Nitrification inhibitors reduce nitrogen losses & improve efficiency
Nitrogen fertilisers such as Nutramon and Dynamax are reliable tools in crop nutrition. However, both mineral and organic nitrogen fertilisers can suffer losses. Governments increasingly focus on reducing emissions from fertilisation, and result-based nitrogen management is becoming an important concept in environmental policy.
A practical and effective way to reduce nitrogen losses to air and water is the use of a nitrification inhibitor.
How does a nitrification inhibitor work?
A nitrification inhibitor slows down the conversion of ammonium (NH₄⁺) into nitrate (NO₃⁻).
This delay has several benefits:
-
Ammonium remains longer in the soil in a stable, less leachable form.
-
Nitrate is highly mobile and easily leaches into groundwater.
-
Under wet soil conditions, nitrate can be converted into nitrous oxide (N₂O), a potent greenhouse gas.
By keeping nitrogen longer in the ammonium form, the inhibitor reduces both nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions.
Depending on soil temperature and moisture, the inhibitor works for 4 to 10 weeks (longer in cooler or drier soils).
Greater nitrogen use efficiency – beneficial for crops and the environment
ecause nitrogen remains available longer, crops have more time to take it up.
Field trials in Germany show:
-
5–15% higher nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in maize
-
5–10% higher NUE in grassland
This means more yield per kilogram of applied nitrogen.
On sandy soils, nitrate leaching can be reduced by 30–50%.
Nitrous oxide emissions can fall by 20–60%, depending on weather and soil conditions.
On clay soils, where wet conditions can trigger denitrification, nitrification inhibitors can reduce N₂O losses by 20–40%.
Because clay has a higher CEC, ammonium also binds more strongly, improving availability in early spring.
Reducing nitrous oxide may sound abstract, but practically it means less nitrogen is lost into the air — improving crop efficiency and lowering fertiliser waste.
Nutramon Care & Dynamax Care support all environmental objectives
Nitrification inhibitors align well with environmental policy goals aimed at reducing nitrogen losses to air and water.
Because the inhibitor slows down conversion of ammonium into nitrate, nitrogen remains where the plant needs it, improving both yield and environmental performance.
Field trials in arable and livestock farming show:
-
Higher yields
-
Less leaching
-
Lower nitrous oxide emissions
A major advantage: the inhibitor is added directly to Nutramon & Dynamax.
Nutramon Care & Dynamax Care maintain the same excellence
Sources
Wissemeier, A. W. Linzmeier, R. Gutser and W. Weigelt. The new nitrification inhibitor DMPP (ENTEC) comparisons with DCD in model studies and field applications.
Inagro (2022). Veel interesse in de veldproef herwonnen meststoffen. https://inagro.be/nieuws/veel-interesse-de-veldproef-herwonnen-meststoffen
Mestverwaarding Vlaanderen (2022). Goede resultaten voor circulaire meststoffen in Nitroman-veldproeven in de groententeelt. https://mestverwaarding.nl/kenniscentrum/2504
Proeftuin Zwaagdijk / Kennisakker (2012). N-systemen in wintertarwe op kleigrond. https://kennisakker.nl/archief-publicaties/n-systemen-in-wintertarwe4113
Titulaer, H.H., van Enckevort, F.H.J. (1986). Proeven met dunne mest en een nitrificatieremmer DCD, uitgevoerd door het PAGV te Lelystad. Wageningen University & Research, PAGV-publicatie. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/proeven-met-dunne-mest-en-een-nitrificatieremmer-dcd
Di, H.J. & Cameron, K.C. (2002). Nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions from urine‐affected soil under different irrigation and N‐management regimes. Soil Use and Management, 18(4), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1079/SUM2002145
Misselbrook, T.H. et al. (2014). A guide to the use of nitrification and urease inhibitors to reduce nitrogen losses in agriculture. DEFRA, UK Government. [Grijze literatuur]
Luo, J. et al. (2015). A reevaluation of the agronomic effectiveness of the nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP and the urease inhibitor NBPT. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.12.005