, launched in January 2025, aims to understand the management and effective use of reactive nitrogen in soil. Additionally, it seeks to identify the possibilities for reducing nitrogen pollution, as well as how surplus reactive nitrogen can be acquired and re-used.
Alongside Tom on the panel was Martin Lines, chief executive officer at Nature Friendly Farming Network.
Subjects discussed during the session included:
- The effectiveness of nature-based approaches in reducing pollution from nutrients compared to technological ones.
- The challenges associated with meeting the requirements of existing regulations such as Farming Rules for Water.
- The potential benefits of moving away from dependence on synthetic fertiliser to recycled nutrients.
What did the NFU highlight?
The industry wants to do more
Tom emphasised that the agricultural sector has already made significant progress in nitrogen management, with 57% of farms having nutrient management plans in 2024. He pointed out that nitrogen fertiliser use has fallen by 50% since 1990, and nitrogen fertiliser balance has reduced by over a third during the same period.
While acknowledging that nitrogen fertiliser is the most expensive input on most farms, Tom reminded the committee that 鈥渉alf the world is alive due to nitrogen fertiliser鈥�. He stressed the importance of responsible use while recognising its crucial role in food production.
鈥�For the NFU, it isn鈥檛 a choice of either or. It鈥檚 about maximising the value of all interventions.鈥�
NFU President Tom Bradshaw
Tom also noted the popularity of Defra鈥檚 various grant programmes, which have been oversubscribed, highlighting how the design of these programmes could be more practical with sufficient resources allocated to help roll out the offers.
The role of nature-based and technological approaches
On the question of nature-based versus technological approaches, Tom was clear: 鈥淔or the NFU, it isn鈥檛 a choice of either or. It鈥檚 about maximising the value of all interventions,鈥� including nitrification inhibitors, reducing nitrogen loss through soils, buffer strips and cover crops.
Advocating for changes to existing regulation
When asked to comment on some of the challenges associated with meeting the requirements of existing regulations, such as the Farming Rules for Water, Tom made clear the industry鈥檚 frustration, particularly with the use of calendar cut-off dates, which can lead to significant slurry storage issues.
Tom advocated for wider spreading windows that don鈥檛 follow dates, but are underpinned by robust scientific evidence, noting that climate change will make weather patterns more extreme and a date-driven approach will put even greater strain on an already overburdened industry.
Transitioning to recycled nutrients
Tom acknowledged the UK鈥檚 reliance on imports of liquid ammonia while highlighting green ammonia as an exciting prospect for the future. He warned that any attempt to ban artificial fertiliser would cause a dramatic fall in agricultural output in the UK.
On the transition to recycled nutrients, Tom emphasised that we (the industry) need to understand the science behind these techniques before widespread adoption, describing the necessary infrastructure development as a 10-20-year project that requires significant funding.
The role of the supply chain
Tom concluded by highlighting the need for investment in the industry, emphasising the need for this to come from higher up the supply chain.
He suggested that the UK should tax imported food produced using carbon-intensive fertiliser, noting that failing to do so makes UK farming less profitable and undercuts the high standards the nation adheres to.
