[News] Netherlands Will Seize 3000 FARMS to comply with EU pollution rules (utter cage)

[kathisterima]

no it isnt

yes it is, you compare per weight, not per calories, which is incorrect

an apple is more nutritionally complete than ground beef, see for yourself

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/781867-171688/100g-100g/1-4.8/1

no it doesnt. that's consumption of processed foods. which what supplement vegans shill for.

yes it does, I've made posts about it numerous times, vegans have the lowest all-cause mortality risk and cancer risk

only in the synthetic form, natural ammonia in the form of urea enriches the soil. did you not learn about this in primary school?

Idk what you learn in India schools, but ammonia emissions pollute soil. You are one google search away from finding that out. 

First of all, where do the emissions come from:

Agriculture is the major source of ammonia (NH3) emissions to the atmosphere in the UK, accounting for >80% of anthropogenic emissions. Most of these emissions derive from urea excreted by farmed livestock (or uric acid in the case of poultry) and emissions will therefore arise wherever livestock excreta are deposited or managed i.e. at grazing, in livestock housing and during manure storage and application to land. Emissions also arise from inorganic nitrogen fertilisers applied to land.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?report_id=977

How do ammonia emissions pollute soil:

Ammonia itself and the nitrogen deposition resulting from ammonia emissions negatively affect biodiversity. Ammonia is one of the main sources of nitrogen pollution, alongside nitrogen oxides. A major effect of ammonia pollution on biodiversity is the impact of nitrogen accumulation on plant species diversity and composition within affected habitats. Common, fast-growing species adapted to high nutrient availability thrive in a nitrogen-rich environment and out-compete species which are more sensitive, smaller or rarer.Ammonia pollution also impacts species composition through soil acidification, direct toxic damage to leaves and by altering the susceptibility of plants to frost, drought and pathogens (including insect pests and invasive species). At its most serious, if changes in species composition and extinctions are large, it may be that remaining vegetation and other species no longer fit the criteria for that habitat type, and certain sensitive and iconic habitats may be lost. Certain species and habitats are particularly susceptible to ammonia pollution. Bog and peatland habitats are made up of sensitive lichen and mosses which can be damaged by even low concentrations of ammonia. Grasslands, heathlands and forests are also vulnerable.

However, much of the wider evidence on biodiversity impacts relates to all nitrogen pollution, rather than just ammonia. There is far less evidence on the impact of ammonia, and nitrogen more generally, on animal species and the wider ecosystem. However, animal species depend on plants as a food source; therefore herbivorous animals are susceptible to the effects of ammonia pollution. There is a negative correlation between flower-visiting insects, such as bees and butterflies, and nitrogen pollution. Ammonia affects freshwater ecosystems through direct agricultural run-off leading to eutrophication Summary ii The impact of ammonia emissions from agriculture on biodiversity (accumulation of nutrients, leading to algal growth and oxygen depletion) and also has toxic effects on aquatic animals that often have thin and permeable skin surfaces.

Quantifying the economic impact of ammonia emissions on biodiversity is challenging and the methods used are subject to debate. Available estimates suggest that loss of biodiversity due to ammonia emissions could have impacts in the UK which can be valued, conservatively, at between £0.20 and £4 per kg of ammonia. Combining this with the monetised health impacts, our conservative estimate of the total costs from both health and biodiversity impacts of ammonia in the UK is £2.50 per kg of ammonia (though the range of possible values is from £2 to £56 per kg). This conservative estimate, combined with projected emission data, suggests that if no action is taken to reduce ammonia emissions, the negative impacts on the UK in 2020 could be equivalent to costs of over £700m per year. However, there are significant uncertainties in these values. The range of possible costs, based on the estimates in the literature and best available projections for emissions, are between £580m and £16.5bn per year.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/evidence-synthesis/Ammonia/Ammonia-report.pdf

Page 40, soil absorption doesn't stop the release of ammonia.

Another source:

Effects of ammonia have been established from transect studies downwind of significant NH3 sources (van Herk 1999; Pitcairn et al. 1995, 1998; Wolseley et al. 2006) and a field release (Sheppard et al 2011). Ammonia can be taken up through the leaves via stomata, increasing the potential for nutrient N uptake. The consequences of foliar uptake and processing of an alkaline gas for cellular functions, appear to drive the deleterious effects of NH3 on terrestrial plants. Alkalinity is also thought to be a key driver for NH3 effects on epiphytic lichens (van Herk 2001). Atmospheric NH3 also impacts as NH4+, when the NH3 deposits to plant surfaces, dissolves and is washed into the soil where it can increase soil acidity and interfere with base cation uptake (Pearson and Stewart 1993, Fangmeier et al. 1994, Krupa 2003). Effects represent the combined effects of uptake through shoots as NH3/NH4+ and roots as NH4+.

