Servi sMART - Servi.ca - Smart Market Platform for Microservices
And Information market! - Smart Fertilization Day · And Information market! 4 on 1 . The Future;...
Transcript of And Information market! - Smart Fertilization Day · And Information market! 4 on 1 . The Future;...
Bemesting in de 21e eeuw : Smart Fertilization
Adding sustainability to productivity
And
Information market!
28/1
1/20
14
Sem
inar
on
Sm
art
Fer
tili
zati
on
1
The Future; SMART fertilization technologies
Dr. Prem Bindraban
Director Virtual Fertilizer Research Center
Washington, USA
28/1
1/20
14
Sem
inar
on
Sm
art
Fer
tili
zati
on
2
SMART fertilization technologies –
Innovative future perspectives
Virtual Fertilizer Research Center presented by
Prem S. Bindraban
SEMINAR on SMART FERTILIZATION Wageningen, 28th November 2014
Virtual Fertilizer Research Center
• The VFRC is
–A research initiative to foster the creation of the next generation of fertilizers and production technologies
– to help feed the world’s growing population and provide sustainable food security
Semi-autonomous unit of
The pharmaceutical and seed industries spend billions on R&D.
Pfizer, Glaxo, Merck ~ 16% of revenues is
invested in R&D spending
Syngenta, Monsanto ~ 9% of revenues is
invested in R&D spending
~ 0.1% of revenues in R&D for new products and
new technologies
Industry Research and Development Spending
Fuglie et al., 2011. Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide. ERR-130. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. December 2011.
Global role for fertilizers / industry
• Food security • Increase production volume, reduce risk
• Ecologically sustainable production • Maintain soil health, water quality, biodiversity • Reduce Green House Gas emissions, ;land expansion
• Poverty alleviation • Ensure income and livelihood
• Improvement human health • Better food quality
VFRC driver to meet societal objectives of fertilizers
Basic processes
Soil weathering
P, K, Mg, S, Ca, Fe,
Mn, Zn, B, Mo, Cu,
Cl, …
N-fixation
(legumes)
Livestock
Consumption
by humans
Natural ecosystems
Fertilizer
Manufacture
& Mining
Cereal Yields (ton per hectare)
Inert N2 into reactive N
Inert P, K, … into reactive P, K, …
NPK
(N2O), (NOx), (NH3)
(NO3-), (PO4
3-)
20-80% lost
Basic concepts
Livestock
Consumption
by humans
Natural ecosystems
Fertilizer
Manufacture
& Mining
Cereal Yields (ton per hectare)
NPK
Food 60 Mt N 4 Mt P
Annually 105 Mt N 18 Mt P
Annually 105 Mt N - Recycle 18 Mt P - Recycle
NPK
Instantaneous uptake
Fertilizer Nutrient Composition
• Poor soils – No/poor crop response to NPK
– Soil amendment needed (Organic Matter, Lime, …)
– Micronutrient deficiencies
• ISFM to include micronutrient containing fertilizers
• Human induced micronutrient deficiencies (India, …)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control NPK+Manure
NPKno
manure+SMNs
Mai
ze Y
ield
Mt
ha-1
Burundi, average of 16 sites
Data: John Wendt - IFDC
• Well-endowed soils: NPK suffice to increase yield – Europe, Coastal regions US, Coastal regions China, Indo-
Ganges India, Indonesia Green revolution
(Micro) nutrient uptake
• 10 kg S/ha
• 2-3 kg Zn/ha
• 1 kg B/ha
Uptake efficiency?
