"The Fertilizers Market size is estimated at 381.7 billion USD in 2024, and is expected to reach 541.2 billion USD by 2030" [1]. This is not surprising because as the global population increases, so does the need for food. While it is a significant source of agricultural productivity, and thereby economic development, the price of fertilizers has reached a record high [2] (see figure). In the past three decades, farmers have seen a 250% increase in costs for pesticides and agricultural chemicals, making it difficult for them to perform their work optimally, especially in developing countries, where forty-nine million people in 49 countries are on the brink of famine[3]. For optimized food safety and production, it is critical that all farmers receive the fertilizer they need quickly and at affordable prices [3], but the market does not seem to be on their side.
What if we could reach that optimal point without the need for fertilizers? For example, by manufacturing genetically modified seeds that produce crops capable of fixing their own nitrogen? In addition to saving farmers billions, and saving thousands of lives, we could create this hypothetical new product that would revolutionize the food market as we know it. Is this possible, and is it beneficial for the market? We explored the possibility of commercializing the potential product that our research would lead to, NitroBLAST seeds. This was done by our entrepreneurship team and our ideas to realize our potential company NitroBLAST are elucidated on this page.
At NitroBLAST, we are focusing on transforming global agriculture. Our ultimate goal is to create sustainable, nitrogen-fixing crops that help farmers rely less on chemical fertilizers, while still ensuring strong crop yields. By doing this, we aim to empower farmers to embrace our technology and contribute to reducing the environmental impact of fertilizers.
- Innovating for sustainability: We’re working to develop crops that naturally fix atmospheric nitrogen and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers.
- Empower farmers: Our solution is designed to lower farmers’ costs by reducing the need to buy fertilizers.
- Reduce environmental impact: By cutting global CO2 and nitrogen emissions, we hope to reduce the harm caused by over-fertilization and promote a more sustainable future.
Farms across the country are losing massive amounts of nitrogen—74% of what they apply, or about 312,000 tons, is wasted each year. This nitrogen, meant to nourish crops, instead ends up polluting our air and soil. Most of it comes from over-fertilization, an issue that has put the Netherlands at the top of the list among OECD nations for nitrogen use [4]. The effects of this issue extend beyond just the environment; they also deeply affect farmers who are striving to care for their crops amidst increasing environmental challenges. In fact, the production of synthetic fertilizers alone accounts for nearly 2% of global CO 2 emissions [5].
For staple crops like cereals and maize, up to 40% of farm operating costs go toward fertilizers [6], and the rising costs have triggered protests across Europe, with Dutch farmers at the forefront [7]. Attempts to curb nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands have only deepened the tension.
The consequences of over-fertilization are profound, leading to environmental devastation such as harmful algal blooms, air pollution, and serious health risks. Yet, despite its harmful effects, fertilizer is critical for boosting crop yields at a time when the global population is growing and food demand continues to skyrocket. Tackling this problem is not just a national issue—it’s a global priority that demands immediate and innovative solutions.
At NitroBLAST, we’re taking an exciting first step towards solving the nitrogen crisis by giving crops the ability to naturally fix atmospheric nitrogen.
Our research centers on incorporating a nitrogen-fixing organelle, called the Nitroplast, into eukaryotic cells, and eventually plant seeds. This innovation is inspired by a natural partnership between the cyanobacteria UCYN-A and the marine alga B. bigelowii. Using synthetic biology, we’re working to introduce this nitrogen-fixing capability into important crops like wheat, corn, and rice, much like how peas and beans already partner with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
The result? Crops that can fix their own nitrogen directly from the atmosphere, reducing or even eliminating the need for synthetic fertilizers. This means lower costs for farmers and fewer environmental problems caused by fertilizer overuse. Unlike traditional fertilizers, which require energy-intensive production and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, NitroBLAST crops would work naturally inside the plant, helping to minimize agriculture’s carbon footprint.
We imagine a future where crops can thrive in nutrient-poor soils without harmful chemicals, supporting sustainable farming that protects water sources, reduces pollution, and preserves biodiversity.
Over the course of this iGEM project, the TU Delft iGEM team has worked on entrepreneurial ideas for the commercialization of our product, NitroBLAST seeds. In this section, we will highlight this product, its use in today's world and the commercialization strategy that we could potentially adopt.