Negative effects on vegetation occur via direct toxicity, when uptake exceeds detoxification capacity and, via N accumulation, which increases the likelihood of detrimental interactions with other abiotic and biotic stressors. Ammonia can also enrich a system with nitrogen putting under-storey species at risk as they become shaded by the expansion of nitrophiles (N loving plants) that use the additional N to increase productivity and expand the over-storey. Nitrogen enrichment affects competition for resources, favouring fast growing, tall species with rapid N assimilation rates. Mosses and lichens are most at risk, they have limited detoxification capacity relative to their uptake potential and a large surface area relative to mass (Pearson and Stewart 1993).

Many lichen species are sensitive to even small increases in NH3 concentrations above c. 1µg m-3 (Wolseley et al. 2006). Current evidence suggests that the absence of acidophytic lichens (lichens loving acid conditions) from twigs and trunks of acid-barked trees, growing in NH3 rich environments, is due to NH3 neutralizing the bark pH (van Herk 2001). Sheppard et al. (2004) found that monthly NH3 concentrations > 20 µg m-3 decimated Cladonia portentosa populations in less than one year and that after three years the concentration had fallen to < 3 µg m-3. Wet deposited NH4+ caused only restricted damage.

In mosses, NH3 exposure can increase both the N and amino acid content of ectohydric pleurocarpous mosses. Elevations in N and amino acid content have been proposed as a well coupled indicator of NH3-N deposition (Pitcairn et al. 2006). Moss species differ with respect to their N uptake, and presumably their tolerance (Pitcairn et al. 2006). Some Sphagnum (bog mosses) appear to be very sensitive, especially those that lack the red-orange pigments, carotenoids, that protect against oxidative stress (Sheppard et al 2011). Overall dry deposited ammonia-N drives species composition change and reduces species cover and diversity, much faster than the same unit of N in wet deposition (Sheppard et al 2011).

Attributing both specific effects in the field and indicators can be challenging because ammonia is a form of nitrogen which is an essential plant growth nutrient. In addition, some of the effects are difficult to separate from those caused by management, or lack of shading of the under-storey.

A summary of effects on vegetation are:

• Eutrophication leading to changes in species assemblages; increase in N loving species (e.g. grasses) and species that can up regulate their carbon assimilation at the expense of species that are conservative in their N use.
  
• Shift in dominance from mosses, lichens and ericoids (heath species) towards grasses like Deschampsia flexuosa, Molinia caerulea and ruderal species, e.g. Chamerion angustifolium, Rumex acetosella, Rubus idaeus.
  
• Increased risk of frost damage in spring (van der Eerden et al 1991)
  
• Increased winter desiccation levels in Calluna and summer drought stress
  
• Increase in N loving epiphytes, e.g. Xanthoria parietina, at the expense of epiphytes that prefer acid bark.
  
• Increased incidence of pest and pathogen attack, e.g. heather beetle outbreaks.
  
• Direct damage and death of sensitive species, e.g. lichens and mosses, Sphagnum, Pleurozium schreberi.
  
• Reduced root growth and mycorrhizal infection leading to reduced nutrient uptake, sensitivity to drought and nutrient imbalance with respect to N that is taken up via the foliage (Perez Soba 1995 for Scots pine).
  
• Increase in soil pH follows acidification
  
• Ammonia excess will lead to increases in nitrification and denitrification, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
  
  

https://www.apis.ac.uk/overview/pollutants/overview_nh3.htm

did u even read the wikipedia "Sources" u posted.
from the first source YOU posted:
Causes of groundwater pollution include: naturally-occurring (geogenic), on-site sanitation systems, sewage, fertilizers and pesticide, commercial and industrial leaks, hydraulic fracturing, and landfill leachate

link to highlight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwate...20leachate

from the second source YOU Posted:
Soil Contamination is typically caused by industrial activity, agricultural chemicals or improper disposal of waste. 

link to highlight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_conta...of%20waste.

no idea what point you are trying to make there, that because there are other causes of soil and groundwater pollution, agricultural impact is less important? THat's a poor point.