Are innovative technologies a good alternative to reduce nitrogen emissions?

‘Extremely good news,’ said Caroline van der Plas (BBB) ​​when nitrogen minister Christianne van de Wal (VVD) responded positively to the question whether money from the nitrogen fund (24.3 billion euros) may be spent on innovation. The idea is that if air scrubbers, low-emission stable floors or extraction systems can reduce nitrogen emissions from livestock farms, fewer livestock farmers will have to stop. “Perhaps forced buy-out does not have to take place at all,” reasoned Van der Plas.

What the balance should be between innovation, promoting nature-friendly agriculture or buying farmers out completely has been an issue in the nitrogen debate for some time. For all three, money has been included in the nitrogen fund of 24.3 billion from the start, with which nitrogen emissions from Dutch livestock farming must be reduced in order to allow damaged nature to recover.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) hopes that the peak loader scheme, which came online last Monday, will buy out the livestock farmers with the highest emissions near the most damaged nature. That would take a big bite out of the total required nitrogen reduction. But registration for the scheme is voluntary, the willingness to participate seems limited, and forced buy-out is politically very sensitive. Negotiations about a maximum number of cows per hectare, which in practice would lead to a smaller herd, are also difficult.

Climate targets

Part of the livestock sector, including the BBB, prefers to reduce nitrogen emissions with innovative technologies. What does that involve? And does this prepare livestock farmers for the other tasks that await them, such as the climate objectives?

André Troost, foreman of agricultural innovation company Lely, “understands the cynicism” surrounding innovation. But if global milk consumption continues to rise (according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization by 1.4 percent annually until 2030), innovation is still necessary to keep agriculture sustainable, is Lely’s vision.

Since 2017, the company has only focused on dairy farming, and developed the Sphere for this purpose. This is an extraction system that converts ammonia (a bond of nitrogen and water) into usable fertilizer in stables. The Sphere is good for 77 percent lower ammonia emissions for stables, and is installed at 25 dairy farms in the Netherlands.

Since March 2023, the system has been on the list of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality with approved innovative measures for reduced ammonia emissions. There is a lot to be said about that list: equipment that Wageningen University & Research (WUR) awarded a disappointing reduction result last March, was also on it, for example.

Getting a new technique on the list takes “a lot of time” according to Adriaan Lieftinck. He works at MEZT, a start-up affiliated with TU Delft, on a technique that reduces nitrogen emissions from livestock farms. A membrane under tension extracts ammonia and potassium (a scarce nutrient for plants) from manure. The technology is still in the testing phase, but will have to be tested on four livestock farms before it can be added to the list. “We don’t have the time for that in the Netherlands. There will have to be another way to introduce new innovations.”

Invest and scale up

If a livestock farmer wants to reduce his emissions through innovation, this is a major investment. For example, a Lely Sphere for dairy farmers costs 180,000 euros. According to product manager Victor van Wagenberg, a new air regulation and filter system for poultry farms from the Vencomatic Group is also a “considerable cost item”, he does not want to mention a specific amount.

Such large amounts are easier to recoup for companies with a large turnover, says agricultural technologist Gerard Migchels, who works at Wageningen University & Research. Although innovative systems in principle also work on relatively small livestock farms, which are organic or extensive, for example, a livestock farmer with a smaller turnover is more dependent on subsidies to cover the costs.

Then there is the question of whether new technologies can be widely introduced in the short term. Earlier, Lely told NRC not be able to produce more than 400 Spheres this year. The uncertainty surrounding nitrogen makes expansion more difficult. JOZ, another agricultural innovation company, says the production of their ‘nitrogen cracker’ can easily be scaled up – there are currently 400 applications. The Vencomatic Group can currently make its air system for ten poultry houses per year.

Beyond Nitrogen

The practical feasibility of innovations as a solution for nitrogen is therefore still uncertain. And when a livestock farmer installs a system for nitrogen, he is not yet prepared for other tasks, such as the nature and climate goals, says Migchels.

Lely says it innovates for the benefit of biodiversity and soil quality, among other things. When asked which themes the company is working on exactly, foreman Troost answers “some, and for the others we hereby appeal to our technicians”. Troost cannot say when the solutions will come onto the market, but the innovation timeline is seven to ten years, and Lely ‘did not start today’.

One of those other issues for livestock farming is water quality. This is deteriorating partly due to the leaching of nitrate from manure into groundwater and ditch water. There are already ‘management’ measures, such as manure-free buffer strips and the reduction of the permitted amount of manure on the land. Migchels is researching the potential of targeted fertilization. “The more you fertilize according to the needs of the plant, the less nitrate leaches down.” MEZT’s technology also fits into that picture. Lieftinck: “We can make very precise fertilizers from animal manure, with exactly the right dosage for every plant, for every season, and every type of soil. That fits in with circular agriculture and there is less burden on the environment, because then there are no more surpluses.”

A much bigger task than nitrogen is the climate, says Migchels. According to the 2019 Climate Agreement, agriculture must be climate neutral by 2050. Reducing methane emissions is particularly important for this. Manure digesters can extract methane from manure. But “80 percent of the methane emission is exhaled by a cow,” says Migchels. “DSM has devised a nutritional supplement for this, which reduces emissions by roughly 30 percent. But then you have a subscription to DSM again.”

Integral

“The problem with technical solutions is that they are not integral,” says Professor of Environment and Sustainability Jan-Willem Erisman. “It is important to me that innovation serves multiple purposes.” In addition to climate, he also mentions animal infectious diseases that can jump to humans (such as bird flu), and biodiversity. In addition, according to Erisman, there is the risk that a solution to one problem will exacerbate the other. For example, some machines significantly increase the energy consumption (and thus also the operating costs) of livestock farmers.

Innovative solutions are also not always good for animal welfare.

Read also: ‘Maybe I don’t want to know if I’m a peak loader’

A Sphere, air washer, filter or low-emission barn floor only has an effect on emissions in the barn. Such machines therefore achieve their best results when cattle are kept indoors. Livestock in pasture is considered better for animal welfare and has lower ammonia emissions because manure and urine do not mix (only then is ammonia released), according to Professor of Integrated Nitrogen Effect Analysis Wim de Vries. But, he says, that in turn leads to higher emissions of the greenhouse gas laughing gas.

According to Migchels, organic dairy farming is a good option for both nature and animal welfare. “But if consumers do not drink more organic milk, while more is being produced, that means a worse price for farmers. So that will not offer any solace without a change in consumer behavior.”

Research by WUR, by De Vries and others, shows that a reduction in livestock numbers is actually unavoidable in order to achieve the targets in the areas of nitrogen, climate and water quality. Even when there is plenty of innovation. Less livestock, more innovation, different management, according to De Vries, it is ‘both-and, not either-or’ for nature and climate challenges.