In the ideal scenario, our marketable product would be a NitroBLAST seed, which would give rise to a plant that fixes its own nitrogen, thus omitting the need for fertilizer. After discussion with experts in the field of plant seeds technologies, we discovered that the realization of such a seed would involve incorporation of the nitroplast at the embryonic stage or in the meristem. Once we have completed research and development, our product would be a NitroBLAST seed. Our target buyers would be seed companies, with a focus on plant breeding. For every subsequent sale made by these companies on NitroBLAST seeds of any generation thereafter, our company would receive a fixed share of the profits made by this sale.
For the realization of our product, we developed a commercialization strategy, through which we could make the transition from the lab to the market. In this section, we have outlined steps for the commercialization of our product.
- Research and development: In this stage, we will continue refining our technology as a start-up, ensuring it is scalable, reliable, and can be applied not only to eukaryotic model organisms, but also to a range of crops and agricultural systems. Following this, we will conduct pilot studies and field trials with focus groups of key stakeholders (e.g. innovative farmers or research institutions like TU Delft AgTech Institute, which is already a sponsor of our project) to validate the effectiveness of nitrogen-fixing crops in real-world conditions. Our final challenge in this phase would then be to navigate regulatory hurdles, such as getting approval from agricultural and environmental agencies. We would hire an expert to guide us through this (more on this in the skill gap analysis). Along with the hiring, we will ensure that our product complies with biosafety standards and obtain certifications needed for commercial agriculture using these seeds in The Netherlands, for example the seed certification of the Netherlands General Inspection Service for Agricultural Seeds and Seed Potatoes (NAK), which ensures that GM seeds meet standards related to safety, quality, and environmental protection.
- Intellectual property protection: In this phase, we will aim at securing strong intellectual property protection for our technology, including patenting our unique genetic engineering methods or products such as the fusion with which we incorporate the Nitroplast in a cell, as well as the resulting seed itself. For these steps, we will also make use of our skill gap analysis and hire the corresponding experts on intellectual property law. Following this, we will refine and protect the brand identity of our technology through trademark registration, which is the legal process of registering a specific symbol, name, or logo to obtain exclusive rights to use it. This can be done for any other distinctive signs that identify and distinguish our product.
- Building partnerships: In this phase, we will focus on our engagement with potential early adopters of our technology. These would generally be individuals and institutions that are open to experimenting with sustainable agricultural methods. These could be, for example, leading academic and research institutions that can aid us in acquiring additional R&D funding, or agrochemical and AgTech companies whose large customer bases will allow us to scale-up faster. Some examples of potential partnerships, from different backgrounds, could be Wageningen University and Research (WUR) Center, Bayer, BASF, or KWS. Throughout our project, we had conversations with representatives of some of these entities (more on this in the Human Practices page), and we also took into consideration some of their suggestions about patenting for our project.
- Market release: In this phase, we would start out initially by selling directly to progressive, innovative farmers and farmers’ collectives focused on sustainable and organic farming. Following this, we would license our technology to larger seed companies that can integrate the nitrogen-fixing capabilities into their crop offerings. This would scale our impact quickly without managing the entire production and sales process ourselves.
- Marketing: Following this, we would develop a strong content marketing strategy focused on educating farmers from all around the world about sustainable farming practices, nitrogen-fixation technology, and long-term cost benefits, while partnering with agricultural influencers (Justin Rhodes, Tyker Froberg, Peter, etc.), thought leaders, and industry publications to spread awareness of our product’s environmental and economic benefits.
- Revenue model: Our revenue model would first focus on the direct sale of the seeds to farmers and farmers’ collectives. Once we have licensed our technology to large seed producers, we would also acquire a share of the profits made by them via NitroBLAST seeds.
- Scaling and growth: At first, we would start by selling to the Dutch market. This is because although the nitrogen crisis is a global issue, its effect is particularly pronounced in the Dutch landscape. Following this, we would leverage partnerships with global agricultural companies and NGOs to expand into new territories and collaborate with global sustainability initiatives to align with regional regulations and goals. This includes government subsidy programs for sustainable agriculture that will further aid in reducing the financial burden on farmers.
