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