Farming's brave new world

Defra secretary of state George Eustice has set out government plans for the future of farming after Brexit: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/path-to-sustainable-farming

There is a lot of detail to absorb, but the key question is whether farms will be able to stay in profit.

NFU president Minette Batters commented on the agricultural transition roadmap: 'The rate at which direct support reductions will take place, which we understand will not be applied in other parts of the UK, leaves English farmers with significant questions. These payments have been a lifeline for many farmers especially when prices or growing conditions have been volatile and will be very difficult to replace in the first four years of this transition. Can Ministers be sure that new schemes will be available at scale to deliver redirected BPS payments?'

Government seeks to reduce emissions from urea fertilisers

The government has launched a consultation today seeking views on reducing ammonia emissions from solid urea fertilisers used for growing plants and crops.

Ammonia emissions are harmful to natural habitats and our rivers and lakes, as well as to human health, with 87% of the UK’s ammonia emissions coming from farming. The Government has committed to reducing ammonia emissions by 8% of 2005 levels by 2020, and a 16% reduction by 2030.

Taking action on solid urea fertilisers has the potential to reduce pollution caused by:

• Ammonia reacting with other pollutants – nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide – to form particulate matter (PM2.5) which is harmful to cardiovascular and respiratory health.
• Nitrogen deposited on sensitive habitats such as peat bogs. This leads to excess nitrogen in soils that damages the growth of certain plant species.
• Nitrogen leaching through the soil and surface run-off which pollutes water courses, causing harm to plants and animals and impacting on water quality.

The consultation presents three cost effective options:

• A total ban on solid urea fertilisers
• A requirement to stabilise solid urea fertilisers with the addition of a urease inhibitor - a chemical that helps slow the conversion of urea to ammonium
• A requirement to restrict the spreading of solid urea fertilisers so they can only be used from 15 January to 31 March While each of these options will support the Government’s commitment to reducing ammonia emissions, a ban on solid urea fertilisers would achieve around 31% of the ammonia reduction target by 2030.

Reducing ammonia emissions will significantly reduce nitrogen deposition to land and in turn help reduce damage to peat bogs, which are an important carbon sink, thereby helping to tackle climate change.

Up to half of the fertiliser evaporates, causing ammonia emissions that react with other pollutants to produce fine particles whose microscopic size allows them to penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream, making them the most dangerous form of air pollution.

Public Health England attributed the serious smog episode in London in April 2014 partly to agricultural ammonia emissions.

The fertiliser also causes excess nitrogen in soil which promotes growth of brambles, nettles and hogweed that then crowd out wild flowers like harebell and bird's-foot trefoil. Almost nine out of ten designated wildlife sites in England are damaged by excessive nitrogen.

Defra expects farmers to switch to using more ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which is dearer but causes less evaporation and which crops absorb more efficiently.

The ban is expected to cost farmers £132 million up to 2030 and result in an additional 388,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate being required per year, according to Defra’s impact assessment.

Clear Air in London stated: 'Many more technical measures and lifestyle changes will be needed if we are to reduce ammonia emissions from cattle and agriculture generally which are a major cause of particle air pollution episodes in spring.'

Vertical farming can be over hyped

The coronavirus pandemic has stimulated interest in vertical farming given supply change disruptions and labour shortages.  Crops are grown in stacked indoor systems without soil and under artificial light.

About $1.8bn in investment has flowed into the sector since 2014, according to Dealroom.  However, as with anything that is proclaimed the next big thing, some caution is necessary among the hype and boosterism.

The sector remains largely unprofitable and tiny.   According to Rabobank analyst Cindy van Rijswick it occupies the equivalent of 30 hectares of land worldwide compared to half a million hectares for greenhouses and 50m hectares of outdoor cultivation.

High initial capital investment and running costs make it hard to make a profit.   Electricity bills for lighting and ventilation can be high and specialised labour is required.   This leads to a focus on higher value leafy greens, salad greens and herbs.  Vertical farming won't be used for commodities like wheat and rice.

Even so, Nordic Harvest has linked up with Taiwan's YesHealth group to Europe's biggest vertical farm in Copenhagen.   They claim they will be profitable in their first year, although I doubt whether there are significant economies of scale.

Because production can take place in urban areas food can be produced close to consumers improving freshness at point of sale.  However, consumers can be resistant to change in food production and may believe that produce grown with soil and sunlight tastes better or is even healthier.   There has been a history of yield being placed ahead of taste in greenhouses as in the tomato 'water bomb' scandal.

It is very much a niche method of production, albeit it one with growth potential.