine etc. However urea fertilizer is also a large contributor which is why it is under scrutiny. Ammonia is predicted to cost the NHS £5.3billion so using urea certainly isn't a 'public good'. As part of the proposed regulation straight urea will not be allowed, unless it is treated with a urease inhibitor. The best ammonia mitigation products are CAN/AN nitrogen forms - these have half the emissions of urea plus inhibitor. The original date set for the new regulation was 1st Jan 2020 which is why it is a risk having product as straight urea. Since this date was proposed it has been withdrawn so we now await the next proposal. It is important to note that this is not UK specific, Germany and France have already proposed their intentions with bans coming in soon. Effectively this new regulation signals the end of straight urea as an option - with urea plus inhibitor , UAN and CAN / AN being the options. The urease inhibitors are more complex with application rates determined by length of storage before usage, as well as operator safety / fertility being important! Natalie Wood at Yara is very well informed on this subject and has been communicating out the developing issues for over 12 months now. There are years of experience with inhibitors at Yara as well, especially as they supplied the material for the NT26 work often quoted. Hope this helps.

Me thinks you have an axe to grind, All air pollution is predicted to cost the NHS 5.3 billion by 2035
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...ir-pollution&usg=AOvVaw0QoAWBh8R2Pz1AsKXsQhlM

 

[ajd132]

Hi,
This is correct. The Clean Air Strategy from the government is the key here. As with other member states EU governments are being taken to court for not achieving the ammonia emissions targets set out in the Gothenburg Protocol. This has made governments across the EU react with new regulation proposals. Agriculture sadly contributes more than any other industry when it comes to ammonia, with the biggest issue being livestock manures / urine etc. However urea fertilizer is also a large contributor which is why it is under scrutiny. Ammonia is predicted to cost the NHS £5.3billion so using urea certainly isn't a 'public good'. As part of the proposed regulation straight urea will not be allowed, unless it is treated with a urease inhibitor. The best ammonia mitigation products are CAN/AN nitrogen forms - these have half the emissions of urea plus inhibitor. The original date set for the new regulation was 1st Jan 2020 which is why it is a risk having product as straight urea. Since this date was proposed it has been withdrawn so we now await the next proposal. It is important to note that this is not UK specific, Germany and France have already proposed their intentions with bans coming in soon. Effectively this new regulation signals the end of straight urea as an option - with urea plus inhibitor , UAN and CAN / AN being the options. The urease inhibitors are more complex with application rates determined by length of storage before usage, as well as operator safety / fertility being important! Natalie Wood at Yara is very well informed on this subject and has been communicating out the developing issues for over 12 months now. There are years of experience with inhibitors at Yara as well, especially as they supplied the material for the NT26 work often quoted. Hope this helps.

Who do you work for?

 

[Flat 10]

I would buy it @California , slight risk but they need to give you a use up.

 

[yellow belly]

if you put urea on and before a rain the losses are no more than with ammonium nitrate

for spring use in spring crops combine drilling also reduced the chances of any loss

urea once washed in has lower leaching losses

on heavy colder land we need nitrogen available for the crops in early spring an is susceptible to early leaching losses when we get wetter weather in march

 

[California]

I would buy it @California , slight risk but they need to give you a use up.

I think you are right. Whilst it may well be the case that untreated urea gets banned at some point I can't see how that a ban for next season with no use up period is going to be workable.

 

[stroller]

I wonder if they will ban the import of products that are grown with untreated urea?

 

[Fish]

I wonder if they will ban the import of products that are grown with untreated urea?

They won't even ban the import of untreated urea, as urea has many other uses, de-icing airport runways and as a feed stock in other industries.

 

[Brisel]

Isn’t that article largely written by Yara

Yara extensively slag off urea in the UK (though you can buy it from them rather than them lose a sale). Yara are one of the world’s largest producers of urea yet clearly make a higher profit margin on Extran/Axan AN based products.

If you want urea, buy it. The Clean Air Strategy proposals are not set in law yet and as above, we should have a use up period on uninhibited product.

I keep banging the drum for looking beyond the marketing hype. I’m also using Yara liquids here exclusively so I bear no grudge against them.

 

[robbie]

I intend to just by the stuff time i can and even if untreated urea gets banned I'm sure I read in the omex catalogue they do an inhibitor that can be sprayed on the ground pre or post application. So I'll just use that.