• Fe – 175 • Mn – 8 • Zn – 26 • Cu – 4 • B – 5 • Mo – 0.6
• N – 23500 • P – 3700 • K – 12600 • Mg – 1400 • Ca – 100 • S – 1500
Gram per Ton Maize
Intervention Options
fertilization Fertilizer
products
1
losses
air
runoff
leaching 4
uptake
soil processes
& rooted volume
Soil
unavailable for plants
plant available
5
3
2
9 10
exudates Micro-organisms
foliar application
seed coating
stem infusion
6
7
8 11
Phyllosphere bacteria
harvest
crop residue
Crop product
12
From bulk chemistry to fine-, bio- and nano-bio-chemistry
Intake/Uptake
NanoParticle in shoot; Dimkpa
Bulk Chemistry
Delivery mechanisms Recycling
Bio-, bio-nano-chemistry
Leapfrog development
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
N P K SZn B CuMo (All)
N P K SZn B (noCu, Mo)
N P S ZnB Cu Mo
(no K)
N P K ZnB Cu Mo
(no S)
N P K S BCu Mo(no Zn)
N P K SZn Cu Mo
(no B)
5871
4197
3390
5039
4453 4338
+
Micro / secondary Primary / secondary
Soil Plant
BacPR Organic
acids Soil Plant
Bio-Nano-PR
Acids Ore
Nano-APR
Nano-PR Soil Plant Grinding
Nano/microorganism: Coating/mixing
with (micro) nutrients; Contaminants
Compound: NPK Etc
BacIPR Bio –industrial
acids
P Pathways
Ore
PR
P-products Acids
P-G
P-Rec
Spatial ground rules Generic modelling
Farm experiments
(micro-) nutrients recommendations
Research Areas
1. Plant nutrient dynamics & metabolism timing and amount; entry point plant, exudates, micro-organisms, …
2. Fertilizer bio-chemical packaging nutrients chemical, bio-, bio-nano, micro-organism,
3. Delivery mechanisms spray, infusion, seed coating, granules, prills, bio-trigger, applicators
4. In the context of selected a. Geo-spatially specific fertilizer nutrient combinations and amounts b. Cropping system (vegetables, legumes, cereals, trees, tubers, fiber, plantain, grass, …)
c. Agro-production system (wet/dry/cold, good/poor soil health, microbes)
NanoParticle in shoot; Dimkpa
Thank You
Innovative fertilizers… A winning game for all
Precision fertilization with animal manure
Dr. Jaap Schröder
Wageningen University
Plant Research International
28/1
1/20
14
Sem
inar
on
Sm
art
Fer
tili
zati
on
18
Animal manure and precision farming:
no contradiction in terms
Jaap Schröder
Content
Aspects of precision improvement in crop production
● What type of NP source?
● How much of it?
● When exactly?
● Where exactly (‘placement’)?
Placement
● Positioning in vertical plane
● Positioning in horizontal plane (‘band application’)
Band application of manure on maize land
Conclusions
What type of NP source?
Food production comes with by-products including manures, so:
Manures: use them, despite complexity, if alone because they contain P and micro-nutrients.
Do not try to cover N demand with just by-products,
Precision = use manures but complement them with fertilizer N or clover N.
Product N/P ratio:
applied available required taken-up
common cattle slurry 6.3 5.0
liquid fraction of separated pig slurry 5.1 4.6
cattle FYM 4.3 3.2
common pig slurry 3.5 3.0
solid fraction of separated pig slurry 1.9 1.5
grass 9.4 8.5
silage maize 10.8 7.6
wheat grain 7.4 6.0
How much?
Precision = take account of other sources (including residual
manure-N), crop N demand and expected N uptake efficiency
When exactly?
Gut feeling: splitting sounds OK, however:
● Too great a time lag between diagnosis and spreading
opportunity
● Risk of positioning into dry, unrooted part of the soil profile
● Risk of root damage if mechanically incorporated
● Timely availability is needed in view of high demands per
unit root length, despite the low daily nutrient uptake rate
per hectare
P uptake rate per unit root length in maize
Where exactly?
