Post on 11-Mar-2020
International trends for miracle
products?!?!
Use of product versus trade names
• Use generic names without the use of trade names wherever possible - unless there is no other way to describe it.
• Mention does not endorse that material.
• Mention does not dis-endorse that material.
Who would believe it?
• Bones or fossilized dinosaur faeces (Coprolites)
• Treated with Sulphuric Acid
• Put it on the soil
• 100 kg of this = 2,000 kg of farmyard manure
Was the acid extracting the natural and life giving
essence of the dead animals?
Trying out “New” Products• Lawes had patented this acidulation process.
• Lawes and Bennet 1843 set out to assess the efficacy of the product.
• Established Broadbalk at Rothamstead (UK) in 1843, farmed continuously since then.
• Established to see if chemical sources of nutrients were as good as farmyard manure.
Sir John Bennett Lawes
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert
N4
N3
N2
N1
PKMg
Nil
FYM
New Fertilizer Products
• Many products developed in 30’s – 60’s by the TVA – through the National then International Fertilizer Development Centre (1974).
• Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
• TVA/NFDC public organization charged with developing new fertilizer technologies.
• Mandate for IDFC has broadened to developing fertilizer solutions to create and transfer effective and environmentally sound crop nutrient technology and agribusiness expertise.
Year %N Product
1924 12-
40
Urea-formaldehyde (European patent)
1955 12-
40
Urea-formaldehyde (commercial use in
USA)
1961 32-
38
Sulfur-coated urea (TVA)
1960’s 32-
34
Crotonylidene diurea (32-0-0)
1960’s 31 Isobutylidene diurea (31-0-0; IBDU)
1967 9-19 Osmocote®
1985 14-
22
Nutricote®, Meister®, Prokote®,
Escote®
1990 37-
44
PolyOn®
1990 10-
42
Multicote®
1990’s 44 VCote®, TR2®, ESN®, Duration®
65 Dicyandiamide (DCD)
Why the big deal about N?
System Plant Soil Volatilized Denitrified
Banana 15 60 20 5
Cotton 27-29 8-28 0 43-92
Rice 6-17 37-48 0-11 15-56
Sunflower 35 30 6 29
Wheat 22-59 20-54 1-24 2-27
Pasture 42 18 20 20
See Chen et al, 2008, AJSR for references
Generally a low efficiency with N fertilizers, with
losses to the environment a significant ecological
issue.
For wheat, is 50% recovery a benchmark?Aside – Sheehy et al 2005 (FCR) suggests that recovery in rice is not likely to be more than ~60%
because of the soil N needs to be kept high for plant access & so is exposed to loss processes.
% N recovery in plant, soil or lost through volatilization or denitrification
1. Synthetic compounds containing N
urea-formaldehydes, IBDU, triazines, etc.
2. Physical coating or barrier around soluble N fertilizer
Sulfur-coated or polymer-coated urea.
3. Stabilized materials
urease and nitrification inhibitors
• Major factors affecting release
– coating thickness
– temperature
– moisture
• Potential if can match release rate to demand
Physical barriers…..
Images from Agium P/L
Polymers, sulphur, IBDU, urea/formaldehyde
Urease Inhibition…
• Interfere with the process of urea hydrolysis
• Slower conversion of urea to ammoniacal N can reduce NH3 volatilization
CO(NH2)2 + H+ + H2O 2NH4+ + HCO3
-urease
NH4+ NH3 + H+
Several types of inhibitors –
most commonly used is NBPT
(Agrotain®).
Turner et al, 2010, AEE
Incitec Pivot
• Nitrification inhibitors interfere with activity of Nitrosomonasbacteria, slowing the nitrification process
• Leaves more N as ammonium and so reduces the chance of leaching and denitrification
• Denitrification can also occur which creates Nitrous Oxide – a potent greenhouse gas.