The Lean Canvas is a simplified, one-page business model framework designed to help entrepreneurs and startups quickly outline and validate their business ideas. The focus is on identifying key assumptions, problems, and solutions early on, allowing for faster testing and iteration. We have designed the following Lean Canvas for our business:
Our seeds would not be limited to traditional farmers alone. In addition to them, there is a large group of entities that could be interested in obtaining our products or acquiring part of the company’s shares in the event it goes through an IPO (more on this in the Exit Strategy section). The growing concern for a more sustainable future and the restrictions on CO2 emissions and nitrogen derivatives are driving large groups to seek greener solutions. If, in doing so, they can also save the money and time involved in using fertilizers, the possibilities increase even further. Among the potential consumers, we can find:
- Agricultural Cooperatives and Associations, like the Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. from the Netherlands or The Nationals Farmer Union from the UK.
- Agrochemical and Fertilizer Companies, like BASF or Yara International.
- Environmental Organizations and NGOs, such as WWF and Greenpeace.
- Government and Regulatory bodies, like the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality from the Netherlands.
- Academic and Research Institutions, like the WUR (Wageningen University and Research) or the TU Delft AgTech Institute.
- Food and Beverage Companies, such as Unilever or General Mills.
- Farmers and Agricultural Producers, like the Sunkist Growers or the Southern States Cooperative, both from USA.
- Consumer and Advocacy Groups, such as Consumers International or Friends of the Earth.
- Investors and Venture Capitalists, like AgFunder and Pontifax AgTech (USA).
- Precision Agriculture: Uses technology to respond to variability in crops and soil conditions, optimizing the need for fertilizer.
- Biological Nitrogen Fixation: Utilizes natural bacteria in plants to fix nitrogen, minimizing the need for fertilizers.
- Genetically Modified Crops: Existing GM crops are designed for higher efficiency and reduced reliance on fertilizers and chemicals.
- Cover Cropping: Plants cover crops to improve soil health and reduce nitrogen loss.
- Crop Rotation: Alternates crops to naturally restore soil nitrogen levels and reduce fertilizer dependency.
A SWOT analysis, is a strategic planning tool that identifies a company's internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats. This framework helps us to understand our competitive position and develop strategies to leverage strengths, address weaknesses, capitalize on opportunities, and mitigate threats.
- Self-Sustaining Nitrogen Fixation: Our plants fix nitrogen independently, reducing or even eliminating the need for fertilizers.
- Cost Savings for Farmers: With less fertilizer requirements, farmers can save a significant amount of money on fertilizer purchases and application costs.
- Environmental Sustainability: By eliminating the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, we would be reducing the environmental damage caused by them, such as eutrophication and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Innovative Technology: Introducing an organelle in a cell and creating genetically modified seeds with this characteristic would be a unique technological advancement, which would position our company as a major innovator.
- Simplified Farm Operations: Farmers using our seeds would no longer need to apply fertilizers, saving both labor and reducing the time spent in the fields.
- High R&D Costs: Both developing genetically modified organisms and ensuring their safety and efficacy involves high research, development, and regulatory approval costs, as well as a lot of time that we are not considering in these analyses.
- Regulatory Challenges: GMO products often face strict regulations in many countries. Our seeds may face pushback from regulatory bodies, especially in regions with strict GMO laws, like the European Union or, in our case, the Netherlands.
- Public Perception of GMOs: Despite all their benefits, GMOs still face a rather negative public perception, which could impact the reception of our product. Both consumers and farmers may be skeptical of our new genetic modifications.
- Long Development Time: Compared to fertilizer companies or those offering nitrogen-fixing bacteria, our company's time-to-market might be longer due to the complexities of developing and testing genetically modified seeds.
- Disrupting the Fertilizer Market: Our product has the potential to disrupt the fertilizer market by reducing, or even eliminating, dependence on synthetic fertilizers. With the later increase in regulations and taxes on nitrogen fertilizers, our technology is an attractive alternative for those who want to save some money while still getting optimized results.
- Environmental Policy Alignment: Governments and international organizations are increasingly pushing for sustainable agricultural practices. Our seeds align with these policies, which could make our company eligible for subsidies and other incentives.
- Global Expansion: Our product could have significant appeal in regions with poor soil quality or limited access to fertilizers, helping to improve harvests in developing countries and regions with difficult farming conditions.
- Potential Partnerships: Partnering with big agricultural companies could rapidly increase our market share and credibility. Additionally, by partnering with environmental organizations, such as WWF or Greenpeace, we could promote our product as a new sustainable farming practice, fighting against the previously mentioned negative public perception of GMOs.