Vertical plane
● Sufficiently deep to avoid ammonia loss
● Sufficiently shallow to be plant-available as soon as possible
after crop emergence
Horizontal plane
Rooting patterns of maize
Mineral P starter in maize: still a routine
Farmers doubt the timely availability of manure P
Farmers reluctant to refrain from mineral P starters (applied during planting) in addition to prior manure applications
This routine increases:
● the soil P surplus > water pollution
● the expenses on the export of excess manure
● depletion rate of fossil rock P reserves
Manure placement: experiments
Hypothesis: banding of manure close to anticipated position of maize row can replace mineral starter P
Experiments:
● 1993-2012: 14 field trials on sandy soils
● Maize planted at the common row distance of 0.75 m
● Manure rate: 130 kg N and 45 P2O5 ha-1 yr-1
● Manure placement (supported by RTK-GPS):
● Randomly injected relative to future row versus
band-injected 0.00-0.10 m next to future row
● WUR-PSG: PRI and PPO-AGV (Eur. J. Agron.: in press)
Manure placement: treatments
Manure placement: results (1)
DM yield of silage maize (Mg ha-1 yr-1) as affected by banding of manure
Experiments Manure rate Application mineral P-starter
(kg N ha-1) method (kg P2O5 ha-1)
0 47
1-11 0 11.7 a
130 random injection 12.8 b 14.2 c
130 band injection 14.0 c
1-14 0 12.5 a
130 random injection 14.1 b
130 band injection 15.2 c
P concentration of maize shoots as affected by
manure placement
Manure placement: results (2)
Subsurface banding of manure substituted starters
Magnitude of this effect not related to Pw or weather and not reflected in shoot P concentration
Effect nevertheless attributed to improved P availability
Banding reduces N and P surpluses of farms
Conclusions
Smart fertilization: more than just a better placement:
Precision =which type of fertilizer, how much, when, where (“4 R’s”)?
When and where issues: bear the root system in mind!
Manure placement improves NUE and PUE of maize cropping system: ‘more with less’ if you like
Still to do:
● Merits in view of the present Dutch P soil test (PPAE)
● Evaluation on heavier soil types
● Cost benefit analysis
Thank you for your attention
References
Schröder, J.J. et al., 1996. Neth J Agric Sci 44: 209-225.
Schröder, J.J. et al., 1997. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 45: 249-261.
Schröder, J.J., 2005. Biores. Techn. 92: 253-261.
Schröder, J.J. et al., 2013. Proceedings Ramiran, Versailles, France.
Schröder, J.J. et al., 2011. Chemosphere 84: 822–831
Schröder, J.J., 2014. Natural Resources (in press)
Schröder, J.J. et al., 2014. Eur. J. Agronomy (in press)
Smart Fertilization in Africa
Dr. Peter van Erp
SoilCares
Wageningen
28/1
1/20
14
Sem
inar
on
Sm
art
Fer
tili
zati
on
36
(Smart) Fertilization in Africa
SoilCares Mobile Soil testing concept
38
Outline Presentation - Background - (Smart) Fertilization in Africa - SoilCares Sensor technology - Some (mapping) results
39
40
SoilCares - Part of Dutch Sprouts Holding - Aim: Development and implementation of affordable sensing
techniques for (mobile) soil and plant testing. - SoilCares Holding has two private companies
- SoilCares ltd - Implementation, roll out of soil testing concept - Director: Reinder van der Meer - Located in Kenia, Nairobi - About 15 fte personel
- SoilCares Research BV - Responsible for (sensor)technology and
recommendations - Director: Peter van Erp - Located in Wageningen (Netherlands) - About 15 fte personel (mostly PhD)
41
42
(Smart) fertilization in Africa
• Essential part of realization targets regarding food supply/safety, etc
• Starts with the determination of the actual soil fertility status
• Requires affordable soil testing (cheap, quick and reliable)
43
(Smart) fertilization
44
Price / quality
Price
Quality
Large farmers
Intermediate
Small farmers
- more precision - more parameters
45
Price / quality under pressure?
Price
Quality
Large farmers
Medium farmers
Small farmers
- more precision - more parameters
(Affordable) soil testing
46
47
Soil testing (wet chemistry)
48
Soil testing using the electromagnetic spectrum
49
SoilCares mobile soil testing concept
makes use of the interaction of soil particles with (part of
the) electromagnetic spectrum
50
SoilCares sensor technology
51
Which one has highest organic matter content ?
Which one is the clay soil?
Which one has highest clay content?
Your own sensor technology
52
- Your eyes: sensor for the visible light range of the electromagnetic spectrum
- Your sensor (i.e. eyes): determine differences in colour, structures and shapes
- Your brains: contains a calibration set enables you to translate your sensor (eye) information in soil characteristics
- A specialist: has a larger calibration set and is able to estimate/quantify the % organic matter, % clay content etc.
The electromagnetic spectrum
53
54
What about the skeleton of this musican?