NH4 NO2 NO3Nitrosomonas Nitrobacter+ --
Nitrification inhibition…
Ammonia converted to nitrite then to
nitrate by soil microbes N2O production
DMPP (Entec®)Nitrification Inhibitors
DMPP
DCD
ATS
Nitrapyrin
Incitec Pivot
Other product strategies for improving NUE
• Addition of materials to
complex ammonia when
released (eg zeolite).
• Addition of organic
materials to stimulate
microbial activity and
reduce ammonia losses
(eg humic acids).
• Fluid N sources, eg UAN
• What evidence for effects
– Replicated
– Repeated
– Randomized
– Adequate controls
• Results from UM00023
– (2005-2007)
– 3 sites per year, 3 years.
– Various inhibitors,
enhancers, supplements.
At Sowing
2005 2006 2007 2005 2007 2005 2006 2007
SealakeHopet
ounWalpeup
Marno
o
Kalke
e
Inverlei
gh
Inverlei
gh
Inverl
eigh
Urea Deep
banded 4.35 0.95 1.44 3.95 2.35 4.08 2.20 5.20
UAN Deep
banded 4.24 0.89 1.46 4.06 2.64 3.62 1.92 5.33
Urea +
Nitrification
Inhibitor Deep
banded
4.40 1.03 1.49 3.88 2.83 3.83 2.16 5.68
Urea + Organic
Complex Deep
Banded* 0.99 1.58 * 2.84 * 2.10 5.31
Urea Mid row
banded4.09 0.70 1.40 4.10 2.98 4.03 2.54 5.46
Urea Pre drilled 3.93 0.80 1.43 4.09 2.57 3.40 2.53 5.05
Urea Pre
spread4.36 0.86 * 3.97 * 3.48 2.23 *
LSD (p=0.05) 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.30 0.28 0.54 0.23 0.40
http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/NMIUM00023C.htm
Any other “new” things coming along?
• Urea “super-granules” for deep placement.
– Very large particles (1-3 g) buried at depth (7-9 cm) – developed for rice by IFDC – Bangladesh looks to 1 Mha as target.
• Ammonium sulphate to enhance urea efficiency.
– Tested in 2010 in western Victoria – nsd to urea (+/- ureaseinhibitor).
– Commercial product in WA.
Acidic sulphate reduces
the potential for ammonia
volatilization?
Chien et al, 2009. Advances in
Agronomy, Volume 102, 267-313
What about P fertilizers?
• Interest in lower quality P sources
• Recycling/recapture of P
• “Biologicals”
Harvey et al, 2009 , CPS 60, 144-151; Evans and Condon, 2009, CPS, 60, 152-162;
Primary raw material for P fertilizer is phosphate rock: [Ca3(PO4)2]3·CaF2
Phosphate Rock
(9-18% P)
Wet Process Acid or
Phosphoric Acid
(18-25% P)
Ordinary Super
Phosphate
(9% P)
Nitrophosphates
(6-12% P)
Diammonium
Phosphate &
Monoammonium
Phosphate
(20-27% P)
Triple Super
Phosphate
(20% P)NPKs
CaSO4·XH2O
+ H2SO4+ H2SO4 + HNO3
+ Phosphate Rock+ Ammonia
PR differs
• Apatite-type low solubility calcium RP
– eg Phosphate Hill
• Reactive RP – carbonate replaces phosphate, citrate soluble P,
• Calcium-iron aluminium RP – “C grade” ore (crandallite, millisite RP)
• Calcined RP – “C grade” ore heated (500oC) to disrupt the lattice
Fertilizer %P
Total Water Citrate
Kg to
apply 10
kg Pav
Rock Phosphate 11.9 0 2.5 400
Reactive RP 13.0 0 5.0 200
Partially Acidulated RP 14.0 8.1 0.2 120
Superphosphate 8.8 8.0 0.6 115
TSP 20.7 16.1 4.0 30
DAP 20.0 17.8 2.0 30
MAP 21.9 18.1 3.7 30
Pig Bedding (40% mc) 0.45 ? 2200
Quality of PR - sources
• AE = Agronomic Efficiency = Relative response at same P application rate compared to a check (TSP).