- Technological Evolution: As the technology evolves, we could incorporate other beneficial traits into the plants that could also improve the harvest and facilitate the farmers' work, such as making them drought-resistant, pest-resistant, etc.
- Competition from Fertilizer Companies: Fertilizer companies are well-established and may counter our product with innovations of their own that optimize their use or pollute less.
- Competition from Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria: Companies that sell nitrogen-fixing bacteria, such as Rhizobium inoculants, also offer a natural solution to nitrogen fixation. These products are already on the market, well-understood, and cheaper to produce compared to GMO seeds.
- Consumer and Farmer Resistance: Resistance towards GMO consumption and prejudices, particularly in regions that are skeptical of genetic engineering, may slow the adoption of our product. Additionally, farmers might be hesitant to switch from known methods unless they see clear and immediate benefits, as they usually imply an initial investment that not everyone can afford.
- Uncertain Long-Term Impact: Long-term ecological impacts of genetically modified seeds with nitroplasts are still unknown. Unforeseen consequences in the ecosystem or resistance to the technology could become a challenge in the long term.
- Market Entry by New Products: Startups or biotech firms with competing nitrogen-fixing solutions, such as CRISPR-engineered plants or enhanced microbial inoculants, could enter the market and offer better conditions, results, or a more competitive price.
PESTEL is a strategic framework used to analyze and monitor the external environment factors that might impact an organization. It stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal factors. This analysis helps us understand the macro-environmental influences on our business, which is crucial for strategic planning and future analysis.
The TAM represents the global agricultural industry's full potential for our solution. This includes all farmers globally who use synthetic fertilizers, across all crop types. Globally, the fertilizer market is valued at over 200 billion USD annually, with nitrogen-based fertilizers comprising a significant portion of that [6]. Since almost all major crops (wheat, rice, maize, etc) depend on nitrogen inputs, the TAM includes every agricultural sector that relies on fertilizer.
The SAM represents the portion of the TAM that our solution could realistically serve, based on the specific crops and regions where its application could be useful. The SAM would direct our focus to regions with severe nitrogen pollution issues, such as Europe, North America and parts of Asia. In these regions large scale farms producing cereals like maize, and other staple crops would be our primary targets. The European nitrogen fertilizer market alone is valued at approximately 50 billion USD [7] and the US market is another 30 billion USD [8]. Including other developed nations and regions with high agricultural output, the SAM could easily represent 80-100 billion USD in potential revenue. Key crops like wheat, maize, rice, and soybeans—staples that require heavy nitrogen inputs—would represent the initial market for our solution.
The SOM is the realistic segment of the SAM that we could capture within the first few years of commercialization, considering competition, market penetration strategy, and resources. The initial target could be innovative and sustainability-focused farmers in developed regions, specifically those facing strict environmental regulations like the Netherlands, Germany, and parts of the U.S. Focusing on early adopters—perhaps 2-5% of the SAM in high-regulation regions—our initial obtainable market could be worth 2-5 billion USD. We would then start with the Netherlands, given the severe nitrogen crisis, and expand into other parts of Europe and North America where government incentives and environmental policies favor sustainable solutions.
A skill gap analysis identifies the skills and knowledge that our current team lacks that are crucial for achieving our objectives. Our team already has solid technical knowledge in areas like nanobiology, maths, physics, life science, technology, software design, and biomedical engineering, all of which are important for developing the product. However, there are still gaps in some other areas critical for the correct development of the product.
Even though we have a solid background in related fields, the development of a GMO with new organelles requires more specialized knowledge in genetic engineering, including technologies such as CRISPR, and also in plant biotechnology. We would need experts in manipulating plant genomes to integrate nitroplasts effectively and ensure the plant’s overall correct growth. Within this line, we would also need plant physiology experts to make sure that the nitroplasts will not negatively affect other functions of the plant and agronomists to determine how modified seeds will perform in different environmental and soil conditions.
Given the nature of our product, taking into consideration the current laws and regulatory environment in different countries is critical. For this, we would need a specialist in GMO regulatory affairs: a specialist in GMO laws and regulations in different countries, including environmental risk assessments and safety standards. We would also need expertise in patent law, especially in plant patents, who can guide us in intellectual property for genetic modifications. Finally, we would also need an expert in environmental law to manage concerns about the ecological impact of introducing a GM plant that fixes nitrogen and to conduct an environmental impact assessment.