55
X-Ray can help you
Mid Infra-red soil information
56
57
Core activity: extract soil fertility information from results of
different, non-destructive sensor technologies
Calibration laboratory
58
- Routine wet chemistry analysis
- Data of different sensors
- Calibration/prediction models
Actual parameters
59
60
61
Some results
SoilCares movie
62
Mapping results (Spring 2014)
63
64
65
Typical soil fertility soil classes (=soil Archetype)
66
Main soil archetypes
67
Blend archetypes for 5 t maize per ha
68
Main blend archetypes at planting for 5 t/ha maize
69
Conclusions
70
- (Smart) fertilization requires affordable soil testing to start with - Sensor technology makes soil testing affordable - SoilCares mobile soil testing concept has proven its value
- SoilCares soil testing results contributes to soil fertility
knowledge and approaches in Africa
Thank you for your attention
Questions?
71
72
Results calibration models 2013
(Kenyan set: root mean square error of validation)
73
Parameter “Old” SC-New
2010/2011 (2013)
Exch Ca (mmol+/kg) 29,2 17,4
Clay (g/kg) 73 46,9
Exch K (mmol+/kg) 5 1,02
Exch Mg (mmol+/kg) 11,1 5,88
Organic carbon (g/kg) 5,5 4,26
pH 0,47 0,2
Sand (g/g) 84,7 38,42
Silt (g/kg) 67,5 25,27
Total Nitrogen (g/kg) 0,5 0,31
New calibration data set (starting 2014)
74
ISE evaluation program (all laboratories work according NEN) average standard deviation Total organic Carbon (n=15) between within - soil A 4,0% 0,9% 0,3% - soil B 5,3% 0,6% 0,4% pH-H2O (n=16) - soil C 7,0 0,18 0,04 - soil D 7,1 0,15 0,03
calibration models : better not to use results from different laboratories
Fertilizers from processed Manure & Wastes
Dr. Gerard Velthof
Alterra
Wageningen
28/1
1/20
14
Sem
inar
on
Sm
art
Fer
tili
zati
on
75
Fertilizers From Processed Manure & Wastes
Gerard Velthof, Oene Oenema, and Peter Kuikman
Outline
Introduction
Cases
Mineral concentrate: N – K fertiliser from manure
Phosphorus recovery from wastes
Potential additional benefits of using wastes
Legislation
Conclusions
Challenges
Towards a circular economy; A zero waste programme for Europe (COM 398, 2014)
How to cope with regional manure surpluses?
From urban and organic wastes to valuable products in agriculture?
Safe and environmental sound products, with high use efficiency
EU legislation about use of manure and wastes as fertilizers
Manure surplus
Manure surplus in many regions in EU
High emissions of N, P and greenhouse gases to the environment
Velthof et al. (2014) Grizzetti & Aloe 2007
N leaching Ammonia emission P surplus
Sludge
and
compost
After Van Dijk et al., 2014
Need to increase nutrient use efficiency
Manure and wastes:
● valuable source of organic matter and nutrients
● but sometimes/often contaminated
● price lower than price of mineral fertilizers
Element Value, € m-3
N 1.00
P 1.40
K 1.70
Organic matter 4.20
Total 8.30
Schoumans et al., 2010
Value of pig slurry
Case 1. Mineral concentrates
Production of mineral concentrate
Mass balances of treatment plants
Hoeksma and Buisonjé (2012)
Composition (2008-2014; average 160 samples)
Hoeksma, 2014
Untreated slurry Mineral concentrate
Dry matter g/kg 62 33
Total N g/kg 5.5 7.1
NH4 –N g/kg 3.7 6.4
P2O5 g/kg 3.2 0.4
K g/kg 3.8 7.2
pH 7.7 7.9
EC mS/cm 26 57
Ntotal/P2O5 2 69
NH4-N/Ntotal 0.68 0.90
N fertiliser value (NFRV): pot experiments
NFRV, % of calcium ammonium nitrate fertiliser
Crop Injected mineral
concentrate
Injected pig slurry
Reference
Grass 86 72 Ehlert et al. (2012)
Swiss chard 87 72 Ehlert et al. (2012)
Grass 96 79 Klop et al. (2012)
Grass 93 76 Rietra and Velthof (2014)
N fertiliser value (NFRV): field experiments
NFRV, % of calcium ammonium nitrate fertiliser
Crop Soil Year NFRV Reference
Potato Clay 2009 75 Van Geel et al. (2012)
Potato Sand 2009 84 Van Geel et al. (2012)
Potato Clay 2010 76 Van Geel et al. (2012)
Potato Sand 2010 81 Van Geel et al. (2012)
Maize Sand 2010 72 Schröder et al. (2012)
Maize Sand 2011 84 Schröder et al. (2012)
Grassland Sand and clay 2009 54 Holshof and van Middelkoop (2014)
Grassland Sand and clay 2010 71 Holshof and van Middelkoop (2014)
Grassland Sand 2011 80 Holshof and van Middelkoop (2014)
Grassland Sand 2012 81 Holshof and van Middelkoop (2014)
Case 2.