P source Total P %Citrat
e Sol
Reactivit
y
RAE%
TSP 20.3 100 - 100
Gafsa PR (Tunisia) 13.2 13.1 High 88
Ain Layloun (Syria) 12.4 12.1 Med-High 82
Tilemsi (Mali) 11.5 10.3 Medium 72
Kaiyang (China) 14.3 5.1 Low 42
Panda Hills (Tanzania) 10.9 2.1 Very low 0
Effectiveness
WA data (Bolland) using their PR suggests that it takes 5 to 20 times as much P from rock to produce the same yields as superphosphate.
Situations where RP can approach SSPAcid soils – H+ ions needs to dissolve RPFine RP particles – more rapid releaseHigh OM soils – enhanced dissolution of PRSoils are moistSoils with high PBI (short term) Soils low in Ca (enhances dissolution rates – equilibrium)Light soils where soluble P can leachWith plants that acidify their root zones (some legumes, eg white lupin excretes citrate which desorbs P from soil particles).
World wide – RPR responses seen in wet tropics with legumes (eg Soy)
CONTROL
GAFSA
SSP
ARAXA
120 kg/ha of P2O5
Soybean P Response
Itiquira, MT
Chien et al, 2010, BC (4), 21-23.
Opportunities to recycle P - struvite
• Stuvite (Magnesium Ammonium Phosphate) ~ kidney stones
• Low solubility = problem in recycling facilities,
piggeries and dairy washdowns.
• Recovery concept is sound (Güney et al., 2008 WR 42, 4692)
• Processes available and products commerical.
– Crystal Green (5:12:0 +10Mg) (Oregon – prilled)
• Agronomic efficacy?
• More a strategy to prevent P contamination of waterways.
Suspect will see more of these products – but they are likely to be expensive & of low agronomic efficiency unless modified.
Rhizosphere interactions with P
Harvey et al, 2009 , CPS 60, 144-151 (after Richardson 2001)
Biological amendments to P fertilizers?
• Using acids for the dissolution of fixed P
– Release soil bound P or from reactive phosphate rock
• Organic acids added directly to RPR
• Organic acids derived from composting
• Acids derived from added elemental S
– At least 7 products available in Australia
• Chelating metallic ions by organic anions (added or microbial)
– Humates = humic & fulvic acids (from brown coal – leonardite)
– Desorbs P from soil
– Increases soil moisture, improve microbial activity and root growth
– At least 3 products available in Australia
Harvey et al, 2009 , CPS 60, 144-151; Evans and Condon, 2009, CPS, 60, 152-162;
Do they work?
• Could they work?
– Concentration of the acids & form of P
• Highest & most controlled in composted products
• RPR+30%S raises Olsen P & plant growth (Evans et al. 2006)
• UM00023 – 1/6 sites HA treated MAP > MAP (+19%)
• UM00023 – 1/9 sites Composted PR > MAP (+25%)
• Data from replicated, randomised trials with adequate controls.
Biological amendments to P fertilizers?
• Microbial inoculants
– Increase phosphatases & others derived from microbes.
– Phytohormone production by soil microbes to stimulate roots
• Plant Growth Promotion Products
– At least 2 products available in Australia.