To commercialize our product effectively, we need expertise in agro-business strategy and market analysis. Specialists in this area would help us understand market demand, identify customer segments such as farmers or agricultural companies, and navigate competitive dynamics in the agriculture sector. Additionally, we need expertise in supply chain management to handle the logistics of producing and distributing the seeds while ensuring their quality and compliance with regulations.
Financial expertise specific to biotechnology and agro-tech is also critical. Developing GM crops requires significant capital investment, and financial professionals can help with financial modeling, securing investment, and managing investor relations. This will ensure that we have the necessary funding and a sound financial strategy to support our product development and market expansion.
To ensure smooth integration of our seeds into farming practices, we would need agricultural engineers who understand how to modify or develop farming machinery for planting and harvesting our crops. We also need experts in farmer education and agricultural extension services to help guide farmers in adopting the new seeds and integrating them effectively into their existing agricultural systems. This would be essential for maximizing crop benefits and ensuring broad adoption of our product.
Last but not least, addressing ethical, social, and environmental considerations is equally important. A bioethicist will help us navigate public concerns about GMOs, ensuring that our communication strategy is sensitive to ethical questions around food safety and biodiversity. Finally, we would also require sustainability and ecological impact specialists to assess the possible long-term effects of our nitrogen-fixing crops and align our product with global sustainability goals, ensuring that it is both environmentally responsible and marketable.
An exit strategy is a planned approach by which the owners or investors of a company aim to sell their stake in the business, either fully or partially, to achieve a return on their investment. Genetically modified organisms require a significant initial investment, as substantial funding is necessary for the research and development of such products. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly assess the potential for profit to ensure that it is, indeed, a sound investment.
One of the most common exit strategies involves allowing a large company, in this case specialized in biotechnology or the agricultural sector, to acquire our small business. Technology is advancing rapidly, and large companies cannot afford to fall behind. Acquiring our company, and thus our ideas, would allow them to stay current and maintain their market leadership. To attract potential buyers, we need strong intellectual property and patenting, as well as a solid proof of concept, to ensure profitability for these larger companies.
In a similar vein, but without losing our personal identity, forming partnerships will be essential for a successful market strategy. These partnerships could be with companies that complement us in technology, resources, or that already have a recognized position in the market and established contacts. This would create value for both companies and allow us to reduce costs and accelerate market entry, enhancing our overall competitiveness in the agricultural sector.
Another option would be to take our company public through an initial public offering (IPO). An IPO is a public offering in which shares of a company are sold to investors. In this way, although the ownership of our company would be shared with investors, we could raise substantial capital. To attract investors, we would need to demonstrate clear revenue growth and engage financial advisors to guide us through the process.
Finally, another possible exit strategy, inspired by one of our Human Practices interviews, involves licensing our technology to other companies. By doing this, we could generate revenue through royalties while maintaining ownership of our intellectual property. For this, we would again need to secure a patent and design various licensing models that could attract potential buyers. Our originality would be the only limit to these packages.
Even though all these ideas could have great results, we have decided to opt specifically for the last one, to have an alignment with our Human Practices team.
Since our project is still in the R&D phase, our team has not filed for a patent yet. However, as our research continues and we establish the final proof-of-concept of our technology, we aim to patent not only the technology used to produce the seeds but also the seeds themselves, allowing us to license these seeds to other seed companies. Ultimately, since our goal is to reduce nitrogen emissions and contribute to the environment, we plan to make these seeds available to countries facing persistent food security issues through NGOs and other social service organizations.
Although the long-term impact of GMOs, both environmentally and on consumers, is unknown, we can attempt to estimate the economic impact if our product were to succeed and be accepted by the public.
To determine whether our potential crops could be self-sufficient, we calculated whether they could indeed fix the total amount of nitrogen they need for growth. We started by examining the nitrogen fixation rates of UCYN-A, using data from [9]. There are different nitrogen fixation rates for UCYN-A1 and UCYN-A2. The one that is an endosymbiont with B. bigelowii and represents an early stage of an organelle is UCYN-A2.