Phosphorus recovery from manure & wastes
Phosphorus use in the EU-27 in 2005
Non-food
materials
& detergents
Crops & food
products
Animal feed
& P additives
Mineral P
fertilizer
Solid & liquid
organic wastes
Organic wastes
Non-food export
Organic residues
& wastes
Crop & food
export
Manure losses
Manure export
Leaching & runoff
Seed export
Input Output
Soil [150,000]
Flows and stocks in Gg = Mkg = kton P per year
After Van Dijk et al., 2014
Availability of P from by-products & wastes
Five manageable & interacting factors:
● chemical form of P
● particle size of product
● amount applied
● application method
● time of application
In addition, soil and crop types, soil P status, weather conditions and crop management, pest & diseases
P fertiliser value, % of Triple Super
Phospate (literature review)
By-product Mean Min Max Observations
Compost 69 37 165 11
Manure, chicken, composted 100 100 100 1
Manure, chicken, solid 199 112 250 3
Manure, dairy, slurry 59 30 92 3
Manure, dairy, solid 121 30 378 13
Sewage sludge 138 75 214 6
Struvite from waste water 117 106 126 6
Struvite from veal manure 126 126 126 1
Struvite, synthetic 143 140 146 2
DCP from waste water 127 127 127 1
Overall short term (< 1 year) 112 30 378 47
Overall long term 80 18 165 28
Oenema et al., 2012
Challenges for recycling of P
Variable composition and P availability
Potential presence of contaminants
Unknown legal status
Low acceptance by farmers
Lack of a proper marketing and distribution
infrastructure
Strategies should be developed for optimal
long-term use of possible P sources
Additional benefits of using wastes
Improvement of soil quality by addition of
● organic matter
● other essential nutrients
Less disposal costs
Combination with strategies to reduce emissions to waters and atmosphere
Combination with energy generation (digestion, incineration)
Legislation
EU Regulation 2003/2003 about fertilisers
● List of approved fertilizers in EU
● Currently under revision
● Status of products from wastes/manures not yet clear
EU Nitrates Directive
● All products of processed manure are considered as manure (application standard 170 kg N per ha)
National fertilizer legislation
● NL: “Meststoffenwet” en “Wet bodembescherming”
DG Entreprise, November 2014
Organic fertilizers and fertilizers from by-products/wastes are a reasonable alternative for mineral P and N fertilizers
Further "industrialisation" of organic fertilizers from wastes needed; traceability, quality and safety aspects
●Research needed on quality/safety of processed wastes
●Extension and adoption of European end-of-waste criteria
The creation of an internal market for such products, as envisaged by the new fertiliser regulation, will stimulate further investments in this sector
Conclusions
Mineral concentrate: liquid N –K fertiliser
● N fertilizer value: 90% in pot and 80% in field experiments
Phosphorus recovery from manure and waste
● Many by-products and wastes; P availability generally good
● Contamination often a problem
● Producers not well-organised
Other potential beneficial aspects of using wastes: soil quality,
lower disposal costs, reduction in emissions, energy generation
EU and national legislation important
Thank you!
Bemesting in de 21e eeuw : Smart Fertilization
Adding sustainability to productivity
28/1
1/20
14
Sem
inar
on
Sm
art
Fer
tili
zati
on
98