Harvey et al, 2009 , CPS 60, 144-151; Evans and Condon, 2009, CPS, 60, 152-162;
Coonalpyn Tarlee Waikerie Coonalpyn Tarlee Waikerie
Nil 216 341 205 117 220 190
Pen KC6 238 405 218 136 237 194
P. bilaiae 207 334 206 134 229 202
P. radicum 216 369 209 106 232 195
Lsd (p<0.05) 18 54 10 12 12 5
Wheat Lentil
Wakelin et al, 2007 Can. J. Microbiol. 53: 106–115 (2007)
+12%
+7%
Refer to Evans & Condon, 2009, CPS, 60, 152-162;
Product Crop Yield
Increase %
P Uptake
increase%
Reference
P. bilaji Wheat 16 11 Asea et al 1988
P. & Asper. Wheat 6 5-9 Dwivedi et al 2004
P. +RPR Sorghum 8 Salih et al, 1989
P-solub. bac. Chickpea 43 67 Gull et al, 2004
P-solub. bac. Canola 35 0 DeFreitas et al. 1997
Pr-70 Various 0-74 - Wakelin et al, 2004
Provide Wheat 39 Kucey et al,1989
B. megatarium Sugarcane 13 Sundara et al. 2002
P. = Penicillium
Asper. = Aspergillus
RPR = Reactive Phophate Rock
P-solub. bac. = P solubilising bacteria
B. = Bacillus
Challenges for these microbes
• Soil is buffered
• Chelating ion supply is large
• Competing anions sorbed rapidly
• Need for C source
It’s a jungle out there!
• Large numbers – 40 million bacterial cells per g of soil
• Highly diverse – bacteria, fungi, insects, nematodes, etc
• Most are facultative ie respond to what is provided
• Population structures change rapidly and dramatically in response to temperature, water, nutrients, etc.
http://www.ipni.net/ipniweb/portal.nsf/0/94CFD5A0ED0843028525781C0065437E
http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/compendium/index.aspx
“Most of the biofertilizers showing up in western North America have been largely discredited,
although new materials and ideas keep popping up. We know of no current research in the
western part of North America on this topic, though there have been many attempts to use
materials (various rhizobacteria, yeasts, free‐living N2 fixers such as azospirillum), but no
consistent results. The exception is the use of Humic Acids, where the growth in the use of
these products is growing rapidly. The humic materials are widely used and promoted,
although recent research in California shows no positive benefits.”
• In the fall of 2005 our good friend, Mr. Ron Wallace, ordered a 50# bag of our Humic Acid to try on his pumpkin patch. Ron specializes in growing giant pumpkins. This year Ron took first place in the Giant Pumpkin growers contest and has set a new worlds record of 1,502 pounds.
• http://www.greensmiths.com/humic.htm
New products for new markets
• Fertigation
– Caking tendancy
– High solubility
– High purity
– Impact on carrier EC
– Linked intimately to water
management
– Large range of products
formulated to specific crop & soil
situations.
• Organics
– Input Certification by AusQual,
ACO, BFA, Demeter, NASAA,
OFC, OGA, TOP.
– Allowed Organic Products 2011 -
~250 products listed
• Mineral sources of N, P, K
and S.;
• Organic supplements;
microbes; organic acids.
• Blood & Bone, Kelp,
Composts, Manures
– Labeling of fertilizers, restriction
of use, forms and impurities,
Dangerous Goods Act.
– But no efficacy evaluation – but
there are ACCC TPA Regulations
Nanotechnology & Fertilizers – a new horizon
• Nanoscale - at the 1-100 nm scale
• Nanotechnology - the techniques for making and characterizing nanostructures and putting them to use
• Fertilizers– Encapsulated inside nanotubes or nanoporous materials
– Coated with a thin protective polymer film
– Delivered as nanoparticles directly into plants.
– Nanosizes ZnO – reported at ISSC from UA (Milani et al, 2010)
New Fertilizer Products
• Need for a new generation of
fertilizer products.
• IFDC announced the “Virtual
Fertilizer Research Centre” in July
2010 to act as a focus for
developing new products.
Mandate:
• Lower cost and improved access
for farmers.
• Increased delivery efficiency.
• Decreased off-target delivery.
• Co-ordinated with plant genetics.
• Improved use of mineral and
energy resources.
Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate.
Trade Practices Act
New/Old Products
• Does it make sense– Mass balances?
– Magic or special?
– Laws of physics/chemistry
• Evidence from Trials– Where
– When
– Controls
– Replicated
• Test it yourself, be sceptical –its your $.
• “If it is too good to be true ………………”
“The illiterate of the future are NOT
those who can’t read or write, but
those who cannot learn, unlearn and
re-learn”
Alvin Toffler