"We speculate that the B. bigelowii endosymbiont may represent an early stage of endosymbiosis before it is fully established as an organelle, and it disappears under ammonia-rich conditions, in contrast to UCYN-A1." [2], which is why we used the fixation rate for UCYN-A2, which is 151.1±112.7 fmol/(cell·day) of nitrogen. Let's suppose that each cell contains one and only one nitroplast (this is, an UCYN-A2). The number of cells in a crop plant can vary from the kind of crop and other multiple factors, but it is a number between a billion up to a trillion cells. Let's say that the average plant has 50 billion cells, as an approximation, depending on the specific variety of crop and its growth conditions. Using this value, we get that our genetically modified plant would fix 0.1511 mmol per day. If we take into consideration diatomic nitrogen's molar mass, 28.02 g/mol, our plant would fix 211.65 mg/day. Plants need less than 100 mg per day to survive, so our plants would be completely self-sufficient.
$$ \small{\text{nº of cells in 1 plant} \times \text{nº UCYN-A2/cell} \times \text{UCYN-A2 fixation rate} \times \text{conversion rates} = 211.65 \text{ mg/day}} $$
The main goal of our solution is omitting the use of fertilizers. Therefore, firstly, the amount of money that we would save primarily depends on the operating costs of a farm that goes towards purchasing fertilizer. We made an analysis for this amount for the Netherlands as well as the top 4 agricultural producers of the world, China, USA, Brazil, and India. We made this analysis for the most nitrogen-utilizing crops: sugar beet, maize, wheat, and rapeseed. Since Brazil and India do not intensively produce sugar beet but do produce sugar cane, we also made this calculation for these countries. In this analysis, we made a few assumptions. The first assumption was that the nitrogen-based fertilizer being used was urea-based, which has 46% nitrogen. The second assumption was that the use of NitroBLAST seeds would not increase the operational costs of the farm significantly, as compared to the use of regular seeds. The calculation was then done in the following way using data from [11]-[49]. For example, for the cultivation of maize in China, annually 300 kg N/ha of urea-based fertilizer is applied to a cultivation area of 8.59 million hectares. The cost of this fertilizer is 0.37 USD per kg, leading to an annual estimate of 2 billion USD spent in China on urea-based fertilizer for the nitrogen supply required for the cultivation of maize. You can see the analysis done for the other crops and countries in the following plot: insert plot here.
Amount of money saved due to fertilizer omission
The amount of money that we would save would also depend on the efficiency of our product. We say that our product is 100% efficient if the grown plant can fixate up to 211.65 mg of nitrogen per day. We will now do an estimation of how much money we would save as a function of the efficiency of our product. To make this as accurate as possible, we are going to focus on one crop type and country. As we are a Dutch team, we will focus on the Netherlands, and for crop we will go for maize, as it is one of the most popular ones: last year, the Netherlands exported 2,621,490 kg of maize[48]. In total, there are around 200,000 hectares of maize throughout the country[49]. The typical application rate is around 155 kg of nitrogen per hectare (as recommended by WUR), which would mean that approximately 31 million kilograms of pure nitrogen are applied. Depending on which kind of fertilizer is used, this would be one amount of fertilizer or another. We will assume that we are working with urea-based fertilizer, as it is one of the most used in the Netherlands. The nitrogen content of urea-based fertilizer is 46%. This means that, in total, 67.4 million kilograms of urea fertilizer would be applied; this is, 67,400 tons of fertilizers. The price of urea fertilizer is 350 euros per ton. This would mean that, if we follow our assumption of urea fertilizer use, the Netherlands would be spending 23.6 million euros only on fertilizer for maize.
$$ \small{\text{nº ha of maize} \times \text{N}_2 \text{ application rate} \times \text{conversion to urea fertilizer} \times \text{price of fertilizer} = 23.6 \text{M euros}}$$
We can also compute how many milligrams of nitrogen a maize plant needs per day. We already know that the general nitrogen requirement per hectare is 155 kg. As the typical plant density is 85,000 plants per hectare, and if we also consider that the typical maize growing season spans about 120 days, we get that a single maize plant in the Netherlands requires approximately 15.2 milligrams of nitrogen per day on average, as opposed to the 211.65 mg that it would be theoretically able to fix.
$$ \small{\dfrac{\text{N}_2 \text{ needed/ha} \times \text{nº plants/ha}}{\text{days of growing season}} = 15.2 \text{ mg N}_2/\text{ day}} $$
This would mean that we would only need a 7.18% efficiency to cover 100% of the plant's needs. As we can see in the following graph, even a small efficiency can lead to remarkable savings.
